This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-03-170 entitled 'Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved' which was released on November 26, 2002. This text file was formatted by the U.S. General Accounting 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. Report to Congressional Requesters: November 2002: Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved: GAO-03-170: GAO Highlights: Highlights of GAO-03-170, a report to the Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information, Senate Committee on the Judiciary; the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence; and the House Committee on the Judiciary. Why GAO Did This Study: Congress responded to the attacks of September 11, 2001, with dramatic funding increases to combat terrorism. Even before these attacks, Congress was concerned about increased funding in this area, and based on findings from a 1997 GAO report, mandated that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) report annually on funding to combat terrorism. In this review, GAO was asked to analyze such funding trends, describe difficulties in coordinating combating terrorism budgets, assess data reported to Congress, and describe the executive branch’s efforts to maximize the effective use of combating terrorism funds. The review relied on OMB’s definition of “combating terrorism” to include both homeland security and overseas combating terrorism missions. What GAO Found: GAO calculated, on the basis of OMB’s data, that there was a 276- percent total increase in funds designated to combat terrorism during fiscal years 2001 and 2002 (as reported in OMB’s annual reports to Congress for 2001 and 2002, respectively). This increase includes a 106-percent increase from the post-September 11 redefinition of combating terrorism to include homeland security activities such as aviation and transportation security, and a 170-percent increase due to funding increases. Difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism stem from the variety of missions involved and the fact that activities related to combating terrorism are often funded through budget accounts that also provide funding for other activities. Various approaches have been used to address these challenges. The process for preparing the budget for fiscal year 2003 was characterized by collaboration between OMB and the Office of Homeland Security that resulted in the budget priorities included in the President’s budget for fiscal 2003. Crosscutting funding data reported to Congress, however, do not adequately support congressional oversight. An OMB annual report summarizing funding for combating terrorism has had limited utility for decision makers because it was issued late in the congressional decision-making process and did not include data on obligations or on duplication in programs for combating terrorism. OMB plans to analyze areas of duplication as part of the preparation of the budget request for fiscal year 2004. If completed, this analysis will enable OMB to comply with the legislative mandate to include such an analysis in its annual report. While the executive branch has established some national strategies important to coordinating the effective use of funds for combating terrorism, it faces challenges in measuring its progress. Although the strategies provide an important first step, they provide neither clearly defined federal and national performance goals and measures for assessing progress, nor set clear funding priorities. Lacking such measures and priorities, it is also difficult to assess whether funding increases are being allocated to the highest- priority programs. What GAO Recommends: GAO is making recommendations to improve OMB’s annual report, including collecting and reporting obligation data. It also recommends improvements to performance measures in strategies and performance plans related to combating terrorism. In comments on a draft of this report, OMB expressed concern about collecting obligation data. Other agencies either concurred with the recommendations or made no comment. Contents: Letter: Results in Brief: Conclusions and Recommendations for Executive Action: Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: Scope and Methodology: Briefing Section I: Introduction: Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis: Briefing Section III: Coordination and Priority Setting: Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to Congress: Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap: Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective Use of Funds: Appendixes: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense: Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: Related GAO Products: Tables: Table 1: Departments and Agencies Contacted during GAO’s Review and Their Share of Funding for Combating Terrorism from the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2003 of $45 Billion: Table 2: Federal Entities’ Percentage of Funding for Combating Terrorism: Table 3: Timeline of Budget Events Occurring around September 11, 2001: Abbreviations: ATF: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms: DHS: Department of Homeland Security: DOD: Department of Defense : FBI: Federal Bureau of Investigations: FEMA: Federal Emergency Management Agency: GAO: General Accounting Office: HHS: Department of Health and Human Services: NSC: National Security Council: OHS: Office of Homeland Security: OMB: Office of Management and Budget: PART: Program Assessment Rating Tool: November 26, 2002: Congressional Requesters: In the aftermath of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, the administration and Congress raised the federal government’s emphasis on combating terrorism through increased appropriations, organizational changes, and legislative proposals to establish the Department of Homeland Security. While the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2003 elevated the importance of combating terrorism by making homeland security one of the administration’s top priorities, funding to combat terrorism had been steadily increasing even prior to the September 11 attacks.[Footnote 1] Understanding funding trends as well as the budget processes used to make resource decisions will be key to developing future funding initiatives, particularly as Congress considers funding priorities as well as the implications of establishing the proposed Department of Homeland Security. At the time we finalized this report, the Department had not been established. On the basis of findings from a 1997 GAO report, Congress required the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to report annually on funding to combat terrorism. You requested that we review such funding for fiscal years 1998 through 2003. In September 2002, we briefed staff in your offices on our preliminary findings. As agreed with your offices, this report: * provides a trend analysis of funds used to combat terrorism, * describes the difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism across agencies and the efforts to address them, * assesses the adequacy of crosscutting data on funding to combat terrorism reported to Congress, * discusses the efforts to identify and minimize potential areas of duplication, and: * describes the challenges faced by the executive branch in maximizing the effectiveness of these funds. Results in Brief: The upward climb of federal government funding to combat terrorism in the years prior to the attacks of September 11, 2001, was dwarfed by the dramatic funding increases that occurred afterward. These latter increases occurred as budget priorities quickly shifted to missions for combating terrorism and as the scope of combating terrorism was redefined to include homeland security missions, such as border and transportation security. As a result, funds designated for combating terrorism increased 276 percent from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal 2002 (106 percent due to changes in definition and scope, and 170 percent due to funding increases), as reported in OMB’s annual reports to Congress on combating terrorism.[Footnote 2] In the same time frame, the Department of Defense and other national security agencies received the largest share of funds for combating terrorism (over 30 percent), although the Department of Health and Human Services’ (HHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) shares of such funds have risen substantially. There has also been a change in priorities among mission categories for combating terrorism as defined by OMB. Since fiscal year 2001, funding priorities have shifted from the physical security of government and the national populace and investigative, intelligence, and offensive activities to research and development related to combating terrorism and preparing and responding to terrorist incidents. The executive branch is faced with several difficulties in coordinating funding to combat terrorism, and approaches to such coordination have varied. The difficulties include (1) the large number of agencies involved; (2) the wide variety of missions represented, including intelligence, law enforcement, health services, and environmental protection; and (3) the global nature of missions for combating terrorism. In addition, funding for missions for combating terrorism is often subsumed in budget accounts that provide funding for other activities. Over the past 4 years, various approaches to coordinating budget requests prior to and during OMB’s review have been employed to address these challenges. For example, during the fiscal year 2001 and 2002 budget processes, interagency working groups led by OMB and the National Security Council (NSC) made recommendations prior to the agencies’ formal submissions to OMB. During the period immediately following September 11, 2001, the greatest attention was given to those activities for combating terrorism related to homeland security. As a result, coordination for the budget process for fiscal year 2003 was primarily between OMB and the newly created Office of Homeland Security (OHS). Together, these offices set priorities that resulted in the budget initiatives for homeland security included in the President’s budget for fiscal year 2003. Efforts to coordinate the budget request for fiscal year 2004 are characterized by uncertainties with agencies’ development of budgets in the face of the evolving status and structure of the proposed Department of Homeland Security and delays in final appropriations for fiscal 2003. Crosscutting funding data reported to Congress do not adequately support congressional oversight. OMB’s annual reports to Congress on combating terrorism, which summarizes proposed spending, is not as useful a tool as it might be for effective congressional oversight, partly because (1) recent reports have been published well after the March 1 deadline and (2) the report does not include data on obligations. Although legislation mandating OMB’s report does not require the presentation of data on obligations for all programs and activities for combating terrorism, we believe that such data are important for understanding the current status of funding and establishing future funding priorities. Also, a common structure to categorize combating terrorism activities among key governmentwide reports is lacking, and the categories cannot be linked to appropriations accounts--the structure used by Congress to fund programs and activities. Consequently, there is no transparency for making policy choices and trade-offs between combating terrorism and other activities. OMB has taken an important step to improve the data used to develop its fiscal 2004 budget request to Congress by requiring agencies to identify funds for combating terrorism by account--the level at which funds are appropriated--in OMB’s centralized budget database (known as the MAX database). However, the guidance did not require agencies to report on obligations. Potential duplication of effort has been identified in our past reviews, and the administration has made efforts to minimize such duplication. We have found in the past that there is a risk of duplication in areas such as assistance to state and local governments, information management and technology, and research and development, and we recommended that a focal point for combating terrorism be established to better coordinate such programs. In addition, we reported that OMB has not included an analysis of potential duplication as part of its annual reports to date, as required in the 1997 legislation establishing the reporting requirement. In the wake of the September 11 attacks, the President established focal points for homeland security and combating terrorism overseas--the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security in OHS and the Director for Combating Terrorism within the NSC, respectively. Furthermore, the administration anticipates that the proposed Department of Homeland Security would address some areas of duplication. However, the proposed Department will exclude some agencies with homeland security missions and, therefore, could not address all areas of potential duplication without interagency coordination. OMB has stated that it plans to review the budget proposal for fiscal year 2004 to identify areas of duplication. Such an analysis, if reported, would increase the visibility of potential duplication areas to Congress. While the executive branch has established some national strategies important to maximizing the effective use of funds for combating terrorism, it faces challenges in measuring progress against its goals. The administration has published two of three national strategies intended to address the terrorist threat both domestically and internationally. The National Strategy for Homeland Security provides an important first step in establishing strategic objectives and mission areas, and proposes to consolidate the administration of these functions in the proposed Department of Homeland Security. The strategy also directs Departments and agencies to create performance measures by which progress can be measured and future resources allocated. However, at the federal and national levels, for the most part, the strategy does not provide performance goals and measures to assess progress and improve preparedness, nor does it set clear funding priorities among and within the various initiatives. In the absence of clear performance goals, measures, and funding priorities, it is difficult to assess whether funding increases are being allocated to the highest-priority programs. Notwithstanding incomplete guidance from the national strategies, some Departments and agencies have either updated or are in the process of updating strategic and performance plans to reflect priorities for combating terrorism. For combating terrorism overseas, the President issued the National Security Strategy of the United States of America, but the National Strategy for Combating Terrorism is still pending. Conclusions and Recommendations for Executive Action: Congressional decision makers require governmentwide information on funding for combating terrorism (including obligations) in a timely fashion. In preparing the fiscal year 2004 budget request to Congress, OMB is requiring agencies to provide information on combating terrorism (including homeland security) so that funding for these activities can be identified by account--the level at which funds are appropriated. If made available to Congress, this information should greatly improve the transparency of funding requested for combating terrorism programs and activities within Departments and across the federal government. Although this is an important first step, OMB has not required agencies to separately identify obligations for relevant programs and activities. Without obligation information, it is impossible to know (1) how much funding from prior years is still available to potentially offset new requests, (2) whether the rate of spending for a program is slower than anticipated, or (3) what the level of effort (i.e., the size of the program) is for a particular year as well as for a program over time. OMB’s annual report on funding for combating terrorism summarizes funding data for the current and next fiscal years, and is supposed to be issued by March 1 of each year and identify duplication of efforts. To be a useful tool, we believe it should also include obligation data for the reasons described above. However, the report has had limited utility because it (1) has been issued in the late spring and summer-- late in the congressional budget decision-making process, (2) does not include data on obligations, and (3) neglects to identify areas of duplication. It is important for the government to establish federal-and national- level goals and performance measures to maximize the effectiveness of funds to combat terrorism. The administration has made progress in publishing national strategies to address priorities for combating terrorism, but these strategies do not include governmentwide performance measures. Establishing these priorities will be critical for individual agencies in aligning their strategic and performance plans, including performance measures, with governmentwide strategic direction and guidance. On the basis of these conclusions, we make the following recommendations. * To help Congress obtain timely information on spending that supports the President’s annual budget request for combating terrorism, OMB should require agencies to provide information on obligations in its MAX database--the database used by OMB to produce the President’s annual budget request. * To improve the usefulness of OMB’s Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, OMB should: * publish the report by the required March 1 deadline to provide information for congressional budget deliberations; * include obligations as reported in the MAX database; and: * include, as required by Congress, an analysis of areas where overlap in programs could result in unnecessary duplication of effort. * To help maximize the effective use of funds for combating terrorism, * OHS and NSC should include national-level, as well as federal governmentwide, performance measures as a supplement to existing strategies and in future revisions to strategies for homeland security and the combating of terrorism overseas and: * OMB, in conjunction with OHS and NSC, should direct relevant Departments to develop or enhance performance objectives and measures for combating terrorism in alignment with performance measures in national strategies, and include performance measures for combating terrorism in the governmentwide plan that OMB is required to produce annually. Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: In October 2002, we requested comments on a draft of this report from the Director of OMB; the Secretaries of Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, State, Transportation, and the Treasury; the Attorney General of the United States; the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency; and the Director of the Federal Emergency Management Agency. In addition, copies of the report were made available to OHS and NSC for their comment. In oral comments on the report, OMB staff questioned whether the value added of collecting obligation data related to combating terrorism would be worth the effort. While OMB staff acknowledged that OMB examiners use obligation data in assessing the appropriateness of agency budget requests overall, they felt that budget authority data provide the most insight into combating terrorism programs and facilitate follow up on areas of concern. Furthermore, they explained that, in the MAX database, obligation data are collected for specific programs that correspond to major agency activities, and these activities may or may not line up with combating terrorism programs. Aligning these activities with combating terrorism programs would require splitting up agency activities in the MAX database, which are familiar and useful, into terrorism-specific activities. Therefore, OMB staff suggested these obligations would more likely have to be collected and/or displayed through a parallel process outside the MAX database. Targeting such an effort on obligations would not be the most productive way to provide more insight into combating terrorism priorities or to enhance the value of the Annual Report, according to the officials. We agree with OMB that budget authority data provide valuable insights into programs. However, we disagree that obligation data related to combating terrorism also are not worth collecting and reporting. First, we believe that the very reason why OMB examiners find the obligation data useful to them is the same reason that congressional decision makers would find the data useful--obligation data gives decision makers an insight as to whether programs are being run according to plans established by their budget projections. We acknowledge that collecting these data would pose an additional workload on both OMB and agency budget officials, but believe that such a workload is warranted in light of the high priority placed on this issue. OMB itself gave the issue high priority when it required agencies to report on budget authority data according to combating terrorism categories, including homeland security. Furthermore, the creation of the Department of Homeland Security will make this type of detailed information more important, as the Executive Branch tries to integrate 22 agencies into the Department. Finally, for some of the programs related to combating terrorism, the law establishing the reporting requirement already requires OMB to report obligation data. We also received comments from other Departments and agencies. DOD concurred with our recommendations to OMB and its comments are reprinted in appendix I. The State Department also concurred with our recommendations. In its comments, the State Department cited its efforts in various coordination activities and its plans to improve its performance planning and measurement. As an example, the Department established the Office of Strategic and Performance Planning to improve strategic plans and ensure that funding is linked to such plans. The State Department’s comments are reprinted in appendix II. FEMA concurred with our recommendations in oral comments to the report. OHS and NSC did not provide comments on our recommendations to them. The remaining Departments and agencies informed us that they had no substantive comments on the report. Technical comments from OMB, the Department of Defense, and the Environmental Protection Agency were incorporated as appropriate. Scope and Methodology: Our scope includes federal Departments and agencies that have key missions for combating terrorism and, when combined, represent 97 percent of the total funding requested for combating terrorism in the presidential budget request for fiscal year 2003, as shown in table 1. Table 1: Departments and Agencies Contacted during GAO’s Review and Their Share of Funding for Combating Terrorism from the President’s Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2003 of $45 Billion: Department/Agency: National Security[A]; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 32. Department/Agency: Department of Transportation; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 16. Department/Agency: Department of Justice; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 16. Department/Agency: Department of Health and Human Services; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 10. Department/Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 8. Department/Agency: The Treasury; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 6. Department/Agency: Department of State; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 5. Department/Agency: Department of Energy; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 3. Department/Agency: Environmental Protection Agency; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 1. Department/Agency: Other; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 3. Department/Agency: Total; Percent of funding to combat terrorism: 100. Source: OMB, 2002 Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002. [A] National Security includes Department of Defense and intelligence community funding combined to keep figures unclassified. Because the intelligence community includes intelligence elements from the Departments of State, Energy, the Treasury and Justice, the percentages displayed for these Departments do not represent the entirety of these Departments’ budgets for combating terrorism. [End of table] In addition, our scope included OMB, OHS, and NSC. We did not include classified intelligence agencies’ budgets in detail. Intelligence community agencies and their corresponding classified budgets will be included in a separate review by the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence. To analyze funding trends of federal funding to combat terrorism, we relied on OMB’s annual reports containing data from fiscal year 1998 through the budget request for fiscal year 2003. The 2002 report included data from the emergency supplemental appropriation signed into law on September 18, 2001, but did not include data from a second emergency supplemental appropriation signed into law on August 2, 2002.[Footnote 3] Although OMB provided us data from the August 2002 appropriation, we did not receive the data in time to incorporate into our report. We used the definitions from the OMB annual reports, as summarized below: * Homeland security: Activities within the United States coordinated by OHS. * Overseas combating terrorism: Activities outside the United States coordinated by NSC, excluding direct military actions. * Combating terrorism: Combination of homeland security and overseas combating terrorism, further divided into four main categories: * Research and development: Developing technologies to deter, prevent, or mitigate acts of terrorism. * Preparing for and responding to terrorist incidents: Planning, training, equipment, and personnel directed at incident response. * Physical security of government and national populace: Protecting federally owned, leased, occupied facilities; federal employees, including high-ranking officials, and the national populace from terrorist acts as well as physical protection of the national infrastructure. * Investigative, intelligence, and offensive capabilities: Reducing the ability of groups or individuals to commit terrorist acts, and the investigation of terrorist acts when they occur and prosecution of their perpetrators. To describe difficulties in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism and efforts to address them, we reviewed data from OMB and OHS. In addition, we evaluated data from Departments and agencies with critical missions for combating terrorism, as well as data from our previous reports. We conducted interviews with knowledgeable officials and discussed their views on the effectiveness of interagency approaches. To assess the adequacy of funding data reported to Congress, we compared OMB’s annual reports with the legislative requirement for drafting the reports and identified potential areas for improvement on the basis of other common budget presentations. To identify areas of potential duplication of effort among agencies and the efforts to minimize them, we relied on our past and ongoing analyses of programs for combating terrorism and reviewed the administration’s proposals for minimizing such duplication. To identify the challenges faced by the executive branch in maximizing the effectiveness of funds for combating terrorism, we relied on our recent analyses of national strategies and interviewed key agency officials to determine whether performance plans were updated to reflect revised missions for combating terrorism. Our work was conducted from March through September 2002 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. We will send copies of this report to appropriate congressional committees and to the federal agencies and offices discussed in this report. We will make copies available to other interested parties upon request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the GAO Web site at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact Raymond Decker at (202) 512-6020 or Paul Posner at (202) 512- 9573. Major contributors to this report are listed in appendix III. Signed by Raymond J. Decker: Raymond J. Decker Director Defense Capabilities and Management: Signed by Paul L. Posner: Paul L. Posner Managing Director Strategic Issues: List of Congressional Requesters: The Honorable Dianne Feinstein Chairman The Honorable Jon Kyl Ranking Minority Member Subcommittee on Technology, Terrorism and Government Information Committee on the Judiciary U.S. Senate: The Honorable Bob Graham Chairman The Honorable Richard C. Shelby Ranking Minority Member Select Committee on Intelligence U.S. Senate: The Honorable James F. Sensenbrenner, Jr. Chairman The Honorable John Conyers, Jr. Ranking Minority Member Committee on the Judiciary House of Representatives: [End of section] Briefing Section I: Introduction: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] In a 1997 report, we found that the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and the National Security Council (NSC) did not regularly collect, aggregate, and review data on funding to combat terrorism on a governmentwide basis for the many Departments and agencies involved in combating terrorism.[Footnote 4] On the basis of our findings, Congress required OMB to establish a reporting system on the budgeting and expenditure of such funds, and, since 1998, OMB has been required to prepare both a classified and an unclassified report on combating terrorism to Congress by March 1 of each year.[Footnote 5] The report must: * include a list of proposed amounts to be expended for programs for combating terrorism and activities in the current and next fiscal year, * describe specific programs and activities, * list priorities with respect to programs and activities, * summarize obligations and expenditures on domestic emergency preparedness for terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction, and: * identify duplication of efforts. The 2002 OMB report provides funding and programmatic information on 27 federal entities that have received funds for combating terrorism. These federal entities are responsible for the federal government’s efforts to combat terrorist activity both domestically and overseas, including defense against terrorist incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. After the September 11 attacks, OMB included an analysis of homeland security as part of its June 2002 report. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Departments’ and agencies’ submissions of their budget requests for fiscal year 2003 to OMB coincided closely with the attacks of September 11, 2001. In response to the attacks, the first of two emergency supplemental appropriations, totaling $40 billion--of which $12 billion was provided for the combating terrorism mission--was signed into law on September 18, 2001.[Footnote 6]The remaining $28 billion from that supplemental appropriation was provided for other missions, such as military actions overseas and recovery at the attack sites. Since this supplemental appropriation was enacted in the last 2-week period of fiscal year 2001, most of these funds were not available to agencies for obligation until fiscal year 2002 and were allocated over several months. The second supplemental appropriation was signed into law on August 2, 2002.[Footnote 7] Other key events occurred to influence funding decisions as OMB considered what requests should be included in the emergency supplemental appropriation, reviewed agencies’ budget requests for fiscal year 2003, and notified agencies of funding decisions in late November during a process known as “passback.” On October 4, 2001, the first known victim of the anthrax attack died, drawing more attention to funding needed to counter the threat from biological weapons. On October 8, 2001, the Office of Homeland Security (OHS) was established and given responsibility for developing a national strategy for homeland security and related homeland security activities, including certifying that budget requests for homeland security were necessary and appropriate. On November 19, 2001, the Transportation Security Administration was established, with a budget request of $4.8 billion for fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 8] On February 4, 2002, the President submitted the budget request for fiscal year 2003 to Congress. OMB’s 2002 Annual Report on Combating Terrorism, which includes data from the request for fiscal year 2003, was issued in June 2002. In the spring and summer of 2002, offices within the Executive Office of the President issued guidance related to preparing the budget request for fiscal year 2004. On April 24, 2002, OMB issued initial budget guidance indicating that homeland security was one of the key priorities for fiscal year 2004. In June 2002, OMB issued the A-11 Circular, which outlined guidance for the preparation, submission, and execution of the budget to the agencies. In the summer of 2002, the President issued two documents that OMB cited as key guidance for agencies to develop budget requests for fiscal year 2004 and performance plans: the proposal for the new Department of Homeland Security and the National Strategy for Homeland Security. Establishing the Department of Homeland Security was under Congress’s consideration at the time of our review. [End of section] Briefing Section II: Funding Analysis: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] In the years prior to the September 11 attacks, we reported on a rapid increase in the number of federal programs and funding to combat terrorism that spanned multiple agencies. These included (1) programs for training and equipping first responders to address chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear terrorist attacks and (2) federal teams capable of analyzing such weapons, containing terrorist incidents, and providing medical support or response.[Footnote 9] We also reported on significant funding increases, as well as improvements in OMB’s efforts to track funding related to combating terrorism. After the September 11 attacks, the missions and funding for combating terrorism were dramatically expanded. Most notably, a new group of homeland security activities--such as border and aviation security--was included under the definition “combating terrorism.” Since September 11, $12 billion has been appropriated for missions to combat terrorism in a supplemental appropriation, and an additional $45 billion has been requested in the budget request for fiscal year 2003.[Footnote 10] [See PDF for image] [End of figure] As shown in the figure, scope changes and funding increases resulted in a 276-percent surge between 2001 and 2002 (as reported in OMB’s Annual Reports for 2001 and 2002, respectively). A 106-percent increase is attributed to changes in definition to broaden the scope of combating terrorism, such as the addition of border and homeland security, and a 170-percent increase is attributed to increased funding overall. It is difficult to discuss historical trends in funding for combating terrorism because of the changing scope of programs and activities included before and after the September 11 attacks. In each of the last 5 years, OMB has issued its Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, which attempts to capture, across the federal government, total spending on combating terrorism and, in the most recent report, related homeland security initiatives. However, as more programs are included in the definition of “combating terrorism,” funding comparisons become more complicated. We therefore were unable to determine a funding trend by agency or mission category (including the homeland security initiatives) prior to 2001. [See PDF for image] [A] The emergency supplemental figure includes the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in September 2001 but does not include the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in August 2002. Moreover, it includes only the $12 billion designated by OMB as funds for combating terrorism, not the entire $40 billion appropriation. [End of figure] In dollar terms, on the basis of the definition that OMB used in its 2002 report, funding for all federal entities with missions for combating terrorism increased following the attacks. In percentage terms, National Security agencies consistently received the highest proportion of funds, but their share of these funds decreased after September 11, whereas the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) proportion of funds for combating terrorism increased substantially. Most other agencies received a smaller portion of the total funds provided after the attacks, as shown in table 2. Table 2: Federal Entities’ Percentage of Funding for Combating Terrorism: Federal entity: National Security; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 39; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 36; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001($12 billion): 27; Fiscal year 2003 budget request($45 billion): 32. Federal entity: Department of Transportation; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 12; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 17; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 10; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 16. Federal entity: Department of Justice; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 23; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 21; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 18; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 16. Federal entity: Department of Health and Human Services; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 2; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 1; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 22; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 10. Federal entity: Federal Emergency Management Agency; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): <1; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): <1; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): <1; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 8. Federal entity: Department of the Treasury; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 9; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 9; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 5; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 6. Federal entity: Department of State; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 8; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 7; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 1; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 5. Federal entity: Department of Energy; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 5; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 5; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 3; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 3. Federal entity: Environmental Protection Agency; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): <1; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): <1; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): <1; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 1. Federal entity: Other[A]; Percentage of funding for combating terrorism: Preattack funding: Fiscal year 2001 ($20 billion): 3; Fiscal year 2002 enacted pre-Sept. 11 ($24 billion): 3; Postattack funding: Emergency Supplemental Appropriation enacted Sept. 2001 ($12 billion): 13; Fiscal year 2003 budget request ($45 billion): 3. Source: OMB, 2002 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002. [A] The “Other” category includes the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the District of Columbia, and the U.S. Postal Service, all of which received significant funding in the emergency supplemental appropriation in the wake of the September 11 attacks. [End of table] [See PDF for image] [End of figure] [A] The emergency supplemental figure includes the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in September 2001 but does not include the emergency supplemental enacted in August 2002. Moreover, it includes only the $12 billion designated by OMB as funds for combating terrorism. OMB divides combating terrorism into the four mission categories of (1) research and development; (2) preparing and responding to terrorist incidents; (3) physical security of the government and national populace; and (4) investigative, intelligence, and offensive capabilities. Although all missions received more funding, priorities shifted after the September 11 attacks and are reflected in the proportion of dollars for combating terrorism designated for various mission categories. As shown in the figure, which is based on the definitions used in OMB’s 2002 report, there were marginal differences in how funds were divided among the categories between the actual budget for fiscal year 2001 and the budget for fiscal year 2002 enacted prior to the attacks. The emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in September 2001, however, reflected a dramatic shift in priorities from funding the physical security of government and the national populace and investigative, intelligence, and offensive activities, toward the more immediate needs of preparing and responding to terrorist incidents, as might be expected in the immediate aftermath of the attacks. The budget request for fiscal year 2003 shows that funding priorities have shifted back to the physical security of the government and national populace, but the proportion of funding for this category did not return to the preattack levels of the original enacted budget for fiscal 2002. Rather, compared to preattack funding levels, more emphasis was placed on research and development (where the share of funds increased from 3 to 6 percent) and preparing and responding to terrorist incidents (where the share of funds increased from 7 to 17 percent). [End of section] Briefing Section III: Coordination and Priority Setting: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Despite the coordination roles played by OHS, NSC, and OMB within the Executive Office of the President, there are inherent challenges in managing federal programs and resources to combat terrorism. First, numerous federal agencies have some role in combating terrorism. Second, these federal agencies represent different types of organizations, including those involved in intelligence, law enforcement, military matters, health services, environmental protection, emergency management, and diplomacy. These agencies often include both domestic and international components. In addition, these agencies undertake a wide variety of activities to combat terrorism, including prevention, detection, crisis response, criminal prosecution, and consequence management, which require effective interagency coordination. As a result of these factors, no individual agency is in charge of all the relevant programs and resources needed to combat terrorism, making budget coordination more difficult.[Footnote 11] Another challenge in coordinating budgets to combat terrorism is that funding for these programs is also used for missions unrelated to terrorism. Agencies’ budget requests for activities to combat terrorism are often subsumed in budget accounts along with unrelated funding requests. For example, according to OMB officials, funding for the salaries of Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agents assigned to combating terrorism activities are not separately identified from the salaries of agents assigned to white-collar crime and other activities. FBI estimates a percentage of these agents’ salaries to be included in the total funds to combat terrorism. At the Department of Defense (DOD), we estimated that $19.4 billion of the funds for combating terrorism from fiscal years 1999 through the budget request for fiscal year 2003 is for military and civilian personnel and personnel-related operating costs in designated specialties that have missions to combat terrorism, such as military police, civilian police, and security guards.[Footnote 12] However, this estimate may be overstated because it represents total personnel costs even if the individuals spend only a portion of their time performing activities to combat terrorism. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Because missions for combating terrorism are spread across multiple agencies and appropriations, a coordinated, governmentwide approach for collecting, aggregating, and reviewing funding data can help prioritize funding proposals. Such an approach has varied in recent years. In preparing the budget requests for fiscal years 2001 and 2002, NSC and OMB used interagency working groups to identify priorities and duplication. The groups reviewed agencies’ proposals and developed recommendations on whether they should be funded. The agencies integrated the working groups’ funding recommendations into their budget submissions to OMB. According to OMB, NSC and OMB then reviewed agencies’ actions on the recommendations and made necessary course corrections prior to acceptance by the President, on the basis of information from the working groups, relative standing among the agencies’ other priorities, priorities for the rest of the government, and the overall funding that the administration was willing to request. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Decisions by OMB and agency officials regarding the budget request for fiscal year 2003 were made under very tight time frames and included two crosscutting Director’s reviews on homeland security funding.[Footnote 13] According to OMB officials, these reviews were more rigorous than past reviews on other governmentwide issues, were attended by the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security, and involved trade-offs necessary to ensure that funding requests for homeland security priorities were sufficient. On September 18, 2001, one week after the attacks, the President signed a $40 billion emergency appropriation to respond to the attacks, of which $12 billion was designated for combating terrorism (the remainder was designated for, among other things, military operations overseas, and immediate recovery needs in New York and at the Pentagon).[Footnote 14] Because of the timing of the emergency appropriation in relation to the ongoing process for preparing the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2003, funding decisions for the supplemental appropriation and the request were inextricably linked. Table 3 lists key budget dates in relation to the attacks. Table 3: Timeline of Budget Events Occurring around September 11, 2001: Sept. 10, 2001; OMB’s deadline for agencies’ fiscal year 2003 budget submittals.. Sept. 11, 2001; Terrorist attacks.. Sept. 12, 2001; Agencies begin a “triage” assessment of the budget to identify immediate-, medium-, and longer-term requirements.. Sept. 14, 2001; OMB issues guidance to agencies on the emergency appropriation, which was passed by Congress the same day.. Sept. 18, 2001; $40 billion emergency appropriation (with $12 billion designated for combating terrorism) signed by the President.. Sept. 21, 2001; President authorizes initial transfers from the emergency appropriation.. Late Nov. 2001; OMB informs executive branch agencies about decisions on their budget requests (known as “passback”).. Source: GAO’s analysis. [End of table] Agencies were asked to identify their most immediate needs--primarily related to response and recovery--using OMB’s September 14, 2001, guidance. Those needs that were determined to fit OMB’s criteria for the emergency supplemental appropriation were funded first. At the same time, agencies and OMB reported that some adjustments to the submissions for fiscal year 2003 were needed for the agencies most directly affected by the attacks of September 11. These adjustments were necessary in some cases to reflect changing priorities and, in others, because of funds provided by the emergency supplemental appropriation. In addition, OMB officials said that planning on the future needs in fiscal year 2004 were considered as part of the deliberations for fiscal 2003. Both OMB and OHS were involved in setting priorities for developing the budget proposal for fiscal year 2003. OMB provided the analytical and budgetary support for OHS, and officials from both OMB and OHS reported their working relationship as collaborative. OHS did not issue formal guidance as part of the budget process--OMB officials communicated OHS’s priorities on homeland security funding to the agencies. The executive order establishing OHS required the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security to certify that budget requests for homeland security are necessary and appropriate, but it did not specify how this certification should take place.[Footnote 15] OMB officials told us that the Assistant to the President for Homeland Security formally certified the budget requests in writing. However, they did not provide this written certification for our review. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Coordination and priority setting for the budget process for fiscal year 2004 are complicated by uncertainty. The proposed Department of Homeland Security had not yet been established. Moreover, those agencies with overseas missions for combating terrorism did not have the benefit of key strategies for combating the overseas threat of terrorism because such strategies have either not yet been published or were published very late in the budget deliberation process. In April 2002, OMB issued the spring planning guidance to executive agencies for the fiscal year 2004 budget, which stated that the National Strategy for Homeland Security would provide a framework against which they could assess how their programs contribute to homeland security. Agencies were instructed to submit budgets consistent with the strategy’s framework, emphasizing areas that are given priority and deemphasizing areas that are not. However, the strategy was released in July, well into the budget development season for the executive agencies. Similarly, for combating terrorism overseas, The National Security Strategy for the United States of America was not published until September 17, 2002, and the National Strategy on Combating Terrorism has not yet been published. Improved OMB guidance should enhance data on funding to combat terrorism, but the status of obligations is not being captured. In June 2002, OMB updated its annual guidance on the preparation, submission, and execution of the budget for preparing the budget request for fiscal year 2004--the A-11 guidance. Agencies are required to report budget data for homeland security and overseas combating terrorism in OMB’s MAX database--the database that OMB uses to develop and prepare the President’s budget. In an August 2002 memo, OMB instructed agencies to provide budgetary and programmatic information on homeland security and overseas combating terrorism to be submitted concurrently with their budget requests. These data are to include programs and activities and the funding requests associated with them, aggregated to the budget account level. We believe that these instructions are a very positive development because aggregating data to provide account-level detail, if reported to Congress, would present the data in a manner that is consistent with the account structure that Congress uses to provide appropriations annually. However, neither the A-11 guidance nor the subsequent August memo requires agencies to report data on obligations. As noted previously, such data are useful for establishing the current status on spending and informing decisions on future funding to combat terrorism. In addition to this guidance, OMB has introduced a formal assessment tool into the budget process: the Program Assessment Rating Tool (PART). The purpose of PART, according OMB, is to (1) measure and diagnose program performance; (2) evaluate programs in a systematic, consistent, and transparent manner; (3) inform agency and OMB decisions for management, legislative, or regulatory improvements and budget decisions; and (4) focus program improvements and measure progress (compared with prior-year ratings). OMB expects to use PART assessments in considering Department and agency budget submissions for the President’s budget request for fiscal year 2004 to Congress. Several key programs involved in combating terrorism were selected for this year’s review, such as Immigration Services within the Department of Justice, the Federal Law Enforcement Training Center within the Department of Treasury, and the Disaster Relief Fund-Public Assistance Program within FEMA. OMB plans to make results of its PART reviews available to the public on its Web site, which could provide additional information for Congress and others on programs and activities for combating terrorism. [End of section] Briefing Section IV: Data Reported to Congress: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] On the basis of the findings in one of our reviews, Congress required OMB to report annually on the proposed expenditure of funds to combat terrorism.[Footnote 16] OMB has since issued five annual reports summarizing budget authority in this area. However, several current shortcomings in the report weaken it as a tool for congressional decision makers. For example, although they are required to be issued in March of each year, recent reports have not been issued until the late spring or summer, well into congressional budget deliberations, limiting their usefulness to decision makers. Furthermore, the reports do not present data on funds obligated to combat terrorism. Obligations are binding agreements that will result in immediate or future outlays, and as such, they are important for decision makers in terms of understanding the current status of funding and for establishing future funding priorities. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] The lack of a common structure to categorize activities related to combating terrorism also complicates oversight by and accountability to Congress and OMB, and can be attributed to strategies that were evolving as various funding presentations were being written. Each of the three documents presented in the table portray governmentwide combating-terrorism-related mission categories in a unique manner. OMB’s annual report categories in the first column address combating terrorism, including homeland security and overseas combating terrorism. The President’s budget initiative areas and the critical mission areas in the National Strategy for Homeland Security in the second and third columns, respectively, address homeland security only.[Footnote 17] No two mission categories are exactly the same, nor can they be crosswalked to each other. In addition, categories in these documents cannot be crosswalked to the statutory structure used by Congress to fund programs and activities-- appropriations accounts. For example, the most recent OMB report states that all funding associated with border security is homeland security related, and as such, is counted as combating terrorism. Border security involves nearly a dozen federal agencies and their activities, including the Immigration and Naturalization Service’s enforcement and detention activities, the Customs Service’s enforcement activities, the Coast Guard’s enforcement activities, the Agricultural Quarantine Inspection program, and the Department of State’s visa program. While the report lists the relevant bureaus and agencies involved, it does not identify funding by appropriation accounts. OMB officials told us they are planning to crosswalk the President’s budget initiative areas to appropriations accounts as part of the budget request for fiscal year 2004. In the case of the Department of Defense, linking mission categories for combating terrorism to appropriations is made more complex because of the unique way DOD was allocated funds from its share of the emergency supplemental appropriation enacted in September 2001. Unlike other agencies, DOD was allocated funds from this supplemental appropriation on the basis of 10 funding categories--such as Increased Situational Awareness, Enhanced Force Protection, and Airport Security- -not linked to its normal budget accounts. Therefore, linking appropriations to mission categories would involve an analysis of both normal appropriations accounts and the special funding categories established for the emergency supplemental appropriation. The absence of these key linkages, both across strategies and to the appropriation accounts structure, results in no transparency for making policy choices and trade-offs between homeland security programs and other activities. [End of section] Briefing Section V: Potential for Overlap: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Our past work has identified potential duplication of effort on combating terrorism over the past several years, and the administration has taken steps to reduce the risk of this duplication in some areas. * Establishment of a combating terrorism focal point: In a 2001 report, prior to the establishment of OHS, we noted that some interagency roles of various agencies are not always clear and sometimes overlap, which often led to a fragmented approach.[Footnote 18] We noted in the same report that a clear assignment of responsibilities and the authority to discharge these responsibilities are necessary to avoid duplication. * Development of federal combating terrorism strategies: Also, in the 2001 report we observed that strategies had been developed or were being developed by NSC, the Attorney General, the National Domestic Preparedness Office in FBI, and FEMA. * Law enforcement related to terrorism: In a 1999 report we observed that the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) did not generally carry out terrorism training with FBI, despite the fact that the two bureaus had potentially overlapping responsibilities.[Footnote 19] The report also stated that ATF was developing a crisis management exercise program similar to FBI’s program. This lack of coordination between these two law enforcement agencies could reduce the effectiveness of a total federal response to a terrorist incident and lead to duplication of effort. * Assistance to state and local governments: In 1998 and 1999, we reported that grant assistance to state and local agencies and federal weapons of mass destruction training programs were not well coordinated.[Footnote 20] This resulted in inefficiencies in the federal effort, and state and local officials and representatives of various responder organizations voiced their concern over duplication and overlap between federal training programs. * Information and technology management: In February 2002, we reported that without an enterprise architecture to guide and constrain information technology investments, “stovepipe” operations and systems can emerge, which in turn, lead to needless duplication.[Footnote 21] Currently, only about 4 percent of federal agencies have developed their enterprise architecture to the point where they can be considered effective. * Research and development to combat terrorism: Overlap in research and development related to combating terrorism has also been reviewed in our reports. In 1999 and 2001, we reported that existing formal and informal research and development coordination mechanisms may not ensure that potential overlaps, gaps, and opportunities for collaboration are addressed.[Footnote 22] We reported that a number of factors, including compartmentalization of research and development activities and the lack of formal mechanisms to capture the entire universe of governmentwide research and development efforts, create the potential for duplicative efforts between federal agencies. : We have also observed that OMB’s annual reports to Congress on combating terrorism had not identified duplication of effort, as required by Congress.[Footnote 23] The June 2002 OMB report also does not include such an analysis. However, OMB reported in an August 2002 memorandum that it would review fiscal year 2004 budget proposals to identify areas where duplication and overlap may hinder efficient resource allocation. We view this as a positive development that, if executed and reported, should bring OMB into compliance with the reporting requirement. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] The administration has taken steps to address some past areas of potential duplication. * To address concerns of overall management, in September 2001, we recommended the establishment of a focal point within the Executive Office of the President, with responsibility for all critical missions to lead and coordinate the various programs for combating terrorism. After September 11, the President established both OHS and the Director for Combating Terrorism within NSC. * Efforts to address the proliferation of agency-level strategies include the July 2002 publication of the administration’s National Strategy for Homeland Security, which noted that the terrorism threat would be addressed by this strategy as well as forthcoming national strategies on overseas combating terrorism and on national security, which are discussed in more detail in section VI. The President’s proposal for the Department of Homeland Security recognized some of the problems we identified and other areas and the need to minimize duplication. His proposal specifically identified several areas where duplication needs to be addressed. * Grants to state and local governments: The President’s proposal states that the proposed Department would consolidate and streamline grant making and promote targeted, effective programs at the state and local level, recognizing that such programs currently exist in an environment of multiple funding sources and sometimes overlapping missions. The Department would also give state and local officials one primary contact instead of many for matters related to training, equipment, planning, and other critical needs. * Research and development: The President’s proposal calls for the proposed Department to provide direction and establish priorities for national research and development of new technologies to counter the bio-chemical threat. The Department would also focus the intellectual energy and extensive laboratory capacity at several scientific institutions to combat this threat. * Port inspection: The President’s plan calls for port inspection activities to be consolidated. A single federal Department would be in charge of all ports of entry, including security and inspection operations, and would manage and coordinate port-of-entry activities of other federal Departments and agencies. * Information technology: According to the proposal for the new Department, to reduce redundant spending on information technology, the proposed Department would develop a single enterprise architecture to eliminate duplicative and poorly coordinated systems. Projects would be funded on the basis of priorities for homeland security missions, which are, in turn, based on an overall assessment of requirements. OHS has established or is in the process of establishing working groups to develop enterprise architectures in line with the primary mission areas of the proposed Department, according to an OHS official. In addition, as we testified in October 2002, OMB issued two memoranda to selected agencies telling them to “cease temporarily” and report on new proposed information technology infrastructure and business system investments to OMB.[Footnote 24] At the time of our review, some submissions were still being evaluated by OMB, and it was too early to assess the effect of OMB’s action. * Property and asset management: The proposed Department would also better utilize assets through consolidation and joint, comprehensive capital planning, procurement and maintenance. This would apply to boats, vehicles, and aircraft, as well as property management. [End of section] Briefing Section VI: Challenges in Effective Use of Funds: [See PDF for image] [End of figure] On numerous occasions, we have called for a national strategy on combating terrorism and stated that such a strategy should not only define the roles and missions of federal, state, and local governments and establish priorities, but also identify outcome-related goals with milestones and performance measures.[Footnote 25] In addition, the strategy should incorporate the principles of the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993, which requires federal agencies to set strategic goals, measure performance, and report on the degree to which goals are met.[Footnote 26] We further noted that the State Department emphasized the need for such a strategy to include an international component. The administration plans to address the terrorist threat through a series of national strategies. The National Strategy for Homeland Security, published in July 2002, addresses how to mobilize and organize the nation to secure the U.S. homeland from terrorist attack. The National Security Strategy of the United States of America, published on September 17, 2002, and the forthcoming National Strategy for Combating Terrorism will address the terrorism threat overseas. The National Strategy for Homeland Security is a good initial step in defining strategic objectives and related mission areas (e.g., intelligence and warning, and border and transportation security), and in establishing foundations that extend across the mission areas (law, science and technology, information sharing and systems, and international cooperation). It also proposes to consolidate these strategic planning functions in the proposed Department of Homeland Security. However, the strategy’s initiatives often do not provide performance goals and measures to assess and improve preparedness at the federal or national levels. For example, in the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the initiative of creating “smart borders” lacks specifics to identify what is expected of a smart border, including consideration of security and economic aspects of moving people and goods. Moreover, although the strategy includes a list of funding priorities for the budget for fiscal year 2004, the strategy does not provide criteria for trade-offs needed to fund such priorities, nor does it include a comprehensive threat/risk assessment to guide future efforts. Finally, how the three strategies and their respective priorities will be coordinated with each other to avoid inconsistency remains unclear. Some agencies have been taking steps to manage new priorities for combating terrorism. For example, some agencies are updating plans to address their missions to combat terrorism. The Environmental Protection Agency developed a specific strategic plan on homeland security, in addition to its current strategic plan. FEMA revised its strategic plan in the summer of 2002 to include a new goal related to terrorism. In addition, the Department of Justice revised its strategic plan in November 2001 in recognition of its increased focus on combating terrorism. Officials from DOD, however, told us that while DOD has a strategic plan, it does not establish Department-level performance measures consistent with the Results Act because of the difficulty of establishing such measures for the broad range of scenarios that might be posed by a terrorist attack. Moreover, these officials said that DOD includes performance measurement as part of its regular process for executing and evaluating exercises and missions. [See PDF for image] [End of figure] Funding increases for combating terrorism have been dramatic and reflect the high priority that the administration and Congress place on this mission. These increases bring an added responsibility for the government to ensure that this large investment of taxpayer dollars is wisely applied. The strategies and plans discussed in the previous pages are an important component of managing funds to combat terrorism. The challenges stemming from increased funding for combating terrorism are significant management issues and could impede the implementation of national strategies if not effectively addressed. These areas are as follows: * Human capital management : Some of the increased funding will be used to address requirements for additional personnel, a requirement that poses challenges for most agencies. The Immigration and Naturalization Service, for example, was already facing recruiting challenges prior to the September 11 attacks. The October 26, 2001, USA PATRIOT Act authorized the Attorney General to triple the number of Immigration and Naturalization Service Border Patrol personnel and inspectors along the Northern Border.[Footnote 27] Moreover, the establishment of the Transportation Security Administration has exacerbated some other agencies’ efforts to recruit and retain qualified security personnel. Officials from the Justice Department and the Department of the Treasury reported losing seasoned staff to the Transportation Security Administration as the new agency attempted to meet its own personnel requirements. * Acquisition strategies: The budget request for fiscal year 2003 includes increased funding to acquire a broad array of technologies and equipment to combat terrorism. Before committing substantial dollars, it will be incumbent on Departments and agencies to ensure that requirements for such assets are linked to mission needs and costs and after careful consideration of alternative solutions. As we reported previously, good acquisition outcomes start with sound acquisition strategies.[Footnote 28] * Grants management: A significant portion of the budget request for fiscal year 2003 is to increase grants to state and local jurisdictions for their first responder efforts. The budget request for FEMA, for example, includes a $3.5 billion in block grants to be used by state and local governments to purchase equipment; train personnel; and exercise, develop, or enhance response plans. We testified recently that in designing such grants, it is important to (1) target the funds to states and localities with the greatest need on the basis of the highest risk and lowest capacity to meet these needs from their own resource bases; (2) discourage the replacement of state and local funds with federal funds, commonly referred to as “supplantation,” with a maintenance-of-effort requirement that recipients maintain their level of previous funding; and (3) strike a balance between accountability and flexibility.[Footnote 29] * Information sharing and technology: One of the administration’s budget priorities in its budget request for fiscal year 2003 was to use 21ST century technology to secure the homeland. In June 2002, we testified on information sharing and technology challenges facing the country in this regard.[Footnote 30] First, the nature of the threat makes it difficult to identify and differentiate information that can provide an early indication of a terrorist threat from the mass of data available. Second, we face considerable barriers--cultural, legal, and technical--in effectively collecting and sharing information. And third, many technologies key to addressing threats are not yet available, and many existing technologies have not been effectively adapted for the threats the country now faces. We observed that responding to these challenges would require developing a blueprint, or architectural construct, that defines both the homeland security mission and the information technologies and approaches necessary to perform the mission in a way that is divorced from organizational parochialism and cultural differences. [End of section] Appendixes: Appendix I: Comments from the Department of Defense: SPECIAL OPERATIONS/ LOW-INTENSITY CONFLICT: OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE: WASHINGTON, D.C. 20301-2500: Mr. Raymond Decker Director, Defense Capabilities Management U.S. General Accounting Office 441 G Street, NW Washington, D.C. 20548: Dear Mr. Decker: This is the Department of Defense response to the General Accounting Office (GAO) draft report “Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should be Improved,” dated October 22, 2002 (Code 350123/ GAO-03-170). The Department appreciates the opportunity to review and comment on the draft. The Department concurs with the recommendations to the Office of Management and Budget made in the draft report. Corrections to factual errors found in the report were forwarded directly to the GAO staff for their inclusion in the final version. Sincerely, Signed by Marshall Billingslea: Marshall Billingslea Principal Deputy: [End of section] Appendix II: Comments from the Department of State: United States Department of State Washington, DC 20520: Dear Ms. Westin: We appreciate the opportunity to review your draft report, “COMBATING TERRORISM: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved,” GAO- 03-170, GAO Job Code 350123. The Department’s comments are enclosed for incorporation, along with this letter, as an appendix to the GAO final report. If you have any questions regarding this response, please contact Nicole Grandrimo, Coordinator for Counterterrorism on (202) 647-9444. Sincerely, Signed by Christopher B Burnham: Christopher B Burnham Assistant Secretary for Resource Management and Chief Financial Officer: Enclosure: As stated. cc: GAO/DCM - Mr. Decker State/OIG Mr. Berman State/S/CT Ms. Kinney: Ms. Susan S. Westin, Managing Director, International Affairs and Trade, U.S. General Accounting Office. STATE DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ON GAO DRAFT REPORT: COMBATING TERRORISM:FUNDING DATA REPORTED TO CONGRESS SHOULD BE IMPROVED (GAO-003-170, GAO Cods 350123): Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report, “Combating Terrorism: Funding Data Reported to Congress Should Be Improved.” The Department of State concurs with the GAO’s findings regarding better coordination of funding for counterterrorism (CT) programs and assistance and the utility of performance goals and measures for assessing progress. The Department currently is taking action consistent with these findings. The Department’s Office of the Coordinator for Counterterrorism (S/CT) was created by Congress to provide overall supervision (including policy oversight of resources) of international CT activities, in addition to performing other duties. To that end, S/CT chairs the Training and Assistance Sub Group (TASG) of the Counterterrorism Security Group (CSG). The TASG strives to bring together all members of the interagency CT community to coordinate general CT training and assistance. Members of the TASG include representatives from the Departments of State, Justice, Treasury, and Defense, as well as the CIA and FBI. Since its establishment in March 2002, the TASG has established a list of priority countries on which the interagency community will focus its efforts to provide CT training and assistance. On an ongoing basis, it is reviewing proposed training and assistance activities with an eye toward ensuring that activities are properly sequenced, avoiding duplication in programs and assistance, and ensuring that programs and assistance are implemented in collaboration with or reinforce other efforts, as appropriate. In addition, S/CT co-chairs with the Department’s Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs (INL), the CT Finance Training and Technical Assistance Working Group under the TASG. The CT Finance Training and Assistance Working Group focuses on providing CT finance training and technical assistance to a set of priority countries, and ensuring that the delivery of assistance to other countries does not conflict with these priorities. The TASG and its working group will help to ensure that the funding provided for CT programs and assistance will be used effectively and efficiently. The Department is also taking measures to improve accountability for all use of Department funding, to include CT, and ensure that the efforts of individual bureaus and offices within the Department are in concert with the current goals and priorities of the Department. To this end, the Office of Strategic and Performance Planning (RM/SPP) was established within the Bureau of Resource Management. RM/SPP is currently drafting a five-year strategic plan for the Department, the first under the current Administration. This Strategic Plan, which will cover Fiscal Years 2004 - 2009, should clearly communicate to our employees and the American people the President and the Secretary’s vision for the Department and America’s foreign policy. As part of this process, RM/SPP and the Secretary’s Policy Planning (S/P) staff have identified four changes that need to be made to the current strategic goal framework to bring greater clarity, direction, and alignment to the Department’s vision: 1. Group the goals under four major objectives that are tied directly to the mission statement. 2. Consolidate the goals from twenty to eleven. 3. Redefine the goals to articulate better the Department’s program, activities, and policies and harmonize them with the President’s National Security Strategy. 4. Improve the description of the Department’s core values. RM/SPP is also working with offices and bureaus within the Department to improve their Strategic Performance Plans. Through strategic planning, a bureau/office establishes performance goals and indicators to serve as metrics of success in achieving those goals. RM/SPP is helping bureaus and offices establish goals that are in concert with the Department’s overall strategic goals and indicators that can quantifiably show progress. The Department is now emphasizing that all funding requests by bureaus and offices be related to efforts reflected in the strategic plan. This will help to ensure that the provision of funding is closely tied to a bureau/office’s progress toward a particular goal. It will also help ensure that funding is provided only to efforts that reflect the Department’s priorities. [End of section] Appendix III: GAO Contacts and Acknowledgments: Contacts: Combating Terrorism: Raymond J. Decker (202) 512-6020 Stephen L. Caldwell (202) 512-9610: Budget Issues: Paul L. Posner (202) 512-9573 Denise Fantone (202) 512-4997: Acknowledgments: In addition to those named above, Margaret Best, Joseph Byrns, Kristeen McLain, Harry L. Purdy, Mary Reintsma, Susan Woodward, Joseph Zamoyta, and Michael Zola made key contributions to this report. [End of section] Related GAO Product Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Guide Service’s Antiterrorism Efforts. GAO-03-14. Washington, D.C.: November 1, 2002. Homeland Security: Department of Justice’s Response to Its Congressional Mandate to Assess and Report on Chemical Industry Vulnerabilities. GAO-03-24R. Washington, D.C.: October 10, 2002. Homeland Security: OMB’s Temporary Cessation of Information Technology Funding for New Investments. GAO-03-186T. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2002. Homeland Security: Information Sharing Activities Face Continued Management Challenges. GAO-02-1122T. Washington, D.C.: October 1, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Department of State Programs to Combat Terrorism Abroad. GAO-02-1021. Washington, D.C.: September 6, 2002. National Preparedness: Technology and Information Sharing Challenges. GAO-02-1048R. Washington, D.C.: August 30, 2002. Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination Is Key to Success. GAO-02-1013T. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2002. Port Security: Nation Faces Formidable Challenges in Making New Initiatives Successful. GAO-02-993T. Washington, D.C.: August 5, 2002. Homeland Security: Critical Design and Implementation Issues. GAO-02- 957T. Washington, D.C.: July 17, 2002. Homeland Security: Title III of the Homeland Security Act of 2002. GAO- 02-927T. Washington, D.C.: July 9, 2002. Homeland Security: Intergovernmental Coordination and Partnerships Will Be Critical to Success. GAO-02-899T. Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2002. Homeland Security: New Department Could Improve Coordination but May Complicate Priority Setting. GAO-02-893T. Washington, D.C.: June 28, 2002. Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit, but Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success. GAO-02-886T. Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002. Homeland Security: Key Elements to Unify Efforts Are Underway but Uncertainty Remains. GAO-02-610. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002. National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and Information Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy.GAO- 02-811T. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002. Homeland Security: Responsibility and Accountability for Achieving National Goals. GAO-02-627T. Washington, D.C.: April 11, 2002. 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.: April 11, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Cooperation in the Development of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02- 550T. Washington, D.C.: April 2, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National Preparedness Strategy. GAO-02-549T. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Critical Components of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-548T. Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Intergovernmental Partnership in a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-547T. Washington, D.C.: March 22, 2002. Homeland Security: Progress Made, More Direction and Partnership Sought. GAO-02-490T. Washington, D.C.: March 12, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Key Aspects of a National Strategy to Enhance State and Local Preparedness. GAO-02-473T. Washington, D.C.: March 1, 2002. Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use Across the Federal Government Can Be Improved. GAO-02-06. Washington, D.C.: February 19, 2002. Homeland Security: Challenges and Strategies in Addressing Short-and Long-Term National Needs. GAO-02-160T. Washington, D.C.: November 7, 2001. Homeland Security: A Risk Management Approach Can Guide Preparedness Efforts. GAO-02-208T. Washington, D.C.: October 31, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Considerations for Investing Resources in Chemical and Biological Preparedness. GAO-01-162T. Washington, D.C.: October 17, 2001. Homeland Security: Key Elements of a Risk Management Approach. GAO-02- 150T. Washington, D.C.: October 12, 2001. Homeland Security: A Framework for Addressing the Nation’s Issues. GAO- 01-1158T. Washington, D.C.: September 21, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations. GAO-01-822. Washington, D.C.: September 20, 2001. Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Improve DOD’s Antiterrorism Program Implementation and Management. GAO-01-909. Washington, D.C.: September 19, 2002. Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs. GAO/ T-NSIAD-00-145. Washington, D.C.: April 6, 2000. Chemical and Biological Defenses: Coordination of Nonmedical Chemical and Biological R&D Programs. GAO/NSIAD-99-160. Washington, D.C.: August 16, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs. GAO/T- NSIAD-99-181. Washington, D.C.: June 6, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Issues to Be Resolved to Improve Counterterrorism Operations. GAO-99-135. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999. Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Programs’ Focus and Efficiency. GAO/NSIAD-99-3. Washington, D.C.: November 12, 1998. Combating Terrorism: Spending on Government Programs Requires Better Management and Coordination. GAO/NSIAD-98-39. Washington, D.C.: December 1, 1997. FOOTNOTES [1] In this report, “combating terrorism” includes both homeland security (activities within the United States) and overseas combating terrorism (activities outside the United States excluding direct military action). This is discussed further in the methodology section. [2] See Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, July 2001, and 2002 Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, June 2002. [3] P.L. 107-38 and P.L. 107-206, respectively. [4] See Combating Terrorism: Spending on Governmentwide Programs Requires Better Management and Coordination, GAO/NSIAD-98-39 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 1, 1997). [5] P.L. 105-85, sec. 1051, Nov. 18, 1997, as amended by P.L. 105-261, sec. 1403, Oct. 17, 1998. [6] P.L. 107-38 made $20 billion of the $40 billion available for obligation only when enacted in a subsequent emergency appropriations bill as a condition for the availability of funds. That bill was passed as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-117, on January 10, 2002. [7] P.L. 107-206. [8] P.L. 107-71, Nov. 19, 2001. Almost half ($2.2 billion) of the Transportation Security Administration’s budget is supported by user fees. [9] See Combating Terrorism: Issues in Managing Counterterrorist Programs, GAO/T-NSIAD-00-145 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 6, 2000). [10] The appropriated amount does not include combating terrorism funding from the August 2002 supplemental appropriation of $29 billion. [11] The administration expects that the proposed Department of Homeland Security would minimize coordination problems. However, these challenges would exist even if the Department of Homeland Security is established because key combating terrorism agencies, such as the FBI, will remain outside the Department under the administration’s proposal. [12] See Combating Terrorism: Actions Needed to Guide Services’ Antiterrorism Efforts, GAO-03-14 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 1, 2002). [13] Director’s reviews are key internal meetings for the OMB budget decision-making process. They occur after OMB examiners review agencies’ budget requests, and provide an opportunity for the OMB Director to discuss staff recommendations before final budget decisions are made. [14] P.L. 107-38 made $20 billion of the $40 billion available for obligation only when enacted in a subsequent emergency appropriations bill as a condition for the availability of funds. That bill was passed as part of the Department of Defense Appropriations Act, P.L. 107-117, on January 10, 2002. [15] Executive Order No. 13228, Oct. 8, 2001. [16] See GAO/NSIAD-98-39. [17] The overseas component of combating terrorism is in the National Security Strategy of the United States of America and the forthcoming National Strategy for Combating Terrorism. [18] See Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and Related Recommendations, GAO-01-822 (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 20, 2001). [19] See Combating Terrorism: Issues to Be Resolved to Improve Counterterrorism Operations, GAO/NSIAD-99-135 (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 1999). [20] See Combating Terrorism: Opportunities to Improve Domestic Preparedness Programs Focus and Efficiency, GAO/NSIAD-99-3 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 12, 1998), and Combating Terrorism: Observations on Growth in Federal Programs (GAO/T-NSIAD-99-181, Washington, D.C.: June 8, 1999). [21] Enterprise architecture provides a clear and comprehensive picture of an entity, whether it be an organization (federal Department, agency, or bureau) or a functional or mission area that cuts across more than one organization (e.g., financial management). See Information Technology: Enterprise Architecture Use across the Federal Government Can Be Improved, GAO-02-06 (Washington, D.C.: Feb. 19, 2002). [22] See Chemical and Biological Defense: Coordination of Nonmedical Chemical and Biological R&D Programs, GAO/NSIAD-99-160 (Washington, D.C.: Aug.16, 1999) and GAO-01-822. [23] See GAO-01-822. [24] See Homeland Security: OMB’s Temporary Cessation of Information Technology Funding for New Investments, GAO-03-186T (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 1, 2002). [25] See for example Combating Terrorism: Enhancing Partnerships through a National Preparedness Strategy, GAO-02-549T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 28, 2002), GAO-01-822, and Combating Terrorism: Linking Threats to Strategies and Resources, GAO/T-NSIAD-00-218 (Washington, D.C.: July 26, 2000). [26] P.L. 103-62 (Aug.3, 1993). [27] P.L. 107-56, Oct. 26, 2001. [28] See Homeland Security: Proposal for Cabinet Agency Has Merit, but Implementation Will Be Pivotal to Success, GAO-02-886T (Washington, D.C.: June 25, 2002). [29] See Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental Coordination is Key to Success, GAO-02-1011T (Washington, D.C.: Aug. 20, 2002). [30] See National Preparedness: Integrating New and Existing Technology and Information Sharing into an Effective Homeland Security Strategy, GAO-02-811T (Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2002). GAO’s Mission: The General Accounting 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 daily E-mail alert for newly released products” under the GAO Reports 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. General Accounting 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. General Accounting Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 Washington, D.C. 20548: