This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-04-1009 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can 
Enhance Emergency Preparedness' which was released on October 15, 2004.

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.

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives:

September 2004:

HOMELAND SECURITY:

Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness:

GAO-04-1009:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-04-1009, a report to Chairman, Committee on 
Government Reform, House of Representatives: 

Why GAO Did This Study:

As requested, GAO reviewed coordination practices in various 
metropolitan areas to find regional programs with lessons learned that 
could be applied in the National Capital Region (NCR) and elsewhere. We 
addressed the following questions: 

(1) In selected metropolitan areas, what factors enhance regional 
coordination? 
(2) What features of federal programs enhance regional emergency 
preparedness coordination? 
(3) How does regional coordination for emergency preparedness in the 
NCR incorporate features from other areas and federal programs?

For detailed analysis, we selected Dallas, Los Angeles, New York, 
Philadelphia, San Francisco, and Tampa-St. Petersburg—considered by DHS 
to be high-threat urban areas because of their population and critical 
infrastructure, among other factors. We also analyzed regional 
coordination in the planning and implementation of transportation and 
environmental programs because of their history of requiring such 
collaboration.

DHS and the District of Columbia’s Deputy Mayor/City Administrator 
generally agreed with our report regarding the characteristics of 
regional coordination and that the NCR’s Urban Area Security Initiative 
governance structure was relatively advanced. 

What GAO Found:

GAO’s analysis of federal program documents and plans, and interviews 
with federal, state, and local officials in six metropolitan areas 
revealed several factors that characterize effective regional 
coordination of federally supported efforts. Regional coordination 
efforts are enhanced by the presence of a collaborative regional 
organization that includes representation from many different 
jurisdictions and different disciplines. Also, when regional civic and 
political traditions foster interjurisdictional coordination, 
flexibility in the membership and geographic area of the regional 
organization can enhance collaborative activities. In addition, a 
comprehensive strategic plan with measurable goals and objectives helps 
focus resources and efforts to address problems. Finally, funding 
regional organizations provides incentives for their collaborative 
planning activities. 

The federal government can provide support for regional coordination. 
In particular, through its grant design and requirements, it encourages 
structures and practices associated with effective regional efforts. 
For example, federal transportation law requires the existence of 
metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) before transportation funds 
can be awarded. Some programs have recognized the importance of 
flexibility by allowing local jurisdictions to organize themselves in 
ways consistent with their regional environment. For example, the DHS’ 
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant program allowed three San 
Francisco Bay programs to pool some of their grant resources to 
establish a regionwide UASI effort. Moreover, some federal grants 
require regional organizations to prepare plans that guide funding 
decisions. Transportation law, for example, requires MPOs to prepare 
transportation improvement plans as a condition for awards. Finally, 
federal financial support can facilitate coordination activities. 
Several programs, including the MPO program, provide such support.

The characteristics of effective regional coordination we identified 
are applicable to the NCR’s efforts to coordinate emergency 
preparedness. If implemented as planned and as observed in its early 
stage, the NCR’s UASI program would include a collaborative regional 
organization. However, as we reported in May 2004, the NCR did not 
include a full array of homeland security grants in its planning. The 
NCR’s UASI program plans to address those issues by identifying non-
UASI funding sources and collecting information about the funding 
allocations, expenditures, and purposes, as well as data on spending by 
NCR jurisdiction. DHS and UASI officials believe these data will enable 
program managers to avoid duplication of expenditures and to better 
utilize program funds. 

Regional approaches are changing quickly, and the nation is still in 
the early stages of building regional institutions across the country 
to deal with homeland security issues. Those important developments 
warrant continued congressional monitoring and oversight.

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-1009.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Patricia A. Dalton at 
(202) 512-6806 or daltonp@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

Collaborative Organizations and Strategic Planning Foster Regional 
Coordination:

Some Federal Programs Contain Incentives for Regional Coordination:

NCR Emergency Preparedness Effort Can Benefit from Comprehensive 
Planning and Application of Standards:

Concluding Observations:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendixes:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix III: Comments from the Deputy Mayor and City Administrator, 
District of Columbia:

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Acknowledgments:

Letter September 15, 2004:

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman:
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

Particularly since the events of September 11, 2001, regional 
approaches have been recognized as a key way to address the threat of 
terrorism. In many urban areas, the threat of terror is regionwide, and 
resources for responding to that threat are distributed among many 
jurisdictions. Therefore, the most effective responses are coordinated 
and planned across the region, rather than being jurisdiction-specific. 
The complexity of multijurisdictional urban areas--such as the National 
Capital Region (NCR), composed of Washington, D.C., and numerous 
surrounding jurisdictions in Maryland and Virginia--with a range of 
potential terrorism targets, presents significant challenges to 
coordinating the development of effective homeland security 
programs.[Footnote 1]

Following the initial allocation of billions of dollars to first 
responders after September 11, 2001, the need to address the threat of 
terrorism from a regional perspective began to be a focus of federal 
policy. The Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security 
Initiative (UASI) allocated hundreds of millions of dollars to urban 
areas that were considered to be at a high risk for a terror attack. In 
fiscal year 2003, DHS granted seven high-threat metropolitan 
regions[Footnote 2] UASI funding to address the unique needs of 
emergency preparedness and response in large urban areas. Each of these 
areas covered multiple city/county jurisdictions, and two (New York 
City and the NCR) covered more than one state. In May 2003 DHS 
announced an additional total of $500 million to augment the original 
UASI areas' funding and provide funding for 23 more areas. Fiscal year 
2004 funding was announced November 2003 to continue the thirty 2003 
UASI programs and to fund an additional 20 areas.

In May 2004, we reported on the management by NCR jurisdictions and the 
DHS' Office of National Capital Region Coordination (ONCRC) of 
approximately $340 million in first responder grants during fiscal 
years 2002 and 2003.[Footnote 3] We found that managers of first 
response agencies--police and fire, for example--as well as federal and 
state emergency preparedness agencies did not have national 
preparedness standards to assess existing first responder capabilities, 
gaps in those capabilities, and progress made in achieving performance 
goals. Similarly, those agencies had no regionwide, comprehensive, 
strategic plan for establishing first responder preparedness goals, 
needs, and priorities. Finally, the agencies had no consolidated, 
readily available source of information on (1) the amount of first 
responder grants available to each jurisdiction, (2) budget plans or 
criteria used to determine spending priorities, and (3) data on funds 
expended from the various sources. Without these components, the 
federal grants were difficult to manage in a way that enabled first 
response agencies to pursue and monitor goals and objectives.

As you requested, we followed up our NCR work with this review of 
coordination practices in various other metropolitan areas around the 
nation, with an emphasis on identifying characteristics of successful 
regional coordination that could be applied in the NCR and elsewhere. 
We agreed to address the following questions:

1. In selected metropolitan areas, what factors enhance regional 
coordination?

2. What features of federal programs enhance regional emergency 
preparedness coordination?

3. How does regional coordination for emergency preparedness in the NCR 
incorporate features from other metropolitan areas and federal 
programs?

We selected six metropolitan areas in which to examine regional 
coordination: Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, New York City, 
Philadelphia, the San Francisco Bay Area, and Tampa-St. Petersburg. We 
selected these locations based on such factors as their vulnerability 
to terror events indicated by the presence of potential targets, such 
as critical infrastructure and important federal and commercial 
facilities. We also selected metropolitan areas with a large number of 
regional jurisdictions that indicated a level of complexity in 
approaching emergency preparedness from a regional perspective. Within 
each area, we examined certain federal programs--such as metropolitan 
planning organizations (MPO), regional estuary preservation efforts, 
and UASI, which require regional coordination. We included in our 
analysis nonemergency preparedness programs, such as transportation 
planning (involving MPOs) that have existed for decades and have 
developed their own regional organizations and planning practices. 
Examining such programs can provide insights into how to structure 
regional homeland security efforts, which are relatively new, in the 
aftermath of the September 11, 2001, terror attacks.

We met with and obtained documentation from mayors' offices, city and/
or county offices of emergency management, state emergency management 
offices, regional planning councils, or MPOs; other regional bodies, 
offices, and task forces; and program directors for selected programs 
that require coordination. We also contacted officials of the 
responsible federal agencies, including DHS, the Department of 
Transportation (DOT), and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). We 
reviewed relevant reports, studies, and guidelines on homeland security 
and emergency preparedness.

We conducted our review from July 2003 to September 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards. See appendix I 
for more details on our scope and methodology.

Results in Brief:

Regionally coordinated and planned programs have existed in such fields 
as transportation and environmental planning for decades. For example, 
the metropolitan transportation planning model came into being in 
response to federal transportation planning requirements in the 1960s. 
In contrast, homeland security is a relatively new public policy field, 
emerging in prominence after the terror attacks of September 11, 2001. 
According to our work in six metropolitan areas, several factors 
characterize effective regional coordination in those regions.

* Regional organizations that include representation from many 
different jurisdictions and diverse stakeholders serve as structured 
forums for these parties to discuss public policy problems and agree on 
possible solutions. These organizations exist in metropolitan regions 
for a variety of purposes--for example, to coordinate transportation 
planning or clean water initiatives. Decisions made collaboratively are 
likely to have broader support than those that are unilateral. For 
example, federal transportation law requires metropolitan planning 
organizations (MPO) with multijurisdictional representation to work 
together to agree on a regional transportation plan and allows the use 
of federal funding for such planning. For example, in the NCR, the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) promotes 
collaborative transportation decision making by requiring the majority 
of the area's multijurisdictional board to support a regional 
transportation improvement plan. Agreements on such projects as road 
improvements associated with rebuilding the Woodrow Wilson Bridge were 
approved by the MWCOG Transportation Planning Board and included in the 
transportation plan for federal funding.

* Where regional collaboration is encouraged by the leadership and 
political traditions of state, regional, and local entities, 
flexibility for regional organizations to establish their membership 
requirements and collaborative processes is important. Such flexibility 
helps regional organizations function effectively in the existing 
political and civic environment by allowing them to expand the scope of 
the collaborative activities; under these circumstances, overly 
prescriptive requirements could impede effective coordination. For 
example, emergency preparedness officials in the San Francisco Bay area 
told us that first responder agencies in that area have a longstanding 
tradition of interjurisdictional coordination. However, in our view, in 
cases where state and local traditions do not engender 
interjurisdictional collaboration, more prescriptive requirements 
regarding regional group members, decision-making processes, and 
planning can establish minimum thresholds for those activities and may 
provide an incentive for regional coordination.

* Strategic plans developed by regional organizations can be effective 
tools to focus resources and efforts to address problems. Effective 
plans often contain such features as goals and objectives that are 
measurable and quantifiable. These goals and objectives allow problems 
and planned steps to be defined specifically and progress to be 
measured. For example, according to Tampa Bay Estuary Program 
officials, the involvement of federal, state, and local government 
partners, environmentalists, and the private sector in proposing and 
implementing solutions to cleaning up Tampa Bay ensures agreement on 
technically sound plans that are based on measurable goals and 
objectives. An agreement involving state and local agencies, as well as 
industry, committed these parties to specific actions to achieve those 
goals, including an overall goal of restoring sea grasses to the 
conditions of about 50 years ago. By specifying goals and objectives, 
plans can also give planners and decision makers a structure for 
allocating funding to those goals and objectives. Moreover, the 
application of standards, where existent, can focus the strategic 
planning process by allowing planners to measure the current status 
(baseline) of performance, express measurable goals, and identify any 
gaps between the baseline and goals.[Footnote 4]

The federal government can provide support for regional coordination. 
In particular, through its grant design and requirements, the 
government encourages structures and practices associated with 
effective regional efforts.

* Some federal programs support the existence of regional organizations 
that reach collaborative decisions, and several federal programs 
require the grantee to establish such an organization before it can 
receive federal funds. For example, under federal transportation law, 
all transportation improvement plans must be prepared by MPOs prior to 
the allocation of highway and transit funds. To avoid one party or type 
of party being overrepresented in the regional group or wielding too 
much power, some federal programs define acceptable requirements for 
the group and the associated planning processes.

* Some federal grants allow local jurisdictions the flexibility to 
organize themselves in ways consistent with their regional environment. 
For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Dallas UASI region as defined by 
DHS included the City of Dallas and its contiguous counties, but not 
Tarrant County, Texas. Many regional, state, and city officials felt 
that Tarrant County should be included in the UASI planning. To address 
this issue, the state of Texas provided funding to Tarrant County from 
the 20 percent of UASI funding that was not passed through to the City 
of Dallas. On the other hand, if the regional environment is not 
friendly to collaboration, then federal grantor agencies can specify 
minimum requirements for a regional organization and procedures that 
elicit collaborative decisions.

* Some grants require a strategic plan as a precondition for receiving 
federal funds, but to be effective the plans should include measurable 
goals and objectives. In addition, clear standards help to guide the 
progress toward measurable objectives. For example, MPOs must show that 
metropolitan transportation plans and programs conform to the goals of 
the state (air quality) implementation plan for the region. Reducing 
transportation emissions in the metropolitan planning process is 
usually achieved by a combination of new construction, system 
improvements, and demand reduction measures.

* We also found that federal funding targeted at collaborative regional 
groups can encourage regional coordination. For example, federal 
transportation funds pay for the coordination activities of MPOs.

Our observations about regional coordination in the implementation of 
federal programs in metropolitan areas we visited are applicable to the 
efforts to coordinate homeland security efforts in the NCR. Based on 
planning documents obtained from officials of the NCR's regional UASI 
governance structure and observations of the early stages of the 
program,[Footnote 5] the region's UASI program would have some elements 
of successful regional coordination, if the plans were fully 
implemented. For example, the NCR is beginning to use regional working 
groups--the Emergency Preparedness Council and the Chief Administrative 
Officers Committee, among others--to bring stakeholders together to 
agree upon goals and to consider funding for regional emergency 
preparedness. However, at the time of our May 2004 report, the NCR had 
not applied this regional coordination structure and plans to the full 
array of federal homeland security grants, totaling about $340 million. 
Moreover, the regional UASI plan would not be based on any preparedness 
standards. In commenting on a draft of this report and as discussed at 
a September 1, 2004, meeting of the UASI Senior Policy Group and Chief 
Administrative Officers, DHS noted that the governance structure is in 
place and being used to reach decisions for homeland security programs 
in the region, including a broadening of the UASI decision-making 
process to consider funding sources other than UASI. The governance 
structure is developing information, including a centralized database 
to be implemented fully by 2005, that would provide information on non-
UASI emergency preparedness funds available, allocated, and expended; 
the reasons for their allocations; and to which jurisdictions they were 
distributed. Having these data would help the UASI governance structure 
avoid funding duplications and leverage UASI funds to extend 
preparedness efforts to the entire region.

In summary, the federal government can encourage regional coordination 
through its grant programs. Regional organization structures, 
flexibility to account for local conditions, and strategic planning are 
key characteristics of regional coordination. Given the important role 
that regional planning and governance can play in improving national 
preparedness, these developments warrant continuing congressional 
oversight.

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and officials of the NCR's 
UASI governance structure for their review and comment. According to 
DHS, the report contains information that will be valuable to 
communities across the country as DHS encourages regional coordination 
and capability building. DHS stated, however, that the governance 
structure is currently active in the NCR--not proposed or interim--and 
is acting to enhance emergency preparedness decision making and 
planning in the region. As appropriate, we added information in our 
report to reflect these refinements to the NCR's governance structure. 
The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator, Washington, D.C., also provided 
comments. Similar to DHS, he stated that the NCR's governance structure 
reflected the building of a great deal of the foundation for meeting 
the domestic preparedness challenges that affect the area. In addition, 
he said that the NCR is unique compared to the six metropolitan areas 
we chose for detailed analysis because only the NCR (1) involves two 
states and a governmental entity that combines state and local 
functions; (2) contains monuments and memorials that are the most 
visible symbols of our national strength and patriotism; and (3) is the 
seat of the federal government, creating a partnership between the 
national government and NCR state and local governments. While we agree 
that the NCR is an important and unique urban area, the areas we chose 
for detailed analysis contain comparable features.

The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator also stated that the National 
Estuary Program incorporates clean water standards and scientific 
solutions to accomplish clean water. He stated that the federal 
homeland security strategies and plans are not based on proven 
standards and solutions. Hence, he concluded that the estuary program 
is not comparable with federal homeland security strategies and plans. 
We agree that the National Estuary Program is based on existing 
standards and solutions; indeed, our report notes that for the most 
part, standards are not yet extant for homeland security efforts. 
However, the application of standards in the planning and 
implementation of the National Estuary Program is the very reason we 
chose to explore and elaborate upon it. Our report notes that the 
preparation and implementation of plans that have goals and objectives 
that are actionable and measurable--frequently based on the application 
of standards--is a key factor in the success of regionally coordinated 
programs.

Background:

Historically, the American governance system, divided into federal, 
state, and local jurisdictions, does not provide a natural vehicle for 
addressing public policy issues from a regional, multijurisdictional 
perspective. The autonomy of local jurisdictions and competing 
priorities within and among them can make regional coordination 
difficult. Efforts that seek to overcome these challenges to coordinate 
regionally must take into account the different operational structures 
and civic traditions of states and municipalities. For example, states 
differ in their relationship to local governments and their promotion 
of regional infrastructures. Local municipalities differ in their 
history of multijurisdiction cooperation. Some local jurisdictions have 
histories of mutual aid agreements and working together, while in other 
regions federal homeland security programs may be bringing partners 
together across jurisdictions to conduct planning efforts for the first 
time.

As used in this report, regional coordination refers to the use of 
governmental resources in a complementary way toward goals and 
objectives that are mutually agreed upon by various stakeholders in a 
region. Regional coordination can also help to overcome the fragmented 
nature of federal programs and grants available to state and local 
entities. Successful coordination occurs not only vertically among 
federal, state, and local governments but also horizontally within 
regions. The effective alignment of resources for the security of 
communities could require planning across jurisdictional boundaries; 
neighboring jurisdictions may be affected by an emergency situation in 
many potential ways, from implementation of mutual aid agreements, to 
accepting evacuated residents, to traffic disruptions.

Our work has previously noted the concerns of state and local 
governments about fragmented federal grant programs with burdensome 
application processes that are complicated by the inconsistency across 
programs.[Footnote 6] State and local governments manage multiple 
funding sources for distinct but often similar purposes. For instance, 
GAO identified 25 emergency preparedness programs that provided funding 
to the NCR.[Footnote 7] The short history of regional coordination for 
homeland security is characterized by attempts of federal, state, and 
local governments to overcome a fragmented federal grant system and 
local jurisdictional barriers to assess needs, fill gaps, and plan for 
effective prevention and emergency response.

GAO has consistently called for the development of a truly national, 
rather than purely federal, strategy.[Footnote 8] For example, in 
testimony given in 2003, GAO highlighted multiple barriers to 
addressing one basic area of preparedness--interoperable 
communications systems--including the lack of effective, 
collaborative, interdisciplinary, and intergovernmental planning.
[Footnote 9] Another GAO study of bioterrorism preparedness found that 
although progress had been made in local planning, regional planning 
involving multiple municipalities, counties, or jurisdictions in 
neighboring states lagged.[Footnote 10] In July 2002, the President 
issued the National Strategy for Homeland Security, which emphasized a 
shared responsibility for security involving close cooperation among 
all levels of government. To enhance emergency preparedness, the 
strategy called for systems that avoid duplication and increase 
coordination to better align public and private resources for homeland 
security.

