This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-153R 
entitled 'Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 2010 Reports Addressed 
Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed' which 
was released on December 16, 2010. 

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

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

GAO-11-153R: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

December 16, 2010: 

The Honorable Joseph I. Lieberman:
Chairman:
The Honorable Susan M. Collins:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

The Honorable Daniel K. Akaka:
Chairman:
The Honorable George V. Voinovich:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Oversight of Government Management, the Federal 
Workforce, and the District of Colombia:
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs:
United States Senate: 

Subject: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 2010 Reports Addressed 
Many Required Elements, but Budget Planning Not Yet Completed: 

The United States continues to face a myriad of broad and evolving 
threats, such as the October 2010 attempted attack on the nation's air 
cargo system, that underscore the high priority the federal government 
places on homeland security and efforts to coordinate security roles, 
responsibilities, and activities across a wide variety of 
stakeholders, including state, local, tribal, private sector, 
nongovernmental, and international partners. The Implementing 
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission 
Act) required that beginning in 2009 and every 4 years thereafter the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) conduct a quadrennial review 
that provides a comprehensive examination of the homeland security 
strategy of the United States.[Footnote 1] According to the act, the 
review is to delineate the national homeland security strategy, 
outline and prioritize critical homeland security missions, and assess 
the organizational alignment of DHS to the homeland security strategy 
and mission areas, among other things.The act required that DHS 
conduct the quadrennial review in consultation with stakeholders, such 
as heads of federal agencies; state, local, and tribal governments; 
private sector representatives; and academics and other policy 
experts. The act also specified that DHS was to issue a report on the 
results of the review, including reporting on nine specific elements 
such as the homeland security strategy and prioritized list of 
homeland security missions, by December 31, 2009.[Footnote 2] 

In February 2010, DHS issued its first Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review (QHSR) report, outlining a strategic framework for homeland 
security to guide the activities of homeland security partners, 
including federal, state, local, and tribal government agencies; the 
private sector; and nongovernmental organizations.[Footnote 3] The 
report identified five homeland security missions--preventing 
terrorism and enhancing security; securing and managing our borders; 
enforcing and administering our immigration laws; safeguarding and 
securing cyberspace; and ensuring resilience to disasters--and goals 
and objectives to be achieved within each mission. The QHSR report 
also identified threats and challenges confronting U.S. homeland 
security, strategic objectives for strengthening the homeland security 
enterprise, and federal agencies' roles and responsibilities for 
homeland security.[Footnote 4] In addition to the QHSR report, in July 
2010 DHS issued a report on the results of its Bottom-Up Review (BUR), 
a departmentwide assessment to align DHS's programmatic activities, 
such as investigating drug smuggling and inspecting cargo at ports of 
entry, and its organizational structure to the missions and goals 
identified in the QHSR.[Footnote 5] The BUR report described DHS's 
current activities within each of the five QHSR missions and two broad 
DHS functional areas that complement the homeland security missions-- 
department management and accountability. The BUR report also 
identified priority initiatives to strengthen its activities. 

You asked us to review DHS's process for conducting its quadrennial 
review and DHS's reported results. This report addresses the extent to 
which the QHSR and BUR reports addressed the reporting elements 
specified for the QHSR in the 9/11 Commission Act. Enclosure I 
provides additional information on the process DHS used to conduct the 
quadrennial review. 

To assess the extent to which the 2010 QHSR and BUR reports addressed 
reporting elements listed in the 9/11 Commission Act, we determined 
the extent to which each element was addressed in the QHSR or BUR 
reports. Three GAO analysts independently compared the QHSR and BUR 
reports to each of the nine reporting elements to determine whether 
each element was addressed, addressed in part, or not addressed. In 
cases when the analysts disagreed, they reviewed and discussed their 
independent assessments to reach concurrence. We considered an element 
addressed if all portions of it were explicitly included in either the 
QHSR or BUR reports, addressed in part if one or more but not all 
portions of the element were included, and not addressed if neither 
the QHSR nor the BUR reports explicitly addressed any part of the 
element. In addition, we interviewed DHS officials involved in the 
quadrennial review to discuss their implementation of the 9/11 
Commission Act requirements and the review's analytic approach and 
findings. To determine the process DHS followed in conducting the 
quadrennial review, including the QHSR and BUR, we reviewed documents 
provided by DHS that outlined the quadrennial review process, such as 
DHS's time frames for the review, planning and guidance documents that 
specified how DHS would conduct its analyses, briefing slides provided 
to Congress, and correspondence between DHS officials and stakeholders 
consulted as a part of the quadrennial review. To describe the actions 
DHS took to consult with the stakeholders listed in the 9/11 
Commission Act while conducting the QHSR, we obtained and evaluated 
DHS documentary evidence of outreach to stakeholders, such as letters 
to stakeholders requesting input on the QHSR report and documents 
provided to DHS by stakeholders in response to DHS's request. We also 
interviewed DHS officials and officials from the seven federal 
agencies listed as stakeholders in the 9/11 Commission Act to 
determine how DHS consulted with these stakeholders throughout the 
QHSR development phases.[Footnote 6] For the purposes of this report, 
we did not evaluate the effectiveness of DHS's quadrennial review 
process or validate the results of the quadrennial review analyses; we 
are conducting additional work in response to a request from the 
Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and its 
Oversight of Government Management, the Federal Workforce, and the 
District of Columbia subcommittee evaluating the strengths and 
weaknesses of the quadrennial review and will report on the results of 
that work in 2011. 

We conducted this performance audit from June 2010 through December 
2010 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit 
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable 
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 
We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for 
our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. 

DHS Fully or Partially Addressed Many Reporting Elements in the QHSR 
and BUR Reports, but Did Not Provide Required Budget Planning 
Descriptions: 

Of the nine 9/11 Commission Act reporting elements for the QHSR, DHS 
addressed three and partially addressed six through the QHSR and BUR 
reports, as shown in table 2. Elements DHS addressed included a 
description of homeland security threats and an explanation of 
underlying assumptions for the QHSR report. Elements addressed in part 
included a prioritized list of homeland security missions, an 
assessment of the alignment of DHS with the QHSR missions, and 
discussions of cooperation between the federal government and state, 
local, and tribal governments. DHS did not include, in either the QHSR 
or the BUR report, budget plans for executing the QHSR missions. 
However, DHS officials anticipate including a budget plan for 
implementing the QHSR missions in DHS's fiscal year 2012 budget 
request and in its fiscal year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland 
Security Program (FYHSP) documents. In addition, DHS issued the QHSR 
and the BUR reports after December 31, 2009, the date specified in the 
9/11 Commission Act for DHS to report on the results of the 
quadrennial review. According to DHS officials, DHS released the QHSR 
report after this date because final agreement was needed among 
federal agencies on material in the report and DHS targeted releasing 
the QHSR report on the same date as the Department of Defense's 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR). 

Table 1: GAO Assessment of Reporting Elements in DHS's 2010 QHSR and 
BUR Reports: 

Required elements and comments: (1) Each report shall include "the 
results of the quadrennial homeland security review;" 
Comments: The 9/11 Commission Act lists six tasks that DHS is to 
include in conducting the quadrennial review. The QHSR and BUR reports 
included at least partial descriptions of the results of five of these 
tasks, such as a description of the homeland security strategy and the 
homeland security mission areas of the nation. However, the QHSR and 
BUR did not include descriptions of the results of one review task--
identifying the budget plan required to execute the mission areas. DHS 
plans to include the results of this task in its fiscal year 2012 
budget request and Fiscal Years 2012-2016 FYHSP; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (2) Each report shall include "a 
description of the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland 
security interests of the Nation that were examined for the purposes 
of that review;" 
Comments: The QHSR report identified six threats and hazards as well 
as five global challenges and long-term trends considered by DHS to be 
threats to U.S. interests from a homeland security perspective; 
Our assessment: Addressed. 

Required elements and comments: (3) Each report shall include "the 
national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized list of 
the critical homeland security missions of the Nation;" 
Comments: The QHSR report identified five homeland security missions, 
but did not prioritize among these missions. The QHSR's five mission 
areas are: 
(1) preventing terrorism and enhancing security; 
(2) securing and managing our borders; 
(3) enforcing and administering our immigration laws; 
(4) safeguarding and securing cyberspace, and; 
(5) ensuring resilience to disasters; 
Within each of the five missions, the QHSR identified goals and 
objectives. For example, within the preventing terrorism and enhancing 
security mission, the QHSR identified a goal of preventing terrorist 
attacks and an objective of stopping the spread of violent extremism; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (4) Each report shall include "a 
description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal 
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of 
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated 
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute 
successfully the full range of missions called for in the applicable 
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1) 
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection 
(b)(2);" 
Comments: The QHSR and/or BUR reports discussed interagency 
cooperation, infrastructure, and other elements of the homeland 
security program required to execute the five QHSR mission areas. 
However, neither the QHSR nor the BUR provided a description of a 
budget plan and did not fully describe the preparedness of federal 
response assets required to execute the five QHSR mission areas. With 
regard to interagency cooperation, the BUR report described 
initiatives that will require interagency cooperation to execute the 
five QHSR mission areas. With regard to the preparedness of federal 
response assets, the BUR report provided examples of DHS response 
assets, but did not discuss other federal assets for homeland 
security. Within the discussion of the QHSR missions and goals in the 
BUR report, DHS provided examples of infrastructure that could assist 
with achieving these goals. The QHSR and BUR reports included other 
elements of the homeland security program, such as how DHS plans to 
mature and strengthen the homeland security enterprise. Both the QHSR 
and the BUR reports indicated that a DHS budget plan for implementing 
the QHSR missions will be included in DHS's Fiscal year 2012 budget 
request and in its Fiscal year 2012-2016 FYHSP documents; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (5) Each report shall include "an 
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the 
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in 
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined 
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational 
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human 
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure;" 
Comments: The BUR report assessed alignment of DHS's organizational 
structure with the QHSR mission strategies by listing how the various 
DHS component activities align with the five QHSR missions. Although 
the BUR report included examples of DHS's management systems, budget 
and accounting systems, human resources systems, procurement systems, 
and physical and technical infrastructure in its description of DHS's 
roles, authorities, or planned initiatives, it did not include an 
assessment the alignment of each of these sub-elements with QHSR 
mission areas; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (6) Each report shall include "a 
discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the 
effort to promote national homeland security;" 
Comments: The BUR report provided descriptions of cooperation between 
DHS and other federal agencies, but, along with the QHSR report, did 
not discuss cooperation among other federal agencies in efforts to 
promote national homeland security. For example, the BUR report stated 
that DHS works closely with other federal departments and agencies, 
such as the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Defense, in 
securing U.S. air, land, and sea borders. The QHSR report described 
homeland security roles and responsibilities for federal agencies with 
brief descriptions of coordination leadership roles for several, but 
not all, federal agencies. The descriptions indicated leadership roles 
in coordination efforts, but did not provide the status of cooperation 
among federal agencies to promote homeland security; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (7) Each report shall include "a 
discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal Government 
and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing terrorist 
attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to national 
homeland security;" 
Comments: The BUR report provides descriptions of cooperation between 
DHS and state, local, tribal, and territorial governments but neither 
the QHSR nor the BUR report discussed cooperation between other 
federal agencies and these entities. The BUR report provided an 
overview of DHS's role within each mission area, including a 
discussion of how such cooperation occurs. For example, it stated that 
DHS responsibilities for preventing terrorist attacks include 
assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to obtain 
the information and capabilities to address threats through federal 
grant programs. According to the BUR report, these grant programs help 
state, local, tribal, and territorial governments build and sustain 
capabilities necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as 
address other threats, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all 
hazards; 
Our assessment: Addressed in part. 

Required elements and comments: (8) Each report shall include "an 
explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting the 
review;" 
Comments: The QHSR report stated that three broad assumptions shaped 
the development of DHS's homeland security strategy: (1) rapid 
technological change; (2) multiple simultaneous crises that will 
likely challenge the nation and its resources; and (3) the need for 
United States to guard against complacency as memories of 9/11 recede. 
The QHSR also listed nine specific assumptions concerning the current 
security environment, such as violent extremist groups that will 
continue to use terrorism to attack U.S. targets and climate change 
that will increase the severity and frequency of weather-related 
hazards; 
Our assessment: Addressed. 

Required elements and comments: (9) Each report shall include "any 
other matter the Secretary considers appropriate;" 
Comments: The 9/11 Commission Act required DHS to report on the 
national homeland security strategy, including the critical missions 
of the nation. DHS also reported on the goals and objectives that 
would support each of the mission areas. In addition, the QHSR report 
described objectives for maturing and strengthening the homeland 
security enterprise based on common themes across the QHSR mission 
areas, such as ensuring a shared awareness and understanding of risks 
and threats and building capable communities. In addition to 
endeavoring to fulfill the 9/11 Commission Act requirement of aligning 
DHS's organization with the QHSR missions, the BUR report described 
initiatives and enhancements aimed at increasing mission performance 
and improving department management; 
Our assessment: Addressed. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information and the 9/11 Commission Act. 

[End of table] 

Enclosure 1 describes DHS's process for conducting the quadrennial 
review. Enclosure II includes our detailed evaluation of each of the 
nine reporting elements required by the 9/11 Commission Act for 
inclusion in the quadrennial review report documents.[Footnote 7] The 
required quadrennial review elements are reprinted in enclosure III. 

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation: 

We requested comments on our report from the Departments of 
Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 
Justice, State, and Treasury and the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence. On December 8, 2010, DHS provided written 
comments, which are summarized below and reprinted in enclosure IV. 
The Department of Defense provided technical comments, which we 
incorporated as appropriate. The other six agencies did not provide 
comments. 

In commenting on our draft report, DHS noted that it believes that we 
conducted a fair and accurate assessment of DHS's efforts to execute 
the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review and agreed with our 
assessment for eight of the nine reporting elements we evaluated. DHS 
disagreed with our assessment of reporting element 5 as "Addressed in 
part," stating that it believes that this reporting element should 
have been assessed as "Addressed." Reporting element 5 states that 
each quadrennial review shall include an assessment of the 
organizational alignment of the department with the applicable 
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1) 
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection 
(b)(2), including the department's organizational structure, 
management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources 
systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure. 

DHS disagreed with our conclusion that reporting element 5 requires 
the department to assess the alignment of each of its business lines 
to the QHSR mission areas. According to DHS, business lines such as 
those listed in the above requirement cut across all mission areas and 
support all QHSR mission goals and objectives and the conclusions 
described in the BUR report also apply equally to all missions. DHS 
stated that it believes that alignment of the department's business 
lines to specific missions is neither desired nor feasible. 

We found that the QHSR and BUR reports provided examples of DHS's 
business lines, but did not include an assessment of the alignment of 
DHS's management systems, budget and accounting systems, human 
resource systems, and procurement systems to QHSR mission areas. In 
addition, neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included an explanation 
of why the department did not consider it to be appropriate or 
feasible to assess the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget 
and accounting systems, human resource systems, and procurement 
systems to the QHSR mission areas, such as a statement or conclusion 
that these business lines equally apply to all QHSR missions. Such a 
statement could have helped to explain how DHS viewed its business 
lines as supporting all of the QHSR mission goals and objectives. 
Therefore, we continue to believe that reporting element 5 was 
"Addressed in part" by DHS. 

We are sending copies of this report to the Secretaries of 
Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, 
State, and the Treasury; the Attorney General; the Director of 
National Intelligence; and selected congressional committees. This 
report is also available at no charge on the GAO Web site at 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. Should you or your staff have any 
questions, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao.gov. 
Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public 
Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors 
to this report were Rebecca Gambler, Assistant Director; Ben Atwater, 
Analyst-in-Charge; Labony Chakraborty; Michele Fejfar; Tracey King; 
Amy Martin; Jean Orland; and Janay Sam. 

Signed by: 

David C. Maurer:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 

Enclosures - 4: 

[End of section] 

Enclosure I: DHS Conducted the Quadrennial Review in Three Related 
Phases and Obtained Input from Key Stakeholders: 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) approached the 9/11 
Commission Act requirement for a quadrennial homeland security review 
in three phases (see figure 1). In the first phase, DHS defined the 
nation's homeland security interests, identified the critical homeland 
security missions, and developed a strategic approach to those 
missions by laying out the principal goals, objectives, and strategic 
outcomes for the mission areas.[Footnote 8] DHS reported on the 
results of this effort in the February 2010 Quadrennial Homeland 
Security Review (QHSR) report in which the department identified five 
homeland security missions and associated goals and objectives. In the 
second phase--the Bottom-Up Review (BUR)--DHS identified its component 
agencies' activities; aligned those activities to the QHSR missions 
and goals; and made recommendations for improving the department's 
organizational alignment and business processes. DHS reported on the 
results of this second phase in the July 2010 BUR report. In the third 
phase, which is currently underway, DHS is developing its budget plan 
necessary to execute the QHSR missions. DHS plans to present this 
budget plan in the President's Fiscal Year 2012 budget request and the 
accompanying Fiscal Years 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security 
Program (FYHSP).[Footnote 9] DHS officials stated that together, these 
three phases and their resulting reports, when completed, will address 
the 9/11 Commission Act requirement for the quadrennial homeland 
security review.[Footnote 10] 

Figure 1: DHS's Three-Phased Approach to Meeting 9/11 Commission Act 
Requirements: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated table] 

DHS approached the 9/11 Commission Act requirement for a quadrennial 
homeland security review in three phases: 

Phase 1: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report; 
Key activities: 
* Defined national homeland security interests; 
* Identified QHSR missions, goals, and objectives. 

Phase 2: Bottom-Up Review Report; 
Key activities: 
* Created an inventory of DHS component activities categorized 
according to QHSR mission areas; 
* Identified initiatives to increase mission performance, improve 
departmental management, and increase accountability of DHS resources. 

Phase 3: Fiscal Year 2012 Budget Request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016 
Future Years Homeland Security Program;
Key activities (in progress): 
* DHS plans to describe its budget plan to implement QHSR missions and 
goals. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information; Art Explosion (images). 

[End of figure] 

DHS initiated the QHSR in August 2007. Led by the DHS Office of 
Policy, the department initially formed an internal DHS working group 
and conducted outreach with the Department of Defense (DOD) and 
congressional committees to develop the department's analytical 
approach for conducting the review. Specifically, DHS reviewed DOD's 
Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) process as a possible model for the 
QHSR, but determined that DHS did not have the analytic infrastructure 
to perform force structure planning and risk analysis as DOD had. 
[Footnote 11] Instead DHS developed a homeland security strategy based 
on missions, and aligned component activities to the missions and 
intends to develop a budget plan based on the QHSR missions. However, 
DHS is building the analytic infrastructure necessary to conduct force 
structure planning and risk analysis for the next QHSR, according to 
DHS officials. For example, one BUR report initiative describes the 
need for DHS to enhance its strategic planning processes, resource 
allocation processes, risk analyses, modeling capabilities, 
statistical analyses, and data collection, in order to effectively 
project capability and capacity requirements for DHS missions and 
functions. 

In July 2009 DHS issued its QHSR terms of reference, outlining the 
framework for conducting the quadrennial review and identifying 
threats and assumptions to be used in conducting the review.[Footnote 
12] Through the terms of reference, DHS also identified the initial 
four homeland security mission areas to be studied--counterterrorism 
and domestic security management; securing our borders; smart and 
tough enforcement of immigration laws; and preparing for, responding 
to, and recovering from disasters--as well as three other separate, 
nonmission study areas to be part of the review--DHS strategic 
management, homeland security national risk assessments, and homeland 
security planning and capabilities. The fifth QHSR mission area on 
safeguarding and securing cyberspace was added after DHS issued the 
terms of reference. DHS established seven study groups corresponding 
to these areas, which were composed of officials from across DHS 
offices and components. According to the QHSR report, more than 200 
participants comprised the study groups from DHS's 4 directorates and 
7 components, as well as 31 offices and entities within DHS. The DHS 
study group participants were supported by 35 subject matter experts 
and research analysts. The study groups were each led by a DHS 
official and facilitated by an independent subject matter expert from 
the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis Institute. These study 
groups conducted their analysis over a 5-month period with work 
products being shared with other stakeholder groups, such as outlines 
of mission areas and assumptions, in order to develop goals and 
objectives for each mission area. At the end of the study group 
period, DHS senior leadership, including the Deputy Secretary of 
Homeland Security, the General Counsel, and office and component 
heads, met multiple times to review and discuss the study group 
recommendations. According to DHS officials, the DHS senior leadership 
meetings focused on key points of the study groups' work, including 
results of consultations with other federal departments and external 
stakeholders. The DHS Office of Policy consolidated the study groups' 
recommendations into a draft QHSR report and obtained and incorporated 
feedback on the draft report from other federal agencies and 
stakeholder groups, including the stakeholders listed in the 9/11 
Commission Act. Agreement on the QHSR report's final content was 
reached between the Secretary for Homeland Security and senior White 
House officials. DHS issued the final QHSR report in February 2010, on 
the same date as DOD's Quadrennial Defense Review. 

Throughout the QHSR, DHS solicited input from various stakeholder 
groups, including federal agencies, DHS offices and components, and 
other governmental and nongovernmental entities. DHS obtained input 
from these groups through a variety of mechanisms, such as multiagency 
working groups, solicitation of homeland security research papers, and 
a Web-based forum, as shown in table 1. 

Table 2: Mechanisms Used by DHS for Obtaining Input on the QHSR from 
Various Stakeholder Groups: 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Study Groups; 
Lead agency/office: DHS Office of Policy; 
each study group was chaired by a DHS official and facilitated by a 
subject matter expert from the Homeland Security Studies and Analysis 
Institute; 
Stakeholder participants: DHS directorates, components, offices, 
subject matter experts, and research analysts; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided analysis over a 5-
month period with work products that defined the nature and purpose of 
the homeland security missions to collaboratively share with other 
stakeholder groups. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Steering Committee; 
Lead agency/office: DHS - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 
(Strategic Plans); 
Stakeholder participants: DHS study group chairs and independent 
facilitators, Director of DHS's Office of Program Analysis and 
Evaluation, and representatives from DHS's Office of Intergovernmental 
Affairs, Science and Technology Directorate, Office of International 
Affairs, Office of General Counsel, and Office of Intelligence and 
Analysis; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided day-to-day management 
and oversight of the QHSR report process. According to the QHSR 
report, they met weekly to review and integrate study group materials 
into the QHSR report. The committee also held monthly meetings during 
which each study group presented its progress towards developing 
recommendations and issues that required leadership consideration and 
decision. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Senior Leadership Meetings; 
Lead agency/office: DHS; 
Stakeholder participants: DHS senior leadership, such as the Deputy 
Secretary of Homeland Security, and the heads of directorates and 
components; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Reviewed and provided 
concurrence on study group recommendations for the QHSR mission goals, 
and objectives. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: National Security Staff Sub-
Interagency Policy Committees (Sub-IPC); 
Lead agency/office: National Security Staff and DHS officials led each 
of six Sub-IPCs; 
Stakeholder participants: 26 federal departments and agencies and 6 
entities within the Executive Office of the President.[A] Departments 
and agencies participated in Sub-IPCs based on whether they had roles 
or activities related to the Sub-IPCs' mission areas; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided a forum for study 
groups to gather interagency input as the study groups developed 
proposals for QHSR mission goals, objectives, and other report content. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Strategy Coordination Group; 
Lead agency/office: DHS - Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy 
(Strategic Plans); 
Stakeholder participants: Representatives of DHS, other federal 
agencies and White House staff; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: In addition to the Sub-IPCs, 
interagency input was provided by the Strategy Coordination Group to 
allow strategy and policy planners from across federal agencies an 
opportunity to share their feedback and perspectives on the review. 
According to the QHSR report, monthly meetings allowed federal 
officials responsible for similar strategic reviews to share lessons 
learned and best practices regarding their respective reviews and 
planning processes. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Solicitation of Stakeholder 
Position Papers; 
Lead agency/office: DHS; 
Stakeholder participants: Various homeland security stakeholder 
organizations representing state, local, tribal, territorial, 
nongovernmental, private-sector, and professional interests; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Solicited position papers from 
118 stakeholder groups, such as the All Hazards Consortium and the 
Airports Council International North America. DHS study groups used 
the 43 documents submitted by the stakeholders groups to help frame 
and inform study group discussions. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Web-based Discussion Forum; 
Lead agency/office: DHS with the National Academy of Public 
Administration; 
Stakeholder participants: Open to anyone, including the general 
public, who wanted to provide input on the QHSR content. DHS engaged 
in deliberate outreach to organizations with interests in homeland 
security such as business and academia; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided a series of three Web-
based discussions to obtain direct input and perspectives from 
participants to comment on study group materials. According to DHS, 
this forum resulted in over 3,000 comments on study group material. 
The study groups used this information to inform the QHSR analyses and 
posted updated materials on each successive dialog to show 
participants how their comments informed study group work. 

Stakeholder coordination mechanism: Executive Committee; 
Lead agency/office: DHS; 
Stakeholder participants: 10 stakeholder associations, such as the 
National Governors Association and the U.S. Conference of Mayors; 
Nature of collaboration and activities: Provided monthly 
teleconferences with associations throughout the review to keep the 
associations apprised of the review progress. 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[A] The 26 federal departments and agencies and 6 entities within the 
Executive Office of the President were: Department of Homeland 
Security, Department of State, Department of Justice, Department of 
Defense, Department of Transportation, Department of Energy, 
Department of Health and Human Services, Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence, Department of the Treasury, National 
Counterterrorism Center, United States Postal Service, General 
Services Administration, Office of Management and Budget, National 
Security Staff, Office of Global Maritime Situational Awareness, 
Department of Labor, Domestic Policy Council, United States Trade 
Representative, Council of Economic Advisors, National Economic 
Council, Department of Education, United States Department of 
Agriculture, Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Office of Science and 
Technology Policy, Office of Personnel Management, Department of 
Veterans Affairs, Environmental Protection Agency, United States 
Geological Survey, United States Army Corps of Engineers, National 
Guard Bureau, National Institute of Standards and Technology, and 
Department of Housing and Urban Development. 

[End of table] 

DHS initiated the BUR in November 2009. Each DHS directorate, 
component, and office created an inventory of its activities and 
categorized them according to the QHSR missions. For example, the 
Transportation Security Administration identified one of its 
activities as inspecting domestic air cargo, which it categorized 
under the preventing terrorism and enhancing security QHSR mission 
area. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement identified one of its 
activities as investigating human smuggling and trafficking, which it 
categorized under the securing and managing our borders QHSR mission 
area. The BUR resulted in a catalog of about 1,300 DHS activities 
organized under each of the five QHSR mission areas or the DHS 
functional areas of department management and accountability. Under 
the department management functional area, DHS identified one of its 
activities as the efficiency review to identify and implement 
initiatives to reduce costs or streamline operations. Under the 
accountability functional area, DHS identified one of its activities 
as strengthening data and performance management. DHS identified over 
300 potential initiatives for increasing mission performance and 
accountability and improving department management, derived 43 
priority initiatives from this list, and highlighted them in the July 
2010 BUR report.[Footnote 13] For example, under the enforcing and 
administering our immigration laws mission area, DHS identified as 
priority initiatives improving DHS's immigration services processes 
and dismantling human smuggling organizations. Under the ensuring 
resilience to disasters mission area, DHS identified as priority 
initiatives enhancing catastrophic disaster preparedness and improving 
DHS's ability to lead in emergency management. 

DHS is developing its fiscal year 2012 budget request and the Fiscal 
Years 2012-2016 FYHSP. According to DHS officials, all the BUR 
initiatives will not be accomplished in fiscal year 2012. DHS plans to 
begin working on the highest-priority initiatives in the near term. We 
have ongoing work reviewing how DHS is implementing the QHSR and BUR 
and, as part of that work we will report in 2011 on how the fiscal 
year 2012 budget request and 2012-2016 FYHSP align with the QHSR and 
BUR. 

Enclosure II: Detailed Assessments of Required Elements: 

Reporting Element: Results of the Review: 

Reporting Element 1: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(A) each report shall include “the 
results of the quadrennial homeland security review.” 

Our Assessment: Addressed in Part: 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review
(BUR) reports included descriptions of the results of some but not all 
of the tasks that the 9/11 Commission Act specified for the quadrennial
review. Specifically, the act required that, in conducting the review, 
DHS include six tasks, such as outlining and prioritizing the full 
range of critical homeland security mission areas of the nation. The 
act required the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to report on 
this and other tasks as part of the QHSR report. As shown in table 1, 
the QHSR and BUR reports discussed some, but not all, of the six task 
areas specified by the 9/11 Commission Act for the quadrennial review. 

Table 1: GAO’s Assessment of Extent to Which the QHSR and BUR Reports 
Addressed the 9/11 Commission Act Quadrennial Review Tasks: 

QHSR task: Delineate and update, as appropriate, the national homeland 
security strategy, consistent with appropriate national and department 
strategies, strategic plans, and Homeland Security Presidential 
Directives, including the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the 
National Response Plan, and the Department Security Strategic Plan; 
Our assessment: The QHSR report delineates a national homeland 
security strategy, through its description of five homeland security 
mission areas and identification of corresponding goals, objectives, 
and strategic outcomes. In addition, the BUR report stated that the 
QHSR was consistent with, and expands upon, the May 2010 White House 
National Security Strategy. DHS officials collaborated with White 
House staff as the National Security Strategy was developed to ensure 
that the QHSR and National Security Strategy were consistent, 
according to DHS officials. However, the QHSR and BUR reports did not 
identify how the QHSR homeland security strategy is consistent with 
other national and DHS strategies, such as the National Strategy for 
Homeland Security, issued by the White House in October 2007, or DHS’s 
current strategic plan. Regarding consistency with the National 
Strategy for Homeland Security, according to DHS officials, no effort 
was made by DHS officials to evaluate the consistency of the QHSR 
report with the National Strategy for Homeland Security, and DHS did 
not comment on the effect of the QHSR report on the strategy. 
Regarding consistency with DHS’s fiscal year 2008-2013 strategic plan, 
DHS considers the QHSR and BUR reports to supersede the current 
strategic plan and therefore consistency between the two strategies 
was not evaluated, according to DHS officials. However, DHS officials 
stated that DHS is currently considering whether publication of the 
QHSR report is sufficient to supersede the current strategic plan or 
whether additional action, including releasing a new strategic
plan, is required. 

QHSR task: Outline and prioritize the full range of the critical 
homeland security mission areas of the nation; 
Our assessment: In the QHSR report, DHS outlined five homeland 
security mission areas, but did not prioritize among those areas. For
additional details on our assessment, see the section of this 
enclosure on Reporting Element 3. 

QHSR task: Describe the interagency cooperation, preparedness of 
federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other 
elements of the homeland security program and policies of the nation 
associated with the national homeland security strategy, required to 
execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the 
national homeland security strategy; 
Our assessment: The QHSR and BUR reports discussed interagency 
cooperation, infrastructure, and other elements required to execute 
the QHSR missions, but did not provide a description of a budget plan 
or fully describe the preparedness of federal response assets. DHS 
proposes to include a budget plan in its fiscal year 2012 budget 
request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security 
Program. For additional details on our assessment, see the section of 
this enclosure on Reporting Element 4. 

QHSR task: Identify the budget plan required to provide sufficient 
resources to successfully execute the full range of missions called 
for in the national homeland security strategy; 
Our assessment: The QHSR and BUR reports did not identify a budget 
plan for providing resources to execute the missions called for in the 
national homeland security. DHS plans to include the budget plan in 
its fiscal year 2012 budget request and Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future 
Years Homeland Security Program. For additional details on our 
assessment, see the section of this enclosure on Reporting Element 4. 

QHSR task: Include an assessment of the organizational alignment of 
the department with the national homeland security strategy; 
Our assessment: The BUR report included an assessment of the 
organizational alignment of DHS with the QHSR strategy missions and 
goals. For additional details on our assessment, see the section of 
this enclosure on Reporting Element 5. 

QHSR task: Review and assess the effectiveness of the mechanisms of 
the department for executing the process of turning the requirements 
developed in the quadrennial homeland security review into an 
acquisition strategy and expenditure plan within the department; 
Our assessment: The BUR report stated that DHS conducted a review and 
assessment of the effectiveness of mechanisms for executing the QHSR 
report requirements into an acquisition strategy and expenditure plan. 
As a result of this assessment, the BUR report included three 
initiatives for improving the effectiveness of these mechanisms—
increasing analytic capability and capacity, improving performance 
measurement and accountability, and strengthening acquisition 
oversight. 
	
Source: GAO analysis of DHS information. 

[End of table] 

[End of Reporting Element: Results of the Review] 

Reporting Element: Description of Threats: 

Reporting Element 2: 
According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(B), each report shall include "a 
description of the threats to the assumed or defined national homeland 
security interests of the Nation that were examined for the purposes 
of that review." 

Our Assessment: Addressed: 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial 
Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report prefaced its mission 
descriptions by listing six threats as well as five global challenges 
considered by the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) to be threats 
to U.S. interests from a homeland security perspective. According to 
the QHSR report, these threats and challenges were the backdrop 
against which DHS planned to pursue its homeland security efforts. The 
threats defined in the QHSR report were: 

(1) High-consequence weapons of mass destruction, in particular, 
improvised nuclear devices and high-consequence biological weapons, 
which would have the greatest potential effects if used against the 
United States. 

(2) Al-Qaeda and global violent extremism which directly threaten the 
United States and its allies. 

(3) High-consequence and/or wide-scale cyber attacks, intrusions, 
disruptions, and exploitations, which, when used by hostile state or 
nonstate actors, could massively disable or impair critical 
international financial, commercial, physical, and other 
infrastructure. 

(4) Pandemics, major accidents, and natural hazards, which can result 
in massive loss of life and livelihood equal to or greater than many 
deliberate malicious attacks. 

(5) Illicit trafficking and related transnational crime, which can 
undermine effective governance and security, corrupt strategically 
vital markets, slow economic growth, and destabilize weaker states. 

(6) Smaller scale terrorism, which may include violent extremists and 
other state or nonstate actors conducting small-scale explosive and 
cyber attacks and intrusions against population centers, important 
symbolic targets, or critical infrastructure. 

The five global challenges affecting homeland security defined in the 
QHSR report were: 

(1) Economic and financial instability that can undermine confidence 
in the international order, fuel global political turbulence, and 
induce social and political instability in weak states abroad. 

(2) Dependence on fossil fuels and the threat of global climate change 
that can open the United States to disruptions and manipulations in 
energy supplies and to changes in natural environment on an 
unprecedented scale. Climate change is expected to increase the 
severity and frequency of weather-related hazards, which could, in 
turn, result in social and political destabilization, international 
conflict, or mass migrations. 

(3) Nations unwilling to abide by international norms that can 
threaten U.S. security interests directly or indirectly by sponsoring 
terrorism, encouraging weapons of mass destruction proliferation, 
serving as a source of cyber disruptions, committing human rights 
atrocities, or providing safe haven to transnational criminal networks. 

(4) Sophisticated and broadly available technology which empowers 
adversaries. According to the QHSR report, intelligence and 
counterintelligence practices must be adapted to defeat hostile 
operations and the use of intelligence tradecraft by small groups and 
individuals planning destructive attacks against the United States. 

(5) Other drivers of illicit, dangerous, or uncontrolled movement of 
people and goods, including fragile and failing states, regional 
instability, competition for resources, demographic shifts, 
environmental degradation, genocide, and other gross violations of 
human rights. These same drivers can also foster terrorism and violent 
extremist ideology, breed transnational crime, and facilitate the 
proliferation of high-consequence weaponry. 

According to DHS officials, the threats and global challenges listed 
in the QHSR report were developed through discussions with federal 
national security officials and through reviews of intelligence 
community materials. 

In addition, the QHSR report includes an objective within its 
strategies for maturing and strengthening the homeland security 
enterprise on the importance of continuing to study and understand 
homeland security threats and vulnerabilities, given the changing 
spectrum of threats, vulnerabilities, and disaster scenarios faced by 
the United States. Specifically, the objective is for the both the 
public and the private sectors to pursue a rigorous scientific 
understanding of current and future threats to homeland security and 
the possible means to their prevention and mitigation. 

[End of Reporting Element: Description of Threats] 

Reporting Element: Homeland Security Strategy, Including Prioritized 
Missions: 

Reporting Element 3: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(C), each report shall include "the 
national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized list of 
the critical homeland security missions of the Nation." 

Our Assessment: Addressed in Part: 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in 
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this item was addressed in part because the 2010 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report included the 
national homeland security strategy and a list of five homeland 
security missions, but did not prioritize these missions. According to 
DHS officials, the five missions listed in the QHSR report have equal 
priority—no one mission is given greater priority than another. 
[Footnote 1] Still, according to Department of Homeland Security (DHS) 
officials, in selecting the five missions from the many potential 
homeland security mission areas upon which DHS could focus its 
efforts, the QHSR report indicates that the five mission areas are 
DHS's highest priority homeland security concerns. 

The QHSR's five mission areas are listed in figure 1. 

Figure 1: QHSR Missions and Goals: 

[Refer to PDF for image: list] 

Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security; 
Goal 1.1: Prevent Terrorist Attacks; 
Goal 1.2: Prevent the Unauthorized Acquisition or Use of Chemical, 
Biological, Radiological, and Nuclear Materials and Capabilities; 
Goal 1.3: Manage Risks to Critical Infrastructure, Key Leadership, and 
Events. 

Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders; 
Goal 2.1: Effectively Control U.S. Air, Land, and Sea Borders; 
Goal 2.2: Safeguard Lawful Trade and Travel; 
Goal 2.3: Disrupt and Dismantle Transnational Criminal Organizations. 

Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws; 
Goal 3.1: Strengthen and Effectively Administer the Immigration System; 
Goal 3.2: Prevent Unlawful Immigration. 

Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace; 
Goal 4.1: Create a Safe, Secure, and Resilient Cyber Environment; 
Goal 4.2: Promote Cybersecurity Knowledge and Innovation. 

Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters; 
Goal 5.1: Mitigate Hazards; 
Goal 5.2: Enhance Preparedness; 
Goal 5.3: Ensure Effective Emergency Response; 
Goal 5.4: Rapidly Recover. 
	
Source: DHSe QHSR Report. 

[End of figure] 

The QHSR report acknowledged that defining homeland security missions 
and setting prioritized goals, objectives, and strategic outcome 
statements for each mission could help chart a course for action over 
the next 4 years. As shown in figure 1, within each of these mission 
areas, DHS specified goals for achieving the mission areas. For 
example, within the preventing terrorism and enhancing security 
mission area, the QHSR report listed preventing terrorist attacks as 
the first goal. Within the goal of preventing terrorist attacks, the 
QHSR report listed the following objectives: understand the threat, 
deter and disrupt operations, protect against terrorist capabilities, 
stop the spread of violent extremism, and engage communities. 

In addition to listing goals and objectives within each mission area, 
the QHSR report listed strategic outcome statements associated with 
each objective. According to DHS, strategic outcome statements are not 
intended to comprehensively describe the associated objective. Rather, 
they reflect critical outcomes that are essential to achieving the 
objective. For example, regarding the preventing terrorism and 
enhancing security objectives described above, the QHSR report listed 
five key strategic outcomes: acts of terrorism against transportation 
systems are thwarted prior to successful execution; the manufacture, 
storage, or transfer of dangerous materials are protected by physical, 
personnel, and cybersecurity measures commensurate with the risks; any 
release of high-consequence biological weapons is detected in time to 
protect populations at risk from the release; critical infrastructure 
sectors adopt and sector partners meet accepted standards that 
measurably reduce the risk of disrupting public health and safety, 
critical government services, and essential economic activities; and 
governmental executive leadership is protected from hostile acts by 
terrorists and other malicious actors. 

Footnote: 

[1] According to DHS officials, both the QHSR and BUR reports noted 
that preventing a terrorist attack in the United States is and remains 
the cornerstone of homeland security. 

[End of Reporting Element: Homeland Security Strategy, Including 
Prioritized Missions] 

Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of Federal 
Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other Elements: 

Reporting Element 4: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(D), each report shall include "a 
description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal 
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of 
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated 
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute 
successfully the full range of missions called for in the applicable 
national homeland security strategy referred to in subsection (b)(1) 
and the homeland security mission areas outlined under subsection 
(b)(2)." 

Our Assessment: Addressed in Part. 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in 
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010 
Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review (BUR) 
reports discussed interagency cooperation, infrastructure, and other 
elements of the homeland security program required to execute the five 
QHSR mission areas. However, neither the QHSR nor the BUR report 
provided a description of a budget plan or did not fully describe the 
preparedness of federal response assets required to execute the five 
QHSR mission areas. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is 
currently developing its fiscal year 2012 budget request and the 
Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security Program for 
implementing the QHSR missions and strategy. 

* Interagency cooperation. The BUR report described initiatives that 
require interagency cooperation to execute the five QHSR mission areas—
largely referring to cooperation between DHS and other agencies. For 
example, under Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security, 
DHS stated in the BUR report that it is partnering with the Department 
of Energy and private industry to develop new technologies to deter 
and disrupt terrorist threats. In regard to an initiative under 
Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace, DHS stated that it 
will develop and implement a process to share cyber intelligence 
products with federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, and private 
sector partners. The QHSR report also provided examples of how 
interagency cooperation could benefit certain homeland security 
missions. For example, the report stated that Mission 2: Securing and 
Managing our Borders can only be achieved by cooperative efforts among 
federal departments and agencies, international partnerships, global 
private-sector partners, and federal, state, local, and tribal law 
enforcement agencies. 

* Preparedness of federal response assets. The QHSR and BUR reports 
did not fully describe the preparedness of response assets across 
federal agencies required to execute the QHSR mission areas, such as 
the ability to deploy assets from federal agencies, other than DHS, 
that have critical homeland security roles and responsibilities. 
[Footnote 1] However, the BUR report described the preparedness of DHS 
response assets required to execute the five QHSR mission areas. 
Specifically, the BUR report provided an overview of DHS's role within 
each mission area, including a discussion of the preparedness of DHS 
assets and the ability to deploy these assets, if necessary. For 
example, for Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters, it stated 
that FEMA maintains Incident Management Teams and an emergency alert 
system, among other things, to provide a mechanism for meeting 
disaster response requirements. In regards to Mission 4, the BUR 
report stated that DHS maintains the United States Computer Emergency 
Readiness Team to provide response support and defense against cyber 
attacks as well as information sharing. 

* Infrastructure. Within the discussion of the QHSR missions and goals 
in the BUR report, DHS provides examples of physical, human capital, 
or technological infrastructure that could assist with achieving these 
goals. For example, under Mission 2: Securing and Managing our 
Borders, the BUR report stated that U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
screens 100 percent of all arriving cargo through an automated risk 
assessment process and advanced manifest data. Under Mission 3: 
Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws, DHS noted in the BUR 
report that it works to reduce demand for illegal immigrants by 
conducting investigations of employers who hire illegal immigrants and 
administers tools such as E-Verify, the department's electronic system 
for employers to verify the work authorization status of newly hired 
employees. 

* Budget plan. Neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included a 
description of the budget plan required to execute the QHSR missions 
and strategy. DHS plans to include a budget plan for implementing the 
QHSR missions and strategy in DHS's fiscal year 2012 budget request 
and in its Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security 
Program documents. 

* Other elements of the homeland security program. The QHSR and the 
BUR reports included other elements of the homeland security program 
required to execute the five mission areas. For example, the QHSR 
report outlined 4 strategic goals and 18 objectives for maturing and 
strengthening the homeland security enterprise—that is, the federal, 
state, local, tribal, territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector 
entities, as well as individuals, families, and communities who share 
a common national interest in homeland security. Relatedly, the BUR 
report described various initiatives and enhancements for improving 
department management, related to DHS's focus on maturing and unifying 
DHS, such as improving cross-departmental management, policy and 
functional integration, and enhancing DHS's workforce.
Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of Federal 
Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other Elements Page 21
Enclosure II: Detailed Assessments of Required Elements 

Footnote: 

[1] According to DHS officials, DHS's Federal Emergency Management 
Agency (14.E.MA) is responsible for reporting on federal preparedness 
capabilities. Also, the BUR report stated that FEMA acts as an 
aggregator of resources from across the federal government to oversee 
various duties, including disaster response, disaster logistics, 
individual and public assistance programs, as well as national 
continuity programs. However, in October 2010 GAO reported that since 
April 2009, FEMA has made limited progress in assessing preparedness 
capabilities. See GAO, FEMA Has Made Limited Progress in Efforts to 
Develop and Implement a System to Assess National Preparedness 
Capabilities, GAO-11-51R (Washington, D.C.: October 2010). 

[End of Reporting Element: Interagency Cooperation, Preparedness of 
Federal Response Assets, Infrastructure, Budget Plan, and Other 
Elements] 

Reporting Element: Assessment of DHS Organizational Alignment with 
QHSR Missions: 

Reporting Element 5: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(E), each report shall include "an 
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the 
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in 
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined 
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational 
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human 
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure." 

Our Assessment: Addressed in part: 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in 
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010 
Bottom-Up Review (BUR) report included an assessment of the alignment 
of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) organizational 
structure with the five Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) 
mission areas, but neither the QHSR nor the BUR report included an 
assessment or evaluation of the extent to which management systems, 
budget and accounting systems, human resources systems, procurement 
systems, and physical and technical infrastructure aligned with the 
QHSR missions. According to DHS officials, an assessment of the 
alignment of these systems with QHSR missions was not appropriate 
because these systems are critical to supporting all five QHSR mission 
areas. 

* Organizational structure. The BUR report listed how the various DHS 
components' current activities align with the five QHSR missions (see 
figure 2). According to the BUR report, this analysis is intended to 
help facilitate a more detailed evaluation of what DHS does within 
each mission area and identify priority capability gaps and capacity 
overlaps within and across mission areas. 

Figure 2: Examples of DHS Component Activities' Alignment with QHSR 
Missions: 

[Refer to PDF for image: illustration] 

QHSR Mission: Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security; 
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]: 
* Conducts physical screening of passengers and crew, baggage, and 
cargo -Transportation Security Administration (TSA); 
* Coordinates national efforts to secure and protect critical 
infrastructure - National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD). 

QHSR Mission: Mission 2: Securing and Managing Our Borders; 
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]: 
* Conducts screening of people and goods at ports of entry while 
facilitating trade and travel - U.S. Customs and Border Protection 
(CBP); 
* Conducts inspections of foreign airports with flights to the United 
States, and regulates security at domestic airports - TSA; 
* Investigates over 400 statutes that protect the United States 
against the unlawful entry and export of people, goods, and monetary 
instruments - U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). 

QHSR Mission: Mission 3: Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration 
Laws; 
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]: 
* Provides immigration and naturalization benefits, as well as asylum 
and other services to immigrants; works to reduce demand for illegal 
immigrants by conducting investigations of employers who hire illegal 
immigrants and administers tools such as E-Verify, the department's 
electronic system for employers to verify the work authorization 
status of newly hired employees - U.S. Citizenship and Immigration 
Services (USCIS); 
* Administers the detention and removal system by which foreign 
nationals found to be a national security or public safety threat are 
arrested, detained, and removed from the United States - ICE. 

QHSR Mission: Mission 4: Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace; 
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]: 
* Receives and analyzes reports of cyber incidents on federal networks 
and provides warnings to federal agencies, state, local, and tribal 
governments - NPPD National Cyber Security and Communications 
Integration Center; 
* Investigates, disrupts, and deters homeland security cyber crimes 
committed in cyberspace or against cyber networks - U.S Secret Service 
and ICE. 

QHSR Mission: Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters; 
Examples of DHS Component Activities[A]: 
* Supports citizens and first responders ability to prepare for, 
protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards - 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA); 
* Enforces safety and security regulations on mariners and vessels to 
ensure all-hazard preparedness - U.S. Coast Guard (USCG). 

Source: GAO analysis of DHS's Bottom Up Review Report. 

Note: DHS components and directorates listed in bold text are 
primarily responsible for carrying out the activities listed. 

[A] The following examples of DHS organizational components and 
activities were derived from (1) a description of DHS authorities and 
roles in the BUR report, and (2) information contained in Annex D in 
the BUR report, which is a high-level summary of selected major 
categories from DHS's existing program structure and alignment of 
DHS's major investments with each mission. It is important to note 
that: (1) the table represents only a sample of DHS organizational 
activities, which includes DHS components and directorates, and (2) 
according to the BUR report, certain activities cross over multiple 
QHSR mission areas. 

[End of figure] 

The BUR report stated that DHS's bottom-up review process included an 
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with QHSR 
missions, including an assessment of management systems, procurement 
systems, and physical and technical infrastructure. However, our 
review determined that although the BUR report included examples of 
DHS's management systems, procurement systems, and physical and 
technical infrastructure planned initiatives—mainly related to 
improving department management and increasing accountability—it did 
not include an assessment of the extent to which each of these sub-
elements aligned with QHSR mission areas. We also found that the BUR 
report identified initiatives related to the two remaining sub-
elements—budget and accounting systems and human resources systems—but 
did not include an assessment of how these systems aligned with QHSR 
mission areas. 

* Management systems. In the BUR report DHS described not only its 
activities within each of the five QHSR missions, but also its 
activities within two broad DHS functional areas that complement the 
homeland security missions—department management and accountability. 
Within the department management functional area, the BUR report 
identified initiatives related to the department's management systems, 
such as improving cross-departmental management, policy, and 
functional integration.[Footnote 1] Under this initiative, DHS plans 
to examine the creation of a Headquarters Services Division in the 
Management Directorate; elevate the position of Assistant Secretary 
for Policy to an Undersecretary; and focus on transforming to a "One 
DHS" culture through seven specific initiatives such as headquarters 
consolidation–the collocation of the department by combining existing 
department and component leases and building out St. Elizabeth's 
campus in Washington, D.C.[Footnote 2] However, the BUR and QHSR 
reports did not describe how DHS's management systems align with the 
QHSR mission areas. 

* Budget and accounting systems. The BUR report described department 
management initiatives to transform DHS's budget and accounting 
systems. For example, one initiative related to integrating DHS 
management functions is the Transformation and Systems Consolidation 
program, DHS's initiative to consolidate financial, acquisition, and 
asset management systems, establish a single line of accounting, and 
standardize business processes. Further, the BUR report identified 
another initiative to increase departmental accountability by DHS 
reforming its budget account structure to increase its ability to 
compare like costs across components and offices. Still, the QHSR and 
BUR reports did not discuss how DHS's budget and accounting systems 
are aligned with the QHSR mission areas. 

* Human resources systems: As a part of DHS's efforts to improve 
department management, the BUR report described initiatives to 
strengthen DHS's human resources systems, such as plans to enhance 
DHS's workforce through an employee recruitment initiative to improve 
diversity of applicants and a reexamination of the
department's workforce needs and reliance on contractors. The BUR 
report also identified the current composition of DHS's workforce, but 
did not align these workforce resources with the QHSR mission areas. 
The QHSR report also did not discuss how DHS's human resource systems 
are aligned with the QHSR mission areas. 

* Procurement systems: The BUR report identified initiatives to 
strengthen DHS's procurement systems as a part of DHS's efforts to 
increase accountability for DHS resources. For example, one initiative 
regarding strengthening acquisition oversight is to increase DHS's 
cost analysis capability to ensure program cost estimates are 
reasonable reflections of the program's requirements and can withstand 
the scrutiny of external reviews and audits. The BUR report also noted 
that DHS plans to conduct rigorous analysis of operational 
requirements, technology alternatives, and testing of technology 
acquisitions to ensure investments result in mission improvements. 
However, the BUR and QHSR reports did not discuss how DHS's 
procurement systems align with the QHSR mission areas. 

* Physical and technical infrastructure: The BUR report identified 
examples of DHS's physical and technical infrastructure initiatives 
associated with some of the QHSR mission areas. For example, under 
Mission 1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security, the BUR report 
stated that DHS will create an information-sharing architecture to 
consolidate and streamline access to intelligence, law enforcement, 
and screening across DHS.[Footnote 3] Under DHS's management 
initiatives, the BUR report described DHS's plans to align the seven 
separate regional structures currently in use by the operating 
components to a single, nationwide regional structure. However, the 
BUR and QHSR reports did not discuss how DHS's physical and technical 
infrastructure aligns with the QHSR mission areas. 

According to DHS, while conducting analysis supporting the BUR report, 
DHS officials assessed the alignment of DHS's component activities 
with the QHSR report missions, and included this assessment in the BUR 
report. In addition, DHS provided us with documentation of DHS's 
strategic management study group's assessment of DHS's management 
systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources systems, and 
procurement systems.[Footnote 4] However, according to DHS officials, 
an assessment of the alignment of DHS's management systems, budget and 
accounting systems, human resource systems, procurement systems, and 
physical and technical infrastructure with QHSR missions was not 
appropriate for inclusion in the BUR report because none of these 
systems were unique to any particular mission. For example, DHS's 
procurement systems are critical to supporting all five mission areas 
and therefore DHS focused its assessment on building an effective 
procurement system across the department and not assessing how the 
system aligned with each mission, according to DHS officials. To that 
end, the BUR report provided initiatives for enhancing its procurement 
system across the department, described above, but did not assess the 
alignment of the system with the QHSR report missions. In addition, 
the QHSR and BUR reports did not include an explanation as to why the 
department did not include an assessment of the alignment of DHS's 
management systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources 
systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure to QHSR mission areas. 

Footnotes: 

[1] For more information on DHS's management integration efforts, see 
GAO, Department of Homeland Security: Actions Taken Toward Management 
Integration, but a Comprehensive Strategy Is Still Needed, GAO 10-131 
(Washington, D.C.: November 2009). 

[2] According to the BUR report, the other six initiatives DHS has 
identified to drive transformation and integration of departmental 
functions to a "One DHS" culture are (1) Enterprise governance, a 
governance model that would allow DHS to implement mechanisms for 
integrated management of DHS programs as parts of broader portfolios 
of related activities; (2) Transformation and Systems Consolidation, a 
DHS initiative to consolidate financial, acquisition, and asset 
management systems, establish a single line of accounting, and 
standardize business processes; (3) Human resources information 
technology, a DHS initiative to consolidate, replace, and modernize 
existing departmental and component payroll and personnel systems; (4) 
Data center migration, an initiative to move DHS component agencies' 
data systems from the agencies' multiple existing data centers to two 
DHS consolidated centers; (5) , a Balanced workforce strategy that 
includes workforce planning efforts to identify the proper balance of 
federal employees and private labor resources; and (6) Homeland 
Security Presidential Directive 12 personal identification 
verification cards deployment, the provision of cards to DHS employees 
and contractors for use to access secure facilities, communications, 
and data. 

[3] According to the BUR report, the information-sharing architecture 
will include, among other things, the capability for automated 
recurrent screening and vetting for individuals to whom DHS has 
provided a license, privilege, or status (including immigration 
status) so that, as new information becomes available, DHS can assess 
whether the individual is no longer eligible for the benefit or 
presents a threat. 

[4] An assessment of DHS's physical and technical infrastructure was 
not included as a part of the DHS strategic management study group 
analysis. 

[End of Reporting Element: Assessment of DHS Organizational Alignment 
with QHSR Missions] 

Reporting Element: Status of Cooperation among Federal Agencies: 

Reporting Element 6: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(F), each report shall include "a 
discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies in the 
effort to promote national homeland security." 

Our Assessment: Addressed in part: 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in 
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed in part because the 2010 
Bottom-Up Review (BUR) report provided descriptions of cooperation 
between the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and other federal 
agencies for homeland security, and the Quadrennial Homeland Security 
Review (QHSR) report discussed homeland security roles and 
responsibilities for federal agencies. However, the QHSR and BUR 
reports did not discuss cooperation for homeland security efforts 
among federal agencies other than DHS, such as cooperation between the 
Departments of Justice and State for sharing terrorist watchlist 
information among themselves. According to DHS officials, the QHSR and 
BUR reports did not include a discussion of the status of cooperation 
among federal agencies other than DHS because DHS officials viewed 
such an assessment as outside of DHS's authority to conduct, and noted 
that such assessments were already conducted in other venues. For 
example, the National Infrastructure Protection Plan and the National 
Response Framework discuss the mechanisms by which federal agencies 
coordinate with each other in those contexts.[Footnote 1] 

The BUR report discussed the status of cooperation between DHS and 
other federal agencies as a part of the BUR's descriptions of DHS's 
current role in executing the QHSR's five mission areas. However, the 
BUR report did not discuss the status of cooperation among other 
federal agencies for homeland security, as the report was intended to 
align DHS's activities and organizational structure to the QHSR 
missions and goals. For example: 

* Mission 1 - Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security. According 
to the BUR report, DHS shares the responsibility to prevent terrorist 
attacks with several federal departments and agencies, including the 
Departments of State, Justice, and Defense; the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI); and the National Counterterrorism Center (NCTC). 
For example, the NCTC maintains the Terrorist Identities Datamart 
Environment, the federal government's central repository of 
information on international terrorist identities.[Footnote 2] The FBI 
administers the Terrorist Screening Center, which determines which 
individuals will be placed into the Terrorist Screening Database—the 
comprehensive terrorist watchlist—and administers the process by which 
the No Fly and Selectee lists are derived.[Footnote 3] The FBI and
the Department of Justice also lead terrorism investigations; 
coordinate law enforcement efforts to detect, prevent, and disrupt 
terrorist attacks against the United States; and are responsible for
the related intelligence collection activities within the United 
States. DHS operates as a principal consumer of NCTC and FBI watchlist 
products for DHS border and aviation security operations and vetting 
of key transportation workers. Further, the BUR report notes that DHS 
is a partner in data sharing and threat analysis, and supports the 
NCTC and national network of the FBI Joint Terrorism Task Forces. 

* Mission 2 - Securing and Managing Our Borders. According to the BUR 
report, DHS works with other federal departments and agencies, 
including the Departments of Justice, Transportation, and Defense, in 
conducting activities such as detecting and interdicting threats 
approaching U.S. borders and monitoring offshore activity to ensure 
security along maritime borders. 

* Mission 3 - Enforcing and Administering Our Immigration Laws. The 
BUR report states that DHS works to prevent illegal entry by 
partnering with the Department of State both domestically and overseas 
to help ensure that visas to enter the United States are not granted 
to foreign nationals who pose a threat to public safety or national 
security. The BUR report also states that DHS works with the 
Departments of Justice and State as well as foreign governments and 
nongovernmental partners to share information used to combat alien 
smuggling and human trafficking. In addition, DHS works with the 
Department of Justice to ensure timely hearing of immigration cases 
and appeals, and with the FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Forces with 
respect to foreign nationals who pose a national security threat. 

* Mission 4 - Safeguarding and Securing Cyberspace. The BUR report 
states that in cooperation with the Department of Commerce and the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB), DHS develops and issues cyber 
security advisories and best practices to federal agencies, to help 
ensure that known vulnerabilities are addressed and that preparations 
are made to mitigate emerging threats. DHS also operates the National 
Cyber Security Center, which promotes coordination and common 
situational awareness across federal cyber security operations centers. 

* Mission 5 - Ensuring Resilience to Disasters. According to the BUR 
report, during domestic disasters, DHS's role, largely executed 
through the Federal Emergency Management Agency, is among other 
things, to aggregate resources from across the federal government to 
mitigate and respond to incidents. The BUR report also notes that, as 
of July 2010, DHS co-chaired with the Department of Housing and Urban 
Development a federal interagency working group to strengthen long-
term disaster recovery at the federal, state, local, tribal, and 
territorial levels. 

As the BUR report was intended to discuss DHS's homeland security 
activities and alignment to the QHSR missions and goals, the report 
did not discuss cooperation among federal agencies other than DHS. For 
example, under Mission 4, the report did not describe how federal 
agencies other than DHS coordinate with OMB to secure federal 
information systems. According to an August 2009 OMB memorandum, all 
federal departments and agencies submit to OMB annual reports that 
determine the adequacy and effectiveness of their information security 
procedures and practices, including reports on the security adequacy 
of national security-related information systems. 

In addition, the QHSR report described homeland security roles and 
responsibilities for federal agencies with brief summaries of 
coordination leadership roles for several federal agencies. According 
to the QHSR report, the role and responsibility descriptions are 
derived from statutes, Presidential directives, the National 
Infrastructure Protection Plan, and the National Response Framework. 
The descriptions indicated leadership roles in coordination efforts, 
but did not provide the status of cooperation among federal agencies 
to promote homeland security. For example, the QHSR report stated that 
the Department of Health and Human Services leads the coordination of 
all federal functions relevant to public health emergency preparedness 
and disaster medical response and that the Department of Energy is the 
designated federal agency to provide a unifying structure for the 
integration of federal critical infrastructure and key resources 
protection efforts specifically for the energy sector. While helpful 
for understanding which federal agencies lead particular homeland 
security efforts, the QHSR report did not provide a description of how 
the federal agencies cooperate with one another in addressing the 
efforts. For example, the QHSR report did not state how the Department 
of Health and Human Services coordinates with other federal 
departments in leading public health emergency preparedness and 
disaster medical response. Similarly, the QHSR report did not describe 
how the Department of Energy coordinates with other federal agencies 
in protecting the energy sector's infrastructure. 

Footnotes: 

[1] The National Infrastructure Protection Plan is DHS's 
governmentwide plan for protecting critical infrastructure and key 
resources within the United States, such as chemical facilities and 
gas pipelines, from terrorist attacks. The plan includes assignment of 
protection roles and responsibilities across federal agencies. The 
National Response Framework defines coordinating structures to align 
key roles and responsibilities across the United States and describes 
specific authorities and best practices for managing incidents. 

[2] The Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment supports the federal 
government's various terrorist screening systems or watchlists. 

[3] DHS's Transportation Security Administration uses the No Fly list 
to identify individuals who are prohibited from boarding an aircraft 
and the Selectee list to identify individuals who are to receive 
additional physical screening prior to boarding an aircraft. 

[End of Reporting Element: Status of Cooperation among Federal 
Agencies] 

Reporting Element: Cooperation between Federal Government and State, 
Local, and Tribal Governments: 

Reporting Element 7: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(G), each report shall include "a 
discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal Government 
and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing terrorist 
attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to national 
homeland security." 

Our Assessment: Addressed in Part. 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed in 
part. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed in part because the Bottom-Up 
Review (BUR) report provided descriptions of cooperation between the 
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and state, local, tribal, and 
territorial governments. However, the 2010 Quadrennial Homeland 
Security Review (QHSR) and BUR reports did not discuss the status of 
cooperation between other federal agencies and these entities, such as 
cooperation between other federal departments that have critical 
homeland security roles and responsibilities, like the Department of 
Justice, with state, local, and tribal governments. According to DHS, 
the QHSR report is not intended to define the roles and 
responsibilities of federal departments or institutions. 

The BUR report addressed cooperation between DHS and state, local, 
tribal, and territorial governments. Specifically, the BUR report 
provided an overview of DHS's role within each mission area, including 
a discussion of how such cooperation occurs. For example, for Mission 
1: Preventing Terrorism and Enhancing Security, the BUR report states 
that DHS responsibilities for preventing terrorist attacks include 
assisting state, local, tribal, and territorial governments to obtain 
the information and capabilities to address threats by awarding almost 
$4 billion annually to state, local, tribal, and territorial 
governments through the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the 
Urban Areas Security Initiative, and other grant programs.[Footnote 1] 
According to the BUR report, these grant programs help state, local, 
tribal, and territorial governments build and sustain capabilities 
necessary to prevent terrorist attacks, as well as address other 
threats, prepare for, respond to, and recover from all hazards. In 
regards to Mission 5: Ensuring Resilience to Disasters, the BUR report 
noted DHS's role in supporting communities during a disaster and 
enabling state, local, regional, tribal, and territorial partners to 
take steps to decrease risk and mitigate future hazards before 
disasters occur. 

However, the QHSR and BUR reports did not discuss the status of 
cooperation between other federal agencies and these entities. The 
QHSR report acknowledged that the report is not intended to define the 
roles and responsibilities of federal departments or institutions for 
each of the five mission areas, but instead, functions as a strategic 
document to guide participants toward a common end. The QHSR report 
also acknowledged existing relationships, roles, and responsibilities, 
and seeks to set forth a shared vision of homeland security. However, 
it did not include a discussion of the specific roles and 
responsibilities of the federal agencies and stakeholders across the 
homeland security enterprise. The QHSR report stated that the division 
of operational roles and responsibilities among federal departments 
and agencies for various homeland security mission goals and 
objectives emerged as a major area requiring further study following 
the QHSR report. According to the QHSR report, an analysis of roles 
and responsibilities across the homeland security missions would help 
resolve gaps or unnecessary redundancies between departments and 
agencies going forward. 

DHS officials confirmed an attempt was not made in the quadrennial 
review reporting process to discuss the status of cooperation among 
other federal departments and state, local, and tribal governments. 
However, they said that DHS solicited comments from other federal 
departments and state, local, and tribal governments on the role and 
responsibility descriptions for each of these entities listed in the 
QHSR report. 

Footnote: 

[1] The State Homeland Security Grant Program provides funds to build 
state and local capabilities and implement state homeland security 
goals. The Urban Areas Security Initiative focuses on enhancing 
regional preparedness in major metropolitan areas, including providing 
assistance with developing regional systems for prevention, 
protection, response, and recovery. 

[End of Reporting Element: Cooperation between Federal Government and 
State, Local, and Tribal Governments] 

Reporting Element: Quadrennial Review Assumptions: 

Reporting Element 8: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(H), each report shall include "an 
explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting the 
review." 

Our Assessment: Addressed. 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial 
Homeland Security Review (QHSR) report stated that three broad 
assumptions shaped the development of DHS's homeland security 
strategy: (1) rapid technological change that will continue to alter 
social, economic, and political forces, rapidly disperse information, 
and provide new means for adversaries and competitors to challenge the 
United States; (2) multiple simultaneous crises that will likely 
challenge the United States and its resources, requiring all 
stakeholders to be capable of managing crises including some for 
extended periods; and (3) the need for the United States to guard 
against complacency as memories of 9/11 recede. 

The QHSR report also listed nine specific assumptions concerning the 
current security environment: 

(1) violent extremist groups, including potential homegrown 
extremists, that will continue to use terrorism to attack U.S. targets; 

(2) technologies associated with weapons of mass destruction, often 
dual-use, that will circulate easily in a globalized economy, 
challenging traditional weapons of mass destruction nonproliferation 
and counterproliferation efforts, especially in the nuclear and 
biological areas; 

(3) terrorists, proliferators, and other criminal elements that will 
seek to take advantage of the increasingly globalized financial system 
and its legitimate and beneficial functions to move money in support 
of their dangerous conduct; 

(4) economic crises and disparities that will continue to induce 
social and/or political instability, in some cases increasing migrant 
and refugee flows—legal and illegal—into the United States; 

(5) globalization that will continue to make it increasingly difficult 
to prevent health threats to the United States, whether from emerging 
disease or deliberate attacks, or via imports; 

(6) technological change and cyber threats from state and non-state 
actors that will continue to alter social, economic, and political 
forces, allow for the rapid dissemination of information, and provide 
new means for adversaries to challenge the United States; 

(7) climate change that will increase the severity and frequency of 
weather-related hazards such as extreme storms, high rainfalls, 
floods, droughts, and heat waves; 

(8) the security environment that will continue to pose the potential 
for multiple simultaneous crises; and; 

(9) the danger of complacency as major crises recede. 

According to DHS officials, the QHSR report's broad and specific 
assumptions were developed through discussions with federal national 
security officials and through reviews of intelligence community 
materials. 

[End of Reporting Element: Quadrennial Review Assumptions] 

Reporting Element: Matters the Secretary Considers Appropriate: 

Reporting Element 9: 

According to 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(I), each the report shall include 
"any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate." 

Our Assessment: Addressed. 

Based on our assessment, we found that this element was addressed. 

Detailed Assessment of This Element: 

We found that this element was addressed because the 2010 Quadrennial 
Homeland Security review (QHSR) and Bottom-Up Review (BUR) reports 
included items, in addition to those that were specifically delineated 
in the 9/11 Commission Act, such as (1) specifying QHSR mission goals 
and objectives, (2) outlining a strategy for maturing the homeland 
security enterprise to support QHSR missions, and (3) developing 
initiatives and enhancements aimed at increasing mission performance 
and improving department management. 

The 9/11 Commission Act required the Department of Homeland Security 
(DHS) to report on the national homeland security strategy, including 
the critical missions of the nation. In addition to identifying five 
homeland security missions (see figure 1 in the section of this 
enclosure related to reporting element 3), DHS also included goals and 
objectives to support each of the mission areas in the QHSR report. 

Further, the QHSR report discussed the need for maturing and 
strengthening what is referred to as the homeland security enterprise—
that is, the federal, state, local, tribal, territorial, 
nongovernmental, and private-sector entities, as well as individuals, 
families, and communities who share a common national interest in 
homeland security. The QHSR report described the following four 
strategic goals for maturing and strengthening the homeland security 
enterprise based on common themes across the five homeland security 
mission areas: 

* establish a comprehensive system for awareness and understanding of 
homeland security risks and threats; 

* build capable communities that have resources to prevent and respond 
to threats; 

* foster a national culture of cooperation across all levels of the 
homeland security enterprise; and; 

* foster innovative science and technology approaches to studying 
threats and developing solutions. 

Beyond endeavoring to fulfill the 9/11 Commission Act requirement of 
aligning DHS's organizational activities with the QHSR missions, the 
BUR report described 43 initiatives and enhancements aimed at 
increasing mission performance, improving department management, and 
increasing accountability. DHS organized the initiatives and 
enhancements under each of the five QHSR mission areas or the DHS 
functional areas of department management and accountability to align 
with the QHSR report. According to DHS, all initiatives and 
enhancements will not be accomplished in fiscal year 2012. DHS plans 
to begin working on the highest-priority initiatives in the near term. 
[Footnote 1] DHS plans to propose initiation of others in the 
President's fiscal year 2012 budget request, and accomplish others 
through the Fiscal Year 2012-2016 Future Years Homeland Security 
Program that require programmatic or budgetary changes. 

Footnote: 

[1] According to DHS officials, senior DHS leadership, including DHS 
component leaders, each rated the priority of the 43 BUR initiatives. 
The results of these ratings were presented to the DHS Secretary, who 
made the final decision on which initiatives were highest priority for 
implementation. As of October 2010, DHS officials could not identify 
which initiatives were chosen for more immediate implementation 
because the budget process identifying these initiatives was not 
complete. 

[End of Reporting Element: Matters the Secretary Considers Appropriate] 

[End of Enclosure II] 

Enclosure III: QHSR Legislative Requirements: 

Sec. 2401. Quadrennial Homeland Security Review. 

(a) Review Required.--Title VII of the Homeland Security Act of 2002 
is amended by adding at the end the following: 

"(a) Requirement: 

"(1) Quadrennial Reviews Required.--In fiscal year 2009, and every 4 
years thereafter, the Secretary shall conduct a review of the homeland 
security of the Nation (in this section referred to as a 'quadrennial 
homeland security review'). 

"(2) Scope Of Reviews.--Each quadrennial homeland security review 
shall be a comprehensive examination of the homeland security strategy 
of the Nation, including recommendations regarding the long-term 
strategy and priorities of the Nation for homeland security and 
guidance on the programs, assets, capabilities, budget, policies, and 
authorities of the Department. 

"(3) Consultation.--The Secretary shall conduct each quadrennial 
homeland security review under this subsection in consultation with: 

"(A) the heads of other Federal agencies, including the Attorney 
General, the Secretary of State, the Secretary of Defense, the 
Secretary of Health and Human Services, the Secretary of the Treasury, 
the Secretary of Agriculture, and the Director of National 
Intelligence; 

"(B) key officials of the Department; and: 

"(C) other relevant governmental and nongovernmental entities, 
including State, local, and tribal government officials, members of 
Congress, private sector representatives, academics, and other policy 
experts. 

"(4) Relationship With Future Years Homeland Security Program.--The 
Secretary shall ensure that each review conducted under this section 
is coordinated with the Future Years Homeland Security Program 
required under section 874. 

"(b) Contents Of Review.--In each quadrennial homeland security 
review, the Secretary shall: 

"(1) delineate and update, as appropriate, the national homeland 
security strategy, consistent with appropriate national and Department 
strategies, strategic plans, and Homeland Security Presidential 
Directives, including the National Strategy for Homeland Security, the 
National Response Plan, and the Department Security Strategic Plan; 

"(2) outline and prioritize the full range of the critical homeland 
security mission areas of the Nation; 

"(3) describe the interagency cooperation, preparedness of Federal 
response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other elements of 
the homeland security program and policies of the Nation associated 
with the national homeland security strategy, required to execute 
successfully the full range of missions called for in the national 
homeland security strategy described in paragraph (1) and the homeland 
security mission areas outlined under paragraph (2); 

"(4) identify the budget plan required to provide sufficient resources 
to successfully execute the full range of missions called for in the 
national homeland security strategy described in paragraph (1) and the 
homeland security mission areas outlined under paragraph (2); 

"(5) include an assessment of the organizational alignment of the 
Department with the national homeland security strategy referred to in 
paragraph (1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined under 
paragraph (2); and 6 USC 347. 

"(6) review and assess the effectiveness of the mechanisms of the 
Department for executing the process of turning the requirements 
developed in the quadrennial homeland security review into an 
acquisition strategy and expenditure plan within the Department. 

"(c) Reporting: 

"(1) In General.--Not later than December 31 of the year in which a 
quadrennial homeland security review is conducted, the Secretary shall 
submit to Congress a report regarding that quadrennial homeland 
security review. 

"(2) Contents Of Report.--Each report submitted under paragraph (1) 
shall include: 

"(A) the results of the quadrennial homeland security review; 

"(B) a description of the threats to the assumed or defined national 
homeland security interests of the Nation that were examined for the 
purposes of that review; 

"(C) the national homeland security strategy, including a prioritized 
list of the critical homeland security missions of the Nation; 

"(D) a description of the interagency cooperation, preparedness of 
Federal response assets, infrastructure, budget plan, and other 
elements of the homeland security program and policies of the Nation 
associated with the national homeland security strategy, required to 
execute successfully the full range of missions called for in the 
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in 
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined 
under subsection (b)(2); 

"(E) an assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department 
with the applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in 
subsection (b)(1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined 
under subsection (b)(2), including the Department's organizational 
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human 
resources systems, procurement systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure; 

"(F) a discussion of the status of cooperation among Federal agencies 
in the effort to promote national homeland security; 

"(G) a discussion of the status of cooperation between the Federal 
Government and State, local, and tribal governments in preventing 
terrorist attacks and preparing for emergency response to threats to 
national homeland security; 

"(H) an explanation of any underlying assumptions used in conducting 
the review; and: 

"(I) any other matter the Secretary considers appropriate. 

"(3) Public Availability.--The Secretary shall, consistent with the 
protection of national security and other sensitive matters, make each 
report submitted under paragraph (1) publicly available on the 
Internet website of the Department. 

"(d) Authorization Of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be 
appropriated such sums as may be necessary to carry out this section." 

(b) Preparation For Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 

(1) IN GENERAL.--During fiscal years 2007 and 2008, the Secretary of 
Homeland Security shall make preparations to conduct the first 
quadrennial homeland security review under section 707 of the Homeland 
Security Act of 2002, as added by subsection (a), in fiscal year 2009, 
including: 

(A) determining the tasks to be performed; 

(B) estimating the human, financial, and other resources required to 
perform each task; 

(C) establishing the schedule for the execution of all project tasks; 

(D) ensuring that these resources will be available as needed; and: 

(E) all other preparations considered necessary by the Secretary. 

(2) Report.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of 
this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress and make publicly 
available on the Internet website of the Department of Homeland 
Security a detailed resource plan specifying the estimated budget and 
number of staff members that will be required for preparation of the 
first quadrennial homeland security review. 

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections in section 1(b) of such 
Act is amended by inserting after the item relating to section 706 the 
following new item: 

"Sec. 707. Quadrennial Homeland Security Review." 

[End of Enclosure III] 

Enclosure IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 29528: 

December 8, 2010: 

Mr. David Maurer: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, N.W. 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Re: GAO-11-153R: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review: 

Dear Mr. Maurer: 

Thank you for providing us with the opportunity to respond to the GAO 
Draft Report GAO-11-153R: Quadrennial Homeland Security Review, dated 
November 20, 2010 (GAO Code 440876). Overall, DHS believes that GAO 
has conducted a fair and accurate assessment of DHS's efforts in 
executing the first Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) as 
described in Section 2401 of the Implementing Recommendations of the 
9/II Commission Act of 2007. Of the nine reporting elements evaluated, 
GAO found that DHS "Addressed" three elements in full and "Addressed 
in Part" six of the elements. As noted in the draft report, DHS takes 
exception only with the rating of reporting element (5) as "Addressed 
in part." 

Reporting element (5) stipulates that: "Each report shall include 'an 
assessment of the organizational alignment of the Department with the 
applicable national homeland security strategy referred to in 
subsection (b) (1) and the homeland security mission areas outlined 
under subsection (b) (2), including the Department's organizational 
structure, management systems, budget and accounting systems, human 
resources systems, procurements systems, and physical and technical 
infrastructure. 

GAO found that DHS assessed the alignment of DHS's organizational 
structure with the QHSR mission strategies. GAO further found that the 
Bottom Up Review (BUR) report included examples of DHS's management 
systems, budget and accounting systems, human resources systems, 
procurements systems, and physical and technical infrastructure roles. 
authorities and planned initiatives (which we refer to as business 
lines). DHS believes that these examinations satisfied reporting 
element (5) in full. 

However, GAO concluded that DIIS addressed reporting element (5) only 
in part because DFIS did not include an assessment of the extent to 
which each of these business lines align to the QHSR mission areas. 
DHS disagrees with GAO's interpretation that reporting element (5) 
requires DHS to make such an alignment of each of its business lines 
to the QHSR mission areas. Moreover, within DHS, the business lines 
cut across all mission areas and support all QHSR mission goals and 
objectives; likewise, the conclusions described in the BUR Report 
apply equally to all missions. DHS believes that specific alignment of 
the Department's business lines to specific missions is neither 
desired nor feasible. The cross-Departmental nature of these business 
lines and their associated processes is critical to ensuring that a 
department as diverse as DHS is able to efficiently and effectively 
optimize management activities across the missions. For these reasons, 
DHS believes that reporting element (5) should be evaluated as 
"Addressed." 

The Department appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft 
report. For further questions concerning this report, please contact 
Alan Cohn, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Policy (Strategic Plans), at 
(202) 282-9382 or alan.cohn@dhs.gov. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

H.W. Couch, Jr. 
Deputy Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of Enclosure IV] 

Footnotes: 

[1] Pub. L. No. 110-53, § 2401(a), 121 Stat. 266, 543-45 (2007) 
(codified at 6 U.S.C. § 347). 

[2] 6 U.S.C. § 347(c). Although the act requires the first QHSR to be 
conducted in 2009, the QHSR report was issued in February 2010, and we 
refer to it in this report as the "2010 QHSR." Throughout this report, 
we refer to the elements that the 9/11 Commission Act required to be 
included in the QHSR report as "reporting elements." The 9/11 
Commission Act required DHS to conduct various tasks as part of the 
quadrennial review. For this report, we reviewed the extent to which 
DHS addressed the 9/11 Commission Act reporting elements and not the 
extent to which DHS conducted the tasks. 

[3] DHS, Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report: A Strategic 
Framework for a Secure Homeland (Washington, D.C.: February 2010). 

[4] In the QHSR report, the term enterprise refers to the collective 
efforts and shared responsibilities of federal, state, local, tribal, 
territorial, nongovernmental, and private-sector partners--as well as 
individuals, families, and communities--to maintain critical homeland 
security capabilities. 

[5] DHS, Bottom-Up Review Report (Washington, D.C.: July 2010). 

[6] The seven agencies listed in the 9/11 Commission Act are the 
Departments of Agriculture, Defense, Health and Human Services, 
Justice, State, and the Treasury, and the Office of the Director of 
National Intelligence. 

[7] 6 U.S.C. § 347(c)(2)(A)-(I). For the purposes of this review, we 
did not evaluate the extent to which DHS conducted tasks specified in 
the 9/11 Commission Act for the quadrennial review. 

[8] Approximately 25 full-time equivalent staff oversaw the QHSR 
report process, including Office of Policy staff, study group lead 
officials, and liaisons from the Office of Program Analysis and 
Evaluation, according to DHS. 

[9] The FYHSP provides a summary and breakdown of DHS program 
resources over a 5-year period, including resource alignment by goals, 
component appropriations, and component programs, as well as program 
descriptions, milestones, performance measures, and targets. 

[10] Because DHS used a three-phased approach to conduct the 
quadrennial review specified in the 9/11 Commission Act and the QHSR 
and BUR phases have been completed, we refer to DHS's QHSR and BUR 
processes collectively as the "quadrennial review processes" 
throughout this report. 

[11] The 2010 QDR is a legislatively mandated review that articulates 
DOD's strategic plan to rebalance capabilities in order to prevail in 
current operations and develop capabilities to meet future threats. 
The QDR results are intended to guide the military services in making 
resource allocation decisions when developing future budgets. DOD 
examined the force structure needed for three sets of scenarios, each 
consisting of multiple concurrent operations, chosen to reflect the 
complexity and range of events that may occur in overlapping time 
frames. According to the 2010 QDR, DOD used a multidisciplinary 
approach in assessing risk drawing on best practices, quantitative 
analysis, informed judgment, expert opinions, and the use of 
scenarios. For evaluations of the two most recent QDRs, see GAO, 
Quadrennial Defense Review: 2010 Report Addressed Many but Not All 
Required Items, [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-10-575R] 
(Washington, D.C.: Apr. 30, 2010); and GAO, Quadrennial Defense 
Review: Future Reviews Could Benefit from Improved Department of 
Defense Analyses and Changes to Legislative Requirements, [hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-07-709] (Washington, D.C.: Sept. 14, 
2007). 

[12] DHS distributed the draft QHSR terms of reference for internal 
DHS review in May 2009. The final draft QHSR terms of reference was 
distributed to study group lead officials in early June 2009. The 
Secretary of Homeland Security formally signed the QHSR terms of 
reference in July 2009. 

[13] While 43 initiatives are listed in the BUR report, DHS tracks 44 
BUR initiatives because 2 initiatives were consolidated into 1 for 
implementation purposes, according to DHS officials. 

[End of section] 

GAO's Mission: 

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

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

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

Order by Phone: 

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of
production and distribution and depends on the number of pages in the
publication and whether the publication is printed in color or black and
white. Pricing and ordering information is posted on GAO’s Web site, 
[hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm]. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or
TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card,
MasterCard, Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional 
information. 

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

Contact: 

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

Congressional Relations: 

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

Public Affairs: 

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov: 
(202) 512-4800: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street NW, Room 7149: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: