Detailed Information on the
Federal Emergency Management Agency: Homeland Security Grants Programs Assessment

Develop baseline capabilities directly linked to the preparedness grant programs ?? Update and define six target capabilities by October 1, 2008 ?? Update and define twelve target capabilities by October 1, 2009 ?? Update and define nineteen target capabilities by October 1, 2010

Meet with FEMA, DHS and OMB to establish a timeline for developing a budget linked to performance by March 31, 2009.

Develop baseline for cost-based management and administrative efficiency measure in FY 2008, and targets will be established for FY 2009 and out years using information collected from an Inspector General workforce audit currently underway.

Develop a zero-based budget review of management and administrative costs to be provided in conjunction with FEMA PA&E's program evaluation during FY09.

Develop independent audit plan following the completion of the DHS OIG audit.

Develop plan of action and milestones for cost-to-capability assessment, which will provide an historical analysis of grants from FY 2003 to FY 2007 by December 31, 2008.

Develop and formalize standard protocols for the regional offices that will assume responsibility for the programmatic and financial monitoring of the EMPG program.

Measure: Percent of significant progress made toward implementation of the National Priorities.

Explanation:This measure reflects grantees' progress toward Department of Homeland Security (DHS) National Priorities as outlined in the National Preparedness Guidelines. The National Priorities outline major themes and recurring issues that represent the Nation's current and most urgent security needs and guide grantees' preparedness efforts. These priorities are robust, long-term goals and will be updated and refined as lessons-learned from implementation of the National Preparedness Guideless are incorporated and in accordance with changes in the homeland security strategic environment. Currently, the eight National Priorities are: 1) Expand Regional Collaboration; 2) Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan; 3) Implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan; 4) Strengthen Information-Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities; 5) Strengthen Interoperable and Operable Communications Capabilities; 6) Strengthen Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Detection, Response, and Decontamination Capabilities; 7) Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities; and 8) Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities. Data for this measure are collected during monitoring visits conducted by FEMA/Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) Program Analysts. Progress toward implementing each priority is measured on a 0 to 5 scale, with 0 meaning no progress has been made and 5 meaning the priorities have been completed. The term "significant" reflects a 2 percent increase in the average progress toward all DHS National Priorities from one fiscal year to the next.

Measure: Percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises.

Explanation:This measure analyzes grantees' performance on exercises that assess specific national homeland security capabilities that States must achieve and sustain in order to prepare for and effectively respond to disasters. FEMA funds and supports exercises at the national, Federal, State, and local levels and requires that these exercises follow Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) guidance and processes. These exercises test capabilities that are critical to the development of a reliable and consistent national response system. Moreover, these capabilities are defined by and measured against the Target Capabilities List (TCL) and the Universal Task List (UTL), comprehensive catalogues of functions and critical tasks necessary to perform homeland security related missions. Data for this measure are derived from all available after-action reports (AARs) which meet HSEEP criteria. FEMA conducts analysis of each analyzed capability in the exercise AARs and places the performance of each capability in a category such as acceptable, partially acceptable, or unacceptable. This measure is then calculated by deriving the percentage of capabilities analyzed in all AARs that were rated as having been performed acceptably. Data for fiscal year 2008 reflects second quarter data.

Measure: Percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals and objectives identified in their State homeland security strategies.

Explanation:This measure reflects grantees' progress toward the goals and objectives identified in their State homeland security strategies. Data for this measure are collected during monitoring visits conducted by FEMA/Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) Program Analysts. Each objective is measured on a 0 to 5 scale, with 0 meaning no progress has been made and 5 meaning the objective has been completed. The term "significant" reflects a 2 percent increase in the average progress toward all objectives in the grantee's strategy from one fiscal year to the next.

Measure: Percent of States and territories accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP).

Explanation:This measure directly supports the long-term goals of the program, as it reflects States and territories' efforts to meet national standards for emergency management in order to comply with and implement the National Preparedness Guidelines, the National Priorities, and their State homeland security strategies. EMAP is a voluntary review process for State and local emergency management programs. Using self-assessments, documentation, and peer reviews, an independent commission grants accreditation to jurisdictions that demonstrate national standards for emergency management. This evaluation utilizes the EMAP Standard, an agreed-upon set of 63 national standards developed with input from emergency managers and State and local government officials.

Measure: Administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars.

Explanation:This measure reflects the organization's ability to efficiently manage and administer grant programs by gauging the organization's use of people and resources to award grants. Data for this measure is calculated by dividing management and administration dollars by the total grant dollars. As a result, this measure gauges the entire administrative budget for the organization and is broader in scope than these 3 grant programs. Baseline data for the percentage of administrative costs in 2007 and 2008 were used to establish ambitious targets for this measure. In 2009, responsibility for programmatic and financial monitoring of some grant programs will transition from the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) to regional offices, and the FY 2009 target of 3.15 percent represents the expected increase in administrative costs due to the regionalization of these grant programs. Based on historical data, targets reflect an annual decrease of 0.03 percentage points. (This measure was added 2008.)

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: As authorized by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, the purpose of homeland security grants is to assist State, local, and tribal governments in preventing, preparing for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism. All grant programs within the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) are administered by the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). The State Homeland Security Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative are components of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). The purpose of the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) is to support State, local, and tribal governments in building and sustaining homeland security capabilities specific to terrorism that align with the National Preparedness Guidelines. Similarly, the purpose of the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) is to support regional collaboration on enhanced security and terrorism preparedness in the Nation's highest risk urban areas. Lastly, the purpose of the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) program is to provide critical assistance to sustain and enhance State, local, and tribal emergency management capabilities for all hazards, including terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies within the United States. Authorized by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act and amended by the 9/11 Act of 2007, the EMPG program supports the personnel, planning, equipment, training, and exercises necessary to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to all-hazard incidents.

Evidence: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford_act.pdf).

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: Specific legislation, such as the Homeland Security Act of 2002 and the USA PATRIOT Act, call for sustained efforts to enhance State, local, and tribal homeland security and emergency management capabilities through the provision of grants. In addition, the National Preparedness Guidelines, a collection of tools, plans, strategies, and systems that outline the capabilities and priorities for national preparedness, require a coordinated effort from every level of government to support a consistent national approach to implementation. Specific components of SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program collectively comply with this legislation and national homeland security priorities by supporting State, local, and tribal governments in developing the capabilities necessary to respond to acts of terrorism and catastrophic incidents. For example, SHSP directly supports capability-based planning by providing critical federal assistance to State, local, and tribal jurisdictions to build and sustain the national capabilities necessary to prepare for and respond to acts of terrorism. This includes, but is not limited to, the equipment, training, exercises, technical assistance, and planning required for preparedness and response. Moreover, UASI addresses the unique needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas in mitigating acts of terrorism. Historically, urban areas and their surrounding jurisdictions have been the frequent targets of terrorist attacks, due in part to their symbolic importance, high population density, and concentration of critical infrastructure. The National Strategy for Homeland Security also recognizes the critical need for the enhancement of homeland security capabilities in high-risk urban areas, and the National Preparedness Guidelines establish a National Priority aimed to enhance regional collaboration, particularly within high-threat urban areas. In addition to the need to mitigate risks related to terrorism, the events surrounding Hurricanes Katrina and Rita highlighted the critical importance of effective catastrophic all-hazards planning and response. The EMPG program addresses the need for all-hazards planning by supporting emergency management initiatives that improve mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery capabilities for all potential risks at the State, local, and tribal levels. The EMPG program also supports the coordination of disaster response operations among neighboring jurisdictions, which represents the cornerstone of national and regional response efforts during a catastrophic event. Specifically, the program provides funds to develop emergency management capabilities, leverage joint operations and effective mutual aid, and support local, regional, tribal, State-to-State, and nationwide priorities, particularly when responding to a catastrophic event.

Evidence: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3721is.txt.pdf); National Strategy for Homeland Security (http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf).

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program are designed to address specific national security needs related to preparedness and response and are not redundant of any other Federal, State, local, or private effort. Both SHSP and UASI support the development of comprehensive disaster capabilities as outlined by the National Preparedness Guidelines' Target Capabilities List (TCL). The TCL defines specific capabilities that communities, the private sector, and all levels of government should strive toward in order to effectively prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to all hazards. SHSP is the primary federal grant program responsible for providing funds specifically and directly to State, local, and tribal jurisdictions of government to develop these capabilities and mitigate risks related to acts of terrorism. SHSP is also designed to support those jurisdictions that are not eligible to receive funds through UASI. Prior to SHSP, few State governments maintained programs that addressed preparedness and response efforts related to terrorism. However, under SHSP, State, local, and tribal jurisdictions currently implement their programs primarily through the use of federal funds. As a result, terrorism prevention and preparedness programs currently exist in all U.S. States, territories, and the District of Columbia. Similarly, UASI is the principal federal grant program that provides grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas to address their unique, multi-disciplinary needs specific to building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to threats or acts of terrorism. In FY 2008, DHS mandated that urban areas use UASI funds to employ regional approaches to overall preparedness. As a result, UASI implementation and governance must include regional partners and balanced representation among entities with operational responsibilities for prevention, preparation, protection, and response activities to ensure coordination and reduce duplication of efforts. The EMPG program is the primary federal mechanism that, in partnership with State, local, and tribal governments, supports the development and maintenance of a national emergency management framework that is comprehensive and includes an all-hazard approach to emergency response, planning, training, and exercises. EMPGs also provide critical planning and staffing assistance to sustain and enhance State, local, and tribal emergency management response and recovery capabilities in the event of natural disasters or catastrophic events. In addition, while other federal programs contribute to the development of preparedness and response capabilities, FEMA actively takes the lead within the Federal community to ensure that coordination among these programs is maintained and to prevent duplicative efforts. For example, DHS worked with the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to establish a Federal Preparedness Grant Program Steering Committee to strengthen the alignment of each agency's respective grant programs both with each other and within the new context of the National Preparedness Guidelines. Moreover, Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8) specifies that the heads of other Federal departments and agencies shall work with the Secretary to ensure that first-responder preparedness assistance from their respective organizations supports and is consistent with the National Preparedness Guidelines.

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf); National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); FY 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit - Part I (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy03uasigrant.pdf); FY 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit - Part II: (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/UASIIIFY03GrantAppFinal.pdf); FY 2004 Urban Areas Security Initiative Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy04uasi.pdf); FY 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program Guidelines and Application Kit (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy04hsgp_appkit.pdf); FY 2006 HSGP Program Guidelines and Application Kit (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006hsgp.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); National Response Framework (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf); For Target Capabilities List and Universal Task List: Lessons Learned Information Sharing Network (https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do)

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program are free of major design flaws. Through congressional mandates, the redesign of the funding allocation process, and the implementation of a risk-based methodology, prior design flaws for SHSP and UASI have been addressed and eliminated, and there is no strong evidence that another approach would be more efficient or effective. Initially, SHSP grants were allocated to State and local governments using a formula-derived baseline and eligible urban areas received funding based solely on an analysis of their risk for targeted terrorism. This formula heavily favored the largest and most populous areas and limited the scope and effectiveness of the program to address the homeland security needs of all jurisdictions. Beginning in FY 2006, SHSP and UASI were redesigned to improve the funding allocation process by including a risk-based approach and emphasizing a capability-based planning process. Current funding allocations for SHSP and UASI are based on 1) an analysis of relative risk and 2) the anticipated effectiveness of grant proposals in addressing identified homeland security needs. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 reduced the minimum percentage of funding for each State, territory, and the District of Columbia, thereby increasing the competitive nature of the program. This modification was intended to ensure that those jurisdictions with greater risks for terrorism receive a higher percentage of federal grant dollars relative to other jurisdictions. In addition, in order to determine the list of eligible urban areas who may apply for UASI grant funds, Congress requires DHS to conduct an annual assessment of the relative threats, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism faced by each eligible urban area. In FY 2008, Congressional mandates required DHS to conduct this assessment for the top 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas to identify the list of eligible areas for the UASI grant program. Using a tiered risk structure, the Department evaluates the relative risk among urban areas to ensure that high-risk areas receive adequate resources and to address the need to improve capabilities across the nation. In FY 2008, 60 urban areas with the highest risk scores were identified as eligible for the UASI program. These eligible areas account for approximately 90 percent of the nation's risk for terrorism in the top urban areas. Lastly, the EMPG program is congressionally mandated to award funds to support the development of national emergency management capabilities and effective catastrophic planning for all hazards. All U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding, while the four U.S. territories (American Samoa, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, and the U.S. Virgin Islands) receive a base amount of 0.25 percent. The remaining funds are distributed on a population-share basis. In addition, EMPG has a cost-share requirement that requires grantees to provide a 50 percent cash or in-kind match for any federal funds awarded by the EMPG program. As part of their application, eligible grantees are required to submit work plans that outline emergency management sustainment and enhancement efforts, including projects proposed for the FY 2008 EMPG program's period of performance.

Evidence: USA PATRIOT Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf); Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); FY 2006 HSGP Program Guidelines and Application Kit (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006hsgp.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); HSGP Risk Formula Methodology Metropolitan Statistical Areas and Definitions (http://www.census.gov/population/www/estimates/metrodef.html); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); Draft of Revised NIMS (http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?id=2961)

Is the program design effectively targeted so that resources will address the program's purpose directly and will reach intended beneficiaries?

Explanation: HSGP funding is awarded to a single State administrative agency (SAA) within each State to ensure coordination, prevent duplicative projects or equipment purchases, and promote consistent fiscal and programmatic management. These grant funds represent the primary funding stream that States require to develop national homeland security capabilities, and there is no evidence of unintended subsidies for activities beyond the scope of each program's purpose. All U.S. States, territories, and the District of Columbia receive SHSP funds to support the program's goal of building and sustaining national homeland security capabilities. In FY 2008, Congress redefined the SHSP award process to ensure that resources are effectively targeted and that proposed grant projects are evaluated for effectiveness. Specifically, the current award process: 1) reduces the congressionally-mandated minimum percentage of funding; 2) places greater emphasis on a risk-based methodology and 3) requires a competitive evaluation of the effectiveness of proposed projects. The risk analysis for both SHSP and UASI evaluates the threat, vulnerability, and consequences of acts of terrorism. For threat, DHS considers the population of a particular area that may be at risk, its concentration of people, and specific characteristics that might contribute to risk, including proximity to nationally critical infrastructure and the economic impact of an attack. Moreover, DHS uses national, State, and local intelligence assessments to analyze geographical areas for high risks and as potential targets of terrorist attacks. For vulnerability and consequence, DHS considers the expected impact and short- and long-term effects of successful attacks on the people, economy, nationally critical infrastructure, and national security facilities in specific areas. Funding allocations are also based on the anticipated effectiveness of grantees' security strategies. States and urban areas are required to develop a homeland security strategy that outlines goals and objectives that align and contribute to the National Priorities and outline how funding will close gaps in levels of preparedness. Like SHSP, FEMA has consistently targeted UASI grant funds to high-risk urban areas since the program's inception. Fiscal year 2008 allocations will target 60 urban areas selected through a risk analysis of the top 100 metropolitan statistical areas (MSAs). The Department sorts applicants with similar levels of risk by tiers. This tiered structure ensures that high-risk areas receive adequate resources while addressing the need to improve capabilities across the nation. Since some areas had 10 times more risk relative to other areas, the Department grouped the 60 eligible areas into two tiers. Tier I, which will be allocated 55 percent of available UASI funding in FY 2008, includes the seven urban areas with the highest risks. The remaining 45 percent will be allocated to Tier II, which includes 53 eligible urban areas. Since urban areas are sub-grantees of the SAA that receives funding through HSGP, SAAs sub-grant UASI funds to eligible urban areas and maintain responsibility for the grants to ensure that urban areas follow all applicable grant rules and regulations. Under the EMPG program, funding allocations are awarded on a formula basis as mandated by Congress and the Stafford Act. All U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding. In addition, the four U.S. territories receive a base amount of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. The remaining balance of EMPG funding is distributed on a population-share basis, not based on risk. DHS will continually evaluate State emergency management capabilities to determine if, in the future, it is feasible and practical to award grants on a risk-based allocation method.

Evidence: USA PATRIOT Act (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=107_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ056.107.pdf); Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3721is.txt.pdf); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford_act.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Risk Formula Methodology

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: SHSP, UASI, and EMPG have three common long-term performance measures that meaningfully reflect the programs' purpose and gauge grantees' compliance with national standards for preparedness. These measures are designed to evaluate grantees' efforts to develop and enhance the State, local, or tribal emergency management capabilities that support the National Preparedness Guidelines. They also support the National Preparedness Guidelines and implementation of the National Priorities, eight major themes and recurring issues that outline the Nation's current and most urgent security needs and guide grantees' preparedness efforts. These priorities are robust, long-term goals and include: 1) Expand Regional Collaboration; 2) Implement the National Incident Management System and National Response Plan; 3) Implement the National Infrastructure Protection Plan; 4) Strengthen Information-Sharing and Collaboration Capabilities; 5) Strengthen Interoperable and Operable Communications Capabilities; 6) Strengthen Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive Detection, Response, and Decontamination Capabilities; 7) Strengthen Medical Surge and Mass Prophylaxis Capabilities; and 8) Strengthen Planning and Citizen Preparedness Capabilities. The first long-term measure, percent of significant progress made toward implementation of the National Priorities, evaluates grantees' annual percent change in the implementation of the National Priorities from one fiscal year to the next. Progress toward implementing each priority is measured on a 0 to 5 scale, with 0 meaning no progress has been made and 5 meaning the priorities have been completed. The second long-term measure, percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises, analyzes grantees' performance on exercises that assess specific capabilities that States must achieve and sustain in order to prepare for and effectively respond to disasters. These exercises test capabilities that are critical to the development of a reliable and consistent national response system. Moreover, these capabilities are defined by and measured against the Target Capabilities List (TCL) and the Universal Task List (UTL), comprehensive catalogues of functions and critical tasks necessary to perform homeland security related missions. The third long-term measure, percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals and objectives identified in their State homeland security strategies, evaluates grantees' advancement of the specific goals and objectives outlined in their State homeland security strategies. These strategies detail jurisdictions' plans to strengthen their preparation for and response to acts of terrorism, as well as natural and man-made threats. Together, these common long-term measures provide an over-arching assessment of grantees' ability to coordinate emergency management efforts and support State, local and tribal governments' capacity to meet national standards to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism, as well as natural and man-made hazards.

Evidence: National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); National Strategy for Homeland Security (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/nat_strat_hls.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); For Target Capabilities List and Universal Task List: Lessons Learned Information Sharing Network (https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do); PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: The Department has established ambitious targets and timeframes for SHSP, UASI, and EMPG's long-term measures. For the outcome measures "percent of significant progress made toward the implementation of National Priorities" the long-term target of achieving 82 percent by 2012 reflects the Department's goal to create an increasing level of preparedness for State, local, and tribal jurisdictions with regard to major and recurring security issues reflected in the National Priorities. The ambitious targets of a 3 percent increase each year in the implementation of all DHS National Priorities sets a target level that promotes continued improvement. The National Priorities, and subsequent data for this measure, often directly correlate to current national security trends and issues. Because the National Priorities may be refined and updated annually to mitigate changes in threats, vulnerabilities, and major security themes, targets for the first outcome measure were set to promote improvement in preparedness over time within the shifting nature of the homeland security strategic environment. Moreover, for the outcome measure "percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises," long-term targets demonstrate grantees' improved performance in capability exercises that test State, local, and tribal jurisdictions preparedness in all hazards. In FY 2008, the Department revised the performance targets using data collected in 2005, 2006, and 2007, with the expectation that grantees will make incremental improvements in capability performance to achieve 85 percent by 2012. Lastly, long-term targets for the third outcome measure, "percent of grantees reporting significant progress toward the goals and objectives identified in their State homeland security strategies," indicate how well State, local, and tribal jurisdictions implement the specific goals and objectives identified in their State homeland security strategies in accordance with the National Priorities. Again, because jurisdictions may change their strategies at any time and as needed to reflect their specific security needs and vulnerabilities to risk, this target of 2 percent each year to achieve 75 percent by 2012 sets a target level that promotes continued improvement.

Evidence: National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: The Department has established annual output performance measures for SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program. These output measures represent the best and most appropriate tools to assess grantees' annual progress toward the long-term outcomes for these programs, which reflect 5- to 10-year goals designed to develop and sustain robust national homeland security capabilities. For the EMPG program, the Department gauges the percent of States and territories accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). EMAP is a voluntary review process for State and local emergency management programs. Using self-assessments, documentation, and peer reviews, an independent commission grants accreditation to jurisdictions that demonstrate national standards for emergency management. This evaluation utilizes the EMAP Standard, an agreed-upon set of 63 national standards developed with input from emergency managers and State and local government officials. While accreditation through EMAP is not a requirement, the Department encourages States to pursue accreditation and, per the EMPG program guidance, suggests that grant applicants use the EMAP Standard to develop required work plans as an existing national standard for emergency management and preparedness. FEMA assumes jurisdictions' expenses associated with on-site assessments, and other costs associated with EMAP are eligible under the EMPG program. As a result, this measure directly supports the long-term goals of the program, as it reflects States' efforts to meet national standards for emergency management in order to comply with and implement the National Preparedness Guidelines, the National Priorities, and their State homeland security strategies. Additionally, the annual performance measure for SHSP and UASI evaluates administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars. This measure was added in FY 2008 and reflects the organization's ability to efficiently manage and administer grant programs by gauging the use of people and resources to award grants. Data for this measure is calculated by dividing the management and administration dollars by the total grant dollars awarded. While this measure gauges the entire administrative budget for the organization and is broader in scope than these 3 grant programs, SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program comprise a significant percentage of grant funding. Subsequently, this measure provides the best indication of how well the organization manages the efficiency and cost effectiveness of grant programs.

Evidence: National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); National Incident Management System (NIMS), Chapter Three, Preparedness (http://www.nimsonline.com/nims_3_04/preparedness.htm); Emergency Management Accreditation Program & EMAP Standard (http://www.emaponline.org/); PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Ambitious targets have been set for the EMPG program's annual output measure, percent of States and territories accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). In FY 2008, 29 percent of States and territories were accredited by EMAP, an increase from 16 percent in FY 2006. Targets for subsequent years have been set to reflect a 5 percentage-point increase in annual performance, beginning with a target of 35 percent in FY 2008. These targets are ambitious, as accreditation is encouraged but not required. As more jurisdictions seek and achieve accreditation, the percent of States and territories accredited by EMAP is expected to become more and more level. Since the program's inception in 2003, a total of 16 States have received accreditation through EMAP. Accreditation is valid for 5 years, at which time States and territories may seek reaccreditation. The annual efficiency measure, administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars was added in FY 2008. In FY 2007, 3.01 percent of total grant dollars supported management and administration functions. The decentralization of the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) and GPD in 2008 and the replication of functions that were centrally housed resulted in an overall increase in short-term costs for both organizations. Consequently, in FY 2008, costs as a percentage of grant dollars rose to 3.04. In 2009, responsibility for programmatic and financial monitoring for some grant programs will transition from GPD to regional offices. As a result, the FY 2009 target of 3.15 percent represents the expected increase in administrative costs that will accompany the regionalization of these grant programs. Baseline data for the percentage of administrative costs in 2007 and 2008 were used to establish ambitious targets for this measure, and historical data were used to set targets with an annual decrease of 0.03 percentage points. In developing these targets, GPD adopted a measured approach to ensure that it has the people and resources to maintain strong financial and programmatic management practices while improving economy in the use of resources.

Evidence: Emergency Management Accreditation Program & EMAP Standard (http://www.emaponline.org/); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: As partners, jurisdictions commit to and work toward the annual and long-term goals of the program by implementing the National Priorities and executing their State's homeland security strategy. Their efforts are driven by the goals and objectives outlined in States' homeland security strategies and include participating in capability-based exercises, fulfilling grant program requirements, and collaborating with other partners to realize a national, integrated emergency management framework for response. For example, State, local, and tribal jurisdictions that receive SHSP, UASI, and EMPG funds are required to comply with the Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP), which supports NPD's long-term goal of measuring the performance of critical homeland security capabilities through exercises. Compliance with HSEEP is required of both grantees and contractors supporting those grantees with capability exercises. Moreover, FEMA provides training to contractors and grantees in the HSEEP exercise evaluation and improvement methodology, and States receive instructor packages to train sub-grantees. Also, in FY 2004, GPD transitioned to a new type of reporting for grants. This approach is not only output-based, but also demonstrates and holds grantees accountable for the progress made toward the goals and objectives outlined in their State homeland security strategies. State administrative agencies (SAAs) and local and tribal jurisdictions must spend funds in accordance with their State homeland security strategies and the emergency management work plans submitted at application. Furthermore, all direct resources provided for training, exercises, equipment, planning, and other technical assistance must complement each other in addressing statewide goals, objectives, and work plans. To facilitate the new reporting process for grants, GPD developed the Grants Reporting Tool (GRT), a web-based application with which grantees are required to report on the initial implementation and biannual progress made toward the short- and long-term goals of the program. Specifically, grantees utilize the GRT to report planned expenditures through the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) and to demonstrate results through the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR). The SAAs review and approve data and reports submitted by sub-grantees and Federal program analysts review and approve the States' submissions. In 2007 and 2008, the capabilities of the GRT were expanded to enable grant applicants to enter and update their State homeland security strategies and grant projects for new program applications. In addition, EMPG program partners work toward the specific goals of the program through meaningful coordination of preparedness activities among national, regional, and neighboring jurisdictions with commonly defined risks and vulnerabilities for all hazards. The program supports the development of State and local mutual aid agreements, collaborative planning initiatives, and operational activities that involve multiple jurisdictions. Also, deployments of personnel and material assets under the Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC), a nationwide system of interconnected State-level mutual aid agreements, are heavily supported by the EMPG program. These collaborative efforts require meaningful input and commitment from all relevant partners. Furthermore, EMPG work plans and project outlines reflect grantees' commitment to the goals of the program by providing a direct link between funded activities and the objectives articulated in the National Preparedness Guidelines, as well as the National Priorities. Work plans and project outlines are developed and compiled at the State level with extensive input from the various component jurisdictions and vetted through the appropriate FEMA regional office.

Evidence: Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Policy and Guidance (https://hseep.dhs.gov/pages/1001_About.aspx); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2008 Homeland Security Grant Program Investment Justification Reference Guide (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_ij_referguide.pdf); National Preparedness Directorate Grants Reporting Tool User's Guide

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: While there have only been three independent evaluations of these programs, there are two comprehensive reviews currently underway. In FY 2006, in the wake of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, DHS, Department of Defense, and the Department of Transportation led the Nationwide Plan Review, a congressionally-mandated effort to assess the status of catastrophic planning in all States and 75 of the Nation's largest urban areas, review emergency plans for the Nation's major cities, and make recommendations for improving planning nationwide. Conducted over the course of 6 months, the Review was the most comprehensive assessment of emergency operations plans (EOPs) to date, relative to planning for a catastrophic event. While most areas were found to be "partially sufficient" in catastrophic planning, overall, the Review determined that catastrophic planning as assessed was unsystematic and outmoded and revealed a national need for a fundamental modernization of the Nation's planning processes. As a result of the Review and ongoing efforts to strengthen national preparedness and planning, for the FY 2008 grant application cycle, the Department prioritized capability-based planning for SHSP and UASI grant funding, in addition to requiring that 25 percent of EMPG funds be focused on catastrophic planning. In addition to the Nationwide Plan Review, a 2007 GAO report detailed its evaluation of the risk analysis DHS uses to award grants under the UASI program to examine the integration of risk management principles in the oversight of homeland security investments. Specifically, GAO examined the criteria DHS used in FY 2006 and FY 2007 to award UASI grants to candidate urban areas. The report focused on the Agency's optimization of results and the reduction or elimination of risk at available funding levels. In its analysis, GAO noted differences between the 2006 and 2007 risk assessment models used to evaluate candidate urban areas, including a simplified risk methodology, a reduction in the number of variables considered, and the addition of intelligence assessments of threats in eligible urban areas for multiple years. The report identified the need for guidance across all DHS components and programs to establish uniform policies, approaches, guidelines, and methodologies that integrate risk management activities. While GAO acknowledged the risk methodology used in the UASI program grant allocation process as an important first step to developing a comprehensive risk-based approach throughout DHS, the report also noted that few Federal precedents exist for this complex task and that historical efforts at such coordination have been hindered by congressionally-mandated organizational restructuring. Lastly, a 2007 report on the Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards assessed the maturity of tactical interoperable communications capabilities in 75 urban/metropolitan areas. Subject-matter experts reviewed documentation on communications plans, exercises, and self-assessments to develop recommendations for improvements on regions' communications capabilities. Findings from the Scorecards noted that areas that were part of the FY 2005 UASI grant program tended to demonstrate greater traction in strategic planning across the regions. The Department will continue to use the Scorecards to align its programs and resources, including UASI, to best address the communications needs of first responders. Furthermore, there is currently an Inspector General workforce audit underway that is due to be complete in Fall 2008, and FEMA has initiated a new project to measure the cost-to-capability gains under these grant funds. The goal of this review will be to examine the effectiveness of grant programs by providing a detailed analysis of selected capabilities across all grant programs and to develop a requirements definition document outlining the program plan for this end-to-end cost capability system.

Evidence: Nationwide Plan Review: Phase 2 Report (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Prep_NationwidePlanReview.pdf); GAO February 2007 Report on Homeland Security: Applying Risk Management Principles to Guide Federal Investments (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07386t.pdf); GAO Letter & Congressional Briefing on Urban Area Security Initiative Grants: Observations on Process DHS Used to Allocate Funds to Selected Urban Areas (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07381r.pdf); Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards (http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/gc_1167770109789.shtm)

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: In its annual budget submission, the Department provides a complete and transparent description of the resource needs for SHSP, UASI, and EMPG. However, due to the evolving nature of the homeland security strategic environment and subsequent adjustments to how the Nation defines and identifies security risks and vulnerabilities, performance is not explicitly tied to budget requests.

Evidence: Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency - State and Local Programs FY 2009 Congressional Budget Submission

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Department has made significant improvements to SHSP, UASI, and EMPG to correct strategic planning deficiencies. For example, SHSP and UASI were modified in FY 2006 to include a competitive element in its formula-based award process, and again in FY 2008 to institute a reduction in the minimum funding levels, place a greater emphasis on a risk-based approach to the current grant award process, and evaluate the effectiveness of proposed grant proposals in addressing identified homeland security needs. Current funding allocations are based on 1) a risk-based formula that assesses grantees' threats, vulnerabilities, and consequences in response to acts of terrorism and 2) and an effectiveness score determined by an independent peer review process. As a result of this modification, the Department is able to effectively target resources and make funding allocations based on the grantees' relative risk and security needs. In addition to strengthening the grant award and allocation processes, beginning in 2005, GPD enhanced its programmatic monitoring to more effectively evaluate the performance of grantees. In prior years, a simple narrative report was compiled from grantees' responses to on-site questioning. The new monitoring process, however, utilizes a database collection tool that poses standardized questions to all grantees relating to State background information and progress on 1) prior years' grant projects, 2) implementing the goals and objectives of State homeland security strategies, and 3) meeting the goals and expectations defined by the National Priorities. The monitoring process also enables grantees to provide written comments on the program and highlight "best practices" and major initiatives in the State as a result of grant funding. The Department has also refined the requirements for receiving EMPG funds, as well as reporting progress. Since 2007, grantees have been required to submit project outlines with grant program applications for each project they intend to fund, including 1) the project objective; 2) how it relates to emergency support functions, the National Priorities, and/or target capabilities, State homeland security strategies and/or the State hazard mitigation plan; 3) performance measures and the basis of evaluation; 4) a budget; and 5) a quarterly activity report. Grantees are also required to report on progress towards completion of the associated performance measures on a quarterly basis. In addition, applicants must supply a work plan with their EMPG application outlining the State's emergency management enhancement and sustainment efforts, including projects proposed for the FY 2008 EMPG period of performance. States are encouraged to use the following resources in development of their work plans: FEMA Gap Analysis Program, Nationwide Plan Review; Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) Standard (as of April 2006); National Preparedness Guidelines; Target Capabilities List; National Planning Scenarios; and the State homeland security strategy and hazard mitigation plans. Specifically, FY 2008 EMPG program activities must focus on addressing grantees' shortfalls and sustaining capabilities in their State emergency management program, as identified through either the FEMA Gap Analysis Program, Nationwide Plan Review, the EMAP process, or other emergency management assessment process (with a specific focus on planning for catastrophic events and reducing the loss of life and property through mitigation activities). Due to the lessons learned from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the Department also requires grantees to spend at least 25 percent of their FY 2008 EMPG funds on planning activities. Moreover, grantees are encouraged to use EMPG funding to focus on the following three National Priorities: strengthening planning, expanding regional collaboration, and implementing the NIMS and the NRF.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: GPD conducts annual on-site grant monitoring for recipients of HSGP grant funds, including SHSP and UASI. On-site programmatic monitoring visits involve bringing Federal, state, and local partners together to capture performance information. Site visits address five key areas: 1) background information; 2) prior-year grantee projects; 3) homeland security goals and objectives, 4) the National Priorities; and 5) issues or concerns. This on-site monitoring provides a review of not only SHSP and UASI activities, but all preparedness activities in the State and/or urban area. Since the National Priorities are the basis for this review, grantees provide information on the progress of activities that may be funded with other preparedness funding sources, such as EMPG, Centers for Disease Control grants, and Office of the Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response cooperative agreements from the Department of Health and Human Services. GPD also requires grantees to submit Initial Strategy Implementation Reports and Biannual Strategy Implementation Reports which capture performance information. These reports are reviewed by the assigned Program Analyst for compliance and effective management. FEMA's Regional Grant Management Specialists also conduct on-site financial monitoring visits to review fiscal procedures, expenditures, and other financial requirements with grantees to ensure compliance with Federal rules and regulations. Moreover, in order to review grantees' progress on capability-based planning, NPD collects exercise after-action reports, annual State Preparedness Reports, and activities compliant with the National Incident Management System (NIMS). NPD also hosts a web-based learning management system that grantees use to report all grant-funded training activities through an on-line reporting tool. In addition to the data collection resources and tools listed above, the EMPG program requires State administrative agencies to submit work plans that describe the various State-specific emergency management priorities and initiatives that will be supported by EMPG funds and establish the link between those priorities and the National Preparedness Guidelines. Work plans must also provide a categorical budget for each project that includes projected expenditures, cost estimates, and a description of how the State plans to comply with the cash or in-kind match requirement. Beginning with the FY 2008 EMPG application cycle, each State is also required to complete a formal project outline for proposed projects. Project outlines must 1) describe how proposed projects relate to specific emergency management functions as defined by the EMAP Standard; 2) identify the relationship between the proposed projects and objectives in either the State homeland security strategy and/or the State all-hazards strategic plan; 3) link proposed projects to identified capability shortfalls; and 4) describe how the proposed project supports the National Response Framework or NIMS. Project outlines must also include an established set of performance measures that will be used by FEMA to evaluate the effectiveness of proposed projects. States are required to submit quarterly project reports that summarize program objectives, performance measures, project activities, and expected outcomes. Collectively, these tools and processes provide GPD and NPD with the information necessary to manage SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program to improve performance and adjust priorities. For example, GPD convenes grantees and subject-matter experts that volunteer as grants application peer reviewers to assess and improve grant programs' guidance and management practices. The competitive application process for these programs is reviewed and modified based on volunteers' feedback and lessons learned, and modifications are published each year within the grant guidelines and reference guides.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; National Preparedness Directorate Grant Reporting Tool User's Guide; FEMA Information Bulletin #267 State Preparedness Report (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/bulletins.htm); NIMS Compliance Assessment Support Tool User's Guide (http://www.fema.gov/nimscast/index.jsp); National Response Framework (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf); Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) & EMAP Standard (http://www.emaponline.org); Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Policy and Guidance (https://hseep.dhs.gov/pages/1001_About.aspx)

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: Program partners are held accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results through program requirements and monitoring. The State administrative agency (SAA) is the primary program partner for SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program, and GPD Program Analysts and Regional Grant Management Specialists (GMS) staff are the Federal managers responsible for achieving key program results. As such, Program Analysts and Regional GMS staff conduct administrative and off-site monitoring to identify possible performance shortfalls, which allows the provision of technical assistance and the development of targeted corrective action plans before program objectives are compromised. GPD tracks the obligation of funds to localities through each grantee's Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) and evaluates performance data submitted in the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR) to hold grantees accountable and to obtain the status of grant activity. The ISIP is required at the beginning of the grant performance period and demonstrates that the State has met their obligation requirement timely. For FY 2008, each State must obligate at least 80 percent of the funding it receives to local governments and tribes within 45 days of receiving the award. In addition, the State continues to report financial and programmatic information every six months through the BSIR. The BSIR provides more detailed information about the State's progress and funding allocations. Lack of compliance with program requirements mandates the return of funds to the Federal government. Furthermore, the SAA sub-grants UASI funding to the eligible urban area, which certifies and accepts responsibility for receipt of Federal funds. The SAA holds urban area sub-grantees accountable for cost, schedule, and performance results by reviewing budgets and expenditure requests, as well as formal monitoring. In addition to monitoring and program requirements, Program Analysts and Regional GMS staff utilize EMPG grantee work plans and project outlines as specific performance standards that effectively measure and hold grantees accountable for cost, schedule, and performance. Proposed grant projects must comply with the National Preparedness Guidelines and must focus resources on the development of task proficiencies and institutional capabilities, as defined by the Target Capabilities List and the Universal Task List. If it is found that a grantee has misspent funds, GPD will work with the grantee to review all expenditures, notify the grantee of the unallowable expenditures, and depending on the situation, require the grantee to rectify the situation or return the misspent funds to the U.S. Treasury. In addition, grant funding can be withheld pending resolution of any ineligible activities. Currently, Program Analysts and Regional GMS staff are held accountable by performance standards that are defined by Employee Performance Plans, which include quarterly reviews of performance. Specifically, program staff are held accountable for broadly defined performance criterion related to program management, including but not limited to job knowledge and competence, the quality of their work, customer service to the Department's internal and external partners, and meeting essential deadlines and commitments pertaining to grants. As part of its establishment as a new Directorate within FEMA, GPD is in the process of developing a strategic plan, to be completed in August 2008. This plan will include specific goals for the Directorate and will be used to draft goals for each Division within GPD. The Directorate will then use these division-specific goals to draft performance plans for employees according to their roles in the organization, and these performance plans will be submitted to the DHS ePerformance System in December 2008. Inclusion in the ePerformance System will enable FEMA to track performance and hold employees accountable to specific program goals.

Evidence: National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; National Preparedness Directorate Grant Reporting Tool User's Guide; For Target Capabilities List and Universal Task List: Lessons Learned Information Sharing Network (https://www.llis.dhs.gov/index.do); FEMA Employee Performance Plan (FEMA Form 30-65)

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner, spent for the intended purpose and accurately reported?

Explanation: Grant program guidelines and application materials clearly define the allowable uses of the grant funds for SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program. Specifically, grantees' expenditure of grant funds must be tied to the goals and objectives defined in their homeland security strategy and work plans. Since FY 2006, grantees have been required to include planned expenditures for proposed grant projects at the time of application. GPD monitors the implementation of grantees' State homeland security strategies and the expenditure of funds through quarterly financial status reports and biannual reports submitted by the States and through on-site monitoring visits. In addition, the appropriations language requires GPD to make awards and that grantees make obligations to sub-grantees within a certain number of days. In FY 2008, congressional mandates require GPD to announce funding allocations within 90 days after receiving an application from a State, local, or tribal jurisdiction. GPD makes awards 30 days after this announcement. Grantees are also required by statute to obligate funds to sub-grantees within 45 days of receiving the funds. For the EMPG program, if the SAA is not the State Emergency Management Agency (EMA), the SAA must obligate 100% of EMPG funds to the State EMA within 15 days of receiving the award. The Department also secured an exemption from the Cash Management Improvement Act in FY 2004 that excuses local governments from a Federal reimbursement requirement that prevented some jurisdictions from receiving homeland security grant funds in a timely manner. Since FY 2005, SHSP and UASI grantees have been permitted to drawdown grant funds up to 120 days prior to expenditure/disbursement. This advanced drawdown requires that grantees establish an interest-bearing account for these funds and return any interest over $100 to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, but it has assisted in reducing delays in reimbursement for local governments. However, while grant funding is allocated on a timely basis and awarded to the intended beneficiaries, FEMA needs to strengthen its efforts to justify annual management and administration dollars. In FY 2007, 99 percent of management and administration funds were obligated by the end of the fiscal year.

Evidence: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; National Preparedness Directorate Grant Reporting Tool User's Guide.

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: The Department has established the following efficiency measure for SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program: administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars. This annual efficiency measure was added in FY 2008 and reflects the organization's ability to efficiently manage and administer grant programs by gauging the use of people and resources to award grants. While this measure gauges the entire administrative budget for the organization and is broader in scope than these 3 grant programs, SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program comprise a significant percentage of grant funding. Subsequently, this measure provides the best indication of how well the organization manages the efficiency and cost effectiveness of grants and related programs. The Department has also developed systems and procedures to achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness. The Homeland Security Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Toolkit is an interactive, online collection of systems and tools used for the scheduling, design, development, execution, evaluation, and implementation of corrective action plans developed as a result of capability exercises. The Toolkit facilitates the effective management of national capability exercises and includes: 1) the National Exercise Schedule System; 2) the Design and Development System; 3) the Exercise and Evaluation Guide Builder; 4) the Master Scenario Events List Builder; 5) the Corrective Action Plan System; and 6) the HSEEP Data Exchange Standards. Additionally, GPD achieves cost and time efficiencies by utilizing NPD's Responder Knowledge Base (RKB). This online tool provides emergency responders, purchasers, and planners with an integrated, online source of information on products, standards, certifications, grants, and other equipment-related information. RKB provides a platform for responders to review required equipment standards, which safeguards against the use of grant funds for unintended equipment purchases. The GPD Authorized Equipment List (AEL) is also included on the RKB, and applicants and sub-grantees are required to review their proposed purchases against the AEL to ensure that it is an eligible piece of equipment or allowable cost within the grant guidelines prior to purchase. Also, the Department's eGrants Task Force is currently developing the Non-Disaster (ND) Grants System, an integrated online grants data collection and management system that will replace many current and legacy systems required to manage a single grant. The ND-Grants system will combine all existing grant management functions into a centralized database that includes: 1) a user interface for applicants and grantees to manage applications and/or awards; 2) performance reports; 3) quarterly financial reports; 4) closeout reports; and 5) both financial and programmatic monitoring. Lastly, in FY 2005, the Department received an exemption from the Cash Management Improvement Act, enabling grantees to drawdown funds up to 120 days in advance of expenditures. This provision allows grantees to more efficiently allocate federal funds, reducing delays in the implementation of grant project activities and achieving greater efficiency in program execution.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; National Preparedness Directorate Grant Reporting Tool User's Guide; Homeland Security Exercise Evaluation Program (HSEEP) Toolkit (https://hseep.dhs.gov/pages/1001_Toolk.aspx); Responder Knowledge Base (https://www.rkb.us/); FEMA Non-Disaster Grants System Overview; PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: GPD actively and effectively collaborates and coordinates with other Federal programs to manage SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program. Specifically, GPD works closely with DHS' National Protection and Programs Directorate and the DHS Office of Intelligence & Analysis to identify the critical infrastructure, threat, vulnerability, and consequence indicators for the SHSP and UASI risk formula used to determine grant funding allocations. In addition, each year during the programs' grant guidance and application kit development process, GPD collaborates with a Federal working group made up of several agencies, including the DHS Domestic Nuclear Detection Office (DNDO); the DHS Office of Emergency Communications (OEC); the DHS Transportation Security Administration; the DHS National Protection and Programs Directorate; the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; the U.S. Department of Agriculture; and the Centers for Disease Control. This working group ensures that other preparedness initiatives and requirements throughout the Federal government are captured within the guidance. This coordination also ensures that all agencies are aware of existing requirements and initiatives and assist in streamlining efforts, reducing duplication of efforts, and effectively implementing the National Priorities. In FY 2008, additional supplemental resources were provided to eligible applicants on topics such as Fusion Capability, Domestic Nuclear Detection Guidance, and Cyber Security Guidance. In 2007, GPD partnered with the Department of Commerce's National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA) to administer and manage their Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) Grant Program. GPD also works closely with FEMA Regional Citizens Corps representatives, NIMS liaisons, and as other FEMA functions are transitioned to the region, will work closely with the Regional Grants Management Specialists, Federal Preparedness Coordinators, and other preparedness officials. Additionally, many of the stakeholders mentioned routinely participate in DHS strategic monitoring visits to obtain the status of and understand current grant activity. For the EMPG program, GPD routinely works with organizations such as Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP); National Emergency Management Association (NEMA); and International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM). Moreover, many grant programs and/or Federal regulations require multiple Federal agencies and private organizations to collaboratively conduct homeland security exercises. GPD encourages States to design grant-funded exercises that meet multiple Federal requirements and are supported from multiple funding sources. GPD and other Federal agencies also work together to provide direct support for these exercises. In addition to Federal partners, GPD routinely works with State administrative agencies, State Emergency Management Agencies, and other State and local stakeholders to obtain feedback and input on initiatives and grant guidance development. GPD has hosted regional conferences for State and local stakeholders to facilitate improved information exchange related to preparedness initiatives. In November 2006, GPD hosted a national conference of over 1,500 State and local homeland security individuals to provide information on the FY 2007 grant cycle, as well as training and technical assistance on implementing the National Priorities, leveraging DHS resources, and other related topics. This event represented the first conference in which homeland security professionals from across the Nation were brought together for information sessions and networking opportunities.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Risk Formula Methodology; HSGP Risk Formula Data Sources List; FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; FY 2008 HSGP Supplemental Resource: Fusion Capability Planning Tool (http://www.fema.gov/txt/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide_fusion.txt); FY 2008 HSGP Supplemental Resource: Domestic Nuclear Detection Guidance (http://www.fema.gov/txt/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide_dndo.txt); FY 2008 HSGP Supplemental Resource: Cyber Security Guidance (http://www.fema.gov/txt/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide_cyber.txt); Conference Agenda for 2006 Office of Grants and Training National Conference: A Partnership for Preparedness

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: In a 2007 audit of GPD's financial statements, independent auditors found that the grant accrual methodology did not accurately capture the historical performance of the grants portfolio. To address this material internal control weakness, GPD worked with the Regional Grants Management Specialists (GMS) to implement financial monitoring protocols and expects to have a clean audit of its financial statements for FY 2008. In Summer 2008, GPD will formalize standard protocols for the regional offices that will assume responsibility for programmatic and financial monitoring. While GPD staff use programmatic and financial monitoring protocols to ensure that grant funds are administered for intended and allowable purposes, such monitoring will be completed by the Regional GMS staff in an effort to achieve the goals of operationally robust regions, as outlined in the PKEMRA of 2006. Regional GMS staff will also be able to analyze and document grantee spending patterns and assist in more accurately estimating accruals. FEMA is required to monitor a set number of States and UASI sites as prescribed in the 9/11 Act of 2007. Financial monitoring will take place in approximately 30 States for FY 2008. Furthermore, GPD has a number of procedures and controls in place to ensure that payments under these programs are made properly for intended purposes and to minimize erroneous payments. Specifically, GPD utilizes a payment system linked to the financial system of record that includes controls and requirements that minimize errors. SHSP and UASI program guidelines and applications require grantees to maintain financial records in accordance with applicable Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars, submit quarterly financial status reports, and conduct financial and compliance audits in accordance with U.S. General Accounting Office Government Auditing Standards and OMB Circular A-133. Grantees that expend more than $500,000 of Federal funds during a fiscal year are required to submit a financial and compliance audit report consistent with Federal standards and requirements. Additionally, the obligation and expenditure of funds must be reported on a quarterly basis through the submission of a Financial Status Report (FSR). The FSR must be submitted within 30 days of the end of each calendar quarter, and the final report is due 90 days after the end date of the grant performance period. Failure to submit this quarterly FSR on time suspends the grantee's ability to obtain funds until this report is submitted. In addition, grantees are required to submit semi-annual Categorical Assistance Progress Reports, which include the programmatic status for grants. The EMPG program has a 50 percent Federal and 50 percent State cash or in-kind cost share match requirement, and FEMA administers cost sharing requirements in accordance with 44 C.F.R.13.24. Since the transition of the Office of Grants and Training into FEMA, financial data is housed in two different financial systems. FEMA is in the process of integrating all financial information into one system. While all of the data are accurate and timely, this information will become more accessible and readily available for all FEMA programs once the Agency implements a single centralized and integrated financial management system. Day-to-day operations for these programs are supported through interfacing financial and grants management systems which, though not fully integrated, meet the daily operational needs of the GPD. These systems will be fully integrated in FY 2009. Non-compliance with laws and regulations related to financial management has not been identified for these programs.

Evidence: DHS OIG: Independent Auditor's Report on DHS's FY 2007 Financial Statements (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_08-12_Nov07.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); OMB Circular References (Title Page) OMB Circular A-102, Grants and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments; OMB Circular A-87, Cost Principles for State, Local, and Tribal Governments; OMB Circular A-110, Uniform Administrative Requirements for Grants and Other Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals, and Other Non-Profit Organizations; OMB Circular A-21, Cost Principles for Educational Institutions; OMB Circular A-122, Cost Principles for Non-Profit Organizations; OMB Circular A-133; Office of Grant Operations Financial Guide (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Grants_FinancialManagementGuide.pdf); FEMA Cost Sharing Guidance, 44 C.F.R. 13.24 (http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx_07/44cfrv1_07.html); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; FY 2008 Grant Programs Directorate Financial Monitoring Plan; FY 2008 FEMA Region VII Monitoring Plan

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: Following a 2004 DHS OIG audit, the Department implemented several significant improvements to its management of grant programs. For example, the Department 1) established Federal guidelines to assist State, local, and tribal jurisdictions improve national homeland security efforts, including the National Preparedness Guidelines, the National Priorities, the Target Capabilities List, and the National Response Framework; 2) implemented more comprehensive grant reporting requirements, including the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP), the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR), and quarterly reports for EMPGs; 3) developed a technical assistance handbook and toolkit to assist grantees in the effective development and management of homeland security programs; and 4) established the Enhancing Grants Management Program to train grantees on "best practices" and effective financial management of homeland security and other Federal grants. Additionally, after the transition of the former Office of Grants and Training into FEMA as required by the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) of 2006, FEMA established GPD to enhance the fiduciary management of grants and standardize grant management policies, processes, reporting, and accountability across all programs. The Department also began evaluating the anticipated effectiveness of grantees' proposed projects in FY 2006 to assess their quality, ensure that grantees address identified gaps in capabilities or performance, and determine final grant allocations. Grantees were required to submit grant projects outlining their strategies and funding requests for each fiscal year. These projects are evaluated and assigned an anticipated effectiveness score by peer review panels made up of approximately 100 State and local homeland security experts. While the risk-based formula takes precedence over the effectiveness score in allocating resources, DHS uses the anticipated effectiveness score to integrate national and local priorities, support the program's overall goal of effectively managing risks and building capabilities, and determine grant funding for each State. Furthermore, GPD continues to strengthen and improve its management of grant programs, as evidenced by the new Non-Disaster Grants System that will integrate all grant reporting requirements into a single comprehensive system. In Summer 2008, GPD will develop and formalize standard protocols for the regional offices that will assume responsibility for programmatic and financial monitoring, as mandated by the PKEMRA of 2006. These standard protocols will help to ensure that GPD regions are operationally robust and that the grant accrual methodology accurately captures the historical performance of the grants portfolio. GPD will also adopt a new strategic plan in August 2008, which will include specific goals and performance plans for employees according to their roles in the organization. Division-specific goals and performance plans will be submitted to the DHS ePerformance System in December 2008, which will enable FEMA to track performance and hold employees accountable to specific program goals. This year, GPD will establish a cost-driven efficiency measure of "administrative costs as percentage of grant dollars." Baseline information for this efficiency measure will be collected in FY 2008, and targets will be established for FY 2009 and outyears using information collected from an Inspector General workforce audit currently underway. Lastly, GPD is conducting a cost-to-capability assessment of grants that will provide an historical analysis of grants from FY 2003 to FY 2007. This assessment will examine the effectiveness of grant programs by providing a detailed analysis of selected capabilities across all grant programs and outlining the program plan for pre- and post-award analysis, including a budget analysis.

Evidence: Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3721is.txt.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; DHS OIG Report and Management's Response: Major Management Challenges Facing the Department of Homeland Security (Excerpts from the FY 2005 DHS Performance and Accountability Report) (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_06-14_Dec05.pdf); FY 2008 HSGP Risk Formula Methodology; DHS OIG Report: An Audit of Distributing and Spending "First Responder" Grant Funds, March 2004 (http://www.dhs.gov/xoig/assets/mgmtrpts/OIG_ODP_03-04.pdf)

Are grants awarded based on a clear competitive process that includes a qualified assessment of merit?

Explanation: Beginning in FY 2006, SHSP and UASI were redesigned to improve the funding allocation process by including a risk-based approach and emphasizing a capability-based planning process. Current awards for SHSP and UASI are determined by a fair and open competition and are based on 1) an analysis of relative risk and 2) the anticipated effectiveness of grant proposals in addressing identified homeland security needs. While SHSP continues to include a small congressionally-mandated minimum percentage for each State, territory and the District of Columbia, the 9/11 Act of 2007 reduced the minimum allocation, thereby increasing the competitive nature of the program. This modification was intended to ensure that those jurisdictions with greater risks for terrorism receive a higher percentage of Federal grant dollars relative to other jurisdictions. Additionally, FEMA has defined "anticipated effectiveness" as 1) supporting the vision of the State, territory, or urban area homeland security strategy and program planning activities, and 2) executing the grant project to achieve planned outputs and outcomes. Grantees are required to submit grant projects outlining their requests for funding each fiscal year. The Department assembles peer review panels of State and local homeland security experts to evaluate SHSP and UASI grant projects and assign a score based on the anticipated effectiveness of proposed projects. Consideration of grantees' anticipated effectiveness integrates national and local priorities and supports the program's overall goal of effectively managing risks and building capabilities. While the risk-based formula takes precedence over the effectiveness score in allocating resources, DHS uses the anticipated effectiveness score to ensure that grantees are using their resources in the most effective manner to improve performance. In order to determine the list of urban areas eligible to apply for UASI grant funds, Congress requires DHS to conduct an annual assessment of the relative threats, vulnerability, and consequences from acts of terrorism faced by each eligible urban area. In FY 2008, congressional mandates required DHS to conduct this assessment for the top 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas to identify the list of urban areas eligible for UASI funding. In FY 2008, 60 urban areas with the highest risk scores were identified as eligible for the UASI program, and 90 percent of the nation's risk for terrorism can be found within these eligible areas. Since some areas had 10 times more risk relative to other areas, the Department grouped the 60 eligible areas into two tiers. This tiered structure ensures that high-risk areas receive adequate resources while addressing the need to improve capabilities across the nation. Tier I, which will be allocated 55 percent of available UASI funding in FY 2008, includes the seven urban areas with the highest risks. The remaining 45 percent will be allocated to Tier II, which includes 53 eligible urban areas. While the Department continually updates the HSGP risk formula as needed to reflect the current homeland security environment, congressionally-mandated minimum funding allocations remain for SHSP and the EMPG program. Under the EMPG program, funding allocations are awarded on a formula basis as mandated by Congress and the Stafford Act. All U.S. States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding. In addition, the four U.S. territories receive a base amount of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. Currently, an overwhelming majority - 70 percent, on average - of SHSP, UASI, and EMPG awards are distributed according to a competitive basis. Because HSGP funding is appropriated on a yearly basis, grant awards are not subject to renewals, as new awards are made independent of previous grants.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; FY 2008 HSGP Risk Formula Methodology; FY 2008 Homeland Security Grant Program Investment Justification Reference Guide (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_ij_referguide.pdf)

Does the program have oversight practices that provide sufficient knowledge of grantee activities?

Explanation: GPD has established planning and reporting requirements that encourage States to develop and implement effective homeland security strategies and that ensure GPD has sufficient knowledge of grantee activities to manage grant programs and provide assistance, where needed. Oversight practices include annual on-site monitoring visits to State administrative agencies (SAAs) conducted by GPD Program Analysts. Each State is assigned a Program Analyst who has comprehensive knowledge of GPD grant programs and current emergency management issues affecting their assigned State(s). While GPD is responsible for the oversight of grantees, grantees are responsible for oversight of all sub-grantees. In addition to the annual monitoring of SAAs by GPD staff, the Department also conducts similar site visits to urban area sub-grantees to obtain performance information on each urban area's progress toward implementing strategic goals and objectives, grant projects, and the National Priorities. Desk monitoring occurs annually and includes the review of each open grant to verify all required documentation and reporting requirements are current. In Summer 2008, the Department will establish standard monitoring protocols for the FEMA regional offices that will assume responsibility for program management functions as DHS transitions into FEMA per the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) of 2006. Moreover, the Regional Grant Management Specialists review all financial expenditures, record keeping, and other financial requirements with grantees and may request records from sub-grantees at any time for review and evaluation. Since 2006, GPD has required narratives of proposed grant projects as part of the application process. These proposed projects must be linked to State homeland security strategies. States are required to report the progress made on grant projects through the Initial Strategy Implementation Plan (ISIP) and the Biannual Strategy Implementation Report (BSIR). Exceptions to requested equipment purchases such as aircraft, watercraft, and other items not contained in the Allowable Equipment List (AEL) also require review and written approval from GPD.

Evidence: FY 2008 HSGP Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/hsgp/fy08_hsgp_guide.pdf); FY 2008 EMPG Guidance and Application Kit (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/empg/fy08_empg_guidance.pdf); FY 2007 Administrative and Strategic Monitoring Protocols; Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3721is.txt.pdf); National Preparedness Directorate Grant Reporting Tool User's Guide

Does the program collect grantee performance data on an annual basis and make it available to the public in a transparent and meaningful manner?

Explanation: GPD collects grantee performance data from its grantees through the State homeland security strategies, grant application investments, the Biannual Strategy Implementation Reports (BSIR), the Initial Strategic Implementation Report (ISIP), monitoring visits, and exercise after-action reports. Where appropriate, this information, including after-action reports, is made available through the Lessons-Learned Information Sharing (LLIS) Network and GPD's secure portal that is accessible to State, local, and tribal homeland security professionals. Information on lessons-learned and best practices is generally made available without identifying the State, local, or tribal jurisdiction for security purposes. Beginning in 2008, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) of 2006 requires any State that receives Federal preparedness assistance to submit a State Preparedness Report (SPR) to GPD. The SPR provides a report on each State's progress and showcases the capabilities and accomplishments of States' all-hazards preparedness programs. Additionally, as part of the FY 2005 HSGP guidance, 75 urban/metropolitan areas were required to develop Tactical Interoperable Communication Plans (TICPs) to demonstrate their ability to achieve tactical interoperable communications within one hour of an incident. In 2006, the Tactical Interoperable Communication Scorecards were developed by subject matter expert panels to demonstrate the maturity of the tactical interoperable communications capabilities in those areas. Urban/metropolitan areas were evaluated on documentation of current communications plans, exercises, and self-assessments to arrive at consensus findings and recommendations for each region on how to best improve that region's communications capabilities. These Scorecards were published in January 2007 and are available on the Department's website.

Evidence: Homeland Security Act of 2002 (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/hr_5005_enr.pdf); Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=109_cong_bills&docid=f:s3721is.txt.pdf); Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards (http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/gc_1167770109789.shtm)

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: The Department has collected data from States to measure grantees' progress toward the long-term performance goals of SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program. In FY 2007, 64 percent of grantees made significant progress toward implementation of the National Priorities. Additionally, 67 percent of grantees made significant progress toward the goals and objectives identified in their State and urban area homeland security strategies in FY 2007. These data represent the baseline for each respective long-term performance measure. Furthermore, since FY 2006, the Department has focused on the performance of grantees on homeland security exercises designed to assess preparedness to potential risks and identify areas of improvement. As a result, the Department established a long-term performance measure to gauge the percent of jurisdictions demonstrating acceptable performance on applicable critical tasks in exercises using approved scenarios. In FY 2005, 40 percent of jurisdictions demonstrated acceptable performance on applicable critical tasks, while 35 percent demonstrated acceptable performance on applicable critical tasks in FY 2006. This measure was modified in FY 2008 to reflect a greater emphasis on capability-based planning and exercises. As a result, the Department currently measures the percent of analyzed capabilities performed acceptably in exercises as a long-term performance measure. Through the second quarter of FY 2008, 79 percent of analyzed capabilities were performed acceptably in exercises.

Evidence: PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System.

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: The EMPG program demonstrates strong progress toward its annual performance measure, percent of States and territories accredited by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP). In FY 2007, 29 percent of States and territories were accredited by EMAP, an increase from 16 percent in FY 2006. Furthermore, in FY 2008, the Department developed an annual efficiency measure that gauges administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars. In FY 2007, 3.01 percent of total grant dollars supported the management and administrative costs for NPD and GPD. The decentralization of NPD and GPD in 2008 and the replication of functions that were centrally housed resulted in an overall increase in short-term costs for both organizations. As a result, administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars rose to 3.04 percent in FY 2008.

Evidence: PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System.

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: The annual efficiency measure for SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program, administrative costs as a percentage of total grant dollars was added in FY 2008. This measure reflects the organization's ability to efficiently manage and administer grant programs by gauging the use of people and resources to award grants. Data for this measure is calculated by dividing the organization's management and administration dollars by the total grant dollars. Baseline data for the percentage of administrative costs in 2007 and 2008 were used to establish ambitious targets for this measure, and historical data were used to set targets with an annual decrease of 0.03 percentage points. Because this measure gauges the entire administrative budget for the organization and is broader in scope than these 3 grant programs, GPD adopted a measured approach in developing targets to ensure that it has the people and resources to maintain strong financial and programmatic management practices while improving economy in the use of resources. In FY 2007, 3.01 percent of total grant dollars supported the management and administration functions. The decentralization of NPD and GPD in 2008 and the replication of functions that were centrally housed resulted in an overall increase in short-term costs for both organizations. Consequently, in FY 2008, administrative costs as a percentage of grant dollars rose to 3.04 percent. In 2009, responsibility for programmatic and financial monitoring for some grant programs will transition from GPD to regional offices. As a result, the FY 2009 target of 3.15 percent represents the expected increase in administrative costs that will accompany the regionalization of these grant programs.

Evidence: 2004 Program Assessment Rating Tool: State Homeland Security Grants; PART Performance Measures tab; Future-Year Homeland Security Program (FYHSP) System.

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: Currently, there are no programs for the specific purpose of awarding grants to State, local, and tribal jurisdictions to build and sustain national homeland security and emergency management capabilities. While there are other Federal grant programs that address preparedness and response capabilities, such assistance does not represent the dedicated stream of funding for States, localities, and urban areas that SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program provide. For example, the Department of Justice's Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program supports a wide variety of law enforcement activities. Since FY 2007, the Byrne Grants Program has focused on funding local, regional, and national law enforcement efforts within six major categories. Specifically, these grants help improve the capacity of local adult criminal justice systems and provide national support for local efforts, such as training and technical assistance projects, to strategically address local needs. While this program focuses mostly on crime prevention, GPD grant programs are broader and allow for a more comprehensive approach to all homeland security needs. In addition, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Hospital Preparedness Program (HPP) has a specific focus of enabling hospitals, other healthcare organizations, and partnerships to improve surge capacity and enhance community and hospital preparedness for public health emergencies. However, the scope and specific focus of this program is not comparable to the purpose and goals of SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG program: to award grants to State, local, and tribal jurisdictions, including urban areas, to address the specific national homeland security needs requisite to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism, as well as natural and man-made hazards.

Evidence: Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (http://www.ise.gov/docs/nsis/Implementing911_Act.pdf); Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/stafford_act.pdf); National Preparedness Guidelines (http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/npg.pdf); U.S. Department of Justice Edward Byrne Memorial Discretionary Grants Program (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/BJA/grant/byrne.html); U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Hospital Preparedness Program (http://www.hhs.gov/aspr/opeo/hpp/)

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: Limited evaluations of the GPD grant programs indicate that SHSP, UASI, and the EMPG programs are achieving some results. A 2005 Government Accountability Office (GAO) noted that "ODP (now the Grants Programs Directorate) has established and refined grant award procedures for States and localities that have supported efforts to improve accountability." The report also noted that DHS grant programs, including UASI, "revised its grant-reporting method toward a more results-based approach, whereby grant managers at all levels must demonstrate how grant expenditures are linked to larger projects that support goals in the States' homeland security strategies." In addition, a 2007 GAO report detailed its evaluation of the risk analysis DHS uses to award grants under the UASI program in an overall effort to examine the integration of risk management principles in the oversight of homeland security investments. The report focused on the Agency's optimization of results and the reduction or elimination of risk at available funding levels. Findings of the report acknowledged the risk methodology used in the UASI program grant allocation process as an important first step to developing a comprehensive risk-based approach throughout the Department. Furthermore, in FY 2006, the Department led the Nationwide Plan Review, a congressionally-mandated effort to assess the status of catastrophic planning in all States and 75 of the Nation's largest urban areas, review emergency plans for the Nation's major cities, and make recommendations for improving planning nationwide. Conducted in all 56 States and territories and 75 urban areas over 6 months, the Review was the most comprehensive assessment of emergency operations plans to date relative to planning for a catastrophic event. Reviewers examined nearly 2,800 emergency operations plans and related documents with participation from more than 1,000 emergency managers and homeland security officials. While most areas were found to be "partially sufficient" in catastrophic planning, overall, the Review determined that catastrophic planning as assessed was unsystematic and outmoded and revealed a national need for a fundamental modernization of the Nation's planning processes. Lastly, a 2007 report on the Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards assessed the maturity of tactical interoperable communications capabilities in 75 urban/metropolitan areas. Subject matter experts reviewed documentation on the communications plans, exercises, and self-assessments to develop recommendations for improvements on regions' communications capabilities. Findings from the Scorecards noted that areas that were part of the FY 2005 UASI grant program tended to demonstrate greater traction in strategic planning across the regions. The Department will continue to use the Scorecards to align its programs and resources, including UASI, to best address the communications needs of first responders.

Evidence: GAO February 2005 Report on Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d05121.pdf); GAO February 2007 Report on Homeland Security: Applying Risk Management Principles to Guide Federal Investments (http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d07386t.pdf); Nationwide Plan Review: Phase 2 Report (http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/Prep_NationwidePlanReview.pdf); Tactical Interoperable Communications Scorecards (http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/gc_1167770109789.shtm)