With the creation of DHS and the development of the National Strategy, 
the federal government has developed several programs and provided 
financial assistance to improve state and local governments' ability to 
prevent and respond to the threat of terrorism. These grant programs 
demonstrate a variety of approaches. For example, all states are 
eligible for the State Homeland Security Grant Program to update and 
implement their state Homeland Security Strategy. The UASI provides 
support to metropolitan areas designated by DHS as high-threat areas. 
The funds are distributed based on a formula that considers critical 
infrastructure, population density, assessment of threats, and other 
factors.

DHS' UASI program combines the elements of threat-based assessment and 
funding with regional planning. UASI programs must create a working 
group with representation from the region that will be responsible for 
coordinating development and implementation of program elements. Before 
funding can be distributed, DHS also requires each UASI program to 
develop and submit a strategic plan that outlines the region's common 
goals, objectives, and steps for implementation. The strategy is 
intended to provide each program with direction for enhancing regional 
capability and capacity to prevent and reduce vulnerability. UASI funds 
can be used to purchase a range of goods and services to enhance the 
preparedness of first responders, including approved equipment, 
preparedness plans, exercises, and training.

Other federal programs that require regional coordination may be 
instructive for homeland security. In the area of transportation 
planning, the federal government has required states to establish MPOs 
to address regional transportation impact and needs. Established in 
response to federal planning requirements dating back to 1962, MPOs are 
multijurisdictional regional bodies composed of local elected officials 
and public agency representatives who review and approve transportation 
investments in metropolitan areas as a condition for federal highway 
and transit funding. In the area of environmental planning, the Clean 
Water Act directs EPA to develop plans for attaining or maintaining 
water quality in an estuary system. Congress established EPA's National 
Estuary Program in 1987 to improve the quality of estuaries of national 
importance. To be selected for the National Estuary Program, estuaries 
must be nominated by state governors and demonstrate existing regional 
infrastructure with the capacity to fulfill the requirements of the 
Clean Water Act.

Collaborative Organizations and Strategic Planning Foster Regional 
Coordination:

As corroborated by officials with whom we met, collaborative regional 
organizations that include a wide range of stakeholders from multiple 
jurisdictions and disciplines contribute to successful regional 
coordination for a variety of public programs. In addition, effective 
strategic planning that includes measurable objectives appropriately 
aligned with resources is necessary for fostering regional approaches 
that enhance emergency preparedness and achieve other public goals. The 
application of standards, where existent, to the planning process can 
help to define and measure a baseline status (e.g., a baseline of 
preparedness), a desired level of performance (e.g., preparedness 
levels that are to be achieved), and a gap between the baseline and 
desired level that would be the focus of a program's efforts.

Regional Organizations and Collaborative Decision-making Process 
Support Effective Coordination:

When regional organizations are structured so that they include a wide 
range of stakeholders and promote collaborative decision making, they 
can advance regional coordination by creating a forum for those 
stakeholders to build rapport, solve problems regarding issues of 
mutual concern, and engage in information and resource sharing. 
Collaborative problem identification and problem solving promotes 
cooperation in planning efforts to address public problems. 
Collaborative decision making can encourage decisions that preclude one 
party from dominating decisions about problems, potential solutions, 
programmatic goals and objectives, and funding allocations; instead, 
such decisions are made with input from many. Emergency management, 
transportation, and estuary program officials reported that regional 
organizations enabled their regions to work together on a variety of 
emergency preparedness, environmental, and transportation issues. In 
the emergency preparedness area, the UASI working group in the NCR has 
achieved multijurisdictional agreement on regional plans that contain 
21 specific efforts to be funded in equipment, training, exercises, and 
planning to improve the NCR's preparedness regionwide, not just to 
benefit individual jurisdictions. Also in the NCR, the Metropolitan 
Washington Council of Governments promotes collaborative 
transportation decision making by requiring the majority of the area's 
multijurisdictional transportation planning board to support a 
transportation plan that specifies projects to be funded that are 
intended to address the region's traffic congestion and air quality 
problems--seen as being among the worst in the nation. The region's 
long-range transportation improvement plan contained agreements on such 
projects as road improvements associated with rebuilding the Woodrow 
Wilson Bridge. Similarly, the Tampa Bay Estuary Program has restored a 
net increase of about 850 acres of sea grasses on the Tampa Bay seabed 
since the program's inception, or about 6 percent of the 14,000 total 
acreage to be restored.

Collaborative decisions made by many stakeholders represented in 
regional organizations can formulate mutually agreed-upon responses to 
public policy problems. The collaborative experiences we observed in 
the Dallas-Fort Worth area provided examples of how regional 
organizations can aid in solving problems. For example, the Dallas-Fort 
Worth's Regional Emergency Managers Group has served as a forum for the 
region's emergency preparedness officials to analyze, plan for, and 
make decisions about various regional initiatives, such as improving 
interjurisdictional communications interoperability. Within this 
group, an associated subgroup explored technical issues related to 
communications interoperability. The Regional Emergency Managers Group 
evaluated technology options and is creating a regional purchasing plan 
to facilitate the purchase of interoperable communications equipment. 
Without interoperable radios and other communications equipment, police 
and fire departments in different jurisdictions cannot easily 
communicate when responding to an emergency.

Collaborative efforts through regional organizations can also result in 
the integration of plans and programs that are implemented by 
individual jurisdictions. In Dallas-Fort Worth, local first responder 
agencies built upon the established working relationships and their 
trust of the local council of governments to enhance regional 
coordination of homeland security. For example, the City of Dallas 
contracted with the North Central Texas Council of Governments (NCTCOG) 
to facilitate the development of the UASI strategy. In addition, most 
of the jurisdictional and private sector stakeholders had their own 
emergency preparedness plans that were not integrated. Acting upon a 
request from local officials, NCTCOG initiated a process to coordinate 
and integrate these various plans that reflected the NCTCOG's 
reputation as an impartial and fair arbiter. The resulting plan 
identifies the roles of the various first responder agencies across 
jurisdictional boundaries, thereby increasing the police, fire, and 
emergency medical resources that can respond to an emergency.

Regional organizations can also facilitate coordination by fostering 
information and resource sharing. For example, in response to problems 
coordinating the construction schedules on roads in the New York-New 
Jersey region, the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey created 
the Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee (TRANSCOM) in 
1986--a coalition of 18 independent transportation and public safety 
agencies in Connecticut, New Jersey, and New York. TRANSCOM's 
significance was exhibited on September 11, 2001, when it facilitated 
efforts among member agencies such as the Port Authority, New Jersey 
State Police, New Jersey Transit, New Jersey Department of 
Transportation, and New Jersey Turnpike to reopen a major Manhattan bus 
terminal to transport thousands of people home.

DHS and state and local emergency management officials have cited the 
Los Angeles Terrorism Early Warning Group (TEW) as an example of an 
information-sharing network focused on the prevention of terrorist 
acts. Created in 1996 by the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, 
the primary focus of TEW is to provide a coordinated and focused 
response to acts of terrorism based on assessment and dissemination of 
intelligence information. The core team of TEW includes the Los Angeles 
Sheriff's Department, Los Angeles Police Department, City and County 
Fire Departments, Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and 
the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Cooperating agencies include about 
30 other agencies representing a number of disciplines, such as 
emergency management, transportation, and criminal justice. As a group, 
TEW monitors trends and assesses threats that could potentially result 
in terrorist attacks within Los Angeles County. Because of its ability 
to develop terror threat information from a variety of sources and 
disseminate it to first response officials throughout a large 
metropolitan region, DHS is encouraging states and local agencies to 
utilize their federal homeland security funding to replicate the Los 
Angeles TEW model within the framework of their UASI plans.

Where Consistent with Civic and Political Traditions, Flexible 
Approaches Can Enhance Regional Organizations:

Metropolitan regions differ in their civic and political traditions. 
Some regions have leadership and/or long-running civic and political 
traditions that promote collaborative efforts. For example, according 
to national associations and emergency preparedness officials in the 
San Francisco and Los Angeles areas, fire and emergency services in 
California jurisdictions have longstanding traditions of coordinating 
and operating jointly, across city and county lines. This tradition is 
expressed through a strong mutual aid system. In other regions, 
however, tradition can work against regional collaboration. In one 
state we visited, metropolitan transportation planning was 
characterized by a practice of having one MPO for each county. 
Officials in the region we visited explained that local development 
patterns in the region traditionally isolated each county from the 
next, but in recent decades the counties' development had merged as new 
migrants moved into the area. As a result, the county-based planning 
structure may be outdated, because it is based on previously existent 
development patterns. In response to the lack of a regionwide MPO, the 
county-based MPOs have formed a regional MPO alliance that includes MPO 
chairs, representatives from the regional councils of government, and 
the state transportation department.

To function effectively, regional organizations must take into account 
the impact of political and civic traditions. In regions where 
leadership or cultural factors encourage collaborative efforts, 
regional organizations that are formed locally, instead of being 
imposed by federal and state government, are more likely to have 
identified a coherent regional area based upon natural boundaries, 
population, and established mutual aid relationships. Where appropriate 
and considering regional leadership or culture, federal or state 
programs can preserve the benefits of existing, locally formed regional 
organizations by allowing local jurisdictions to organize together. The 
following examples illustrate this point:

* Pennsylvania's Counterterrorism Planning, Preparedness and Response 
Act of 2002 (Act 227) legally established the state's nine regional 
counterterrorism task forces to coordinate the activities of county law 
enforcement agencies in addressing terror threats.[Footnote 11] 
However, in most cases, Pennsylvania allowed counties to divide 
themselves into regions based upon their natural mutual aid alliances, 
rather than imposing a new organizational boundary.

* In Texas, the Governor requested assistance from regional councils of 
governments to facilitate a variety of collaborative efforts to build 
regional emergency preparedness capacity across the state. 
Specifically, regional councils of governments were able to unite 
public and private stakeholders to develop, maintain, and coordinate 
regional emergency preparedness management plans and actions. While 
many cities, counties, and private sector stakeholders in Dallas-Fort 
Worth had extensive emergency preparedness plans, many of these plans 
were not integrated. The North Central Texas Council of Governments 
played a key role in facilitating emergency preparedness coordination 
and integrating preparedness plans through its efforts to coordinate 
and integrate the emergency preparedness initiatives of the 
metropolitan area. Those efforts culminated in the Regional Emergency 
Managers meeting--a forum through which emergency managers shared 
information, discussed best practices and technology, built rapport, 
and developed mutual aid agreements. At the time of our study, the 
group was continuing to meet on a quarterly basis and is developing a 
regional emergency plan and associated schedule for achieving emergency 
preparedness goals.

Regional leadership or traditions that are focused on achieving 
collaboration can advance regional coordination by expanding 
collaborative efforts throughout a region. In such cases, allowing 
regional organizations the flexibility to define their geographic areas 
or membership requirements can foster increased degrees of regional 
coordination. However, in our view, in cases where state and local 
traditions do not engender interjurisdictional collaboration, more 
prescriptive requirements regarding group membership, decision-making 
processes, and planning serve as minimum thresholds for those 
activities. In some cases, leaders bring together stakeholders to agree 
upon common objectives and to act to achieve them. Those leaders play 
an important role in fostering trust among partners and facilitating 
progress. According to a report by the National Academy of Public 
Administration (NAPA), leadership dedicated to stakeholder involvement 
is a critical characteristic of high-performing partnerships, second 
only to achieving results.[Footnote 12]

Collaborative leadership contributed to the expansion and success of 
regional coordination efforts we studied in both emergency preparedness 
and transportation programs. For example, emergency managers in the San 
Francisco Bay Area developed the area's Regional UASI working group, 
recognized by DHS and the State of California as a good example of 
regional coordination. They brought the working group together to 
discuss emergency issues and develop solutions for the entire Bay Area, 
which includes three subregions with individual UASI programs--San 
Francisco, San Jose, and Oakland. While there was no requirement to 
work collaboratively across UASI programs, these emergency management 
leaders took the initiative to establish a regional approach to 
facilitate coordination throughout the area. They created a regionwide 
group that meets for planning, and they obtained funding to implement 
the UASI efforts by combining a portion of the individual UASI 
program's funds for use in the whole of the San Francisco Bay Area. The 
group has effectively developed a regionwide emergency preparedness 
strategic plan that includes eight goals, such as regional mutual aid 
exercises and communications interoperability.

Comprehensive Strategic Planning Based on Measurable Objectives and 
Resource Alignment Contributes to Regional Coordination:

The deliberations of regional collaborative entities can result in 
mutually agreed upon problems and solutions. Moreover, strategic plans 
are a valuable tool to articulate goals, objectives, tasks, and 
measures. By adding specificity to more general discussions about 
problems and solutions, strategic plans can help to focus and 
operationalize efforts to deal with identified problems. In addition, 
standards, if existent, can be applied to help measure baseline 
performance levels (e.g., the existing level of preparedness), define 
measurable goals and objectives, and identify any gaps in performance. 
In other words, the application of standards can give measurability and 
benchmarking to strategic planning and performance monitoring.

Regional organizations' collaborative efforts can result in achieving 
mutual agreement, expressed in plans, among diverse stakeholders on 
priority problems and on specific steps to be taken to address them. 
Moreover, the goals and objectives in plans allow problems and planned 
steps to be defined specifically and progress to be measured. Two 
examples follow.

* In the case of the Tampa Bay Estuary Program (TBEP), a regional 
organization's collaborative efforts identified environmental 
problems, goals, and objectives that were expressed in a comprehensive 
strategic plan. Estuary program officials pointed to the program's 
focus on a limited number of measurable and achievable restoration 
goals as key to its success, with respect to the strategic planning 
process. Such planning addressed how to restore and recover the Tampa 
Bay sea grass to conditions of 1950 via measurable and actionable 
goals, objectives, and tasks. By specifically defining what could be 
done in an action plan, TBEP involved a wide cross-section of 
stakeholders, including federal, state, and local government partners, 
local environmental groups, and the private sector. Using EPA's primer 
dated August 1989, "Saving Bays and Estuaries" as a guideline for 
developing missions and policies, the program's planning component 
involved a diverse and comprehensive set of stakeholders. For example, 
a technical advisory committee proposes technical solutions to the 
restoration effort; a nitrogen mitigation consortium involves local 
industry in proposing solutions; and a management board involves 
environmental agencies in providing advice to the Policy Board--chaired 
by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and EPA--that 
approves all major decisions. Program officials credited the 
involvement of scientists and citizens from the Tampa Bay region as 
vital to the process of identifying and ranking the Bay's problems, as 
well as developing measurable goals and objectives that are included in 
its comprehensive restoration plan. Specifically, the strategic plan 
identifies the restoration of 14,000 acres of sea grasses and 
protection of the remaining sea grasses as a major goal and also 
establishes a nitrogen management strategy (action plan) to encourage 
sea grass recovery. The comprehensive strategic plan and nitrogen 
management strategy include specific and measurable goals by reducing 
nitrogen levels, identifying interim indicators (including water 
clarity and chlorophyll concentrations), as well as monitoring 
mechanisms to measure progress toward goals.

* In the Dallas-Fort Worth area, emergency management officials 
reported that the UASI requirement for a regional emergency 
preparedness plan initiated development of a comprehensive plan for 
emergency preparedness policy guidance and coordination. They noted 
that planning helped the region to prioritize goals and resulted in a 
systematic decision-making process to determine spending for the UASI 
funds. Other UASI areas, including Tampa Bay and Los Angeles, reported 
that the strategic planning process was a driving force in streamlining 
administration of the program.

Another example of the role of strategic planning with well-defined 
goals and measurable objectives in encouraging regional coordination is 
the MPO's requirement to develop a realistic transportation plan that 
includes short-term and long-term strategies. According to officials, 
such planning forces stakeholders to determine the relative importance 
of various transportation projects. Federal transportation law requires 
MPOs to plan for projects using a process that considers financial 
resources that are budgetarily constrained, thereby forcing 
stakeholders to resolve disputes and agree on common goals and 
realistic objectives at the outset. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the 
planning process led to transportation projects that served the region 
as a whole instead of disparate projects in different jurisdictions. 
For example, the regional MPO planned for an extension between two rail 
systems that enhanced regional access to the San Francisco Airport with 
the surrounding area, including San Jose and Oakland.

In addition, a strategic plan can be used in making decisions about 
funds and other resources. Funds and resources can be allocated based 
on the goals and objectives of the strategic plan. For example, the 
NCR's UASI plan aligned $60 million to 21 lines of effort that were 
categorized in functional areas that included equipment, training, 
exercises, and planning. Those projects were linked to eight points 
contained in a multistate agreement. At the same time, to be truly 
effective strategic planning needs to be comprehensive by addressing 
most of the resources available to address a public policy problem. 
Failure to do so can result in overfunding some ongoing efforts, and 
underfunding or not funding other activities. For example, in our May 
2004 report on the management of first responder grants in the NCR, we 
found that the UASI planning effort for the NCR would have been 
improved by considering not only the uses of $60 million in UASI funds, 
but also the uses of $280 million in funding from other first responder 
grants.[Footnote 13] While we found no evidence of duplicative 
purchases, consideration of the other $280 million in funds within the 
framework of the UASI plan would have reduced opportunities for 
excessive expenditures in some areas, while gaps remained in other 
areas. More comprehensive planning could have better ensured that 
funding would have been focused on the highest priority emergency 
preparedness needs of the region. The NCR's UASI governance structure 
is now taking steps to implement more comprehensive planning.

Some Federal Programs Contain Incentives for Regional Coordination:

Some federal programs contain features that encourage regional 
solutions by providing incentives for local jurisdictions to join 
together to obtain federal grant funding. A federal grant whose award 
is conditioned on the recipient working through a collaborative 
regional organization can encourage regional coordination. Grant 
programs can also require the regional groups to express their 
agreements regarding problems and solutions by preparing a strategic 
plan with measurable goals and objectives. Such plans can guide grant 
expenditures. Grant requirements that take into account local and 
regional conditions and histories of collaboration by providing 
appropriate flexibility can further enhance regional coordination. 
Finally, federal financial assistance for coordination activities can 
provide important support.

Some Federal Requirements Support Regional Organizations:

Federal grantor agencies support the existence of regional 
organizations by requiring the grantee to establish such an 
organization before receiving federal funds. Importantly, such 
requirements can promote interjurisdictional cooperation in areas where 
civic and political traditions work against such cooperation. For 
example, federal transportation law requires an MPO to write 
metropolitan transportation improvement plans before federal highway 
and transit funds can be allocated.[Footnote 14] Moreover, UASI 
requires a regional working group representing first responder agencies 
and policymakers in a core city, core county, and other local 
jurisdictions to write a regional UASI plan.

In addition, a federal agency may define a collaborative decision-
making process that fosters wide participation by a variety of 
stakeholders and tries to avoid one party or type of party being 
overrepresented in the regional group or wielding too much power within 
the group. In that regard, a federal program may define minimally 
acceptable requirements for such a group and the planning processes 
associated with it. For example, DHS' UASI assigns funding to 
predefined core cities and core counties. In addition, in one location 
that we visited, the working group was required to agree unanimously to 
the UASI regional strategic plan and budget, representing a high state 
of consensus. In another case, federal transportation law requires MPOs 
to be broad-based bodies that include representation from elected 
officials of various jurisdictions in the defined service area of the 
MPOs. In addition, MPOs must include the state transportation agencies 
and operators of publicly owned transit services.

Flexibility in Grant Requirements Accommodates Regional Variations:

Federal grant designs can take into account the uniqueness of 
leadership and political traditions at the state, local, and regional 
levels by allowing local jurisdictions the flexibility to pursue 
working arrangements that can facilitate regional coordination. By 
allowing jurisdictions to identify the boundaries of the region, they 
can take advantage of regional leadership or political relationships 
that can bring additional stakeholders, resources, or ideas to the 
process. For example, in fiscal year 2003, the Dallas UASI region as 
defined by DHS included the City of Dallas and its contiguous counties-
-Collin, Dallas, Denton, Kaufman, and Rockwall. However, many regional, 
state, and city officials felt that Tarrant County also should be 
included in the UASI planning, since Tarrant County includes a large 
portion of the Dallas-Fort Worth population, including the entire city 
of Fort Worth. To address this issue, the state provided funding to 
Tarrant County from the 20 percent of UASI funding that was not passed 
through to the City of Dallas.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania also exhibited a commitment to 
regional collaboration when it overlaid the regional Philadelphia UASI 
area onto a preexisting regional task force. Member jurisdictions of 
that task force--five emergency management coordinators from the 
counties in the Southeastern Pennsylvania Regional Task Force--had been 
working together for 5 years. As a result, the UASI program in 
Philadelphia benefited from strong preexisting working relationships. 
The cordiality built up among the UASI task force members fostered 
relatively coequal funding and planning efforts that extended to 
suburban parties well beyond the core city and core county.

Other locations, however, may not have traditions or leadership that 
encourage interjurisdictional collaboration. For example, in some 
locations, we found power imbalances, as well as political traditions 
and histories of competition that challenged regional coordination. 
Such challenges, for example, have been manifested by one or two 
jurisdictions making decisions about how federal dollars would be spent 
and how much funding other jurisdictions would receive. In such cases, 
regional cooperation might be facilitated by designing grants that 
require representation and collaboration through regional 
organizations.

Federal Grant Requirements for Comprehensive Strategic Planning with 
Measurable Objectives and Resource Alignment Encourage Effective 
Regional Coordination:

Some federal grant programs require strategic plans as a precondition 
for receiving federal grant dollars to encourage regional coordination, 
but for the plans to be effective they should include measurable 
objectives and corresponding resource alignment. In addition, the 
application of preparedness standards to define the baseline status and 
goals for regions can enhance strategic plans by adding an element of 
measurability and specificity to them.

Our previous study of a number of leading public sector organizations 
shows that strategic plans work most effectively when they contain 
goals and objectives that are measurable and actionable.[Footnote 15] 
The presence of measurable goals and objectives allows program managers 
to ascertain progress being made and required action--such as 
reallocating funding and/or making programmatic changes--needed to meet 
those goals and objectives. For example, in the Tampa Bay Estuary 
Program, a community of state, local government, nonprofit, and 
commercial stakeholders determined four key program goals, as well as 
mechanisms through which to achieve these goals prior to receiving 
funding. Upon obtaining the funding, the program's management built 
upon the stakeholders' support to proceed efficiently with the plan.

As previously noted, the existence and applicability of standards can 
enhance the ability of decision makers to define measurable 
programmatic goals and objectives and enable them to assess and 
demonstrate progress being made. DHS' recently issued strategic plan 
makes reference to establishing, implementing, and evaluating 
capabilities through a system of national standards. In emergency 
planning, preparedness standards can serve to define the preparedness 
requirements of an area or jurisdiction, the current status of 
preparedness, and the gap that exists between the requirements and 
current status. Emergency preparedness officials told us that when 
developing their strategic plan, national standards would have been 
helpful to identify gaps and determine appropriate actions to address 
them.

Clear standards help to guide the progress toward measurable 
objectives. For example, MPOs must show that projects identified in 
transportation plans for federal funding do not worsen air quality 
conditions of the nonattainment[Footnote 16] metropolitan area. Their 
analysis must demonstrate that the total emissions projected for a 
transportation plan or program are within the emission limits 
established by the State Implementation Plan.[Footnote 17] Reducing 
transportation emissions in the metropolitan planning process is 
usually achieved by a combination of new construction, system 
improvements, and demand reduction measures.

Federal Funding for the Costs of Coordination Supports Regional 
Efforts:

Some federal grant programs provide regional organizations recurring 
funding for costs associated with regional coordination. The federal 
government sometimes facilitates regional collaboration by paying 
specifically for some of the costs of regional coordination. For 
example, the coordination activities of MPOs are paid in part with 
federal transportation funds.

Estuary program officials said annual EPA grants allow spending for 
administrative needs and are important for facilitating regional 
estuary efforts. They reported that federal EPA funding, even though a 
relatively small portion of their overall budgets, was important to 
program sustainability, because it is often the only funding available 
to cover the critical operations that enable the rest of the estuary 
program's activities to take place.

Federal grants also may facilitate regional coordination by enabling 
organizations to use federal grant dollars to leverage partner 
organizations to fund administrative costs. Officials with TRANSCOM in 
the New York-New Jersey region said that federal funding for technical 
infrastructure and maintenance costs enabled them to leverage funding 
from partner jurisdictions for administrative costs.

NCR Emergency Preparedness Effort Can Benefit from Comprehensive 
Planning and Application of Standards:

Our observations about regional coordination in the implementation of 
federal programs in metropolitan areas we visited are applicable to the 
efforts to coordinate homeland security in the NCR. Importantly, DHS' 
UASI program allowed the District of Columbia, the State of Maryland, 
the Commonwealth of Virginia, and regional jurisdictions to exercise a 
high degree of flexibility in organizing the UASI governance structure. 
Based on our review early developments, the NCR's UASI program would 
exhibit key elements of successful regional coordination in UASI-
related emergency preparedness efforts. As envisioned in the current 
UASI plans, the NCR's UASI program may be on the way to developing 
multilayered regional coordination structures for the UASI. For 
example, the NCR is beginning to use regional working groups--the 
Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC) and the Chief Administrative 
Officers Committee (CAO), among others--to bring stakeholders together 
to agree upon goals and to consider funding allocations for regional 
emergency preparedness. However, at the time of our May 2004 report, 
the NCR had not applied this regional coordination structure and plans 
to the full array of federal homeland security grants in the region, 
totaling about $340 million.[Footnote 18] As discussed at a September 
1, 2004, meeting of the UASI governance structure's Senior Policy Group 
(SPG) and CAOs committee, the UASI governance structure plans to 
implement comprehensive planning by identifying funding other than UASI 
and developing centralized information on the uses of those funds.

NCR UASI Program Could Demonstrate Some Elements of Successful Regional 
Coordination:

Based on our work in six urban areas, effective regional collaboration 
is characterized by, among other things, the presence of a regional 
organization of many diverse stakeholders that identifies problems and 
possible solutions. The combined outcome of the collaborative 
interaction of those parties is a strategic plan that is made 
actionable by the presence of goals and objectives. As currently 
envisioned and as being implemented in the initial stages, the NCR's 
UASI governance structure appears to incorporate those features and 
thereby has the potential to identify, fund, and implement emergency 
preparedness regionwide, rather than having those decisions made either 
by one dominant jurisdiction or in a fragmented, jurisdiction-by-
jurisdiction manner.

As the UASI program is currently planned and implemented in the early 
stages, the governance structure is bringing together various 
stakeholders to identify regional emergency preparedness projects to be 
funded with UASI funds, and to solicit and obtain funding priorities, 
other input, and concurrence from federal, state, and local 
governmental stakeholders (including first responders); the commercial 
sector; the not-for-profit sector; and the health community, among 
others. For example, the CAO committee uses several technical 
committees--e.g., police chiefs, fire chiefs, public information 
officers, and health care committees--to identify security gaps and 
make recommendations on how to close them. Those recommendations are to 
be reviewed by the CAO committee, which is comprised of the 19 CAOs (in 
effect, county executives and city and town managers) of the 
Metropolitan Washington Area Council of Government's (MWCOG) 
jurisdictions, and consolidated, where necessary. In addition, the CAOs 
would discuss preparedness expectations for the region, including 
strategic objectives and commitments to action by Maryland, Virginia, 
and the District of Columbia. The CAOs would obtain UASI proposals by 
asking NCR jurisdictions and technical committees to provide their top 
priorities. According to the CAO Committee's chairman, those priorities 
would be consolidated by the CAO committee and used to generate final, 
rank-ordered funding priorities for the fiscal year 2004 UASI funds.

Under current plans, the EPC, which serves as the UASI working group, 
would have the authority to approve all funding initiatives. The EPC 
represents the federal, state, and local levels of government, a 
variety of first responder disciplines, and the commercial and not-for-
profit sectors, among others. It meets to discuss and approve the UASI 
funding recommendations that have been made by the CAO Committee.

The SPG--representing the Governors of Maryland and Virginia, the Mayor 
of Washington, D.C., and the DHS Office of National Capital Region 
Coordination (ONCRC)---has final budget authority over projects 
discussed, recommended, and approved by the CAOs and EPC. MWCOG staff 
and the CAO Committee's Chairman do not envision disagreements between 
the different elements of the UASI governance structure, because they 
share membership on the same committees.

Management of Most Emergency Preparedness Grants in the NCR Affected by 
Lack of Comprehensive Regional Planning and Preparedness Standards:

In our report and testimony of May and June 2004, respectively, we 
concluded that the NCR efforts to implement an efficient and effective 
regional preparedness approach were hampered by not having a 
coordinated strategic plan for enhancing NCR preparedness. Moreover, 
the regional UASI plan would not be based on any performance standards. 
Specifically, the NCR's UASI plan could not be considered to be a 
comprehensive strategic preparedness plan because it excluded non-UASI 
funds totaling $280 million in fiscal years 2002 and 2003. As we 
reported, at the time of our May 2004 report, there existed no reliable 
central source of data on funds available and expended and the purposes 
for which they were spent.[Footnote 19] Instead, those funds were 
allocated on a grant-by-grant basis within each jurisdiction largely 
based on requests from first responder and emergency management 
officials. To the extent there was consensus on regional goals and 
knowledge of regional capacities, funds could be allocated in a more 
coherent manner. Moreover, federal emergency preparedness grants were 
often spent by each jurisdiction without considering whether assets and 
resources purchased already existed in neighboring jurisdictions and 
could be shared. Decisions about those purchases generally were not 
based on knowledge of the current level of preparedness or requirements 
to reach a desired preparedness level. According to comments provided 
by DHS and as discussed at a September 1, 2004, meeting of the UASI 
governance structures SPG and CAOs Committee, the UASI governance 
structure now plans to address these issues by gathering information 
from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia on funding 
sources other than UASI, how the funds were allocated and for what 
purposes, and how they were distributed by jurisdiction. In that 
regard, the governance structure's working group is converting hard-
copy data on funds available and expended to a centralized database 
that would be fully populated by 2005. This would help the UASI 
governance structure avoid duplication of funding and leverage UASI 
funds to extend preparedness efforts to the entire region. In addition, 
as stated in DHS' comments on our draft report and as discussed at the 
September 1, 2004, meeting of the SPG and CAOs Committee, a committee 
has been assigned to work on an analysis of regional preparedness gaps 
that would consider the local assets that could be applied to closing 
those gaps. Stakeholders at the meeting mentioned that such a gap 
analysis could be based on likely scenarios that would need to be 
addressed during an emergency.

The NCR's UASI plan sets broad strategic goals of preventing terror 
attacks, reducing the region's vulnerability to terror, and minimizing 
damages and recovery from any terror attacks that do occur. The plan 
endorses an eight-point agreement signed by Maryland, Virginia, and the 
District of Columbia to achieve those three strategic objectives by 
focusing action on (1) preventing terror; (2) promoting citizen 
involvement in preparedness; (3) working in partnership to implement a 
coordinated decision-making process; (4) implementing emergency 
protective measures; (5) promoting a public/private partnership to 
protect the infrastructure; (6) working to develop a Joint Information 
System for the media; (7) enhancing mutual aid agreements, including 
dealing with any liability issues; and (8) partnering to coordinate 
plans for terrorism and security-related training and exercises across 
the area.

Concluding Observations:

Federal programs frequently rely on regionally coordinated approaches 
to deliver important services to program beneficiaries and clientele. 
This fact is especially important in the relatively young field of 
homeland security, because the urgency of addressing the terror threat 
calls for effectively and efficiently managing the use of federal 
homeland security grant dollars. Based on our work, we have concluded 
that regional approaches to manage federal homeland security dollars 
help to ensure that those funds are spent in a complementary, 
coordinated fashion that is targeted at known security gaps. Our work 
further shows that regional approaches to emergency preparedness and 
other fields are characterized by several broad features that the 
federal government can encourage, frequently through the design and 
requirements of its grants. These lessons can be applied in the NCR and 
elsewhere to improve the management of federal emergency preparedness 
grant dollars by enlisting the support of a variety of stakeholders in 
identifying and supporting solutions to preparedness requirements and 
targeting the use of scarce resources to address preparedness gaps.

The federal government can encourage effective coordination in its 
grant requirements in four ways:

* First, some federal grants require the existence and operation of a 
regional collaborative organization and establish a minimum threshold 
of regional collaboration by requiring a variety of stakeholders, 
resulting in widespread agreement on what problems should be addressed 
and what steps should be taken.

* Second, where favorable political and civic conditions exist, some 
federal grants have allowed regional organizations to exercise 
flexibility in how they operate--for example, in establishing their 
membership boundaries.

* Third, some grants provide minimum thresholds for planning by 
requiring that regional organizations prepare regional strategic plans 
that contain goals and objectives that are specific and measurable. 
Strategic plans provide a focal point for establishing goals and 
aligning resources. The application of standards, where existent, adds 
a measure of precision and measurability to a plan's goals and 
objectives.

* Fourth, some grants fund the costs of regional organizations, thereby 
providing additional incentives for localities to collaborate 
interjurisdictionally.

Regional approaches for homeland security continue to evolve quickly, 
but the nation is still in the early stages of building institutions 
and processes to address emergency preparedness. Also, the federal 
government is still in the early stages of developing preparedness 
standards to guide local initiatives. Based on our work and given the 
important role that regional planning and governance can play in 
improving national preparedness, these developments warrant continued 
congressional monitoring and oversight. As local initiatives continue 
to evolve and federal guidance becomes more definitive, the use of 
regional structures and plans in guiding the allocation and use of all 
major federal homeland security assistance will likely become more 
important.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

We provided a draft of this report to DHS and officials of the NCR's 
UASI governance structure for their review and comment. DHS commented 
that the report contains information that will be valuable to 
communities across the country as DHS encourages regional coordination 
and capability building. DHS also states that the UASI governance 
structure is currently active and is not proposed or interim. We agree 
that the governance structure is not proposed or interim, and we state 
in our report that the regional coordination activities of the NCR's 
UASI governance structure have evolved to begin to display many of the 
characteristics of regional coordination. For example, our report 
reflects information regarding the establishment and evolution of 
structures associated with the UASI governance structure, including the 
Senior Policy Group, the Emergency Preparedness Council, and the Chief 
Administrative Officers Committee. DHS also remarked that, as discussed 
at a September 1, 2004, meeting of the UASI Senior Policy Group and 
Chief Administrative Officers Committee, the UASI governance structure 
will take steps to ensure that planned uses of federal emergency 
preparedness funds consider all funding sources, including non-UASI 
sources. Specifically, the UASI governance structure plans to gather 
information from Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia on 
funding sources other than UASI, how the funds were allocated and for 
what purposes, and how they were distributed by jurisdiction. In that 
regard, the governance structure is converting hard-copy data on funds 
available and expended to a centralized database that would be fully 
populated by 2005. In response, we added information in our report to 
reflect these refinements to the NCR's governance structure.

The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator of Washington, D.C., also provided 
comments. Similar to DHS, he stated that the NCR's governance structure 
reflected the building of a great deal of the foundation for meeting 
the domestic preparedness challenges that affect the area. He also 
commented that the NCR is unique compared to the six metropolitan areas 
we chose for detailed analysis because only the NCR (1) involves two 
states and a governmental entity that combines state and local 
functions; (2) contains monuments and memorials that are the most 
visible symbols of our national strength and patriotism that, if 
attacked, would create a perception of vulnerability on the part of the 
federal government; and (3) is the seat of the federal government, 
creating a partnership between the national government and state and 
local governments. While we agree that the NCR is an important and 
unique urban area, the areas we chose for detailed analysis contain 
comparable features. For example, the New York City region contains 
three states and a very large city; that same region, as well as other 
areas we visited, also contains a significant federal presence and many 
buildings and icons that could be at risk for a terror event. Moreover, 
other regions we studied contained extensive partnerships between 
federal, state, and local governments.

The Deputy Mayor/City Administrator also stated that the National 
Estuary Program incorporates clean water standards and scientific 
solutions to accomplish clean water. He stated that the federal 
homeland security strategies and plans are not based on proven 
standards and solutions. Hence, he concluded that the National Estuary 
Program is not comparable with federal homeland security strategies and 
plans. We agree that the National Estuary Program is based on existing 
standards and solutions; indeed, our report notes that for the most 
part, standards are not yet extant for homeland security efforts. 
However, the application of standards in the planning and 
implementation of the National Estuary Program is the very reason we 
chose to explore and elaborate upon it. Our report notes that the 
preparation and implementation of plans that have goals and objectives 
that are actionable and measurable--frequently based on the application 
of existing standards--is a key factor in the success of regionally 
coordinated programs. Indeed, our May 2004 report on the management of 
first responder grants in the NCR recommends that the Secretary, DHS, 
identify and address gaps in emergency preparedness and evaluate the 
effectiveness of expenditures in meeting those needs by adapting 
standards and preparedness guidelines based on likely scenarios for the 
NCR and conducting assessments based on them.[Footnote 20]

As agreed with your office, unless you release this report earlier, we 
will not distribute it until 30 days from the date of this letter. At 
that time, we will send copies to relevant congressional committees and 
subcommittees, to the Secretary of Homeland Security, and to other 
interested parties. We will also make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on 
GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].

If you or your staff has any questions about this report, please 
contact me at 202-512-6806. Key contributors to this report are listed 
in appendix IV.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by:

Patricia A. Dalton: 
Director, Strategic Issues:

[End of section]

Appendixes:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Our overall goal for this engagement was to identify features of 
regional collaboration in urban areas outside of the National Capital 
Region (NCR) that could be transferred to homeland security efforts in 
the NCR and elsewhere. In pursuit of that overall goal, we met with 
representatives and officials of the National Academy of Public 
Administration, the Association of Metropolitan Planning 
Organizations, the National Association of Regional Councils, the U.S. 
Department of Transportation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency. We asked these parties to recommend specific urban areas that, 
in their view, had significant regional coordinative activities that we 
should examine. We also sought out areas that presented challenges for 
regional coordination through such features as having a multitude of 
jurisdictions within a region, an interstate geographic area, and 
geographic bifurcation characterized by the presence of a large body of 
water. We also obtained information regarding factors--such as the 
presence of significant federal and commercial facilities, national 
monuments, critical infrastructure (bridges, tunnels, airports, and 
seaports), population density, and ranking as a high-threat urban area 
per the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Urban Area Security 
Initiative--that indicated a metropolitan area was at risk for a terror 
event.

Based on these various considerations and recommendations, we 
identified the Dallas-Fort Worth, Los Angeles, San Francisco Bay, New 
York, Philadelphia, and Tampa-St. Petersburg areas as sites meeting one 
or more of these criteria and selected them for a more detailed 
analysis of regional coordination across a variety of federal programs.

We also used information from these parties, along with a review our 
previous work in the area of intergovernmental relations, to identify 
federal programs with regional coordination features that could be 
useful for enhancing regional emergency preparedness coordination. 
Based on our assessment of this information, we selected for 
examination the transportation planning program that utilizes 
metropolitan planning organizations to prepare regional transportation 
improvement plans and related plans to guide the expenditure of federal 
highway and transit dollars. In the area of environmental protection, 
we selected estuary programs in which state agencies; local 
governments; or other public, nonprofit, or private agencies, research 
institutions, and individuals develop programs to protect and restore 
coastal resources through comprehensive planning and joint action. We 
also selected a homeland security program--the Urban Area Security 
Initiative--that apportions domestic preparedness funding for 
equipment, training, exercises, and planning on the basis of a regional 
plan that is prepared by a regional working group.

To meet our first objective of identifying factors of successful 
regional coordination, we met with representatives of regional 
organizations and with federal, state, and local government officials 
in the areas selected. Regional organization representatives that we 
met with came from regional councils, councils of governments, 
metropolitan planning organizations, air quality districts, and estuary 
programs (where applicable). We also met with local and state officials 
responsible for homeland security and emergency preparedness, first 
responders, and other region-specific officials with responsibility for 
transportation, environmental, or homeland security planning. We asked 
these officials about characteristics of their organizations and 
regional political and civic factors that fostered regional 
coordination. We also obtained, analyzed, and followed up on such 
documentation as: stakeholder lists and the decision-making procedures 
of regional organizations, strategic planning documents, indicators of 
progress made against program goals and objectives, and plans for 
future enhancements of regional coordination.

In pursuit of the second objective of identifying features of federal 
programs that enhance regional emergency preparedness coordination, we 
met with local officials and officials from state emergency management 
agencies at all six case study locations. We also met with federal 
grantor agency officials from the Department of Transportation, the 
Environmental Protection Agency, and DHS's Office of State and Local 
Government Coordination and Preparedness. We obtained information and 
examined documentation (i.e., program guidance, grant requirements, and 
reporting requirements) about the federal guidelines and objectives for 
these programs. Based on those discussions and documentation 
examinations, we were also able to identify traits and characteristics 
that provided incentives to state, regional, and local governmental, 
commercial, and not-for-profit entities to collaborate in pursuit of 
public policy purposes.

To address our third objective of examining the state of emergency 
preparedness regional coordination in the NCR, we determined current 
NCR regional coordination practices by meeting with officials from the 
Metropolitan Washington Council of Government's Divisions of 
Transportation, Environment (Air Quality), and Homeland Security and 
Public Safety. We also met with officials from the DHS's Office of 
National Capital Region Coordination and the Chair of the NCR Chief 
Administrative Officers Committee, and we attended meetings of the NCR 
Emergency Preparedness Council as well as the Senior Policy Group and 
Chief Administrative Officers Committee. We relied on oral and 
documentary evidence from these officials as well as our previous 
review of the management of first responder grants in the NCR to 
understand the state of regional coordination in the NCR as of 
September 2004.

We conducted our review from July 2003 to September 2004 in accordance 
with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528:

Homeland Security:

September 10, 2004:

Patricia A. Dalton: 
Director, Strategic Issues: 
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

RE: Draft Report GAO-04-1009, Homeland Security: Effective Regional 
Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness (GAO Job Code 450263):

Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. The 
report contains information on the characteristics of effective 
regional coordination that will be valuable to many communities across 
the country as the Department continues to encourage regional 
coordination and capability building. The Department acknowledges that 
regional coordination efforts in the National Capital Region (NCR) 
already display many of the characteristics of effective regional 
coordination cited in the report. Additionally, the NCR is moving 
quickly towards putting into place all the aspects of effective 
regional coordination noted in the report including a comprehensive 
regional strategic plan.

It should be noted, however, that the regional coordination governance 
structure that is currently active in the NCR is not a proposed or 
interim structure as the report suggests. In fact, there has been a 
working regional governance structure since August 2002 when the 
Governors and the Mayor publicly committed to regional coordination and 
cooperation. The NCR Senior Policy Group (SPG) was constituted. This 
governance structure was further broadened in late 2003 and codified in 
2004. The regional current governance structure for the NCR was adopted 
by the key regional stakeholders in February 2004 at the NCR Emergency 
Preparedness Council and has been fully implemented since that time. 
The structure is solidly in place and being used for reaching decisions 
regarding the ongoing homeland security programs in the region.

As the report discusses, the governance structure for the NCR is broad-
based and inclusive of all jurisdictions and disciplines. It is also 
flexible, so that other groups can be added to the structure as the 
need is identified. One recent example of this flexibility is the 
inclusion of the Metro Chief Information Officers (CIOs) committee as a 
supporting committee for the Chief Administrative Officials (CAO). Now 
technical proposals that impact State and local information technology 
enterprises can be vetted through the Metro CIOs to ensure a 
coordinated solution is achieved. This is just one example of the 
flexibility that is built into the NCR regional coordination structure.

The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) Program incorporates most or 
all of the elements identified in the report that characterize 
effective coordination, such as representation from different 
stakeholder groups and multiple jurisdictions; development of strategic 
plans; and formation of a regional organization for collaborative 
decision making. The NCR and the UASI work group have fulfilled these 
program requirements, and have established themselves as a viable 
operation for further enhancement of emergency preparedness.

The report indicates NCR has not included other homeland security funds 
that the respective jurisdictions have received when considering how to 
allocate its UASI funds. The UASI work group currently is gathering 
information from the States of Maryland and Virginia, and the District 
of Columbia on other funding sources and how funds have been allocated, 
for what purpose, and to which jurisdictions the funds have been 
distributed. Having this data available will help the UASI work group 
avoid duplication of funding, and leverage the UASI funds to extend the 
preparedness efforts of the respective jurisdictions, and thus the 
entire NCR.

A report finding suggests there is no reliable central source of data 
on funds available and expended and the purposes for which they were 
spent. This information is available at DHS/ODP through hard copy grant 
files. The Department is in the process of converting this information 
to a centralized database, which can provide queries upon request. This 
database will not be fully populated until early 2005, but DHS/ODP is 
able to provide this information upon request.

The report also identifies the importance of a comprehensive strategic 
plan with measurable goals and objectives to help focus resources and 
efforts to address problems. Over the past few months the CAOs have 
tasked the Disaster and Emergency Preparedness Committee (DEPC) to 
develop recommendations on performance standards that could or should 
be adopted by the region. These recommendations will form the larger 
over all strategy that will clearly identify preparedness priorities 
and the measurable performance standards.

Additionally, Homeland Security Presidential Directive (HSPD) 8 calls 
for the development of a national preparedness goal which will 
establish measurable readiness priorities and targets that 
appropriately balance the potential threat and magnitude of terrorist 
attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies with the resources 
required to prevent, respond to, and recover from them. It will also 
include readiness metrics and elements that support the national 
preparedness goal including standards for preparedness assessments and 
strategies, and a system for assessing the Nation's overall 
preparedness to respond to major events, especially those involving 
acts of terrorism. This guidance will inform the development of 
measurable goals and objectives at the State and local level. The 
Office of National Capital Region Coordination is committed to support 
the integration of the national guidance with State and local 
performance measures.

For all the progress made in the NCR to increase preparedness, the 
Department realizes, and your report supports the fact, that we need to 
continue on the path of improvement by developing preparedness 
standards, and clear performance goals. We have already built a great 
deal of the foundation for effective regional coordination as noted in 
the report and will continue to work toward improving that 
coordination.

Sincerely:

Signed for: 

Anna F. Dixon:

Director, Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison:

[End of section]

Appendix III: Comments from the Deputy Mayor and City Administrator, 
District of Columbia:

GOVERNMENT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA: 
Executive Office of the Mayor:

Robert C. Bobb:
Deputy Mayor and City Administrator:

September 10, 2004:

Patricia Dalton:
Director, Strategic Issues:
U.S. General Accounting Office: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Ms. Dalton:

As the State Administrative Agent (SAA) for the National Capital Region 
(NCR), I would like to thank you for forwarding the Draft GAO report, 
GAO-04-1009, entitled Homeland Security: Effective Regional 
Coordination Can Enhance Emergency Preparedness for review. This draft 
report was provided to the NCR to obtain advance review and comment for 
subjects it discusses. We understand that the report has not been fully 
reviewed within GAO and is, therefore subject to revision. In general, 
the report describes factors that enhance regional coordination in 
selected metropolitan areas, the features of federal programs that 
enhance regional emergency preparedness coordination, and how to 
incorporate regional coordination for emergency preparedness features 
from other metropolitan areas into the NCR.

The report selected six metropolitan areas to examine regional 
coordination. These six areas were chosen based on their vulnerability 
to terror events indicated by the presence of potential targets and the 
level of complexity as it relates to regional coordination. Based on 
the uniqueness of the NCR, it is difficult to compare the NCR with the 
six metropolitan areas identified. The following describes the 
differentiating factors associated with the NCR:

* The NCR is the only urban area to include two states and a government 
entity that serves city, county, state functions in combination (the 
District of Columbia). The NCR comprises eight major jurisdictions with 
a number of additional municipalities that reside within the boundaries 
of these eight jurisdictions. In line with regional homeland security 
coordination and the guidance set forth by the Office of Domestic 
Preparedness (ODP), the NCR adopted a comprehensive governance 
structure that includes elected leaders and Chief Administrative 
Officers (CAO's) from each jurisdiction as well as the State Homeland 
Security Advisors and Emergency Management Directors that comprise the 
Senior Policy Group (SPG).

* The NCR's monuments and memorials are some of the most visible in the 
country and are symbols of national strength and patriotism. A 
terrorist threat to anyone of these monuments or memorials is likely to 
have a major negative psychological and emotional impact that would be 
felt throughout the country and the world. This would create a 
perception of vulnerability on the part of the Federal government.

* The NCR is also the seat of the Federal government. A partnership 
exists between the NCR state and local governments and the Federal 
government entities to coordinate homeland security efforts.

For these reasons, the NCR must be viewed as unique in comparison to 
other urban areas designated by the Department of Homeland Security.

The report recognizes the importance of regional organizations to serve 
as structured forums for diverse parties to discuss public policy 
problems and agree on possible solutions. The report specifically 
refers to the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments (MWCOG) 
multi-jurisdiction transportation board as an example of such an 
organization and forum for collaborative decision making. As discussed 
in the Office of National Capital Region's response to the previous GAO 
report (GAO-04-433), the NCR recognizes the importance of such an 
entity through the formal NCR Review and Recommendation Process. This 
process ensures coordination of resources among all jurisdictions 
within the NCR and utilizes MWCOG public safety cluster committees 
(i.e., Law Enforcement, Fire Chief, Emergency Manager, etc ...) to 
ensure coordination throughout the NCR within their particular area of 
expertise and provide the associated priorities and needs. This allows 
the NCR to leverage longstanding tradition of inter-jurisdictional 
coordination to provide recommendations through the regional process 
and accompanying governance structure. This regional collaborative 
process has been encouraged by the leadership of the NCR and has 
resulted in the NCR Chief Information Officers (CIO's) to formulate a 
MWCOG committee to discuss information technology issues and develop 
solutions as it pertains to homeland security.

The report also recognizes the importance of strategic plans developed 
by regional organizations can be effective tools to focus resources and 
efforts to address problems. Such plans often contain features as goals 
and objectives that are measurable and quantifiable. The report 
specifically refers to the Tampa Bay Estuary Program involving multiple 
entities from the private and public sectors (federal and state) to 
implement solutions to cleaning up Tampa Bay on technically sound plans 
that are based on measurable goals and objectives. The National Estuary 
program identifies federal standards that have been established for 
hazardous substances, through scientific data, that must be obtained 
within the water through specific sampling methods to determine if the 
Estuary is considered "clean". These standards are based on remedial 
technologies (solution) that currently exist for remediating a source 
as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency.

The NCR recognizes the importance of technically sound plans that are 
based on measurable goals and objectives when federal standards exist 
to define the quantifiable standard to be met with existing remedies or 
solutions. Such quantifiable federal standards currently do not exist 
for defining a level of preparedness or established remedies or 
solutions to meet such standards. For the reasons stated above, GAO has 
incorrectly compared a well established, federal estuary program with 
baseline performance measures with homeland security strategies and 
plans that do not have well developed, scientifically tested, baseline 
performance measures.

That said, the NCR has in place a structure to enable good planning. To 
assist in future coordination efforts the SPG has developed a team to 
assist in administering state and regional grant funds, and 
coordination of programmatic planning and response issues. A detailed 
outline of theses processes were described with the response to the 
draft GAO report, GAO-04-433 entitled: Homeland Security: National 
Capital Region Grant Management Issues Reflect the Need for Coordinated 
Planning and Performance Standards. The processes described allow for 
coordinated grants administration and strategic planning for enhancing 
the NCR's preparedness, performance standards, and a reliable, central 
source of data on funds available and the purpose for which they are 
spent.

The report further recognizes the importance of regional organizations 
that reach collaborative decisions prior to receiving grant funds. As 
the report points out, this avoids one party or type of party being 
over-represented in the regional group or wielding too much power. As 
stated on page 32 of the report, the NCR utilizes regional working 
groups for collaborative decision making, as stated above when 
referring to the public safety committees of MWCOG. This was also 
exemplified in the September 2, 2004 CAO/SPG meeting, which GAO 
representatives attended to view the NCR's collaborative decision-
making process at work.

In line with regional homeland security coordination and the guidance 
set forth by ODP, the NCR adopted a comprehensive governance structure 
that includes the CAO's from each jurisdiction as well as SPG, which is 
comprised of the homeland security advisor and the director of the 
emergency management agency of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of 
Columbia. This governance process is required to ensure collaborative 
decision making throughout the NCR. The governance structure of the NCR 
is all encompassing to include not only the strategic decision makers 
and the senior leaders of the region but also the tactical decision 
makers, the Public Safety department heads, and their subordinate field 
experts.

For all the progress made in the NCR to increase preparedness, the NCR 
realizes, and your report supports the fact, that we need to continue 
to implement and enhance our collaborative decision-making process and 
continue to redefine our performance goals. We have already built a 
great deal of the foundation for meeting the challenges noted in the 
report and will continue to work toward meeting our goals.

Your cooperation is appreciated. If you have additional questions, 
please call Steve Kral, Administrator for the Office of Homeland 
Security, at (202) 727-5934.

Sincerely,

Signed by: 
Robert C. Bobb:

Deputy Mayor / City Administrator: 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Patricia A. Dalton, Director, (202) 512-6806:

Acknowledgments:

In addition, Ernie Hazera, Joseph Byrns, Chelsa Kenney, Laurie Latuda, 
Jeanine Lavender, Amy Rosewarne, Susan Sato, and Amelia Shachoy made 
key contributions to this report.

(450263):

FOOTNOTES

[1] Section 882 of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (Pub. L. No. 107-
296 (Nov. 25, 2002)) incorporates the definition of the NCR from 10 
U.S.C. 2674(f)(2) as the geographic area consisting of the District of 
Columbia; Montgomery and Prince George's Counties in Maryland; 
Arlington, Fairfax, Loudoun, and Prince William Counties and the City 
of Alexandria in Virginia; and all cities and other units of government 
within those jurisdictions. 

[2] In addition to the NCR, the Chicago, Houston, Los Angeles, New 
York, San Francisco, and Seattle areas were designated as high-risk 
urban areas during the first round of UASI funding in fiscal year 2003.

[3] 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).

[4] Preparedness standards include functional standards for equipment, 
such as personal protection suits; performance standards, such as the 
number of persons per hour that could be decontaminated after a 
chemical attack; and best practice benchmarks, if applicable.

[5] According to current plans, the NCR's UASI governance structure 
includes the Emergency Preparedness Council (EPC) and Chief 
Administrative Officers (CAO) Committee, and the Senior Policy Group 
(SPG). The EPC contains representation from various first response 
disciplines, several regional jurisdictions, the private sector, and 
the nonprofit sector, among others. The CAOs represent the city and 
town managers and county executives of the 19 jurisdictions. The SPG 
represents the governors of Maryland and Virginia, the mayor of 
Washington, D.C., and the Department of Homeland Security and has final 
budget authority over UASI-related emergency preparedness projects for 
the NCR.

[6] GAO, Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the 
Development of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local 
Preparedness, GAO-02-550T (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 2, 2002).

[7] 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).

[8] See GAO-02-550T and GAO, National Preparedness: Integration of 
Federal, State, Local, and Private Sector Efforts Is Critical to an 
Effective National Strategy for Homeland Security, GAO-02-621T 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 11, 2002). 

[9] GAO, Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable 
Communications for First Responders, GAO-04-231T (Washington, D.C.: 
Nov. 6, 2003).

[10] GAO, Bioterrorism: Preparedness Varied across State and Local 
Jurisdictions, GAO-03-373 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 7, 2003).

[11] 2002 Pa. Laws 227. This act codified the task forces, which were 
administratively created in 1998.

[12] National Academy of Public Administration, Powering the Future: 
High Performance Partnerships (Washington, D.C.: April 2003).

[13] GAO-04-433.

[14] 23 U.S.C. §134.

[15] GAO, Comptroller General's Forum: High-Performing Organizations: 
Metrics, Means, and Mechanisms for Achieving High Performance in the 
21st Century Public Management Environment, GAO-04-343SP (Washington, 
D.C.: Feb. 13, 2004).

[16] Nonattainment areas are those that do not meet or previously have 
not met air quality standards for ozone, carbon monoxide, particulate 
matter, or nitrogen dioxide.

[17] States are required by the Clean Air Act to develop State 
Implementation Plans that demonstrate how the designated area will 
reduce emissions and meet air quality standards.

[18] GAO-04-433.

[19] GAO-04-433.

[20] GAO-04-433.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the 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 the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

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:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: