This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-11-732R
entitled 'FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing Regionalization of
Preparedness Grants' which was released on July 29, 2011.
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-11-732R:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
July 29, 2011:
The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson:
Ranking Member:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
The Honorable Laura Richardson:
Ranking Member:
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Communications:
Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
Subject: FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing Regionalization of
Preparedness Grants:
This report formally transmits a briefing we provided to your staff on
May 31, 2011, which we have revised to reflect subsequent agency
comments. We developed this briefing in response to your March 2010
request related to the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
efforts to delegate grants administration responsibilities to its
regions. Specifically, we are reporting on (1) the extent to which
FEMA has operationalized delegation of grants administration
responsibilities for preparedness grants to the regions, and (2) the
extent to which FEMA has assessed the regions' capacity to assume
increased responsibility for administration of preparedness grants. To
conduct this work, we analyzed information, such as regionalization
implementation plans and grants administration protocols; reviewed
reports on regionalization, workforce planning, and grants management
by FEMA, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Office of the
Inspector General, National Academy of Public Administration, and an
independent auditor; compared FEMA's actions against GAO's Standards
for Internal Control in the Federal Government; and interviewed FEMA
officials.
In summary, FEMA has taken steps consistent with internal control
standards to operationalize the delegation of grants administration
responsibilities for preparedness grants to the regions. For example,
FEMA established a task force as an oversight and evaluation mechanism
and developed an implementation plan, which includes a phased approach
to piloting and delegating specific grants administration functions
for preparedness grants to the regions and delineates an approach,
including roles and responsibilities, for key implementation
activities such as training and communications. FEMA has also made
progress in assessing the regions' capacity to assume increased
responsibility for the administration of preparedness grants. For
example, FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate is conducting an assessment
of each of its 10 regions' financial management resources and
capabilities, as a means to improve regionalization workforce
planning. FEMA's leadership is deliberating on possible changes to the
initiative given the current fiscal climate and anticipated resource
constraints over the next few years, as well as efforts to achieve the
right distribution of grants management responsibilities between
headquarters and the regions. For additional information on a summary
of the results of our work, see enclosure I, slide 9. Based on the
results of our review, we are not making any recommendations for
congressional consideration or agency action.
We provided a draft of this briefing to DHS for review and comment. In
written comments on a draft of this report, which are reproduced in
enclosure II, DHS agreed with the findings and stated that FEMA will
continue its regionalization efforts consistent with the internal
control standards and evaluation protocols described in our letter.
We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional
committees. We are also sending copies to the Secretary of Homeland
Security, the FEMA Administrator, and the Director of the Grant
Programs Directorate. This report will also be available at no charge
on our web site at [hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
Should you or your staff have questions concerning this report, please
contact me at (202) 512-8757 or JenkinsWO@gao.gov. Contact points for
Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on
the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report were
Chris Keisling, Assistant Director; Anthony C. Fernandez, Analyst-in-
Charge; Sarah Arnett; Tracey King; Linda Miller; and Cynthia Saunders.
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice:
Enclosures - 2:
[End of section]
Enclosure I: Briefing Slides:
FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing Regionalization of Preparedness
Grants:
Briefing for Committee on Homeland Security:
House of Representatives:
May 31, 2011:
Briefing Overview:
* Introduction
* Objectives
* Scope and Methodology
* Results in Brief
* Background
* Findings
* Agency Comments
* Appendixes
Introduction:
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), within the Department
of Homeland Security (DHS), manages a diverse grants portfolio
including a variety of preparedness grant programs (see appendix I for
a diagram of FEMA's grants portfolio, appendix II for a description of
preparedness grants, and appendix III for preparedness grant funding
appropriated for fiscal years 2010 and 2011 and requested for fiscal
year 2012).
Grants administration consists of financial management, including
monitoring grantee expenditures, amending financial terms of grants,
and closing out grants; as well as program management, such as
developing grant application packages, creating program standards, and
monitoring grantee activities to ensure alignment with homeland
security strategies.
In line with the focus on regional responsibilities for preparedness
in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006,[Footnote
1] FEMA delegated components of preparedness grants administration to
its 10 regions beginning in February 2008, a process the agency refers
to as regionalization. FEMA's objectives for regionalization are to
improve customer service to grantees, increase grants administration
efficiencies, and build more robust regions.
Objectives:
In response to your request, we examined FEMA's efforts to delegate
grants administration responsibilities to its 10 regions. Thus, this
briefing addresses the following two objectives:
1. To what extent has FEMA operationalized delegation of grants
administration responsibilities for preparedness grants to the regions?
2. To what extent has FEMA assessed the regions' capacity to assume
increased responsibility for administration of preparedness grants?
Scope and Methodology: Objective 1:
To determine the extent to which FEMA has operationalized delegation
of grants administration responsibilities for preparedness grants, we
did the following:
* Reviewed FEMA internal and external reports on regionalization to
identify any areas requiring management attention (management issues);
we corroborated the management issues through our interviews with FEMA
officials. See appendix IV for a summary of the management issues
addressed in each study.
* Reviewed GAO's Standards for Internal Control in the Federal
Government to determine their applicability to management issues.
[Footnote 2] We selected criteria from the Standards that correspond
with the management issues we identified from internal and external
reports.
* Analyzed FEMA documents on the regionalization process, guidance and
protocols on programmatic and financial monitoring, and memorandums
detailing policy changes.
* Interviewed FEMA officials responsible for financial and program
management in FEMA headquarters Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), as
well as other headquarters program offices with planning and oversight
responsibilities, including the Office of Policy and Program Analysis
and the Office of Regional Operations.
* Interviewed Grants Management Division officials in FEMA Region IV;
identified how FEMA regions have been integrated in the
regionalization planning processes, and analyzed input from FEMA
regions included in agency regionalization studies. We selected Region
IV because it has the largest regional grants organization (in terms
of number of staff) and is the subject of a pilot program to test a
new management approach for grants administration by having the region
determine its resource needs and develop its operating budget. ]
* Interviewed representatives of the National Emergency Management
Association to gain the state perspective on the regionalization
initiative.[Footnote 3]
* Reviewed the regionalization implementation plan and supporting
documents as well as interviewed members of the Regional
Implementation of Grants Task Force, the FEMA entity leading the
regionalization effort. The Task Force includes senior officials
across GPD divisions, as well as representatives from each of the 10
regional grants organizations.
Scope and Methodology: Objective 2:
To determine the extent that FEMA has assessed the regions' capacity
to assume increased responsibility for the administration of
preparedness grants, we did the following:
* Reviewed FEMA internal and external reports on regionalization to
identify workforce planning management issues, and reviewed GAO's
Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government to determine
their applicability to the issues.[Footnote 4]
* Analyzed existing GPD workforce assessments for evidence of
consideration of regional capacity.
* Interviewed FEMA officials responsible for financial and program
management to determine what workforce and resource changes have been
made to accommodate changed responsibilities.
* Reviewed the GPD Regional Coordination and Oversight Branch's
process for conducting region by region resource assessments.
* Reviewed the Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force's
regionalization implementation plan and related documents to determine
if the documents addressed resources related to regionalization
activities.
* Analyzed the Region IV budget pilot documentation on FEMA's plans to
delegate authority to regional grant divisions or branches to request
and manage a budget for regional grants administration activities
directly from GPD.
Scope and Methodology:
To ensure the technical accuracy of the briefing, we provided a draft
to DHS and incorporated technical comments as appropriate.
We conducted this performance audit from January 2011 through July
2011 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the work
to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable
basis for our findings and conclusions based on our objectives. We
believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our
findings and conclusions based on our objectives.
Results in Brief:
FEMA has taken steps consistent with internal control standards to
operationalize delegation of grants administration responsibilities
for preparedness grants to the regions. For example, FEMA developed an
implementation plan, established the Regional Implementation of
Grants Task Force as an oversight and evaluation mechanism, and
created a communications approach for regionalization activities.
Regionalization is slated for completion in fiscal year 2016.
FEMA has taken steps consistent with internal control standards to
assess the regions' capacity to assume increased responsibility for
the administration of preparedness grants. For example, in fiscal year
2011, GPD's Regional Coordination and Oversight Branch plans to
complete an assessment of each region's financial management resources
and capabilities, as a means to improve regionalization workforce
planning. Further, the Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
plans to assess regional resource needs as part of a pilot process
from fiscal year 2011 through fiscal year 2016 to regionalize
components of grants administration for all of its preparedness grant
programs.
FEMA is currently evaluating the results of its regionalization
efforts to date, assessing the distribution of roles and
responsibilities between headquarters and the regions, and weighing
options for future changes given resource constraints.
Background:
GPD manages the preparedness grant portfolio, including monitoring
regional grants administration activities. See appendix
V, which provides FEMA's organization chart, including Grant
Programs. See appendix VI for a detailed GPD organization chart.
FEMA regions manage grants administration activities through either a
stand-alone grants division or a grants branch embedded within a
preparedness or mission support division. See appendix VII for a map
of the 10 FEMA regions, and appendix VIII for a representation of the
different regional grants organization structures.
FEMA initiated regionalization of preparedness grants in February 2008
as part of a broader effort to delegate responsibility for
implementing the National Preparedness System.[Footnote 5]
Through regionalization, FEMA has delegated financial monitoring for
all 17 non-fire preparedness grants, as well as other components of
financial and program management for six non-fire preparedness grants:
Emergency Management Performance Grant, Driver's License Security
Grant Program, Emergency Operations Centers Grant Program,
Metropolitan Medical Response System Grants, Citizen Corps Program,
and Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program.
For the six regionalized non-fire preparedness grants, GPD provides
the guidance and mechanisms to assist the regions in administering the
grant programs and the regions are responsible for implementing the
programs.
Figure 1 provides a timeline of key regionalization activities. (See
appendix IX for an overview of regionalization of grants
administration responsibilities for the 6 of the 17 preparedness
grants programs for which regions have additional management
responsibilities.)
Background: Regionalization Process Overview:
Figure 1: Timeline for Regionalization of Preparedness Grants:
[Refer to PDF for image: timeline]
February 2008:
FEMA delegates components of financial management[A] including
financial monitoring, for all non-fire preparedness grants, and most
program management[B] functions for Emergency Management Performance
Grants, Driver's License Security Grant Program, and Metropolitan
Medical Response System to the regions.
December 2008:
FEMA delegates most program management[B] responsibilities for
Emergency Operations Centers and Citizen Corps Program to the regions.
July 2009:
Grant Programs Directorate completes Fiscal Year 2010 Regionalization
Plan, which includes headquarters and regional roles/responsibilities
for grants financial management functions based on an initial
assessment of regionalization effort.
October 2009:
FEMA regionalizes most financial management functions, including
financial amendments and financial award technical assistance, for
Emergency Management Performance Grants; Emergency Operations Centers;
Driver's License Security Grant Program; and Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness Grant Program.
December 2009:
Grant Programs Directorate completes an internal Workforce Analysis
report with a number of recommendations on regionalization.
May 2010:
Office of Policy and Program Analysis completes an assessment of the
Grant Programs Directorate's workforce and operating costs with a
number of recommendations related to regionalization.
August 2010:
Grant Programs Directorate evaluates regionalization using a
structured survey, establishes regionalization oversight structure,
and holds a stakeholder summit.
December 2010:
Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force presents recommendations
to FEMA leadership on future course of regionalization
January 2011:
Grant Programs Directorate begins an assessment of each region's
resource and capability needs, in order to establish a baseline for
regionalization moving forward.
2011-2016:
Grant Programs Directorate plans to regionalize implementation
responsibilities for all preparedness grants.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA memorandums, plans, reviews, and
monitoring documentation.
[A] Some financial management functions including budget reviews,
award approval & notification, amendments and payment reviews, are
still managed by FEMA headquarters (HO).
[B] Program management functions, including developing grant guidance,
application kits, and scoring criteria; determining grant amounts; and
coordinating of public affairs materials and contacts, are still the
responsibility of FEMA HO.
Objective 1: FEMA Has Taken Steps Consistent with Internal Control
Standards to Operationalize Delegation of Preparedness Grants:
Implementation planning:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to define
areas of responsibility for activities and establish appropriate lines
of authority, which should be clearly specified in a document such as
an implementation plan. Planning is a critical component of internal
control in that it helps agencies meet missions, goals, and objectives
and, in doing so, supports performance-based management.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* In July 2009, GPD's Grants Management Division completed a Fiscal
Year 2010 Regionalization Plan that defined the roles and
responsibilities of GPD and the regions for financial monitoring and
other financial management functions, and delineated implementation
activities related to communications, policy development, information
management, technical assistance, and oversight.
* In November and December 2010, the Regional Implementation of Grants
Task Force presented recommendations to FEMA leadership for the
regionalization of grant programs, along with an implementation plan.
The implementation plan includes phases for piloting and rolling out
specific grants administration functions for the remaining
preparedness grants, and delineates an approach, including roles and
responsibilities, for key implementation activities such as training;
stakeholder engagement; process improvement; performance measurement;
and risk management.
According to a senior official, FEMA leadership is weighing options
for regionalization given the current fiscal climate and anticipated
future resource constraints. The Grant Programs Directorate held a
summit with regional administrators in June 2011 at which they reached
consensus to move forward with a pilot approach to regionalizing the
remaining preparedness grants beginning in fiscal year 2012.
Evaluation process including strategic objectives:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to establish
strategic objectives and have a mechanism in place to compare actual
performance to planned or expected results and analyze significant
differences.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* Based on an assessment of initial regionalization efforts, the
Fiscal Year 2010 Regionalization Plan incorporated changes to
regionalization, including expanded regional responsibilities for
financial management.
* The Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force was established as
an oversight and evaluation mechanism. The Task Force conducted a 2010
survey of regional and headquarters staff, as well as grantees,
regarding the regionalization process, and convened a stakeholder
summit to discuss progress, challenges, and future direction.
- Survey results revealed a need for more clearly defined roles and
responsibilities, leadership on the regionalization process, better
communication and coordination between headquarters and the regions,
stronger guidance and training, and additional regional workforce
assessment.
* The Task Force defined three strategic goals for regionalization:
improved customer service, more robust regions, and increased grant
administration efficiencies.
* At the stakeholder summit, the Task Force developed a business case
for segmenting headquarters/regional responsibilities (e.g.,
headquarters is in the best position to develop and communicate
standards in a centralized manner, regions can more expeditiously
complete application review processes).
Communications approach:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to have a
communication approach in place to ensure that information is flowing
down and up the organization. Operating information helps ensure
accountability for effective and efficient use of resources.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* The Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force's October 2010
implementation plan includes a detailed approach and timeline for
stakeholder engagement, and outlines key messages, audiences, and
delivery mechanisms.
* In January 2011, FEMA realigned the GPD organizational structure,
which according to a December 2010 presentation to GPD staff, was
intended to improve collaboration and communication across GPD.
* Annual financial monitoring plans, as well as programmatic
monitoring protocols, provide guidance to regions on their
responsibilities for grant monitoring.
* GPD's Deputy Assistant Administrator issued protocols to GPD staff
on coordinating program monitoring visits with regional staff and
integrating program and financial monitoring.
Risk management approach to grants administration:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to use risk
(e.g., past deficiencies) to inform monitoring activities.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* On March 18, 2011, FEMA's Deputy Administrator outlined a number of
action items for GPD, including creating a methodology and process for
assessing grantee risk, and developing a plan to address open GAO and
DHS Office of Inspector General audit recommendations and identify
risk areas across the recommendations.[Footnote 6]
* GPD established a new Internal Controls and Performance Management
Office as part of the January 2011 reorganization in order to elevate
strategic administration and monitoring of the grant portfolio; the
new office developed risk management criteria to guide fiscal year
2011 monitoring activities, which is consistent with internal control
standards. Staff in this office also developed a curriculum for
internal use on internal controls, risk assessment and their
importance to GPD.
* FEMA is attempting to improve tracking of Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) Circular A-133 audit findings, which relate to audits of
non-federal recipients of federal grants (e.g., states) directed by
OMB. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer, in coordination with
FEMA's Intra-Agency Grant Programs Task Force, is leading an
initiative to implement a FEMA-wide approach to A-133 audit
resolution. GPD's Audit Resolution branch already has a standard
operating procedure for tracking and resolving A-133 audit findings.
* GPD's Regional Coordination and Oversight Branch is able to analyze
trends and generate reports based on financial monitoring activities.
Oversight of financial and programmatic monitoring:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to conduct
ongoing monitoring in the course of normal operations, to help ensure
compliance with laws and regulations.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* GPD issues annual financial monitoring guidance to regions. For
fiscal year 2011, GPD published a standardized Financial Monitoring
Plan, Financial Monitoring Site Visit protocols, as well as templates
for the preparation of summary reports based on monitoring activities.
The fiscal year 2011 Financial Monitoring Plan delineates the roles
and responsibilities of headquarters and regional staff and provides
guidance on site selection.
* GPD's Regional Coordination and Oversight Branch is to review
regional monitoring schedules to ensure adherence to protocols and
federal legislation. The oversight branch also is to receive copies of
each desk review and site visit report, record issues in a database,
and produce quarterly and annual summary reports for GPD management.
Regional staff are required to execute specific financial monitoring
and cash analysis activities including analyzing cash-on-hand balances
and trends to ensure identification and liquidation of excess monies.
* In fiscal year 2010, GPD's Preparedness Grants Division developed
Programmatic Grants Monitoring Protocols, which provide standardized
grants monitoring practices for all preparedness grants. The protocols
provide a breakdown of the programmatic grants monitoring life-cycle,
step-by-step activity summaries, and supporting information on
regulations and policy requirements. The division has also developed a
set of monitoring questions for regional use in conducting monitoring
activities.
* The Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force plans to develop
standard operating procedures for all program and financial management
functions in the grants life-cycle in fiscal year 2011, indicating
respective headquarters and regional responsibilities.[Footnote 7]
Objective 2: FEMA Has Taken Steps Consistent with Internal Control
Standards to Assess the Regions' Capacity to Assume Increased
Responsibility for Preparedness Grants:
Workforce planning:
Federal standards for internal control call for agencies to identify
the necessary resources in order to achieve operational success and
develop human capital strategies to address any gaps.
Consistent with these standards, FEMA has taken or plans to take the
following actions:
* In fiscal year 2011, GPD's Regional Coordination and Oversight
Branch initiated an assessment of each region's resources and
capabilities for grant financial management functions, as a means to
improve regionalization workforce planning. The region resource
assessments cover the following areas: organizational structure;
workload capacity; tools and resources; policies and procedures; and
communications; among other items.[Footnote 8]
* The Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force plans to assess
regional resource needs as part of a pilot process from fiscal years
2011 through 2016 to regionalize components of financial and program
management for the complete set of preparedness grant programs. The
Task Force has developed an approach for funding additional regional
staff by converting contractors to government employees, relocating
headquarters staff to the regions through a voluntary process, and
employing other resource management strategies.
* In fiscal year 2011, FEMA's Office of Chief Financial Officer is
conducting a regional budget pilot program, starting with FEMA Region
IV, to establish a baseline of funding needs for grants administration
and other decentralized functions. In the pilot program, FEMA plans to
delegate authority to regional grant divisions or branches to request
and manage a budget for regional grants administration activities
directly from GPD. Under the existing system, these activities are
budgeted for, and funded from, each regional administrator's budget
independent of GPD.
Agency Comments:
We provided a draft of this report to DHS for review and comment.
We received written comments from DHS on the draft report, which are
reproduced in enclosure II. DHS agreed with the findings and noted
that FEMA will continue its regionalization efforts consistent with
the internal control standards and evaluation protocols described in
our letter.
Additionally, we received technical comments, which were incorporated
where appropriate.
[End of section]
Appendix I: FEMA's Grant Portfolio:
Figure 2: FEMA Grant Programs Including Non-Fire Preparedness Grants:
[Refer to PDF for image: grant tree]
FEMA Grant Programs:
Disaster-Specific;
Hazard-Related;
Non-Disaster;
National Preparedness:
* Fire:
- Assistance to Firefighters Grant;
- Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response;
- Fire Prevention and Safety Grants;
* Non-Fire[A] (Non-fire preparedness grants are the focus of
regionalization):
- State Homeland Security Grant Program;
- Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program;
- Urban Areas Security Initiative[B];
- Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program;
- Metropolitan Medical Response System;
- Operation Stonegarden;
- Citizen Corps Program;
- Emergency Management Performance Grants;
- Emergency Operations Center Grant Program;
- Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant;
- Driver's License Security Grant Program;
- Buffer Zone Protection Program;
- Transit Security Grant Program;
- Port Security Grant Program;
- Intercity Passenger Rail Security;
- Freight Rail Security Grant Program;
- Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.
Source: FEMA.
[A] See appendix II for a description of non-fire preparedness grants.
[B] The Urban Areas Security Initiative includes funding for the Urban
Areas Security Initiative Non-Profit Grant Program.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix II:
Table 1: FEMA Non-Fire Preparedness Grants:
Non-Fire preparedness grants: State Homeland Security Grant Program;
Purpose: To support the implementation of State Homeland Security
Strategies that address the planning, organization, equipment,
training and exercise needs at state and local levels to prevent,
protect against, and recover from acts of terrorism and other
catastrophic events. Eligible applicants are only State Administrative
Agencies, the agencies designated by the states that are responsible
for administering grants and obligating funds to local government and
other subgrantees.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program;
Purpose: To strengthen the nation against risks associated with
potential terrorist attacks. Eligible applicants are Indian tribes
within the continental U.S. that meet certain risk requirements.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Urban Areas Security Initiative;
Purpose: To assist high-threat, high-density urban areas in building
an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, protect against,
respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. Eligible applicants
are only State Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant
Program;
Purpose: To enhance catastrophic incident preparedness by supporting
coordination of regional all-hazard planning. Eligible applicants are
only State Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Metropolitan Medical Response System;
Purpose: To support the integration of emergency management, health,
and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty
incidents caused by any hazard. Eligible applicants are only State
Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Operation Stonegarden;
Purpose: To enhance cooperation and coordination among local, tribal,
territorial, state, and federal law enforcement agencies in the joint
mission to secure U.S. international borders along routes of ingress
as well as along international water borders. Eligible applicants are
only State Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Citizen Corps Program;
Purpose: To coordinate the involvement of community members and
organizations in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation,
response, and recovery. Eligible applicants are only State
Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Emergency Management Performance Grant;
Purpose: To assist state, local, tribal, and territorial governments
prepare for all hazards. Eligible applicants are only State
Administrative Agencies or State Emergency Management Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Emergency Operations Center Grant
Program;
Purpose: To improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities
by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure, strategically located,
and fully interoperable Emergency Operations Centers. Eligible
applicants are only State Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Interoperable Emergency Communication
Grant;
Purpose: To improve interoperable emergency communications in
collective responses to natural disasters, terrorism, and other man-
made disasters. Eligible applicants are all states and territories.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Driver's License Security Grant Program;
Purpose: To prevent terrorism, reduce fraud, and improve the
reliability and accuracy of state-issued personal identification
documents. Eligible applicants are state driver's license agencies and
Public Safety departments.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Buffer Zone Protection Program;
Purpose: To increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions
surrounding high-priority critical infrastructure and key resource
assets (e.g. chemical facilities, dams, etc.). Eligible applicants are
only State Administrative Agencies.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Transit Security Grant Program
Purpose: To protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and
the traveling public from acts of terrorism and increase the
resilience of transit infrastructure. Eligible applicants are transit
agencies based on ridership, transit agencies that serve high-risk
urban areas, and certain ferry systems.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Port Security Grant Program
Purpose: To support increased port-wide risk management; enhanced
domain awareness; training and exercises; expansion of port recovery
and resiliency capabilities; and further capabilities to prevent,
detect, respond to, and recover from attacks involving improvised
explosive devices and other non-conventional weapons. Eligible
applicants are port areas.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Intercity Passenger Train Security
Purpose: To protect critical surface infrastructure and the traveling
public from acts of terrorism and increase the resilience of the
Amtrak rail system. The only eligible applicant is Amtrak.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Freight Rail Security Grant Program
Purpose: To protect critical surface transportation infrastructure
from acts of terrorism and increase the resilience of the freight rail
system. Eligible applicants include certain freight railroad carriers,
owners and offerors of railroad cars and owners of rail bridges.
Non-Fire preparedness grants: Intercity Bus Security Grant Program
Purpose: To protect intercity bus systems and the traveling public
from acts of terrorism. Eligible applicants include operators of fixed-
route intercity and certain charter bus services.
Source: FEMA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Evolution of Preparedness Grant Funding:
Table 2: FY 2010-2012 Funding for Preparedness Grants:
Preparedness grant: State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $950 million[C];
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $725 million[D];
FY 2012 Budget Request: $1.05 billion[E].
Preparedness grant: Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in SHSGP.
Preparedness grant: Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)[F];
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $887 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $725 million;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $920 million.
Preparedness grant: Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program;
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $35 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $15 million;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $0.
Preparedness grant: Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $41 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in SHSGP.
Preparedness grant: Operation Stonegarden (OS);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in SHSGP.
Preparedness grant: Citizen Corps Program (CCP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $13 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $13 million.
Preparedness grant: Emergency Management Performance Grant;
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $340 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $340 million;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $350 million.
Preparedness grant: Emergency Operations Center Grant Program;
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $60 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $15 million;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $0.
Preparedness grant: Interoperable Emergency Communication Grant
(IOECP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $50 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $0;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in SHSGP.
Preparedness grant: Driver's License Security Grant Program (DLSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $50 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in SHSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in SHSGP.
Preparedness grant: Buffer Zone Protection Program;
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $50 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $0;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $50 million.
Preparedness grant: Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $300 million[G];
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $250 million[H];
FY 2012 Budget Request: $300 million[I].
Preparedness grant: Port Security Grant Program (PSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $300 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: $250 million;
FY 2012 Budget Request: $300 million.
Preparedness grant: Intercity Passenger Rail Security (ICPRS);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: Included in TSGP;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in TSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in TSGP.
Preparedness grant: Freight Rail Security Grant Program (FRSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: Included in TSGP;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in TSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in TSGP.
Preparedness grant: Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP);
FY 2010 Appropriations Act[A]: $12 million;
FY 2011 Appropriations Act[B]: Included in TSGP;
FY 2012 Budget Request: Included in TSGP.
Source: GAO analysis of Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011 Appropriations Acts
and Fiscal Year 2012 President's Budget.
[A] See Pub. L. No. 111-83, 123 Stat. 2142 (2009).
[B] See Pub. L. No. 112-10, 125 Stat. 38 (2011).
[C] Includes $60 million for OS and $10 million for THSGP as specified
in FEMA Fiscal Year 2011 Preparedness Grant Guidance.
[D] Includes $35 million for MMRS; $55 million for OS; $10 million for
CCP; and $45 million for DLSGP. Also includes $10 million for THSGP as
specified in FEMA Fiscal Year 2011 Preparedness Grant Guidance.
[E] Includes $50 million for OS, and integrates MMRS, IOECP, and DLSGP
as allowable expenses.
[F] Includes Urban Areas Security Initiative Non-Profit Funding of
approximately $19 million in fiscal years 2010 and 2011.
[G] Includes no less than $20 million for ICPRS and does not specify
amount for FRSGP.
[H] Includes no less than $20 million for ICPRS and $5 million for
IBSGP in fiscal year 2011, and does not specify an amount for FRSGP.
[I] Includes no less than S20 million for ICPRS and does not specify
amount for IBSGP and FRSGP.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Areas Requiring Management Attention in Reports on
Regionalization:
Table 3: GAO Analysis of Reports Related to Regionalization[A]:
Management issue: Implementation planning;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Check];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Check];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Check];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Empty];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Check];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Empty].
Management issue: Evaluation process including strategic
objectives/outcomes;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Check];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Empty];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Check];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Empty];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Check];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Empty].
Management issue: Communications approach;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Check];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Check];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Check];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Empty];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Empty];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Empty].
Management issue: Risk management approach to grants administration;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Empty];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Empty];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Empty];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Empty];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Empty];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Check].
Management issue: Oversight of financial and programmatic monitoring;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Check];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Empty];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Check];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Check];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Empty];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Check].
Management issue: Workforce planning;
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009:
[Check];
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010: [Check];
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants Task Force
Workshop Outcomes, September 2010: [Check];
External report: DHS Office of Inspector General Improvements Needed
in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009: [Check];
External report: NAPA Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and
Development of Robust Regional Offices, October 2009: [Check];
External report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’ FY10 Financial
Statements November 2010: [Empty].
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA management studies and external reviews,
including audits.
[A] The information contained in this analysis is based on GAO's
review of these agency reports and other sources, as well as related
GAO products including GAO, Human Capital: Key Principles for
Effective Strategic Workforce Planning, GAO-04-39, (Washington, D.C.:
Dec. 11, 2003); GAO, Results-Oriented Cultures: Implementation Steps
to Assist Mergers and Organizational Transformations, GAO-03-669
(Washington, D.C.: July 2, 2003); and GAO, Legal Services Corporation:
Improved Internal Controls Needed in Grants Management and Oversight,
GAO-08-37 (Washington, D.C.: Dec. 28, 2007). Through comparative
analysis of the results of the internal and external reports, our
Standards for Internal Control, and our previous work on federal
management, GAO determined that the scope and methodology used in
these reports were sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
[End of table]
Table 4: Description of Internal Reports Related to Regionalization:
FEMA internal report: Grant Programs Directorate Grant Development and
Administration Division Workforce Analysis Report, December 2009;
Scope and methodology:
* Conducted 15 employee interviews, surveyed 118 employees (59
responded), conducted working group sessions with GPD staff and
leadership, interviewed four other federal grant management
organizations, and gathered grant data from 2002-2009 to compare
against full-time employment levels;
* Collected workload data from each branch of the Grant Development
and Administration Division and compared this to staff’s available
work hours;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Shortfalls in implementation planning and oversight of monitoring;
* Need to assess regionalization, what works and what does not;
* Weaknesses in communications between HQ and regions;
* Concerns about sufficiency of regional resources to take on
additional responsibilities.
FEMA internal report: Office of Policy and Program Analysis Baseline
Assessment of GPD, May 2010;
Scope and methodology:
* Conducted interviews of personnel with GPD HQ, FEMA regional
offices, FEMA program offices, and FEMA’s Office of the Chief
Financial Officer, and Office of Human Capital;
* Framed findings in a prospective way, as in steps that FEMA should
take with future attempts to regionalize;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Lack of an operational framework for regionalization;
* Multiple communication channels between HQ and the Regions;
* Gaps in resources for financial monitoring.
FEMA internal report: Regional Implementation of Grants (RIG) Task
Force Workshop Outcomes, September 2010;
Scope and methodology:
* Three day focus group including grants management staff and leaders
from GPD, 10 regional officials and representatives of the state,
local, and port grantees;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Lack of clearly defined grant management functions to assist
implementation of regionalization;
* Weaknesses in communication and coordination between preparedness
grantees, the regions, and FEMA HQ;
* Lack of coordination on programmatic and financial monitoring
between HQ and the regions;
* Insufficient understanding of regional resource requirements;
* Three day focus group including grants management staff.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA management studies.
[End of table]
Table 5: Description of External Reports Related to Regionalization:
FEMA external report: DHS Office of the Inspector General.
Improvements Needed in FEMA Monitoring of Grantees, March 2009;
Scope and methodology:
* Interviewed GPD staff responsible for preparedness grants financial
and program management;
* Interviewed staff from FEMA’s Office of the Chief Financial Officer,
Office of Human Capital, and Information Technology;
* Collected and reviewed fiscal years 2007 and 2008 program and
financial data for grant programs;
* Reviewed position descriptions for grants management staff in HQ and
regions;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Lack of comprehensive financial and program monitoring policies,
procedures, and plans, including for oversight purposes;
* Insufficient staffing levels in HQ and the regions for grant
monitoring activities.
FEMA external report: National Academy of Public Administration.
Review of FEMA’s Integration of Preparedness and Development of Robust
Regional Offices, October 2009;
Scope and methodology:
* Interviewed HQ and regional officials;
* Interviewed stakeholder representatives and experts;
* Conducted on-site reviews of three FEMA regional offices;
* Surveyed senior officials in all FEMA regional offices;
* Analyzed workforce data from fiscal years 2003-2009 and reviewed key
FEMA policies and procedures;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Concerns about regional resource levels;
* Unclear roles and responsibilities for regional staff.
FEMA external report: Independent Auditors’ Report on DHS’s FY 2010
Financial Statements, November 201;
Scope and methodology:
* Tested compliance of DHS fiscal year 2010 financial statements with
certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant
agreements and others as required by Government Auditing Standards;
Findings related to regionalization management issue areas:
* Shortfalls in risk management approach to grantee monitoring and
grantee oversight.
Source: GAO analysis of external reviews of FEMA.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix V: FEMA Organization Chart:
Figure 3: FEMA Organization Chart February 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart]
Top level:
Administrator: W. Craig Fugate;
Deputy Administrator: Richard Serino.
* Office of Chief Counsel: Brad Kiesennan (DHS Direct Report);
* Office of Center for Faith Based Neighborhood Partnerships: David
Myers (Serves all of DHS);
* Chief of Staff: Jason McNamara;
* Protection and National Preparedness Deputy Administrator: Tim
Manning.
Second level, reporting to Administrator/Deputy Administrator:
* Office of Chief Financial Officer: Norman Dong;
* Office of External Affairs: Brent Colburn;
* Office of Equal Rights: Pauline Campbell;
* Office of Regional Operations: Elizabeth Edge;
* Office of Disability Integration & Coordination: Marcie Roth;
* Office of Policy and Program Analysis: David Kaufman;
* Law Enforcement Advisor: James Hagy (A).
Second level, reporting to Chief of Staff:
* Executive Secretariat: Alyson Price;
* National Advisory Council: Patty Kalla;
* FEMA Childrens' Working Group;
* FEMA Disability Working Group (associated with Office of Disability
Integration & Coordination).
Second level, reporting to Protection and National Preparedness Deputy
Administrator:
* Assistant Administrator Grant Programs: Elizabeth Harman;
* Assistant Administrator National Preparedness: Corey Gruber;
* Assistant Administrator National Continuity Programs: Damon Penn;
* Director, Office of National Capital Region Coordination: Steward
Beckham.
Third level, reporting to Administrator/Deputy Administrator:
* Regions 1-10: Regional Administrators:
- R1: Don Boyce;
- R2: Lynn Canton;
- R3: MaryAnn Tierney;
- R4: Major Philip May;
- R5: Andrew Velasquez;
- R6: Tony Russell;
- R7: Beth Freeman;
- R8: Robin Finegan;
- R9: Nancy Ward;
- R10: Kenneth Murphy;
* U.S. Fire Administration Administrator: Glenn A. Gaines (A);
* Mission Support: Associate Administrator: David Garratt; Deputy
Associate Administrator:n Albert B. Sligh Jr.:
- Office of Chief Administrative Officer: Delia Davis;
- Office of Chief Information Officer: Jeanne Etzel;
- Office of Chief Procurement Officer: Jacob Hansen;
- Office of Chief Component Human Capital Officer: Sheila Clark
(Disaster Reserve Workforce);
- Office of Chief Security Officer: Burt Thomas;
* Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration, Administrator Ed
Connor (A):
- Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Insurance: Ed
Connor;
- Deputy Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administrator, Mitigation:
Sandra Knight;
* Response and Recovery Associate Administrator: William Carwile;
Deputy Associate Administrator: Elizabeth Zimmerman:
- Assistant Administrator, Response: Robert Fenton;
- Assistant Administrator, Recovery: Deborah Ingram;
- Director, Office of Federal Coordinating Officer Operations: Ted
Monette;
- Assistant Administrator, Logistics Management: William "Eric" Smith;
- Director, Office of Readiness and Assessment: Steve Saunders.
Effective 2/28/2011.
(A) Denotes acting incumbent.
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VI: Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) Organization Chart:
Figure 4: GPD Organization Chart: January 2011:
[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart]
Top level:
Asst. Administrator:
* Dep. Asst. Administrator:
- Senior Advisor;
- Executive Officer.
Second level, reporting to Asst. Administrator:
* Grant Operations;
* Preparedness Grants Division;
* Resource Mgmt. & Business Admin.
Third level, reporting to Grant Operations:
* Program Management Office;
* Grant Administration and Assistance Division:
- Award Administration: Preparedness Grants;
- Award Administration: Assistance to Firefighters Grants;
- Audit Branch;
- Regional Coordination and Oversight Branch;
* Program Support Division:
- Systems & Business Support;
- Reporting & Information Management;
- Training & Professional Development;
* Internal Controls & Performance Mgmt.
Third level, reporting to Preparedness Grants Division:
* Program Management Office;
* Homeland Security Grant Programs: Eastern Region;
* Homeland Security Grant Programs: Central Region;
* Homeland Security Grant Programs: Western Region;
* Transportation Infrastructure Security;
* Assistance to Firefighters Grants;
* Program Development.
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VII: FEMA Regions:
Figure 5: Location of 10 FEMA Regions:
[Refer to PDF for image: illustrated U.S. map]
Map depicts geographical regions and headquarter offices:
Region 1: Boston, Massachusetts;
Region 2: New York City, New York;
Region 3: Philadelphia, Pennsylvania;
Region 4: Atlanta, Georgia;
Region 5: Chicago, Illinois;
Region 6: Denton, Texas;
Region 7: Kansas City, Missouri;
Region 8: Denver, Colorado;
Region 9: Oakland, California;
Region 10: Seattle, Washington.
Source: FEMA.
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix VIII: Regional Grants Organizations:
Grants organizations across the regions are either a stand-alone
division or branch embedded within a mission support or preparedness
division.
Figure 6: Types of Regional Grants Organizations[A]:
[Refer to PDF for image: organization chart]
Regional Structure 1:
Grants Management Division:
* Financial Branch;
* Programmatic Branch.
Regional Structure 2:
Mission Support Division:
* Grant Business Management[B] Branch;
* Grant Program Management Branch.
Regional Structure 3:
Mission Support Division:
* Grant Business Management[B] Branch.
National Preparedness Division:
* Grant Program Management Branch.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA regional organization charts.
[A] Regions I, Ill, IV, IX and X follow Regional Structure 1. Region V
follows Regional Structure 2. Regions II, VI, VII, and VIII follow
Regional Structure 3.
[B] Business management activities are the same as financial
management activities (e.g., financial monitoring).
[End of figure]
[End of section]
Appendix IX: Overview of Regionalization of Preparedness Grants:
Table 6: Roles and Responsibilities for Regionalized Preparedness
Grant Programs[A]:
Preparedness grant program[B]: Emergency Management Performance Grant;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: Regions;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: Regions;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: Regions;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: Regions.
Preparedness grant program[B]: Driver's License Security Grant Program;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: Regions;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: Regions;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: Regions;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: Regions.
Preparedness grant program[B]: Emergency Operations Center Grant
Program;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: Regions;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: Regions;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: Regions;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: Regions.
Preparedness grant program[B]: Metropolitan Medical Response System;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: HQ;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: Regions;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: Regions;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: Regions.
Preparedness grant program[B]: Citizen Corps Program;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: HQ;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: Regions;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: Regions;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: Regions.
Preparedness grant program[B]: Regional Catastrophic Preparedness
Grant Program;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring protocols: HQ;
Financial management component: Financial monitoring: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial amendments, financial award
technical assistance, and audit response coordination: Regions;
Financial management component: Financial close-out: Regions;
Program management component: Program development and eligibility and
application review standards: HQ;
Program management component: Application and award package review,
program award, and award changes: HQ;
Program management component: Grant award approval and notification:
HQ;
Program management component: Program standards, monitoring protocols,
and training curriculums: HQ;
Program management component: Technical assistance, training, and
guidance to grantees: HQ;
Program management component: Programmatic monitoring: HQ.
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA documentation on regionalization.
[A] In addition to financial monitoring responsibilities, FEMA hes
delegated other components of financial management and components of
program management for these six preparedness grant programs.
[B] In FEMA's fiscal year 2012 budget request, Driver's License
Security Grant Program, and Metropolitan Medical Response System are
consolidated in the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the
Emergency Operations Center Grant Program and Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness Grant Program are eliminated.
[C] Financial monitoring is regionalized for all non-fire preparedness
grants, which are depicted in appendix I.
[End of table]
Briefing Slides Footnotes:
[1] See 6 U.S.C.§ 317.
[2] GAO, Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government,
GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1 (Washington, D.C.: November 1999).
[3] The National Emergency Management Association is a nonprofit,
nonpartisan association of emergency management and homeland security
professionals.
[4] GAO/AIMD-00-21.3.1.
[5] The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act requires FEMA to
develop a national preparedness system. Pub. L. No. 109-295, § 644,
120 Stat. 1355, 1425 (2006) (codified at 6 U.S.C. § 644). The National
Preparedness System defines target preparedness levels and priorities,
and it consists of a cycle of standard-setting, training, exercise,
planning, assessment, technical assistance, grant-making, and
reporting activities to build capabilities. For additional
information, 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.: Oct. 29, 2010).
[6] DHS's Office of Inspector General plans to conduct an audit in
fiscal year 2011 on FEMA's Oversight of Grantees Using a Risk-Based
Approach that is to review FEMA's methodology to identify and monitor
grantees with increased risk.
[7] The DHS Office of Inspector General is currently conducting a
series of regional inspection audits to examine delegated authorities,
including grants oversight functions in each of the 10 regions.
[8] As of May 2011, GPD had assessed four regional offices. GPD plans
to complete assessments of all 10 FEMA regional offices by September
30, 2011. GPD expects the results of these assessments will be
available by December 2011.
[End of briefing slides]
[End of section]
Enclosure II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
July 25, 2011:
William 0. Jenkins, Jr.
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
441 G Street, NW:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
Re: Draft Letter GAO-11-732R, "FEMA Has Made Progress in Managing
Regionalization of Preparedness Grants"
Dear Mr. Jenkins:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this draft
letter and the associated briefing slides. The U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) appreciates the U.S. Government Accountability
Office's (GAO's) work in planning and conducting its review and
issuing this letter.
The Department is pleased to note GAO's positive acknowledgment that
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has "taken steps
consistent with internal control standards to operationalize the
delegation of grants administration responsibilities for preparedness
grants to the regions." The letter also recognizes that FEMA has "made
progress in assessing the regions' capacity to assume increased
responsibility for the administration of preparedness grants."
Although the letter does not contain any recommendations directed at
DHS, the Department remains committed to ensuring the effective
management of FEMA grant programs and that taxpayer monies are well
spent. Along these lines, FEMA will continue its regionalization
efforts consistent with the internal controls standards and evaluation
protocol described in GAO's letter, to improve customer service to
grantees, increase grants administration efficiencies, and build more
robust regions.
Again, thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this
letter. We look forward to working with you on future Homeland
Security issues.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Jim H. Crumpacker:
Director:
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office:
[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:
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting
its constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the
performance and accountability of the federal government for the
American people. GAO examines the use of public funds; evaluates
federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, recommendations,
and other assistance to help Congress make informed oversight, policy,
and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to good government is
reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and
reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through GAO's Web site (www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon,
GAO posts on its Web site newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. To have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted
products, go to 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, 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: 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, DC 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, DC 20548: