[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
PREPAREDNESS:
PART I AND II
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
FIRST SESSION
__________
OCTOBER 1 AND 27, 2009
__________
Serial No. 111-38
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
57-849 PDF WASHINGTON : 2010
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Loretta Sanchez, California Peter T. King, New York
Jane Harman, California Lamar Smith, Texas
Peter A. DeFazio, Oregon Mark E. Souder, Indiana
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Daniel E. Lungren, California
Columbia Mike Rogers, Alabama
Zoe Lofgren, California Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Henry Cuellar, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Laura Richardson, California Pete Olson, Texas
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ben Ray Lujan, New Mexico Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Eric J.J. Massa, New York
Dina Titus, Nevada
Vacancy
I. Lanier Avant, Staff Director
Rosaline Cohen, Chief Counsel
Michael Twinchek, Chief Clerk
Robert O'Connor, Minority Staff Director
------
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
Henry Cuellar, Texas, Chairman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Pete Olson, Texas
Laura Richardson, California Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Emmanuel Cleaver, Missouri Peter T. King, New York (ex
Dina Titus, Nevada officio)
Vacancy
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Michael Stroud, Acting Staff Director
Ryan Caldwell, Clerk
Amanda Halpern, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
STATEMENTS
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Oral Statement, October 1, 2009................................ 1
Oral Statement, October 27, 2009............................... 59
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Oral Statement, October 1, 2009................................ 5
Oral Statement, October 27, 2009............................... 65
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California:
Prepared Statement, October 27, 2009........................... 66
WITNESSES
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, National
Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. William ``Bill'' O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security
and Justice, Government Accountability Office:
Oral Statement................................................. 15
Prepared Statement............................................. 17
Ms. Wendy L. Smith, Assistant City Manager, McAllen, Texas:
Oral Statement................................................. 27
Prepared Statement............................................. 28
Ms. Suzanne C. DeFrancis, Chief Public Affairs Officer, American
Red Cross:
Oral Statement................................................. 29
Prepared Statement............................................. 30
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
Mr. Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, National
Preparedness, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department
of Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 67
Prepared Statement............................................. 69
Ms. Kathy B. Crandall, Director, Office of Homeland Security &
Justice Programs, Columbus Urban Area, Franklin County Board of
Commissioners, Franklin County, Ohio:
Oral Statement................................................. 71
Prepared Statement............................................. 72
Mr. David Maxwell, Director & Homeland Security Advisor, Arkansas
Department of Emergency Management:
Oral Statement................................................. 76
Prepared Statement............................................. 77
FOR THE RECORD
The Honorable Henry Cuellar, a Representative in Congress From
the State of Texas, and Chairman, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Post, http://incaseofemergencyblog.com......................... 3
Statement of the National Governors Association................ 61
Statement of the National Emergency Management Association..... 64
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response:
Statement of Marc Pearl, President & CEO, Homeland Security and
Business Defense Council..................................... 6
Letter to Administrator Fugate................................. 82
Letter to Secretary Napolitano................................. 84
APPENDICES
October 1, 2009
Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning. 47
Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for William ``Bill'' O.
Jenkins, Jr.................................................... 55
Questions Submitted From Hon. Dina Titus for William ``Bill'' O.
Jenkins, Jr.................................................... 57
Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Wendy L. Smith..... 58
October 27, 2009
Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning. 101
Questions Submitted From Chairman Cuellar for Kathy B. Crandall.. 105
PREPAREDNESS: PART I
STATE OF CITIZEN AND COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS
----------
Thursday, October 1, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness,
and Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:03 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Thompson, Pascrell,
Rogers, and Olson.
Mr. Cuellar [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee meeting today is to receive testimony
regarding preparedness, the state of citizen and community
preparedness.
Good morning. On behalf of the Members of the subcommittee,
let me welcome our four witnesses that we have here today.
We are especially pleased to have with us for the first
time FEMA's new deputy administrator for National preparedness,
Tim Manning. Mr. Manning comes to FEMA with an impressive
background in homeland security, having most recently served as
New Mexico's director of homeland security and emergency
management.
I would like to congratulate you, Mr. Manning, on your
confirmation as deputy administrator. This subcommittee looks
forward to working with you to strengthen FEMA and prepare the
Nation for any type of disaster.
I would also like to extend a warm welcome to Mr. Bill
Jenkins, director of homeland security and justice at the
Government Accountability Office.
Traveling the furthest, I guess, from my district, Ms.
Wendy Smith, an assistant city manager for McAllen, Texas.
Thank you, Ms. Smith, for taking this time to come to
Washington to discuss the steps that the city of McAllen has
taken to promote community preparedness.
I would also like to welcome Ms. Suzanne DeFrancis, chief
public affairs officer for the American Red Cross. Thank you
for being here.
Again, thank you to all the four witnesses that are here
today.
Today's hearing kicks off a series of hearings this
subcommittee will conduct on National preparedness. Our focus
this morning is on the state of the citizen community
preparedness. We want to better understand FEMA's initiatives
for promoting individual readiness.
As you know, a recent FEMA survey reveals that we have a
long way to go in preparing individuals for an emergency. While
slightly more than half of the survey's respondents have set
aside supplies in case of a disaster, only 44 percent reported
having an emergency household plan. Just 38 percent reported a
familiarity with their local resources of public safety
information.
Concerning to us, also, is that despite FEMA's best efforts
to boost community preparedness since 9/11 and Hurricane
Katrina, citizen awareness on the importance of preparing is
virtually unchanged for the last 2 years. We must close these
gaps.
I recognize that it is not FEMA's job alone to do so. Other
partners are involved, also, and emergency preparedness is a
shared responsibility, and we all must do our part to make sure
we are ready when disaster strikes. But FEMA must develop a
clearer vision how it intends to enhance the role of public as
the first line of disaster preparedness and response.
FEMA runs a couple of programs that focuses on individual
readiness. The first is the Citizen Corps program, which is a
Bush administration initiative designed to foster volunteer
activities that make communities better prepared to respond to
any emergency.
The second is the Ready Campaign. Ready is a public service
initiative geared toward educating and empowering Americans to
become prepared for a disaster. GAO has been evaluating both
the Citizen Corps and Ready for this subcommittee since last
year.
We are concerned that GAO's preliminary review suggests
that FEMA does not have a strategic plan or performance
measure. As you know, this committee, the Ranking Member,
myself, and other Members of the committee have pushed hard for
strategic planning and, of course, for performance measures to
make sure that we can tell, you know, what is a result, whether
it is failure or success, and so we can get an idea as to what
direction we are heading to.
GAO has also been unable to determine who exactly at FEMA
is in charge of the Ready campaign and how Ready is integrated
into other citizens' preparedness programs.
I am eager to learn from Mr. Manning if he agrees with the
GAO's observation and, more importantly, what his plans are for
the Citizen Corps and Ready, as well as individual preparedness
more generally.
We can't talk about individual preparedness without having
our communities at the table. I look forward getting from Ms.
Smith and Ms. DeFrancis a perspective on the steps that their
organizations have taken to foster citizens' preparedness. I
would also like to hear from them what they think FEMA's role
should be in promoting individual preparedness and what that
partnership should look like.
So with that, let me again thank our witnesses for their
participation in today's witnesses hearing. I look forward to
hearing your testimony and working with you to ensure that FEMA
has a clear vision for strengthening citizen and community
preparedness of that.
Without objection, I would like to introduce the following
article, ``Ideas to Improve America's Emergency Preparedness
for the Record,'' and it is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Material Submitted for the Record by Chairman Henry Cuellar
Posted on http://incaseofemergencyblog.com
on sept 11, some ideas to improve americans' emergency preparedness &
engagement
september 11, 2009
On the anniversary of 9/11, I wanted to repost some proposals to
help raise citizen preparedness. DHS Secretary Napolitano has said that
public readiness is a priority and the Department has begun the process
of engaging Americans in their own homeland security. The ideas below
come largely from discussions I have had with people involved in all
aspects of the issue, my own experiences as a parent and CERT member in
New York City, as well as from the input I have received from readers
since the inception of my blog. As always, I welcome your thoughts and
suggestions:
Create Citizen Preparedness Task Force.--The lack of progress to
date on public readiness and engagement underscores the need to develop
new ways of approaching the issue. DHS Secretary Napolitano should
create a Citizen Preparedness Outreach Task Force to assess the current
state of public readiness and work on developing new approaches. At
present, there is no clear social education analog. In fact, in its
recent report, the Commission on the Prevention of Weapons of Mass
Destruction Proliferation and Terrorism recommended the Administration
make citizen engagement a priority. But Chairman Bob Graham told me
that the ``WMD Commission'' did not did not [sic] find anything
suitable it could recommend and that something new has to be developed.
Better Define What It Means To Be ``Prepared''.--A recent American
Red Cross survey indicated that 93% of Americans are not prepared for
disasters. The truth is that no one can be fully prepared, but there is
a need to offer the public a clearer definition--including a minimum
level--of preparedness. That would not only include storing tangible
supplies (ie. at least 3 days of food & water) but also knowledge about
potential threats that every American should know. That doesn't mean
overwhelming people with too much information, but making sure they are
at least familiar with some basics. (For example, the first time
citizens hear about a ``dirty bomb'' from government officials should
not be in the moments after one has been exploded.)
Support & Report on State/Local Preparedness Efforts.--Provide
adequate seed money for State and local government to bolster civilian
preparedness programs and link the grants to performance. Encourage
authorities to report publicly on their level of citizen preparedness
and create metrics for better measuring civilian readiness. Find
interested governors to take on leadership roles and create pilot
models in their States. Expand support of disaster volunteer
opportunities including Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and
other community programs, which serve as catalysts for organizing local
efforts. There is a need to employ both ``bottom/up'' and ``top/down''
approaches to disaster preparedness combining State, local, and
community leadership and citizen involvement with Federal commitment
and focus. Ensure that Government authorities can competently respond
to disasters but also more strongly emphasize the need for the public
and local communities to be prepared and self-reliant, particularly in
the first 72 hours after a disaster.
Highlight & Spread Models From Around United States & Other
Countries.--There is a need to help promote and implement best
practices from communities around the U.S. and draw, where applicable,
from British and Israeli experiences. One model may be the United
Kingdom's National Risk Register, which sets out publicly the
government's assessment of the likelihood and potential impact of a
range of different public health, natural, and terrorist risks. It is
designed to increase awareness of the kinds of risks the U.K. faces,
and encourage individuals and organizations to think about their own
preparedness. The Register also includes details of what the Government
and first responders are doing to prepare for those emergencies and the
role of citizens in those plans.
Offer Small Carrots.--Encourage States to create tax-free periods
for consumers to purchase preparedness supplies. Provide a tax write-
off for citizens to buy preparedness-related products as a way to
promote participation and to signal governmental commitment. Also,
consider targeting assistance to citizens who cannot afford to prepare.
The bottom line is that in most instances to change social behavior
there needs to be some incentives involved.
Bring in Business to Help Market Preparedness.--Design and roll out
a full service preparedness marketing campaign with help from the
private sector. Galvanize business to take on disaster preparedness in
the same way they have with disaster response, most notably in the
aftermath of Hurricane Katrina (i.e. big box stores, packaged goods
manufacturers, bottled water companies, wireless industry). In
addition, work with private sector to alleviate existing obstacles to
personal preparedness (i.e. work with health care industry to allow for
extra prescription medicine in advance of a disaster.)
Involve the Children.--Put more emphasis on educating young people
on preparedness by piggybacking on other related school-based social
education efforts, most prominently fire safety. The challenge is both
the decentralization of the Nation's education system and the already
high cirricula demands on teachers. Yet, an effective fire education
program was implemented in the schools beginning in the 1970's, and
there would seem to be a perfect fit to integrate a preparedness module
into that existing program. The Federal Government should work with
State and local officials as well as fire and education officials to
determine how best to accomplish that objective.
Embrace and Accelerate Preparedness 2.0--There is a need to better
inform the public on the potential on 21st century personal technology
to prepare for and respond to 21st century emergencies. We must make
Americans more aware of the capabilities of the technology at their
fingertips (i.e. wireless devices, social networking sites) and
integrate it into disaster planning and response. The public's new
ability to access and distribute information offers both an opportunity
and a challenge to government authorities. As a start, every
governmental preparedness web site should add a cell phone and an extra
battery (or other power source) to the basic components of their
recommended disaster supply kit. Many private companies are working on
applications for citizen emergency communications. Those business
efforts need to be integrated with official alerts (i.e. the new
iteration of the Emergency Alert System) and unofficial citizen-based
social media (as well as the news media). Both the content and
distribution channels of emergency communications are changing and new
models need to be developed.
``See And Say'' Some More.--Build Upon The Initial Success of ``Say
Something, See Something''-type citizen information campaigns by
providing the public with more specific guidance on how to assist law
enforcement and, without giving away sources and methods, offering more
feedback on the information they have provided. Law enforcement
officials are concerned about societal complacency almost 8 years since
9/11, but have not determined how to communicate to the public a more
candid--yet calm and balanced--picture of the threat and how they can
best help.
Expanded Emergency Drilling Opportunities to Public.--Increase
opportunities for citizens to participate in disaster drills, which
would help people focus on the issue and work through the key questions
everyone should ask before a disaster (i.e. How will you get
information and communicate with your family? Do you know the emergency
plan of your children's school?) Most every top homeland security/
emergency management official I have interviewed has told me that
broader public disaster exercises would be helpful in a number of ways,
but there has not been a concerted effort to expand drilling
opportunities to the public.
Establish an Official Preparedness Day.--Create a National
Preparedness Day to focus public attention before disasters, including
briefing citizens, conducting drills, and filling emergency kits. A
helpful model is Japan's Disaster Prevention Day held on the
anniversary of the catastrophic 1923 Tokyo earthquake.
Create Citizen Preparedness Office/Spokesperson.--Consider
establishing a National citizen preparedness office or a high profile
spokesperson to highlight and help coordinate efforts around the U.S.
and ensure citizen preparedness remains a priority. Work with American
Red Cross to create an effective advocate for the general public on
emergency preparedness in the same way disabled and pet groups have
done for the disaster needs of their communities over the past several
years.
Bundle Citizen Preparedness Proposals Together into ``Citizen
Preparedness Initiative''.--For too long, well meaning public
preparedness efforts have gotton lost or have been ignored by the
public. That's in large part that they have not been packaged and
presented as being specifically directed to citizens. But if the
government would assemble these small disparate proposals listed above
into an overall citizen preparedness package it would have a better
chance of getting attention and gaining some traction. Ultimately,
making inroads on citizen preparedness is less a matter of money than
it is of focus and attention.
Mr. Cuellar. At this time, I would like to recognize my
Ranking Member, hard-working Member of the subcommittee, Mr.
Rogers, for an opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for holding this
hearing.
To each of the witnesses, I really appreciate you making
the time and putting the effort into preparing for this
hearing. It is extremely helpful to us, so thank you for being
here.
This hearing, as the Chairman said, is being held to look
at how prepared Americans are to deal with a major disaster. We
all know that individual preparedness, community preparedness,
and business preparedness are extremely important in saving
lives and property if and when a natural disaster or terrorist
attack occurs.
We made some important strides over the last several years
to enhance community preparedness, but more work remains.
According to the 2009 National preparedness survey, many
individuals still don't have disaster supply kits or know their
community's evacuation plans.
Further, the latest terrorist plots that were foiled in
recent weeks, the tsunami that hit American Samoa this week, as
well as the flash flooding in many Southern States, including
Georgia and my home State of Alabama are just some reminders of
the on-going risks we face and the importance of being prepared
for all types of events.
Fortunately, we have not seen a major hurricane hit the
United States yet this season, but that doesn't mean Americans
living on the gulf and other regions can become complacent.
When it comes to emergency preparedness or emergency readiness,
America's first responders are our front lines to protect our
communities. I want to take this opportunity to thank first
responders for their heroic work that they do and also thank
the countless people who volunteer to help during a
catastrophic event.
We all appreciate the dedicated service of our capable and
courageous emergency responders, but we have to remember that
these responders make up less than 1 percent of the total U.S.
population. That means individual citizens, communities, and
businesses have to develop their own capabilities and conduct
their own planning activities in order to share the
responsibility of preparedness.
Again, I want to thank our witnesses for being here,
particularly the American Red Cross, who continues to be an
invaluable partner in preparedness through its many outreach
activities and preparedness initiatives.
Also, I would like to ask unanimous consent, Mr. Chairman,
to insert into the record a statement from the Homeland
Security and Defense Business Council which highlights the
important role of businesses in disaster preparedness.
With that, I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Without objection.
[The information follows:]
Statement of Marc Pearl, President & CEO, Homeland Security and Defense
Business Council
october 1, 2009
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, and all of the Members of
the subcommittee, I thank you for the opportunity to submit this
statement for the record on behalf of the Homeland Security & Defense
Business Council regarding our initiatives and mission to develop a
``culture of preparedness'' among business leaders.
The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council is a non-profit,
non-partisan organization of world-class businesses engaged in homeland
security solutions development and implementation with the U.S.
Department of Homeland Security; other Federal agencies; State, local,
and Tribal governments, as well as on a global scale. Since its
inception in 2004, the Council has focused a great deal of attention on
working to develop a better understanding of the private sector's role
and responsibility as the ``3rd leg of the stool'' in preparedness--
those legs being the Government, non-governmental organizations, and
the private sector. Only if each ``leg'' is holding up its
responsibilities will we achieve true preparedness and be in a much
stronger position to protect our facilities, networks, and people. As
the private sector's leading voice in homeland security, the Council
facilitates, educates, and stimulates business leaders and their
organizations to actively engage in preparedness with their employees
and customers, and for their facilities and networks by leveraging the
private sector's resources, experience, and leadership through best
practices, peer-to-peer exchange, and mentoring within the business
community.
Since 2007, in partnership with the American Red Cross of the
National Capital Area, the Council has annually hosted the ``Partners
in Preparedness Symposium'' during National Preparedness Month to help
educate and encourage small, medium, and large businesses to embrace
emergency preparedness and prepare their companies for all hazards. The
Homeland Security & Defense Business Council's members have served as
mentors and role models for other businesses that do not necessarily
have the financial or personnel resources available to them for
complicated, extensive business continuity planning. Additionally, this
year, as a way to encourage even higher-level corporate involvement,
the Council launched the ``CEO Summit at Partners in Preparedness.'' In
cooperation with the Young President's Organization of the DC/Baltimore
Chapter, the Greater Washington Board of Trade and the D.C. Chamber of
Commerce, CEOs, and presidents from the region gathered for an
executive training to consider both an H1N1 flu resurgence and a
concurrent cyber incident. This dual program has been met with such
enthusiasm and support that we are working to take it ``beyond the
Beltway.'' Other major metropolitan areas around the country; smaller
suburban communities, such as those outside of San Antonio, and, just
as essentially, rural communities such as Talladega, Alabama must be
encouraged to incorporate this type of program for their businesses.
There is no question that there also can be a ``ripple effect'' whereby
businesses that actively engage in a preparedness program will have a
great influence on their employees, their relatives, and the
organization's customers--further building the relationships,
understanding and cooperation necessary for a resilient Nation from the
ground up with top-level business owners' support.
Additionally, each attendee at this year's Preparedness Symposium
was provided an ``Emergency Response Toolkit'' with practical and
tactical information on how to get their organization prepared. In
addition to a complete overview, the Toolkit provided two important
components developed in cooperation with the Council towards business
preparedness that we believe can be easily incorporated in any
organization--small, medium, and large: Operation CAPA (Commit, Assess,
Prepare and Act) and a Cyber Security Checklist. I have attached
detailed information on both of these programs to my statement. It is
our hope that businesses will commit to either these or other
initiatives--such as the soon-to-be-launched American Red Cross
ReadyRating.com program.
The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council very much
appreciates the subcommittee allowing us an opportunity to submit our
comments. But most of all, we applaud you for holding this hearing and
for putting a major spotlight on this important issue. Preparedness
cannot be motivated by a sign in front of a store or an ad in the
media, but only when our business, community, first responder, and
Government leaders take an active role--together--in committing the
time, energy, and resources needed to assuring that all the ``legs''
are coordinating efforts, are fully aware of and fulfilling their
individual and collective roles and responsibilities. We stand ready to
work with Government and NGOs--serving as a conduit to the business
community--to help assure that our Nation is resilient to any form of
catastrophe, and begins to truly and effectively achieve an overall
``Culture of Preparedness'' in our Nation.
ATTACHMENT
Operation CAPA
The mission of ``Operation CAPA: Commit, Assess, Prepare, Act'' is
particularly designed to help small-medium businesses enhance their
state of preparedness and lead them toward resiliency. The objective of
this effort is to partner with target businesses to commit, assess,
plan, and act to prepare their company, employees, and communities for
all hazards.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Operation CAPA urges business to:
Commit.--Leaders and employees must commit to getting their
business better prepared. It requires a sustained effort and
constant reinforcement of leadership commitment. There is
plenty of free information available on the internet to help
guide the business executive and his/her team from the
development through the implementation of a plan, no matter how
big or small. DHS has also established an excellent site to aid
businesses at www.ready.gov, and the Small Business
Administration has a disaster preparedness web site that
provides a substantial amount of information at: www.sba.gov/
services/disasterassistance/disasterpreparedness/index.html.
Assess.--Understanding the threats, vulnerabilities, and
impact to one's business will help focus resources on planning
for and responding to both foreseeable and unforeseeable
events. Many organizations are unaware of the multitude of
threats and risks in their businesses and community. They may
know about the natural threats (e.g., severe weather,
earthquakes, volcanoes, etc.), but don't often know about their
neighbors, for example, whether the business next door has
hazardous/explosive chemicals, or the single power substation
that is reaching capacity and will soon be causing power
disruptions. Business leaders can work with their local fire
department and emergency manager to understand the risks they
may face. It's beneficial, if not absolutely essential, to both
sides to meet ahead of time to get the appropriate data that
will help you develop a workable plan.
Plan.--Keep it simple and ``user friendly.'' In larger
companies, planning is usually a separate component with a
substantial amount of effort involved; however, for the
simplified Operation CAPA methodology, the planning element
should include documenting the organization's response and
recovery plan and working with the community to understand the
expectations about how other business are preparing. The
business may find areas where there is a competition for
resources, or where there are opportunities to collaborate and
provide mutual aid. For example, the readiness quotient at
www.whatsyourrq.org is a free assessment that highlights areas
that are often overlooked, and can be an excellent first step
on the path to preparedness. Checklists and sample plans are
also available at www.ready.gov.
Act.--Business survival depends on an organization's ability
to act--to be able to absorb the hit (resilience); and keep
operating at least at minimal levels while normal operations
are restored. Commitment alone will not get a business
prepared--it also requires action. Businesses should start by
taking their readiness quotient assessment and going to
www.ready.gov to get free checklists, sample plans and
templates. Then, they must reach out to their local first
responder community in government and at organizations like the
American Red Cross, as well as other businesses in the
community to develop partnerships that will make their
facility, their employees, their families, their neighbors, and
the overarching community better prepared.
cyber security questions for managers
The Homeland Security & Defense Business Council has developed in
cooperation with Scott Borg, Director and Chief Economist of the U.S.
Cyberconsequences Unit, a ``Cyber Security Checklist.'' It is a broad
outline of questions business entities must ask themselves in the event
of an attack to protect their internal systems, their customer
information, and their IT infrastructure. The questions are broad, and
refer companies back to the U.S. Cyberconsequences Unit's more
comprehensive look at the components of cyber infrastructure.
This series of questions was developed specifically for the
Partners in Preparedness Toolkit as a guide for senior managers to
assess their cyber vulnerabilities. The Council has found that although
most preparedness guides are awash in information for a ``structural
attack'' or an event with ``structural damage,'' such as an explosion,
a flood, or fire, there was a dearth of practical information included
to consider in a cyber attack--whether initiated by terrorist
organizations or criminals. Our Checklist provides a ``step one''
approach for small to medium companies and refers them to a more
comprehensive checklist available from the U.S. Cyberconsequences Unit
at http://www.usccu.us/documents/US-CCU
Security20Check%20List%202007.pdf that provides guidance for an in-
depth assessment of numerous categories of information systems
components such as: Hardware, software, networks, automation, humans,
and suppliers. The extent of each individual assessment depends on the
company's dependence on its cyber resources to operate.
Questions Senior Managers Should Ask in the Event of a Significant
Cyber Attack
scott borg, director and chief economist, u.s. cyber consequences unit
Developed for the Partners in Preparedness Toolkit
This is provided as a guide for senior managers to assess their
cyber vulnerabilities. The comprehensive checklist provides guidance
for an in-depth assessment of numerous categories of information
systems components such as: Hardware, software, networks, automation,
humans, and suppliers. The extent of each individual assessment will
depend on the company's dependence on its cyber resources to operate.
I. What is the current status of the attack?
(1) Which of our systems have been affected?
(2) Are any personnel or equipment in physical jeopardy?
(3) To what extent has the malware been identified and quarantined
or contained?
(4) Is the active part of the attack on-going, or is it apparently
over?
(5) Should we be shutting down certain of our operations to avoid
further damage?
(6) What are the level of skill and apparent intentions of the
attackers?
(7) How confident are we that the reports on our screens and in our
e-mail are not being spoofed?
(8) What other cyber attack might be used as a follow-on from the
first, to make things worse or to exploit our state of
disarray?
II. What are the business effects of the attack?
(1) What activities of our organization, if any, were interrupted?
What else depended on those activities?
(2) What activities, if any, were corrupted, so that the
organization was producing defective outputs or delivering
products or information to the wrong people?
What customers or other third parties are likely to have been
damaged by this activity?
(3) What operations, if any, were discredited, so that people will
be reluctant or unwilling to make use of them?
What has been the probable damage, so far, to our reputation and
customer relationships?
(4) What activities of our organization, if any, have been
seriously undermined, because the confidentiality or
exclusivity of information necessary to carry them out has been
lost?
What operations will need to be shut down for an extended period?
III. What sort of notifications about the possible effects of the
cyber attacks need to be provided to those outside the organization?
(1) Who outside the organization is significantly affected?
(2) What statements and information in the notifications would do
the most to convince skeptical outsiders that the organization
still deserves their trust?
(3) What is the fastest way to communicate the notifications that
will gain proper attention, but not cause misunderstandings or
panic?
IV. What is the next best alternative for each of the activities
that can no longer be carried out normally?
(1) What measures are necessary to assure the continuing
coordination of responses to the crisis?
(2) What steps are necessary to get alternative activities into
operation?
(3) What is the plan for transitioning from the alternative
operations back to normal ones?
(4) What special financial arrangements might be necessary to
assure continuity of operations?
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much. Other Members of the
subcommittee are reminded that, under the committee rules,
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
At this time, again, I would like to welcome our panel of
witnesses. Our first witness is Mr. Tim Manning, who serves as
the Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness at the
Federal Emergency Management Agency.
As I said a few minutes ago, we also have Mr. Bill Jenkins,
and, of course, Wendy Smith, and Suzanne DeFrancis. I want to
welcome all of you again here and thank you for your testimony.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted in the record. I will now ask Mr. Manning to summarize
his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING, DEPUTY
ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, good morning. Thank you for
allowing me to be here this morning. I am Tim Manning, Deputy
Administrator for National Preparedness at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency.
Before I begin my remarks on community preparedness, if I
may, I would like to mention that, on behalf of FEMA and the
entire emergency management community, our hearts go out to all
of those affected by the tsunami and earthquakes in the
Pacific, as well as the flooding in the American South.
Our National response coordination center has been
activated since the first earthquake 2 days ago, and we will
continue to move teams, equipment, and supplies into the
affected area, and we have been updating you all as the event
has gone on, and we will continue to do so until we have
completed rescue and recovery efforts.
Mr. Chairman, throughout the history of emergency
management planning, considerations for the individual and
community preparedness have been inadequate. Since September
11, 2001, and the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, the United States has invested tens of billions of
dollars in bolstering Government's preparedness, while paying
comparatively little attention to the personal and community
preparedness.
Secretary Napolitano, Administrator Fugate and I believe
that much more attention needs to be paid to these efforts. We
know and have seen that personal, family, and community
preparedness can have tremendous impact in mitigating the
effects of an emergency. Simple steps taken by individuals to
provide for the needs of their families and their neighbors in
an emergency can dramatically improve the readiness and
resiliency of the American people in the face of a disaster.
Encouraging as many Americans as possible to take steps
necessary to ensure their own well-being will ultimately free
Government resources to address those most in need during a
crisis. In order to advance this simple goal, we must both
engage with the public directly and collaborate with civil
leaders at the local level to promote local efforts to increase
personal preparedness.
As a former community organizer with deep belief in the
power of active citizenship, President Obama has made it clear
that transparent and collaborative government, grassroots
activism, and volunteer and community service are key
priorities for his administration. The leadership at FEMA and
DHS is equally committed to increasing our collaboration with
State and local governments, NGOs, and the private sector.
Under President Obama and Secretary Napolitano's
leadership, we are reaching out to an unprecedented range of
new DHS stakeholders to bolster our Nation's community
preparedness and resilience.
As Secretary Napolitano said before the Council on Foreign
Relations in July, for too long we have treated the public as a
liability to be protected rather than an asset in our Nation's
collective security. We need a culture of collective
responsibility, a culture where every individual understands
his or her role.
The foundation of the current efforts towards community
preparedness and resilience is the cultivation of an effort and
an effective organizational structure and a process at the
local level to foster this collaboration between Government and
civil leaders from all sectors, and then leverage this
structure to reach everyone in a community.
While we believe a whole-of-agency effort is required, the
Citizen Corps program has been one of the Department's key
efforts towards this end. Building on historic approaches to
citizen preparedness, our strategy moving forward will be based
on the following tenets: Government must collaborate with civic
leaders. Local implementation is essential. National support
must both include consistent policy and guidance and the tools
and resources adaptable for local use.
To achieve these goals, FEMA works with State and local
partners to establish effective partnerships at the local
level. This is to foster a collaborative process between local
government and civic leaders from all sectors and develop goals
and strategies for resilience tailored to specific community
vulnerabilities.
FEMA will continue to work with these community leaders and
support their efforts to increase individual and community
preparedness and resilience. To assist in getting the message
out, Ready is FEMA's National awareness campaign and, in
partnership with the Ad Council, designed to educate and
empower Americans to prepare for and respond to all
emergencies. The goal of the campaign is to get the public
involved and ultimately to increase the level of basic
preparedness across the Nation.
Ready--and its Spanish-language version, Listo--ask
individuals to take simple steps, such as getting a supply kit,
making a family plan, and obtaining information about the
different types of emergencies that could occur in their
particular community.
The Ad Council has declared Ready one of the most
successful campaigns in its more than 60-year history. Ready
Business is an extension for the private sector, and the Ready
campaign that focuses on children, Ready Kids, functions as an
effective tool to help parents and teachers educate children of
all ages.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, in conclusion,
Secretary Napolitano and FEMA Administrator Fugate and I are
committed to advancing the Nation's preparedness. Through
working current National partners and expanding our
partnerships and enhancing tools and resources available to
local communities, enhancing education, training, and exercises
for the public, promoting volunteer service opportunities,
identifying ways to assess and quantify our progress, working
with the FEMA regions, and supporting open, honest and
forthcoming communications with community leaders and the
public, we feel we can advance these goals.
Communicating the importance of personal and community
preparedness is a cornerstone of our strategy moving forward.
With the continued support of Congress, we believe that
considerable progress is within reach.
Mr. Chairman, thank you for the opportunity to testify this
morning. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Mr. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy W. Manning
October 1, 2009
introduction
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and other distinguished
Members of the subcommittee, I am Timothy Manning and I serve as Deputy
Administrator for National Preparedness of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA). It is a privilege to appear before you today
on behalf of FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). We
appreciate your interest in and continued support for emergency
management and, in particular, for the critical importance of personal
and community preparedness.
Throughout the history of emergency management planning,
considerations for individual and community preparedness have been
inadequate. From the 1930s, when disaster response was ad hoc and
largely focused on the repair of damaged infrastructure, through the
present day, the importance of individual and community preparedness
has often been given insufficient consideration. In fact, since
September 11, 2001 and the creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, the United States has invested tens of billions of dollars in
bolstering Government's preparedness, while paying comparatively little
attention to personal and community preparedness.
Yet we know--and have--seen that personal, family, and community
preparedness can have a tremendous impact in mitigating the effects of
an emergency. Just as all politics are local, as former Speaker of the
House Tip O'Neill said, all disasters are local--they impact
individuals, families, and communities. Simple steps taken by
individuals to provide for the needs of their families and their
neighbors in an emergency can dramatically improve the readiness and
resiliency of the American people in the face of a disaster.
Encouraging as many Americans as possible to take the steps necessary
to ensure their own well being will ultimately free Government
resources to address those most in need during a crisis.
In order to advance this simple goal, we must engage and
collaborate with civic leaders at the local level to promote local
efforts to increase personal preparedness. As a former community
organizer with a deep belief in the power of active citizenship,
President Obama has made it clear that transparent and collaborative
government, grassroots activism, and volunteer and community service
are key priorities for his administration. The leadership at FEMA and
DHS is equally committed to increasing our collaboration with State and
local governments, NGOs, and the private sector, and under President
Obama and Secretary Napolitano's leadership, we are reaching out to an
unprecedented range of new DHS stakeholders to bolster our Nation's
community preparedness and resilience.
While we will ensure that Federal assets and resources are in a
state of constant readiness and that FEMA is prepared to serve as an
effective coordinator during a Presidentially-declared emergency or
disaster, FEMA will approach community preparedness from the bottom up
and ensure that Federal-level policies, guidance, tools, and resources
support and facilitate local implementation. Preparedness is achieved
and maintained through a continuous cycle of planning, organizing,
training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective
action. This is true for an individual, a family, an organization, a
community, and the Nation. FEMA will engage the public and community
leaders more fully in all stages of the preparedness cycle to
strengthen our National readiness and resilience.
Finally, I would like to highlight both Secretary Napolitano's and
Administrator Fugate's repeated emphasis on the importance of personal
and community preparedness.
As Secretary Napolitano said before the Council of Foreign
Relations in July, ``For too long we've treated the public as a
liability to be protected rather than an asset in our Nation's
collective security . . . We need a culture of collective
responsibility, a culture where every individual understands his or her
role.''
Our Department's senior leadership is actively engaged in raising
public awareness on this critical issue, and we will continue to drive
this message to even more Americans in meetings, speeches and
interviews across the country.
community engagement
Effective emergency management and emergency response requires that
community leaders participate in developing community emergency
response plans, conduct localized outreach and education to the public,
promote training, participate in exercises, encourage volunteerism, and
of course, should the worst happen, form an integral part of the
response. The foundation of the current National strategy on community
preparedness and resilience is to cultivate an effective organizational
structure and process at the local level to foster this collaboration
between Government and civic leaders from all sectors, and then
leverage this structure to reach everyone in the community. Citizen
Corps has been one of the Department's key efforts toward this end.
Building on historic approaches to citizen preparedness, our
strategy moving forward will be based on the following tenets:
Government must collaborate with civic leaders, local implementation is
essential, and National support must include both consistent policy and
guidance and tools and resources adaptable for local use.
To achieve these goals, FEMA works with State and local partners to
establish effective partnerships at the local level. This is to foster
a collaborative process between local government and civic leaders from
all sectors and develop goals and strategies for resilience tailored to
specific community vulnerabilities. FEMA will continue to work with
these community leaders and support their efforts to increase
individual and community preparedness and resilience.
The Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) Program is an
exceptionally well-tested and successful citizen training and volunteer
program. CERT builds on the commonsense acknowledgment that community
members are the first to respond to assist others who need help during
emergencies. Having grown from 244 local programs in 2002 to 3,221
today, an estimated 600,000 individuals have taken the CERT basic
training. The success of CERT is rooted in the program's clarity of
training, hands-on practical delivery, and connection to local
emergency services, most commonly emergency management and the fire
service. Building on the successful basic training, there are several
additional training materials in development including Animal Response,
CERT Emergency Communications, Traffic and Crowd Management, and CERT
Team Leadership.
Within the National Preparedness Directorate, I have directed my
staff to develop a more comprehensive approach to local empowerment and
to be mindful of the importance of more inclusive non-governmental
participation. Whether we are working on Comprehensive Planning Guides
for local use, providing technical assistance and funding for
catastrophic planning, developing National level exercises, utilizing
the National Incident Management System, or increasing private sector
preparedness through the Private Sector Prep Program, we must
recalibrate our focus to better include and engage all sectors of the
community.
Under the direction of Administrator Fugate, work across the agency
also has been redirected to adapt emergency management practices to the
special needs of particular populations in local communities. The
Administrator has established an internal Children's Working Group to
ensure that all aspects of FEMA's planning and operations address the
needs of children. The Working Group will also work closely with the
National Commission on Children and Disasters to collaborate with
leaders in the field and re-calibrate plans and protocols to ensure
adequate considerations for the needs of children. Similarly,
Administrator Fugate has appointed a Disabilities Coordinator to
examine policies and guidance surrounding appropriate considerations
for these critical stakeholders and partners.
Last, the Grants Programs Directorate supports community
preparedness through the Homeland Security Grant Program, and we are
encouraging States and urban areas to use this funding to ensure not
only that Government responders are adequately equipped and trained,
but also to focus on community preparedness and greater participation
from non-governmental sectors.
research-based approach
Our renewed emphasis on civic responsibility and community
engagement will be research-based, flexible, and adaptive. In August
2009, FEMA released a major study (available at www.citizencorps.gov)
on Personal Preparedness in America, a National study of over 3,000
households. Results from this study may have important implications for
the development of more effective communication and outreach strategies
to achieve greater levels of preparedness and participation.
In addition to this primary research, FEMA also reviews and
analyzes other party research on personal, business, school, and
community preparedness; this database currently includes over 100
surveys conducted since September 11, 2001. We also publish Citizen
Preparedness Reviews to assimilate current preparedness research and
modeling, including a Personal Behavior Change Model, which provides a
theoretical basis for evaluating the motivations for and barriers to
personal preparedness. Having been tested through the household survey
and focus groups, this model is being revised and will assist in
developing effective social marketing tools for personal preparedness.
Working through the Target Capabilities process and with our colleagues
in the DHS Science and Technology Directorate, we also facilitate the
connection between researchers and practitioners through working groups
and roundtable meetings to ensure research is applicable and useful at
the local level.
building national awareness
Ready is FEMA's National public service campaign, in partnership
with the Ad Council, designed to educate and empower Americans to
prepare for and respond to all emergencies, including natural disasters
and potential terrorist attacks. The goal of the campaign is to get the
public involved and ultimately to increase the level of basic
preparedness across the Nation.
Ready and its Spanish language version, Listo, ask individuals to
take simple steps such as getting an emergency supply kit, making a
family emergency plan, obtaining information about the different types
of emergencies that could occur and the appropriate responses to each
one, and getting involved in community efforts that promote neighbor-
to-neighbor preparedness.
The Ad Council has declared Ready one of the most successful
campaigns in its more than 60-year history. Since its launch, the
campaign has generated more than $775.9 million in donated media
support. As of Sept. 1, 2009, www.ready.gov has received 33 million
unique visitors; the toll-free numbers have received more than 390,000
calls; and more than 39.6 million Ready materials have been requested
or downloaded from the Web site.
Ready Business is an extension of the Ready Campaign that focuses
on business preparedness, helping owners and managers of small- to
medium-sized businesses prepare their employees, operations, and assets
in the event of an emergency. The campaign's messages are being
delivered through www.ready.gov, brochures, radio, print, and internet
public service advertisements and key partnerships.
Ready Kids is a tool to help parents and teachers educate children
ages 8-12 about emergencies and how they can help get their families
prepared. The program includes: A family-friendly website
(www.ready.gov/kids); in-school materials developed by Scholastic Inc.;
Ready Classroom, an on-line educational curriculum program developed in
partnership with Discovery Education; as well as a multimedia toolkit
targeted to pre-school-aged children and their families developed in
partnership with Sesame Workshop.
DHS/FEMA has also developed tailored preparedness information for
specific Americans. DHS/FEMA, American Kennel Club, American Society
for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, American Veterinary Medical
Association, and The Humane Society of the United States have jointly
created materials (available at www.Ready.gov) that highlight the key
steps pet owners should take to prepare themselves and their animals.
DHS/FEMA, AARP, the American Red Cross, the National Organization on
Disability and the National Fire Protection Association also have
created emergency information for seniors and Americans with
disabilities and special needs. Materials developed for these specific
Americans include brochures and instructional videos available at
www.ready.gov.
DHS/FEMA also highlights public emergency preparedness through
National Preparedness Month (NPM), a Nation-wide effort held each
September to encourage Americans to take simple steps to prepare for
emergencies in their homes, businesses, and schools. In 2009, the Ready
Campaign is being joined by more than 2,400 NPM Coalition Members to
educate individuals, families, and communities on the importance of
emergency preparedness. This year, the Ready Campaign is helping
Americans understand that preparedness goes beyond fire alarms, smoke
detectors, dead-bolt locks, and extra food in the pantry, seeking to
change perceptions about emergency preparedness and help Americans
understand what it truly means to be ``Ready.''
national conference on community preparedness
In August, FEMA hosted the four-day National Conference on
Community Preparedness: The Power of Citizen Corps. Participants
included 750 National partners, State and local emergency management,
fire and law enforcement, public health and emergency medical services,
academics, advocacy groups, voluntary organizations, and members of the
public, bringing together a uniquely diverse group of community
preparedness activists. Participants represented all 50 States, U.S.
territories, and Tribes. Leadership from DHS and FEMA addressed the
conference to underscore the importance of local activism and
implementation to achieve community resilience and to renew support for
local Citizen Corps Councils and Programs.
With nearly 100 presentations and workshops, the conference
provided participants innovative approaches to all facets of community
preparedness and resilience, including information on collaborative
planning, youth engagement, preparedness for individuals with
functional needs, pets and animal issues, and preparedness in economic
hard times. Presenters included the seminal Citizen Corps programs:
CERT; Fire Corps; Neighborhood Watch Program (NWP) Program; Medical
Reserve Corps (MRC) Program and Volunteers in Police Service (VIPS);
and the National Emergency Technology (NET) Guard pilot program. In
addition, numerous Citizen Corps Affiliates participated: Meals on
Wheels, E 9-1-1 Institute, Home Safety Council, American Association of
Community Colleges; State and local practitioners and elected leaders;
and experts from the fields of public health, disabilities, children's
issues, and rural development.
During the conference, FEMA released the research report,
``Personal Preparedness in America: Findings from the 2009 Citizen
Corps National Survey,'' and the Citizen Corps Volunteer Liability
Guide, providing an in-depth overview of legal issues and approaches to
address liability for emergency volunteers. The National Council on
Disability also released its latest 500-page report on emergency
management and people with disabilities, ``Effective Emergency
Management: Making Improvements for Communities and People with
Disabilities,'' and provided an interactive session with
representatives from the Department of Justice on emergency management
under Title II of the Americans with Disability Act. Also announced
were the availability of a toolkit on Preparing Communities for
Disaster, developed for the President's United We Serve initiative, and
a revised on-line registration process for Citizen Corps Councils and
CERT programs.
conclusion
Secretary Napolitano, FEMA Administrator Fugate and I are committed
to advancing our Nation's preparedness. Increasing individual and
community preparedness and resiliency is a FEMA priority; it is also a
National priority and I will make it a personal priority during my
tenure. To support local communities in this challenge, FEMA has begun
to strengthen internal coordination to ensure that we provide tools and
resources from across the agency more effectively. Specific actions
will include:
Ensuring FEMA and DHS policies and guidance include
appropriate language to support citizen and community
preparedness and resiliency;
Working with current National partners and expanding our
partnerships to enhance the tools and resources available to
local communities;
Enhancing education, training, and exercises for the public
and making them more accessible to everyone;
Promoting volunteer service opportunities to support
community safety and resilience;
Developing tools and technical assistance for areas where
none already exist or where existing tools need enhancement;
Continue conducting research on individual, business, and
community preparedness and analyzing the research of others;
Identifying ways to assess and quantify our progress;
Working with the FEMA regions to support our State, Tribal,
and local partners; and
Supporting open communications with community leaders and
with the public.
Communicating the importance of personal and community preparedness
is a cornerstone of our strategy moving forward, and with the continued
support of Congress, we believe that considerable progress is within
reach.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee, for allowing
me to testify today. I am happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Manning, thank you again very much.
Mr. Jenkins, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM ``BILL'' O. JENKINS, JR., DIRECTOR,
HOMELAND SECURITY AND JUSTICE, GOVERNMENT
ACCOUNTABILITY OFFICE
Mr. Jenkins. Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers,
Representative Olson, thank you for the opportunity to be here
today to discuss our work on Federal efforts to encourage
community preparedness for all types of emergencies, natural or
manmade.
Community preparedness is an integral part of National
disaster preparedness. To the extent that individuals and
families are prepared for the types of risks their communities
face, they can increase their chances of survival, protect
their families, and reduce the demands on first responders in
the first critical 48 to 72 hours following a disaster.
Research shows that Americans could be better prepared for
disasters. The 2009 Citizen Corps National survey estimated
that about 56 percent of U.S. households did not have disaster
supplies in their home. Even fewer had supplies set aside in
their car or workplace. Of even greater concern, 61 percent
responded they expected to rely on emergency responders in the
first 72 hours after a disaster.
As we reported in April of this year, FEMA faces a major
challenge in developing an all-hazards National preparedness
system that requires consultation and coordination with a wide
variety of stakeholders, including communities, State and local
governments, nonprofit, and for-profit organizations.
But locally--but doing this requires a clear vision and a
statement of desired measurable outcomes in how FEMA plans to
achieve those outcomes in coordination with its many partners.
FEMA's measures of community preparedness, such as the number
of established Citizen Corps councils, do not provide
information on activities undertaken and the contribution of
those activities to desired outcomes.
FEMA's challenges measuring the performance of its
community preparedness efforts are compounded by the lack of a
strategy that defines how its community preparedness programs
and efforts, including its grants for community preparedness
projects, are to operate within the context of the National
preparedness system. FEMA has not yet articulated a clear
vision for its community preparedness efforts and the specific
contributions they should make to the National preparedness
system.
In April, we recommended that FEMA develop a preparedness
strategy that included measurable goals, objectives, and
identified how FEMA would measure its progress in meeting those
goals and objectives. Although FEMA officials say that they are
working on a preparedness strategy that includes community
preparedness, FEMA has not yet set a date for completion, and
it is not clear how community preparedness will be incorporated
into that strategy.
The answer to whether FEMA is spending too little, too
much, or just the right amount of money on community
preparedness cannot be answered until FEMA defines what it
expects of community preparedness efforts. FEMA can then assess
the resources needed to achieve the desired results.
DHS has been working on preparedness metrics, called target
capabilities, for 5 years, and we reported on those efforts in
2005. We recognize that including stakeholders in this effort
is both important and takes time. Specific metrics for these
compatibilities is still a work in--these capabilities is still
a work in progress.
One of the eight National priorities in this effort is
``strengthening, planning, and community citizen preparedness
capabilities.'' FEMA recognizes that, given the diversity of
the Nation's population and the different risks communities
face, there can be no one-size-fits-all approach to community
preparedness. FEMA has already drafted different sets of
materials for the disabled seniors and kids, for example.
But it is not only the message, but the messenger that
affects public response to messages encouraging preparedness.
It is simply a fact that Government is not always seen as a
credible messenger.
It is not clear how FEMA plans to evaluate what works, what
doesn't for different audiences and different means of
delivering its preparedness message. In developing its
community preparedness strategy, FEMA needs to consider what it
controls--which is the content of its message that it
develops--what it influences--for example, its partners at the
State and local level--and what is largely beyond its control,
for example, the media used and timing of public service
announcements on behalf of the Ready campaign.
We recognize that those working in community preparedness
within FEMA and at the State and local level care deeply about
their mission. The success of their efforts will require a
coordinated, focused effort over time that builds for designed
and measurable outcomes.
That concludes my statement, Mr. Chairman. I would be
pleased to answer any questions you or other Members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The statement of Mr. Jenkins follows:]
Prepared Statement of William ``Bill'' O. Jenkins, Jr.
october 1, 2010
Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for the
opportunity to participate in today's hearing to discuss Federal
efforts to encourage community involvement in preparing for all-hazard
emergencies.\1\ The public plays an important role in National
emergency preparedness. By preparing their families and property before
an event, individuals can often reduce a disaster's impact on them and
their need for first responder assistance, particularly in the first 72
hours following a disaster. For example, having at least a 72-hour
supply of food and drinking water on hand can both sustain the
individual and family in a disaster's aftermath and reduce the
immediate demands for food and water delivered by first responders
whose priority may be search and rescue. They can also potentially
support first responders as trained volunteers, since the average
person will likely be the first on the scene of a disaster. However,
research shows that Americans could be better prepared for disasters,
particularly based on two key indicators--the degree to which people
report having disaster supplies set aside and have a household
emergency plan. A 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey estimated that
over half (56 percent) of U.S. households did not have disaster
supplies in their homes, and even fewer had supplies set aside in their
car or workplaces.\2\ Even those who responded that they are personally
prepared may have only taken some of the actions recommended, such as
having water set aside but not having extra batteries for their
flashlights. Fewer than half (44 percent) of the 2009 survey
respondents reported having a household disaster plan, a level
consistent with the results of past surveys.\3\ Although it is
unrealistic to expect first responders to assist everyone in a
disaster, 30 percent of those surveyed said that the primary reason
they were unprepared was because they believed emergency personnel
would help them in the event of a disaster. Also, 61 percent expected
to rely on emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a
disaster. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) administrator
and leaders in the emergency management community are encouraging
citizens to take actions to become more involved in preparing
themselves and their communities, not only to mitigate the effects of a
disaster, but to decrease their reliance on the Federal Government for
goods and services during a catastrophic event and allow governments at
all levels to target resources where they are most needed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Individuals, the public, and community are used interchangeably
in this testimony when discussing preparedness for nongovernment
community members. The terms encompass both citizens and noncitizens.
Community nonprofit and private businesses are part of community
preparedness, but were not within the scope of our work.
\2\ Department of Homeland Security, Personal Preparedness in
America: Findings From the 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey
(Washington, DC: August, 2009).
\3\ Federal Emergency Management Agency, Citizen Preparedness
Review: A Review of Citizen Preparedness Research, Fall Update
(Washington, DC: 2007). For example, National Center for Disaster
Preparedness National surveys estimated the percentage of the
population with an emergency plan was 43 percent in 2005, 45 percent in
2006, and 43 percent in 2007.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA encourages public preparedness through the Community
Preparedness Division's Citizen Corps program, which is designed to
bring together Government and community leaders to involve citizens in
all-hazards emergency preparedness and resilience, and the Ready
Campaign, which makes literature and mass media content available to
spread the preparedness message to individuals, families, and
businesses.\4\ Citizen Corps is designed to promote the collaboration
between local government and community leaders via local Citizen Corps
councils. Individual councils are to promote preparedness activities
and to encourage volunteering with Federally sponsored programs that
support first responders, referred to as Citizen Corps partner
programs. Citizen Corps promotes five partner programs, two of which
are supported by FEMA--the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) and
Fire Corps.\5\ The operating budgets for community preparedness
programs currently represent less than one-half of 1 percent of FEMA's
total budget. In fiscal year 2009, FEMA's overall budget was about $7.9
billion, of which about $5.8 million was dedicated to operating
community preparedness programs and $2.1 million was for the Ready
Campaign.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ According to FEMA officials, FEMA also encourages public
preparedness through speaking engagements, the media, and social
networking tools that were beyond the scope of our review. Regarding
the Ready Campaign we focused on its efforts for individual and family
preparedness. The Ready Campaign's Business and Kid Campaign were not
within the scope of our review.
\5\ The Department of Health and Human Service's Office of the
Surgeon General within the Office of Public Health and Science
administers a third partner program, the Medical Reserve Corps (MRC).
Also, the Department of Justice sponsors two other partner programs--
Volunteers in Police Service and Neighborhood Watch.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA's National program office officials encourage State, local,
regional, and Tribal governments and private and nonprofit community-
based organizations to establish and sustain local Citizen Corps
councils and partner programs, partly through Federal funding for local
efforts. Local Citizen Corps councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps all are
considered ``grassroots'' organizations that use volunteers to operate
programs in their respective communities. Citizen Corps councils and
CERT programs are registered via the internet and are potentially
eligible to apply for Federal grant funding through the State to
support their program.\6\ According to Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) data, approximately $269 million in FEMA homeland security grants
(including grants for Citizen Corps councils, CERT, and Fire Corps)
were awarded for community preparedness projects from fiscal years 2004
through 2008. In fiscal year 2008, funding for community preparedness
grants represented about 1.9 percent of the total FEMA grant funding.
Specifically, in fiscal year 2008, approximately $56 million went to
community preparedness projects, out of more than $3 billion awarded in
DHS grants to strengthen prevention, protection, response, and recovery
capabilities at all levels of government. Appendix I provides
additional information on DHS grants awarded for community preparedness
purposes from fiscal year 2004 through fiscal year 2008.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Under FEMA's Homeland Security Grant Program, States,
territories, urban areas, and transportation authorities are eligible
for FEMA grants to bolster National preparedness capabilities and
protect critical infrastructure. These grants can be used to establish
and sustain Citizen Corps councils; purchase equipment for CERTs, Fire
Corps, or MRC; and support planning or training efforts. Local
community preparedness organizations can also receive funding from
State, local, or Tribal governments or private and nonprofit community-
based preparedness organizations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2009 we issued a report that discussed, among other
things, the National preparedness system--a continuous cycle of: (1)
Establishing policy and doctrine, (2) planning and allocating
resources, (3) conducting training and exercises to gather lessons
learned, and (4) assessing and reporting on the training and exercises
to evaluate preparedness, including identifying any gaps in
capabilities.\7\ Assessments and reports resulting from the National
preparedness system are to be used to inform decision-makers on what
improvements are needed and how to target finite resources to improve
preparedness for disasters.\8\ Our report recognized that developing
and integrating the elements of the National preparedness system is a
challenge for FEMA, and more specifically the National Preparedness
Directorate (NPD), the FEMA component responsible for carrying out the
key elements of the National preparedness system, in coordination with
other Federal, State, local, Tribal, nonprofit, and private sector
organizations. We reported that the size and complexity of the Nation's
preparedness activities and the number of organizations involved--both
public and private--pose a significant challenge to FEMA as it leads
the Nation's efforts to develop and sustain a National preparedness
system. We further stated that, to develop an effective system, FEMA is
to coordinate and partner with a broad range of stakeholders. As part
of the Nation's preparedness system, the status of citizen and
community preparedness can affect the demands on first responders in
the immediate aftermath of a disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs
to Complete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts,
GAO-09-369 (Washington, DC: Apr. 30, 2009).
\8\ A key part of the system involves the development of
quantifiable standards and metrics--called target capabilities, defined
as the level of capability needed to prevent, respond to, and recover
from natural and man-made disasters--that can be used to assess
existing capability levels compared with target capability levels.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As requested, today I will discuss our preliminary observations on:
(1) What challenges, if any, FEMA faces in measuring the performance of
Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign, and (2)
what actions, if any, FEMA has taken to develop a strategy to encompass
how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to
operate within the context of the National preparedness system. My
comments are based on our on-going review of Citizen Corps, its partner
programs, and the Ready Campaign requested by the Chairman of the
Committee on Homeland Security, the Chairwoman of its Subcommittee on
Transportation Security and Infrastructure Protection, and the Chairman
of this subcommittee. The final results of this review will be issued
in a report later this year.
To address our objectives, we reviewed documentation, such as
FEMA's strategic plan for 2008-2013, and interviewed officials at DHS's
headquarters in Washington, DC, and at 12 selected locations in five
States--California, Florida, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Texas. We selected
these States based on the frequency of declared natural disasters. In
total, we conducted 41 interviews covering 53 organizations in the five
States.\9\ The results from our interviews are not generalizable;
however, they provide insights into the operations of local Citizen
Corps and partner programs as well as their efforts to use Ready
Campaign material to promote individual preparedness. We also analyzed
FEMA's strategic plan and NPD's 2009 Operating Plan and compared these
documents with criteria in our past work that discusses the six
characteristics of an effective National strategy.\10\ In addition we
reviewed and analyzed data on the number of registered Citizen Corps
and its partner programs to determine how FEMA measures the performance
of its programs and compared FEMA's data with the results of our work
in the five States with criteria discussing best practices for
performance measurement.\11\ Furthermore, we obtained and analyzed data
on homeland security grants awarded from fiscal years 2004 through
2008. To determine the reliability of DHS grant data and data on the
activities of FEMA Citizen Corps and partner programs, we interviewed
DHS officials about their procedures for ensuring the accuracy of
performance data and compared DHS's processes for compiling data on
local community preparedness units with our past work on agency
performance measurement. With regard to the Ready Campaign's tracking
survey and data on donated media, we reviewed documents and interviewed
Ready Campaign officials and Ad Council officials to discuss their
process for ensuring data accuracy. We determined that these data were
reliable for the purposes of this review.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ This included 17 Citizen Corps councils, 12 CERT, 5 Fire Corps
programs, and officials representing 19 other preparedness and
emergency management organizations, such as local emergency managers
and State officials in four of the five States we visited.
\10\ GAO-09-369 and GAO, Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of
Selected Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism,
GAO-04-408T (Washington, DC: February 3, 2004).
\11\ GAO-09-369; GAO-04-408T; GAO, Results-Oriented Management:
Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could Promote Greater
Use of Performance Information GAO-09-676; (Washington, DC: Aug. 17,
2009); Influenza Pandemic: Gaps in Pandemic Planning and Preparedness
Need to Be Addressed, GAO-09-909T (Washington, DC: July 29, 2009);
Information-Sharing Environment: Definition of the Results to Be
Achieved in Improving Terrorism-Related Information Sharing Is Needed
to Guide Implementation and Assess Progress GAO-08-492 (Washington, DC:
June 25, 2008); Combating Terrorism: Evaluation of Selected
Characteristics in National Strategies Related to Terrorism, GAO-04-
408T (Washington, DC: Feb. 3, 2004); Tax Administration: IRS Needs to
Further Refine Its Tax Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143
(Washington, DC: Nov. 22, 2002); Agency Performance Plans: Examples of
Practices That Can Improve Usefulness to Decisionmakers GAO/GGD/AIMD-
99-69 (Washington, DC: Feb. 26, 1999); Performance Plans: Selected
Approaches for Verification and Validation of Agency Performance
Information, GAO/GGD-99139 (Washington, DC: July 30, 1999); Agencies'
Annual Performance Plans Under the Reform Act: An Assessment Guide to
Facilitate Congressional Decisionmaking, GAO/GGD/AIMD-10.1.18
(Washington, DC: February 1998); and Executive Guide: Effectively
Implementing the Government Performance and Results Act, GAO/GGD-96-118
(Washington, DC: June 1, 1996).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We are conducting this performance audit from February 2008 through
October 2009 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.
In summary, FEMA faces challenges measuring performance for Citizen
Corps, partner programs, and the Ready Campaign because: (1) It relies
on States to verify that data for its principal performance measure--
the registered number of established volunteer organizations across the
country--are accurate and does not have a process for monitoring State
validation efforts, and (2) although the Ready Campaign controls the
content of its message, it is not positioned to control the
distribution of its message or measure whether its message is changing
the behavior of individuals. FEMA officials said that FEMA expects to
use a new, 2010 registration process to collect more comprehensive data
on membership and council activities. Among other things, FEMA counts
requests for literature, website hits, and the number of television
announcements made to gauge performance for the Ready Campaign, but
FEMA does not control when its message is viewed in various media
because it relies on donated media, such as time to air television and
radio announcements. Because changes in individuals' behavior can be
the result of a variety of factors, including preparedness campaigns
sponsored by other organizations, it is difficult to measure the Ready
Campaign's effect on changes in individuals' preparedness behavior.
FEMA's challenges in measuring the performance of citizen preparedness
programs are compounded by the fact that it has not developed a
strategy to encompass how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the
Ready Campaign are to operate within the context of the National
preparedness system. In April 2009, we recommended that NPD develop a
strategic plan to implement the National preparedness system that
contains such key elements as goals, objectives, and how progress in
achieving them will be measured. FEMA agreed and reported that it is
taking actions to strengthen strategic planning. FEMA stated that it is
reviewing implementation plans and policy documents, such as the
National Preparedness Guidelines, and that community preparedness is a
key element being considered in this process. FEMA has not yet set a
date for completion of the National preparedness system strategy, and
the extent to which Citizen Corps, its partner programs, or the Ready
Campaign will be included when the strategy is complete is not clear.
We will continue to assess FEMA's efforts to measure the performance of
the community preparedness programs and develop a strategy for
integrating them into the National preparedness system as part of our
on-going work. FEMA provided technical comments on a draft of this
testimony, which we discussed with FEMA officials and incorporated as
appropriate.
background
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (Post-
Katrina Act) \12\ required that FEMA establish the National
preparedness system to ensure that the Nation has the ability to
prepare for and respond to disasters of all types, whether natural or
man-made, including terrorist attacks. The Community Preparedness
Division is responsible for leading activities related to community
preparedness, including management of the Citizen Corps program.
According to fiscal year 2008 Homeland Security Grant Guidance, the
program is to bring together community and Government leaders,
including first responders, nonprofit organizations, and other
community stakeholders. Serving as a Citizen Corps council, Government
and non-Government stakeholders are to collaborate in involving
community members in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation,
response, and recovery. Councils and partner programs register on-line
to be included in the National program registries. The Division also
supports the efforts of non-DHS Federal ``partner programs,'' such as
the Medical Reserve Corps, that promote preparedness and the use of
volunteers to support first responders.\13\ The CERT program's mission
is to educate and train people in basic disaster preparedness and
response skills, such as fire safety, light search and rescue, and
disaster medical operations, using a Nationally developed, standardized
training curriculum. Trained individuals can be recruited to
participate on neighborhood, business, or Government teams to assist
first responders. The mission of the Fire Corps program is to increase
the capacity of fire and emergency medical service departments through
the use of volunteers in nonoperational roles and activities, including
administrative, public outreach, fire safety, and emergency
preparedness education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as title VI of the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120
Stat. 1355, 1394-1463 (2006).
\13\ Citizen Corps also identifies program ``affiliates'' that may
be available to help advance Citizen Corps's goals, such as the
American Red Cross and Home Safety Council.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA also is responsible for a related program, the Ready Campaign,
which works in partnership with the Ad Council, an organization that
creates public service messages, with the goals of raising public
awareness regarding the need for emergency preparedness, motivating
individuals to take steps toward preparedness, and ultimately
increasing the level of National preparedness. The program makes
preparedness information available to the public through its English
and Spanish websites (www.ready.gov and www.listo.gov), through printed
material that can be ordered from the program or via toll-free phone
lines, and through public service announcements (PSA).\14\ The Ready
Campaign message calls for individuals, families, and businesses to:
(1) Get emergency supply kits, (2) make emergency plans, and (3) stay
informed about emergencies and appropriate responses to those
emergencies.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See http://www.ready.gov/america/about/psa.html for an example
of a Ready Campaign PSA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Citizen Corps Programs
and the Ready Campaign
FEMA faces challenges in measuring the performance of local
community preparedness efforts because it lacks accurate information on
those efforts. FEMA is also confronted with challenges in measuring
performance for the Ready Campaign because the Ready Campaign is not
positioned to control the placement of its preparedness messages or
measure whether its message is changing the behavior of individuals.
FEMA Faces Challenges Measuring Performance of Community
Preparedness Efforts Because It Lacks Accurate
Information on Local Programs
According to FEMA officials, FEMA promotes citizen preparedness and
volunteerism by encouraging collaboration and the creation of community
Citizen Corps, CERT, and Fire Corps programs. FEMA includes the number
of Citizen Corps councils, CERTs, and Fire Corps established across the
country as its principal performance measure. However, FEMA faces
challenges ensuring that the information needed to measure the number
of established, active units is accurate. In our past work we reported
on the importance of ensuring that program data are of sufficient
quality to document performance and support decision-making.\15\
Although not a measure under the Government Performance Result Act,
FEMA programs report the number of local units registered as a
principal performance measure; however, our work showed that the number
of active units reported may differ from the number that actually
exist.\16\ For example, as of September 2009:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-03-143.
\16\ GAO/GGD-96-118.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizen Corps reported having 2,409 registered Citizen Corps
councils Nation-wide that encompass jurisdictions where
approximately 79 percent of the U.S. population resides.
However, 12 of the 17 registered councils we contacted during
our site visits were active and 5 were not.
The CERT program reported having 3,354 registered CERTs. Of
the 12 registered CERTs we visited, 11 were actively engaged in
CERT activities, such as drills, exercises, and emergency
preparedness outreach, or had been deployed to assist in an
emergency or disaster situation, although 1 had members that
had not been trained. One registered CERT was no longer active.
State officials in two of the four States also said that the data
on number of registered programs might not be accurate.\17\ One State
official responsible for the Citizen Corps council and CERT programs in
the State estimated that as little as 20 percent of the registered
councils were active, and the State subsequently removed more than half
of its 40 councils from the National website. Officials in the other
State said that the National database is not accurate and they have
begun to send e-mails to or call local councils to verify the accuracy
of registrations in their State. These officials said that they plan to
follow up with those councils that do not respond, but they were not
yet certain what they planned to do if the councils were no longer
active. These results raise questions about the accuracy of FEMA's data
on the number of councils across the Nation, and the accuracy of FEMA's
measure that registered councils cover 79 percent of the population
Nation-wide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\17\ We interviewed State officials in four of the five States we
visited--California, Florida, Oklahoma, and Texas. We did not interview
State officials in Nevada. Our Nevada site visit interviews were
related to observing exercises with CERT participation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some change in the number of active local programs can be expected,
based on factors including changes in Government leadership, voluntary
participation by civic leaders, and financial support. FEMA officials
told us that the Homeland Security Grant Program guidance designates
State officials as responsible for approving initial council and CERT
registrations and ensure that the data are updated as needed. According
to FEMA officials, however, in practice this may not occur. Community
Preparedness Division officials said that they do not monitor whether
States are regularly updating local unit registration information.
FEMA officials said that FEMA plans to adopt a new on-line
registration process for Citizen Corps councils and CERTs in 2010,
which will likely result in some programs being removed from FEMA's
registries. They said that FEMA expects to use the new registration
process to collect more comprehensive data on membership and council
activities. According to FEMA officials, updating initial registration
information will continue to be the responsibility of State officials.
The Citizen Corps Director noted that the Citizen Corps program does
not have the ability to require all local units to update information,
particularly councils or CERTS that receive no Federal funding.
According to the Fire Corps program Acting Director, a State advocacy
program initiated in 2007 may help identify inactive programs as well
as promote the Fire Corps program. As of September 2009, there were 53
advocates in 31 States. We will continue to assess this issue as part
of our on-going work.
The Ready Campaign Faces Challenges Measuring Performance
Because It Is Not Positioned to Control the
Distribution of Its Preparedness Messages and
Measure Whether Its Message Effects Individual
Behavior
Currently, the Ready Campaign measures its performance based on
measures such as materials distributed or PSAs shown. For example,
according to a DHS official, in fiscal year 2008, the Ready Campaign
had:
more than 99 million ``hits'' on its website;
more than 12 million pieces of Ready Campaign literature
requested or downloaded; and,
43,660 calls to the toll-free call numbers.
The Ready Campaign relies on these measures because it faces two
different challenges determining whether its efforts are influencing
individuals to be more prepared. First, the Ready Campaign is not
positioned to control the when or where its preparedness message is
viewed. Second, the Ready Campaign is not positioned to measure whether
its message is changing the behavior of individuals.
With regard to the Ready Campaign's ability to control the
distribution of its message, our prior work has shown that agencies
whose programs rely on others to deliver services face challenges in
targeting and measuring results in meeting ultimate goals, and when
this occurs, agencies can use intermediate measures to gauge program
activities.\18\ However, according to FEMA's Acting Director for the
Ready Campaign, funds are not available for the Ready Campaign to
purchase radio and television time to air its PSAs; rather, the Ready
Campaign relies on donations of various sources of media. As a result,
the Ready Campaign does not control what, when, or where Ready Campaign
materials are placed when the media is donated. For example, what PSA
is shown and the slots (e.g., a specific channel at a specific time)
that are donated by television, radio, and other media companies are
not under the Ready Campaign's control, and these are not always prime
viewing or listening spots. Based on Ad Council data, the Ready
Campaign's PSAs in 2008 were aired about 5 percent or less of the time
by English and Spanish television stations during prime time (8:00 pm
to 10:59 p.m.), and about 25 percent of the PSAs were aired from 1:00
a.m. to 4:00 a.m. Similarly, about 47 percent of English radio and
about 27 percent of Spanish radio spots were aired from midnight to
6:00 a.m. FEMA officials said that with the release of its September
2009 PSAs, they expect increased placement during hours where there are
more viewers and listeners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ GAO/GGD/AIMD-99-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just as the Ready Campaign has no control over the time PSAs are
aired, it does not control the type of media (e.g., radio and
television) donated. Based on Ad Council data on the dollar value of
media donated to show Ready Campaign materials (the value of the
donated media is generally based on what it would cost the Ready
Campaign if the media space were purchased), much of the value from
donated media is based on space donated in the yellow pages. Figure 1
shows the value of various types of media donated to the Ready Campaign
to distribute its message during 2008.
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
The Ready Campaign also faces a challenge determining the extent to
which it contributes to individuals taking action to become more
prepared--the program's goal. Measuring the Ready Campaign's progress
toward its goal is problematic because it can be difficult to isolate
the specific effect of exposure to Ready Campaign materials on an
individual's level of emergency preparedness. Research indicates that
there may be a number of factors that are involved in an individual
taking action to become prepared, such as his or her beliefs as to
vulnerability to disaster, geographic location, or income.\19\ A basic
question in establishing whether the Ready Campaign is changing
behavior is, first, determining the extent to which the Ready
Campaign's message has been received by the general population. The Ad
Council conducts an annual survey to determine public awareness of the
Ready Campaign, among other things. For example, in the Ad Council's
2008 survey:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ FEMA, Citizen Preparedness Review: A Review of Citizen
Preparedness Research, Fall 2007.
When asked if they had heard of a website called Ready.gov
that provides information about steps to take to prepare in the
event of a natural disaster or terrorist attack, 21 percent of
those surveyed said that they were aware of the Ready.gov
website.
When asked a similar question about television, radio, and
print PSAs, 37 percent of those surveyed said that they have
seen or heard at least one Ready Campaign PSA.
Another factor is isolating the Ready Campaign's message from other
preparedness messages that individuals might have received. The Ad
Council's 2008 survey found that 30 percent of those surveyed
identified the American Red Cross as the primary source of emergency
preparedness information; 11 percent identified the Ad Council.
While the Ad Council survey may give a general indication as to the
population's familiarity with the Ready Campaign, it does not provide a
measure of preparedness actions taken based on the Ready Campaign's
promotion, that is, a clear link from the program to achieving program
goals. The Ad Council reported that those who were aware of Ready
Campaign's advertising were significantly more likely to say that they
had taken steps to prepare for disaster, but acknowledged that the
Ready Campaign could not claim full credit for the differences.
Further, as the 2009 Citizen Corps survey showed, the degree to which
individuals are prepared may be less than indicated because
preparedness drops substantially when more detailed questions about
supplies are asked.\20\ We will continue to assess FEMA's efforts to
measure the performance of the Ready Campaign as part of our on-going
work.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ Similarly, public knowledge of the Ready Campaign may be less
than indicated, based on the 2007 Citizen Corps survey. For example,
the 2007 survey asked respondents about familiarity with Federal
preparedness programs and estimated that 16 percent of respondents had
heard about Ready.gov. However when asked to describe the program, only
2 percent of respondents reported that they had a firm understanding of
the program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
fema has not developed a strategy encompassing how citizen corps, its
partner programs, and the ready campaign are to operate within the
context of the national preparedness system
While DHS's and FEMA's strategic plans have incorporated efforts to
promote community preparedness, FEMA has not developed a strategy
encompassing how Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the Ready
Campaign are to operate within the context of the National preparedness
system. An objective in DHS's Strategic Plan for 2008-2013 to ``Ensure
Preparedness'' envisions empowering Americans to take individual and
community actions before and after disasters strike. Similarly, FEMA's
Strategic Plan for 2008-2013 envisions a strategy to ``Lead the
Nation's efforts for greater personal and community responsibility for
preparedness through public education and awareness, and community
engagement and planning, including outreach to vulnerable
populations.'' FEMA's Strategic Plan delegates to the agency's
components the responsibility for developing their own strategic plans,
which are to include goals, objectives, and strategies. FEMA's
Strategic Plan states that the components' strategic plans are to focus
on identifying outcomes and measuring performance.
NPD has not clearly articulated goals for FEMA's community
preparedness programs or a strategy to show how Citizen Corps, its
partner programs, and the Ready Campaign are to achieve those goals
within the context of the National preparedness system. In our past
work, we reported that desirable characteristics of an effective
National strategy include articulating the strategy's purpose and
goals; followed by subordinate objectives and specific activities to
achieve results; and defining organizational roles, responsibilities,
and coordination, including a discussion of resources needed to reach
strategy goals.\21\ In April 2009, we reported that NPD had not
developed a strategic plan that defines program roles and
responsibilities, integration and coordination processes, and goals and
performance measures for its programs.\22\ We reported that instead of
a strategic plan, NPD officials stated that they used a draft annual
operating plan and Post-Katrina Act provisions to guide NPD's efforts.
The draft operating plan identifies NPD goals and NPD subcomponents
responsible for carrying out segments of the operating plan, including
eight objectives identified for the Division under NPD's goal to
``enhance the preparedness of individuals, families, and special needs
populations through awareness planning and training.'' NPD's objectives
for meeting this goal do not describe desired outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ GAO-04-408T and GAO-09-369.
\22\ GAO-09-369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
For example, one of NPD's objectives for the Community Preparedness
Division is to increase ``the number of functions that CERTs will be
able to perform effectively during emergency response,'' but the plan
does not describe how many and what type of functions CERTs currently
perform, what additional functions they could perform, and what it
means to be effective.\23\ NPD's draft operating plan also does not
include other key elements of an effective National strategy, such as
how it will measure progress in meeting its goals and objectives; the
roles and responsibilities of those who will be implementing specific
programs within the Community Preparedness Division, such as Citizen
Corps or Fire Corps; or potential costs and types of resources and
investments needed to meet goals and objectives needed to implement
civilian preparedness programs.\24\ As a result, NPD is unable to
provide a picture of priorities or how adjustments might be made in
view of resource constraints.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ NPD's other objectives relate to enhancing preparedness
capabilities, strengthening partnerships, conducting emergency
preparedness research, integrating community preparedness into grant
guidance, holding a National conference, ensuring local implementation
of the NET Guard Pilot Program, and developing a National strategy to
collaborate with law enforcement partners.
\24\ GAO-09-369.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In our April 2009 report we recommended that NPD take a more
strategic approach to implementing the National preparedness system to
include the development of a strategic plan that contains such key
elements as goals, objectives, and how progress in achieving them will
be measured. DHS concurred with our recommendation and, in commenting
on our report, stated that it reported making progress in this area and
is continuing to work to fully implement the recommendation. NPD
officials stated in September 2009 that DHS, FEMA, and NPD, in
coordination with National security staff, were discussing Homeland
Security Presidential Directive 8 (National Preparedness), including
the development of a preparedness strategy and an implementation
strategy.\25\ They said that community and individual preparedness were
key elements of those discussions. However, NPD officials did not state
when the strategy will be completed; thus, it is not clear to what
extent it will integrate Citizen Corps, its partner programs, and the
Ready Campaign. NPD officials stated that work is under way on revising
the target capabilities, which are to include specific outcomes,
measures, and resources. NPD officials said that the draft for public
comment is expected to be issued in fiscal year 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8--National
Preparedness (Dec. 17, 2003). In December 2003, the President issued
guidance that called on the Secretary of Homeland Security to carry out
and coordinate preparedness activities with public, private, and
nonprofit organizations involved in such activities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Ready Campaign is also working to enhance its strategic
direction. According to the FEMA Director of External Affairs, the
Ready Campaign's strategy is being revised to reflect the transition of
the program from DHS's Office of Public Affairs to FEMA's Office of
External Affairs, and the new FEMA Director's approach to preparedness.
Program officials said that the Ready Campaign will have increased
access to staff and resources and is to be guided by a FEMA-wide
strategic plan for external communications. As of September 2009 the
plan was still being developed and no date has been set for completion.
We will continue to monitor this issue as well FEMA's effort to develop
a strategy encompassing how Citizen Corps and its partner programs are
to operate within the context of the National preparedness system.
Mr. Chairman, this completes my prepared statement. I would be
happy to respond to any questions you or other Members of the
subommittee may have.
Appendix I.--Homeland Security Grant Funding for Community
Preparedness, 2004 through 2008
Department of Homeland Security support for local community
preparedness activities is provided through homeland security grants,
specifically the Citizen Corps grant program, but community
preparedness activities are also eligible for support under other
homeland security grants. Citizen Corps grants are awarded to States
based on a formula of 0.75 percent of the total amount available to
each State (including the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico) and 0.25 percent of the total amount available for each
U.S. territory, with the balance of funding being distributed on a
population basis.
For other DHS homeland security grants, a State prepares a request
for funding, which can include support for the State's community
preparedness efforts, as allowed under the guidance for a particular
grant. For example, the 2009 Homeland Security Grant Guidance lists
``Conducting public education and outreach campaigns, including
promoting individual, family, and business emergency preparedness'' as
an allowable cost for State homeland security grants. Grant funding can
be used to support Citizen Corps, Citizen Corps partner programs, or
other State community preparedness priorities. The Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) grant reporting database does not categorize
grants in a way that allows identification of the amount of funding
going to a particular community preparedness program.
Table 1 summarizes the approximately $269 million in DHS grants
that were identified by grantees as supporting community preparedness
projects from fiscal years 2004 through 2008. The amount is an
approximation because of limitations in identifying grants for such
projects. Our selection of projects for inclusion relied on grantees
identifying their projects under one of three predefined project types
that FEMA officials said are relevant for community preparedness or
were projects funded with a Citizen Corps program grant. Not all
grantees may have used these descriptions. We worked with grant
officials to identify the most appropriate grant selection criteria.
TABLE 1: 2004-2008 HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS FOR COMMUNITY PREPAREDNESS PROJECTS
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Law
Urban Area State Emergency Enforcement Other Homeland
Year Citizen Corps Security Homeland Management Terrorism Security Total
Initiative Security Performance Prevention Grants \2\
(UASI) \1\ Grant Grant
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2004 $33,955,176 $8,306,020 $7,735,800 ............. $1,093,911 .............. $51,090,907
2005 13,485,705 8,687,292 11,775,517 $595,825 248,988 $414,329 35,207,655
2006 19,205,985 16,345,381 15,074,053 6,545,092 969,561 2,028,071 60,168,142
2007 14,549,998 23,608,893 15,754,809 1,026,336 6,705,907 4,895,079 66,541,022
2008 14,572,500 13,498,514 16,640,267 8,620,774 0 2,645,852 55,977,906
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total 95,769,364 70,446,099 66,980,446 16,788,026 9,018,367 9,983,331 268,985,634
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: GAO analysis of FEMA grant reporting data for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.
Notes: Homeland Security grant projects included in this summary met at least one of the following four
criteria: Indicated the project was to establish or enhance (1) citizen or volunteer initiatives; (2) citizen
awareness of emergency preparedness, prevention, and response measures; (3) Citizen Corps councils; or (4) was
supported by the Citizen Corps program grant. For years with a zero value, a particular grant may not have
been part of the Homeland Security grant package (e.g., the Emergency Management Performance Grant was not
part of the 2004 grants package, and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Grant in 2008 was not available
for community preparedness purposes).
\1\ Includes UASI and UASI transit and nonprofit grants. The UASI grant program provides Federal assistance to
high-risk urban areas to: (1) Address unique planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs and (2) assist
them in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, prepare for, and respond to threats or acts
of terrorism.
\2\ Includes grants for transit security programs, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Intercity Passenger
Rail Security, Interoperable Emergency Communications, Non-Profit Security, Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness, and Buffer Zone Protection. The Buffer Zone Protection Program supports the implementation of
preventive and protective measures outside the perimeter of selected critical infrastructure and key resource
(CI/KR) sites throughout the United States. The program provides grant funding to jurisdictions to purchase
equipment to extend the zone of protection around CI/KR facilities, expand preparedness capabilities, and
enhance the security of surrounding communities.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Jenkins, again, thank you again for your
testimony.
At this time, Ms. Smith, you are recognized for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF WENDY L. SMITH, ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER, MC ALLEN,
TEXAS
Ms. Smith. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the
committee. It is my pleasure to speak to you today about
community preparedness, particularly with regard to the Citizen
Corps program and its affiliates.
My name is Wendy Smith, and I am an assistant city manager
and an assistant emergency management coordinator in McAllen,
Texas, a border community of 130,000, located in a three-county
region of 1.2 million residents.
McAllen's CERT team is one of seven Citizen Corps teams in
the region. Annually, we train almost 50 new volunteers in
three classes. The objective of the Citizen Corps program is to
have better trained--and therefore, safer--volunteers to assist
their neighbors, co-workers and churches in case of emergency.
During a disaster, well-meaning but often untrained good
Samaritans turn out to help. All too frequently, they hinder
the efforts of our first responders. Emergency services may be
diverted to provide impromptu training for these spontaneous
volunteers. This scenario is the reason that programs such as
Citizen Corps are vitally important community preparedness
tools.
We know not everyone will be ready, so regionally we strive
to have a total of 500 trained CERT volunteers to deploy
wherever they are needed at any given time. Right now, we have
approximately 165, many of whom assisted in the EOC during
Hurricane Dolly in 2008.
In our jurisdiction, we have waiting lists for CERT
participants and a shortage of trainers from the various local
governments. All of the participating local governments provide
in-kind the cost of trainers, facilities, equipment, and
administrative coordination of the classes. Seven Citizen Corps
teams and their affiliates in our region are supported by a
Federal grant of less than $20,000.
I would like to ask for more funding for these programs,
but I know that is not feasible at this time. Instead, I submit
this recommended change utilizing existing funding. Consider
removing categorical funding restrictions within the grant for
promotional items, equipment, and training. For example,
McAllen no longer has a need to promote the CERT team since
there is a waiting list of volunteers.
However, 15 percent of the grant is allocated to
promotional and educational materials. That funding is better
utilized for equipment and training, such as CPR classes not
currently offered, and is enough to allow the city to train an
additional team. This added flexibility helps us move toward
our common goal of training and, more importantly, retaining
volunteers.
The first 72 hours of a disaster is the most critical time,
but it is also the time that emergency responders are
overwhelmed with calls for service. At no other time is it more
important to have your citizens trained to help themselves and
each other.
While these volunteers are not intended to replace first
responders, they provide immediate assistance when traditional
emergency services cannot meet the demand. Your support of the
Citizen Corps program is greatly appreciated by local
governments such as ours that continually work to prepare our
residents to help themselves and each other during disasters.
Thank you for your time and attention today. I am happy to
answer any questions.
[The statement of Ms. Smith follows:]
Prepared Statement of Wendy L. Smith
October 1, 2009
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the committee. It is my
pleasure to speak to you today about community preparedness,
particularly with regard to the Citizen Corps program and its
affiliates.
My name is Wendy L. Smith, and I serve as an Assistant City Manager
and Assistant Emergency Management Coordinator in McAllen, Texas, a
border community of 130,000, located in a Council of Governments
service area of 1.2 million residents.
McAllen has an active CERT team which is one of seven Citizen Corps
affiliate programs in our three county region. Annually we train almost
50 new volunteers in three classes. The objective of the Citizen Corps
program is to have better trained--and therefore safer--volunteers to
assist their neighbors, co-workers, and churches in case of emergency.
We are fortunate in our community, as in yours, to have individuals who
are willing to help those who cannot help themselves during natural or
man-made disasters. Whether it be flooding, wildfires, tornadoes, or
earthquakes, we are lucky to have citizen volunteers who heed the call
to service. Though well-intentioned, these volunteers are frequently
untrained, and therefore may actually hinder the efforts of our first
responders. Emergency services may be diverted to provide impromptu
training for these spontaneous volunteers. This scenario is the reason
that programs such as Citizen Corps are vitally important community
preparedness tools.
The Citizen Corps website states that the CERT program seeks to
double the number of participants over the next 2 years, with over
400,000 individuals completing the training. FEMA should be commended
for this ambitious goal. Regionally we strive to have a total of 500
trained CERT volunteers to deploy wherever they are needed at any given
time. In our jurisdiction we have waiting lists for CERT participants
and a shortage of trainers from the various local governments. All of
the participating local governments provide in-kind the cost of
trainers, facilities, equipment, and administrative coordination of the
classes. Seven Citizen Corps teams and their affiliates in our region
are supported by a Federal grant of less than $20,000.
While I would like to come here today asking for more funding for
Citizen Corps programs across the Nation, as a Government employee I
realize that resources are finite. As such, I submit this recommended
change utilizing existing funding. Remove categorical funding
restrictions within the grant (for promotional items, equipment, and
training). For example, McAllen no longer has a need to promote the
CERT team, as there is a waiting list of volunteers. However, 15% of
the grant is allocated to promotional and educational materials. That
funding is better utilized for equipment and training, such as CPR
classes not currently offered, and is enough to allow the city to train
an additional team. This added flexibility helps us move toward our
common goal of training and retaining volunteers.
Citizen Corps cultivates and sustains the spirit of volunteerism
that has long been a source of pride in our communities. While these
volunteers are not intended to replace first responders, they provide
immediate assistance when traditional emergency services cannot meet
the demand. Your support of the Citizen Corps program is greatly
appreciated by local governments such as ours that continually work to
prepare our residents to help themselves and each other during
disasters. Thank you for your time and attention today. I am happy to
answer any questions.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Ms. Smith, for your testimony.
At this time, we will recognize Ms. DeFrancis.
STATEMENT OF SUZANNE C. DE FRANCIS, CHIEF PUBLIC AFFAIRS
OFFICER, AMERICAN RED CROSS
Ms. DeFrancis. Good morning, Chairman Cuellar, and Ranking
Member Rogers, and distinguished Members of the committee.
Thank you for inviting me here today on behalf of the
American Red Cross and for drawing the public's attention to
this very important topic of preparedness. As Mr. Rogers said,
incidents in recent weeks--from the arrest of suspected
terrorists in the United States, deadly flooding in Georgia and
other southeastern States, earthquakes, tsunamis, typhoons in
the Pacific, school districts closed from H1N1--reminds that
disasters and other emergencies are all too real and all of us
must be prepared and get our families, neighbors, communities,
and country prepared.
At the American Red Cross, our mission has been to help
prevent, prepare for, and respond to disasters, and we have
been doing it for more than a century. But as important as our
work is in responding after disaster strikes, nothing is as
important as what we do before a disaster strikes. The old
saying holds true: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of
cure.
Research shows that a dollar spent on prevention can save
about $4 in response. That is a significant return on
investment and one our Nation should not fail to make.
Preparedness saves lives and livelihoods.
We also have an obligation to promote preparedness not just
to those who can afford it, but to those at-risk populations--
the elderly, disabled, and poor--who are the most vulnerable.
A Red Cross survey this summer showed that while 89 percent
of the public agree it is important to be prepared, far fewer
are actually taking the steps necessary. As Mr. Cuellar noted,
they may be taking some of the steps, but they are not really
what we would call prepared. The level of public preparedness
remains far too low, and at the Red Cross we are not satisfied.
People mostly don't prepare because they don't think it
will happen to them. Interestingly, though, our polls show that
more than 50 percent of people have actually had loss of power
and utilities, had to evacuate, had to offer first aid to
someone near them, so these everyday emergencies really do
happen to people.
People prepare, though, when they think something will
happen to them. That is why we are seeing a relatively high
level of preparedness around H1N1. Overwhelming majorities
report they are taking steps to cover their cough and wash
their hands, and 62 percent plan on being vaccinated.
So at the Red Cross, we are continually working to find new
and better strategies to reach the public. Each day, an
estimated 50,000 people receive Red Cross training classes and
preparedness education presentations. One I would like to
highlight is in New Orleans, where we started what we called a
pillowcase project. Children were given pillowcases which they
could decorate and stuff with the favorite things they would
like to take with them if they needed to evacuate, in the sense
of an emergency.
We know this project works because when Hurricane Gustav
headed up the same area hit by Katrina, kids showed up in our
shelters, and they had their pillowcases, and they were filled
with supplies, so that is progress.
Another effective way to reach people is through the
workplace. Studies have shown that 1 of every 4 small
businesses that are forced to close because of a disaster never
reopen. That is why the American Red Cross developed a web-
based, self-assessment tool that makes preparedness easy for
businesses of all sizes. It is called the Ready Rating program,
and membership is free.
Businesses score themselves annually and maintain their
membership by developing and implementing emergency response
plans, giving preparedness information to their employees, and
improving their overall score just a little bit every year.
Ready Rating was the brainchild of business owners in St.
Louis and received backing from Anheuser-Busch, and now we want
to expand it to 16 more cities. We thank Congressman Cao of
this committee for signing on as a member in southeast
Louisiana.
As I mentioned, the Red Cross is very focused on educating
the public about H1N1. We have developed and distributed
countless information sheets, some of which are at the table
here today. Our Philadelphia chapter distributed over 285,000
handouts at 570 Wawa stores. We use social media to post
messages on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Red Cross youth are
conducting outreach at schools and colleges.
In addition to educating the public, during a flu outbreak,
the American Red Cross remains committed to its core services
of maintaining a safe blood supply and providing disaster
relief to those in need. Our goal is to build a culture of
preparedness throughout our Nation, but no single organization
can do it alone.
This week, Secretary Janet Napolitano came to the American
Red Cross to deliver an important speech on preparedness. She
summoned all of us to a grassroots effort to better prepare our
communities, and the American Red Cross heartily applauds her
for this and supports her call to action.
We are also grateful for this committee. We commend you,
Mr. Cuellar, for introducing H.R. 1, the Citizen and Community
Preparedness Act, and we will work with you to pass that. We
are pleased so many Members of the committee co-sponsored the
resolution on National Preparedness Month, introduced by
Representative Yvette Clarke.
Finally, the Red Cross is also partnering with many faith-
based and community groups to promote preparedness. By
partnering with people like the more than 25,000 members of the
West Angeles Church of God in Christ in Los Angeles, we can
multiply our efforts and really build that grassroots movement
Secretary Napolitano envisions.
Working together as a Nation, we are confident we can build
a society in which every individual, every family, every
business, every school, every faith-based and civic
organization is prepared.
Thank you. I look forward to your questions.
[The statement of Ms. DeFrancis follows:]
Prepared Statement of Suzanne C. DeFrancis
October 1, 2009
Good Morning Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and
distinguished Members of the subcommittee. My name is Suzy DeFrancis,
and I am the chief public affairs officer of the American Red Cross.
Today's hearing entitled, ``State of Citizen and Community
Preparedness'' is a very important issue for the Red Cross and the
Nation. We commend the Subcommittee on Emergency, Communications,
Preparedness and Response for drawing the public's attention to it at
this hearing.
The timing of your hearing could not be more relevant. In addition
to the fact that September is National Preparedness Month, we have
unfortunately been reminded in the last 2 weeks of why preparedness
matters. We have seen the arrest in the United States of a suspect in
what is being called the most serious terrorist plot since 9/11. We
have seen deadly flooding in Georgia and other Southeastern States, and
earthquakes and tsunamis in the Pacific. We have seen school districts
closed, one in Huntsville, Texas, athletic events cancelled, and sadly
more deaths from the H1N1 virus.
With these incidents as a backdrop, we are reminded that the threat
of disasters and other emergencies is very real today and requires us
all to remain diligent in our efforts to be prepared and to get our
families, neighbors, communities, and country prepared.
value of preparedness
At the American Red Cross, our mission is to help people prevent,
prepare for, and respond to disasters and other emergencies. We have
been doing this work for more than a century. As you know, we are
chartered by the Congress to perform our mission, and we have specific
responsibilities under ESF 6 of the National Response Framework. We
shelter, feed, and counsel victims of disasters at home and abroad;
collect and distribute nearly half of the Nation's blood supply; teach
preparedness and lifesaving skills; and we support military members and
families through emergency communications. So whether it is a hurricane
or heart attack, a call for blood or a call for help, the Red Cross is
there around the corner, around the Nation, and around the world.
Each year, the American Red Cross responds to more than 70,000
disasters in communities Nation-wide from a single family house or
apartment fire, to a large-scale disaster like a hurricane. But whether
it is a small- or large-scale disaster, every disaster is an intensely
personal tragedy for the people involved. That's why we want everyone
to make a personal commitment to preparedness.
Being prepared can help you protect your family and loved ones in a
disaster. It can help you respond effectively until help arrives. It
can save lives. It can also save livelihoods by helping individuals and
businesses get back on their feet faster. At the American Red Cross, we
do important work in providing relief after a disaster strikes. But
nothing is as important as what we do before disaster strikes. The old
saying is right: An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
The investments we make in preparedness today have the potential to
save countless lives and resources in the future. A study done in 2005
by the Multi-hazard Mitigation Council found: ``On average, every
dollar spent by FEMA on hazard mitigation (actions to reduce disaster
losses) provides the Nation with about $4 in future benefits.'' So if
$1 spent on prevention can save $4 in response, that is a significant
return on investment and one our Nation should not fail to make.
Moreover, research also shows that those with the least suffer the
most when disaster strikes. Most people who come to Red Cross shelters
are people who have nowhere else to go and no money to pay for a motel
room or other shelter. So we have an obligation as a society to make
sure that we are promoting preparedness not just to those who can
afford it, but to those at-risk populations--the elderly, disabled, and
poor--who are most vulnerable.
polling on preparedness
Even though 89 percent of the public believe it is important to be
prepared--far fewer are actually taking the steps necessary to prepare,
according to a Red Cross survey conducted in late July and early
August. In many cases, they don't know what to do or they think it
takes too much time.
That's why the Red Cross has worked with our Federal partners at
FEMA and DHS to send one consistent message about the 3 simple steps
you can take to keep your loved ones safer: Get a Kit, Make a Plan, and
Be Informed.
Our recent survey showed 80 percent of Americans had taken at least
one key preparedness step, for example:
47% have assembled an emergency kit;
45% have chosen an out-of-town contact;
24% have practiced their emergency plan.
But only 12 percent of Americans are reasonably prepared for a
disaster, as recommended by the Red Cross.
So clearly the level of public preparedness remains very low, and
we are not satisfied with the progress that has been made to date. We
need to continue to find new and better strategies to reach the public
with this message. We also need to have some fun. We launched a ``Do
More than Cross Your Fingers'' campaign this year to promote
preparedness with Jamie Lee Curtis as our celebrity spokesperson. She
sent out an email about how she includes chocolate and dental floss in
her preparedness kit--and it was one of the most-opened emails we have
sent out.
One perception we need to change is that people think preparedness
only applies to large-scale disasters and they don't think those will
happen to them, or if they do, they think Government will bail them
out. But the fact is that disruptive emergencies strike far more often
than people realize.
For example, our Red Cross survey showed that more than 50 percent
of Americans have experienced at least one of the following
emergencies:
Losing Utilities for at least three days;
Evacuating their home;
Providing first aid to others.
These are the ``everyday emergencies'' that everyone should prepare
for.
We also know that people prepare to the degree they think a threat
is imminent. That's why we are seeing a relatively high degree of
preparedness about the HINI flu.
A recent poll conducted by the American Red Cross on H1N1 flu found
an overwhelming majority of the public were taking steps against the
virus:
78% are taking or planning to take extra measures to cover
their coughs and sneezes with a tissue;
76% are taking or planning to take extra measures to wash
their hands more carefully.
The media took notice of the fact that women are more likely to
take protective actions, with 84 percent making an extra effort to
cover coughs and sneezes (versus 71 percent for men) and 81 percent
washing their hands more carefully and more often (compared to 71
percent for men).
The survey also found that 62 percent of those surveyed plan on
being vaccinated against the new flu virus and nearly half of those
surveyed (46 percent) plan on assembling a 2-week supply of food,
water, and medicine in the event they or someone in their family
becomes sick and needs to stay home for extended periods of time.
red cross activities to promote preparedness
At the Red Cross, we are continually working on new and better ways
to promote preparedness.
Each day, an estimated 50,000 people receive Red Cross training
classes and preparedness education presentations. Our website is full
of links to preparedness information, and people can take many of these
courses on-line. Numerous preparedness materials are also available in
multiple languages aimed at different segments of the population.
For example, we have found that school children are very good at
getting their parents to prepare, and we reach more than 1 million
school children every year with our Masters of Disaster curriculum. We
also have a Mother's Guide to Preparedness. You might be interested to
know that according to some research, the most trusted and effective
messengers on preparedness--even among adults--are their mothers.
The bulk of Red Cross programs and services are delivered through a
vibrant network of 700 chapters located across the country. Chapters
are able to tailor National programs to meet the diverse needs of their
specific communities. They partner in their communities with local
businesses, schools, emergency management, public health departments,
and Citizen Corps Councils.
I would like to highlight how local Red Cross chapters, many in
your districts, are working with partners in their communities to
become better prepared.
The city of Laredo, Texas is a hub of preparedness. The
National Red Cross uses Laredo to pre-position support for
hurricane evacuation and response, and the Laredo Red Cross
branch and San Antonio Chapter work with the city to support
the Hurricane Hub Shelters as part of the State Evacuation
Plan.
In Alabama, the Red Cross has worked with the Governor's
Office of Faith-based Initiatives to use community colleges as
shelters when evacuation of the Gulf Coast is mandated, and we
trained staff at the colleges in shelter operations. Masters of
Disaster CDs, purchased with a grant from ALFA Insurance Co.,
have been distributed to every elementary school in a seven-
county area over a 5-year period.
In Mississippi, we have more than 1,600 disaster-trained
volunteers prepared to respond. Red Cross chapters across the
State held shelter-management training sessions this year with
the African Methodist Episcopal Church (AME) and have also
worked with NAACP and HOPE Worldwide to train more volunteers.
As a result, while there is still room for growth, diversity
across the Mississippi volunteer base is rising. In addition,
the Red Cross prepares by pre-positioning supplies in
Mississippi, including 11 preloaded kitchen support trailers, a
30,000-square-foot headquarters/warehouse, and a fixed site
Disaster Response Communications Network to enable connectivity
between the National Red Cross Disaster Operations Center and
local service delivery sites.
In Louisiana, every one of the 4,000 families who worked
with Red Cross caseworkers to plan their recovery from Katrina
also developed a family evacuation and preparedness plan. Our
``pillowcase project,'' which started in New Orleans, gives
children pillowcases with evacuation checklists that they can
fill with everything from stuffed animals to a favorite book.
Hundreds of kids in grades K-8 already have them and more will
get the pillowcases and training this year. We know these
projects have been a success because when Hurricane Gustav
headed up the same area hit by Katrina, kids showed up in
shelters with pillowcases and more people reported knowing
where they needed to go and how to get there--that's progress!
In addition to these on-going preparedness efforts, I would like to
focus today on two new initiatives: A program we just launched called
Ready Rating, and our efforts to prepare the public for the H1N1 virus.
Partnering with Businesses: Ready Rating Program
One of the key recommendations from the 9/11 Commission was a call
for improved private sector preparedness for a disaster, with creation
of standards that would enable companies to voluntarily improve their
readiness.
Studies have shown that one of every four small businesses that are
forced to close because of a disaster never re-opens. But while 94
percent of small business owners told the Red Cross in a survey they
worry about the potential for a disaster to disrupt their operations,
many businesses do not know exactly what they should do, or worry they
cannot afford the time or resources to take the actions necessary.
That's why the American Red Cross has developed a first-of-its-kind
program, called Ready Rating, which costs nothing but enables
companies, schools, and organizations to self-assess their readiness
for emergencies or disasters of all kinds and take steps to become
better prepared. It makes preparedness simple and doable.
The Red Cross Ready Rating program offers free memberships to
businesses and schools, which can use an on-line checklist that
measures their current preparedness efforts. Ready Rating members score
themselves annually with the checklist, and they maintain their
membership by developing and implementing an emergency response plan,
giving preparedness information to employees and students, and
improving their overall score each year.
From a company's perspective, being prepared for emergencies is
good business. Being prepared will enhance productivity by reducing the
amount of time that employees are unable to work and will enable
companies to minimize losses. And there's no question that better
preparedness by schools and businesses helps the entire community
respond and recover.
Ready Rating first began as a project of the American Red Cross of
Greater St. Louis, where it now has nearly 150 members, including major
businesses, schools, and organizations of all sizes. Anheuser-Busch is
the founding sponsor and first member of the Ready Rating program in
St. Louis, and is supporting the expansion of the program to 16 more
cities.
The Red Cross is rolling out Ready Rating this month in New
Orleans, Washington, DC, New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Dallas,
Raleigh, NC, and Chicago, with eight additional cities to be added
early next year. We'd like to commend and thank Congressman Cao for
signing on as a charter member of the Ready Rating program, helping to
underscore the importance of preparedness in Southeast Louisiana.
Meetings about this new readiness program are also being held with
groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, Business Roundtable, and
the National Federation of Independent Businesses.
Al Martinez-Fonts, a Fellow at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the
former Assistant Secretary for the Private Sector Office of DHS has
praised the program saying: ``Businesses have been looking for a
program that gives them an easy, achievable path to preparedness, and
Ready Rating gives companies of all sizes the roadmap to readiness.''
As mentioned earlier, this is also a program that schools have
embraced, and the Department of Education has commended the Red Cross
for launching it and recognizes the important benefits it provides to
schools.
Preparing for H1N1
Today the American Red Cross' current focus is preparedness for the
H1N1 virus. As you know, this is a potentially serious health issue for
families, schools, and businesses across the country and the world and
serves as a reminder of the importance of preparedness and contingency
planning. The Federal Government estimates that as many as 40 percent
of the country's population could become ill with the flu this fall and
winter.
The American Red Cross plays an important role in educating the
public on H1N1 preparedness.
We have developed an extensive section on our website with fact
sheets, widgets, videos, and games for children that urge the public to
follow basic public health steps to help prevent the spread of the flu
such as frequent hand washing, covering your mouth or nose when you
cough or sneeze either with a tissue or with your elbow; minimizing
contact with people who are sick as much as possible; and getting a flu
shot for both seasonal flu and H1N1. We also have information on how to
care for a loved one at home.
We have developed and distributed countless number of tear sheets
that can be posted on bulletin boards in schools or offices. Our
Philadelphia chapter distributed over 285,000 handouts at 570 Wawa
stores.
We are using the social media space to post videos and messages
about H1N1 on YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter. Our Red Cross clubs are
conducting outreach at schools and colleges.
And we are holding public meetings with other community partners to
educate people about the virus and how they can stay healthy. Red Cross
chapters stand ready in local communities to provide appropriate
support and meet community needs.
In addition to educating the public, during a flu outbreak the Red
Cross remains committed to its core services of maintaining a safe
blood supply and providing disaster relief to those in need. The Red
Cross has developed pandemic flu plans for sheltering operations,
enabling us to continue to provide vital shelter to people in need
while also safeguarding the health of shelter residents and workers.
creating a culture of preparedness
The goal is to build a ``culture of preparedness'' throughout our
Nation that helps families communities become safer and more prepared
when disasters strike. No single organization, whether it is the
Government or the American Red Cross, can do this alone, but working
together as a Nation, we can.
Department of Homeland Security
We are grateful for the close working relationship the Red Cross
has developed with DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano and FEMA
Administrator Craig Fugate. Our President and CEO Gail McGovern has
been side-by-side Secretary Napolitano at a number of public events
promoting preparedness, and we have worked with Administrator Fugate
many times before when he was Director of the Florida Division of
Emergency Management.
As recently as this week, the Secretary came to the American Red
Cross to deliver a major speech on Readiness and Resilience. The
Secretary shared her belief that preparedness is a shared
responsibility and summoned all of us to a grassroots effort to better
prepare our communities for any kind of emergency. The American Red
Cross appreciates her leadership on this issue and heartily backs her
call to action. We would also note that not only does Secretary
Napolitano preach preparedness, she practices it.
Just last month she invited the Red Cross to train her and her
entire senior staff in CPR/AED.
United States Congress
We are also grateful for the United States Congress, which through
the bipartisan leadership of this subcommittee and the full committee
has also enhanced this culture of preparedness. Again, we want to thank
you for holding this important hearing and would like to commend you,
Mr. Cuellar, for introducing H.R. 5890 in the 110th Congress. This
bipartisan bill, ``the Citizen and Community Preparedness Act of
2008,'' would establish a community preparedness division within the
Department of Homeland Security as well as create a Citizen Corps
Program, in which the Secretary of Homeland Security would convene a
meeting to bring key Government officials and stakeholders together to
coordinate efforts around preparedness, planning, mitigation, response,
and recovery for acts of terrorism and natural disasters. The American
Red Cross supported this measure last Congress and, should the bill be
reintroduced in the 111th Congress, we look forward to working with
Representative Cuellar and Rogers and all the Members of this
subcommittee to pass this important bill.
Partners in Preparedness
As we have learned in recent years, there can be disasters of such
magnitude that American Red Cross systems may not be adequate to meet
the needs. Therefore, additional community partners must be developed
to help with those challenges.
At the Red Cross, we work with many nonprofit partners who have
expertise in disaster response, such as the Salvation Army, Catholic
Charities, LDS Church, and the Southern Baptist Convention. But we are
also reaching out to other organizations who have not been
traditionally involved in disasters. We work with them to develop and
train volunteers, identify and staff shelters, and expand our ability
to collect blood, especially in diverse communities.
Current examples of these key relationships include:
A partnership with West Angeles Church of God in Christ, Los
Angeles, California (more than 25,000 members);
A partnership with First African Methodist Church, Los
Angeles, California (more than 19,000 members);
A partnership with Calvary Chapel Church, Chino, California
(more than 10,000 members);
A developing partnership with the Houston, Texas faith
community spearheaded by Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee (12
key faith leaders from various denominations).
By reaching out to new groups, we can multiply the number of people
who are prepared and will encourage others to be prepared. This is how
we build the type of grassroots movement Secretary Napolitano
envisions.
conclusion
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers and distinguished Members
of the subcommittee, thank you for allowing the American Red Cross to
share with you our vision and showcase some of our outreach efforts as
we continue to work toward fostering a culture of preparedness in our
Nation. We look forward to the opportunity of further partnering with
the United States Congress, other branches of government, the faith-
based community and other civic groups, non-profits and for-profits in
carrying out this life saving preparedness message.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much, Ms. DeFrancis. Appreciate
the work that the Red Cross does. Thank you.
I would like to thank all the witnesses. I would like to
remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to
question the panel.
I also would like to recognize the Chairman of the full
committee, Mr. Thompson. Thank you, Mr. Thompson, for being
here, Chairman Thompson.
At this time, I will recognize myself for 5 minutes for
questions.
You know, yesterday, I was talking to a gentleman named
John D. Solomon. Actually, he is in the back over there. We
went over several things. In fact the handout that I got into
the record, I would ask each of you all to get a copy before
you leave, because he talks about very insightful different
things that I think we ought to be doing for this initiative
that we are trying to complete.
But one of the things that got my attention was when he
asked, what does it mean to be prepared? Because we are all
saying we have got to get citizens prepared, we have got to get
communities prepared.
Mr. Manning, just real quickly. I am going to go down the
line just real quickly. What does it mean to you, being
prepared?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, that is a great point. I see the
kind of two sides to that answer. One fundamentally for the
individual, for the family is that they have taken those steps
to prevent an event from becoming a disaster for that family,
something as simple as having discussed where they can meet if
they get separated, simple, simple things that they can do that
may even be more simple and before gathering a kit and
supplies, things so that they understand what to do, they have
thought about emergencies before they happen.
Then from the community preparedness side, the other side
is gathering communities together to help each other and help
their neighbors, things where we encourage and provide the
tools necessary to community organizations to help their
communities before Government can get in to provide that extra
assistance.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Mr. Jenkins, what do you think the minimal level of
preparedness should be?
Mr. Jenkins. Well, I agree with what Mr. Manning said. I
mean, basically, absolutely knowing what risk that your area
faces is not the same across the country, so what are the
specific risks that I might face and what are the potential
consequences for my family of that? Therefore, what are the
steps that I can take in urging them to reduce the impact on my
family of that? It is going to vary across the country though
as to what that is.
I also agree with Mr. Cuellar--you know, doing things to
help your neighbors. I live in a co-op of 100 units, but we
have a number of elderly people that live in my building. So we
have a--everybody in the building has been assigned basically a
buddy to one of those people to help them. Some of them have
limited mobility in the case of a disaster and----
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Ms. Smith.
Ms. Smith. Of course, we focus on individual readiness, as
was mentioned by the previous two witnesses. In addition, we
look at our regional assets. Now, whether it be equipment or
talents--for instance, McAllen has a hazardous materials team
that is available regionally in the event that we are needed.
We also have a catalogue of all of our--equipment that we
can use and deploy regionally. Then we get together regularly
to train to do preparedness events, including a fair that we
call Dare to Prepare that was really geared towards lower
socioeconomic levels to make sure that we are reaching across
all parts of our population.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay.
Ms. DeFrancis.
Ms. DeFrancis. Thank you, Mr. Cuellar.
We at the Red Cross go by three simple messages, and
actually we adapted them from FEMA's, because we felt it was
important to have coordinated messaging to the public so that
everybody is on the same page saying the same thing. Basically,
we say you are prepared when you get a kid, you make a plan,
and you stay informed.
Those three actions we find are important to continue to
talk about with the public because it takes a long time to
penetrate. We notice during disasters that we have a spike in
on-line sales at our store for preparedness kits, so we know
people are beginning to get that message, but it is important
that we reinforce it again and again, and we need it to be
simple.
The other thing I would say is, yes, as we have talked
about in communities--and certainly, the Red Cross is a part of
forums on communities' preparedness--but we need to somehow
break the attitude that disasters and emergencies won't happen
to me and that, you know, if they do, someone else will take
care of it. I think we need to work really hard to be able--to
break that attitude if we are going to be a prepared Nation.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. I guess, you know, before you do
anything, you have got to have a definition of the key word
here. It is preparedness. That is important. Knowing where we
need to go is--you know, what--I mean, what we are trying to do
is important.
Mr. Manning, what is--I know you are new in this, but what
is your vision of what we ought to do to have citizens,
communities, prepare? Where is FEMA going from here?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, as you no doubt know and have
indicated in your opening remarks that community and individual
preparedness is a paramount importance to the administration,
to Secretary Napolitano, Administrator Fugate, and I.
Where we bring the agency forward on individual
preparedness is, we have been taking really a whole-of-agency
approach that it is not just a community preparedness division
within the National Preparedness Directorate. It is not an
organizational chart solution to the problem. It is something--
it is bringing the entire resources of the agency to bear on
this problem.
I see that there are two different ways we can approach
this. What I hope to bring to my efforts is both focusing on
the enhancement of individual resilience, providing the tools
and information necessary to the individual and the family, to
take those steps that will help prepare them, that will help
them withstand severe events, be it something as simple as a
power outage or as severe as a tsunami or an earthquake or a
flood.
At the same time, we continue our engagement with Citizen
Corps with community leaders, with civic leaders throughout the
country to bring together the partnership of State, local, and
Federal Government with the community and civic organizations
to reach the individuals, to identify those that are willing
and able to volunteer their time to help their communities,
give them an avenue to do so, and bring those resources to
bear, amplify the efforts of Government in helping to protect
and respond to the needs of their neighbors.
Mr. Cuellar. Let me--my time is up, but let me just ask you
this. Do you all have a strategic plan? Have you seen it?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, the National Preparedness
Directorate has an operating plan which we use as a strategic
plan. It is not titled as such. However, in recognition of
concerns raised by the GAO in a previous study, we are
reformulating that as a strategic plan for a preparedness
system and will be bringing the community preparedness
initiatives inside that strategic plan going forward.
Mr. Cuellar. Yes, my--I am a big believer in performance
measures. I would like to see for you all to develop a--the
vision, the goals, the objectives, and what you are going to
measure, so we know if we are measuring success or failure. How
long would it take you to get that done?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I don't know that I can give a
real answer to that question at this time.
Mr. Cuellar. Will you work with the committee? I would ask
you to work with Ms. Smith, DeFrancis, Mr. Jenkins, and ask you
to put some--I know you have got to go through your channels
there, but I would ask you to work with a committee, also,
because, again, if an agency or a department doesn't have a
strategic plan, it is like a boat not knowing if we are
steering to the left or right.
I would like for you to work with the committee and, I
mean, closely to see the strategic plan, the vision, the goals,
the objectives, the performance measures, and what we are going
to measure on that. I don't want to measure activity. I want to
measure results. That is very important, because anybody--
usually the biggest mistake when people measure--put--measures,
they measure activity. I am more interested in measuring for
results on that, okay?
Mr. Manning. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. I would like for you to make sure you all
share cards and work together and get some ideas from some of
our partners here.
At this time, I would like to recognize the Ranking Member
for 5 minutes for questions.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I want to follow up on Mr. Manning's opening statement.
When you made reference to FEMA's outreach to stakeholders,
could you elaborate more on that outreach?
Mr. Manning. Yes, sir. Administrator Fugate and I both came
from having been State directors of emergency management and
understand implicitly the need and the importance of working
together, working collaboratively with everybody involved.
Emergency management is inherently an intergovernmental,
interdepartmental, community-wide initiative and effort.
Specifically, the part of the--my title is deputy administrator
for National preparedness, and it is not Federal preparedness,
and it is not FEMA's preparedness. It is National preparedness.
We cannot accomplish that without working closely--just as
closely with our partners in the States and local communities,
be it the city and municipal governments, or the civic leaders
throughout the country.
We can't accomplish that task without working with them as
closely as we do with our own partners within FEMA and the
Department and the Federal interagency.
Mr. Rogers. As a part of that, I represent a very rural
Congressional district, a poor, rural Congressional district.
Most of my first responders are volunteers, volunteer
firefighters or rescue squads, and my guess is that is probably
pretty much the norm throughout America in most rural cities.
Does FEMA have in a particular initiative to network with
those volunteer units?
Mr. Manning. I believe we do. We have a number of
initiatives and a number of efforts where we work through
stakeholder organizations, largely at the Federal level,
through things--organizations such as the National Volunteer
Fire Council, the National Emergency Management Association,
International Association of Emergency Managers, that get to
those communities.
But specific to your point about volunteer firefighters,
while we work closely with representatives with stakeholder
organizations at this level, what we try to do is encourage and
work through our partners at the State and local level to
engage at those levels.
I have a personal stake in that, having been a volunteer
firefighter myself. I understand the limitations and concerns
where the--in my experience, Government pushes out new training
opportunities, but they're only offered between 8:00 and 5:00
on a weekday when everybody is in work. So it is incumbent on
us to find ways to provide the information, training, and
resources to those that have chosen to dedicate their lives
towards public service while earning their livelihoods in a
different manner.
Mr. Rogers. I have been urging the Center for Domestic
Preparedness to--you know, they have got that ability to take
that training on the road, to expand the number of teams and
the trucks that they have, this tractor-trailer--because what
you are talking about, most of these first responders are
working somewhere near volunteers. The only way they are going
to get this training is if you can bring it to them on the
weekends, typically, or in the evenings.
I would address Mr. Jenkins' question. He said that FEMA
has got to decide what they expect. Before you are going to be
able to achieve your goals, you have got to set those goals. Do
you anticipate having a determination in any time in the near
future as to what you are expecting to achieve, what your goals
will be, so that GAO can then measure whether or not you have
achieved them?
Mr. Manning. I believe we do. I believe we are engaged in
adapting our existing doctrinal ideas in operating plans into a
strategic plan with goals and objectives, identifying actual
outcome-driven performance metrics that we can actually see
whether or not we have achieved what we are trying to achieve.
One of the comments we have heard often is that one of the
things we have measured in Citizen Corps, for example, is the
number of Citizen Corps councils that have developed around the
country, which is, to the Chairman's point, often about
activity, rather than outcome.
However, at that time, our goal at that point was the
proliferation of avenues with which to reach communities, so
that was an appropriate measure.
Mr. Rogers. It is disappointing, though, from my
perspective that you may not have shared the previous
administrator's goals and objectives, but that FEMA should have
in place, maybe before you and Administrator Fugate arrive,
these goals and standards and metrics that GAO could come in
and say that the organization is meeting those.
So it is really kind of disappointing to find out that
there aren't any that are being held out already. We have had a
lot of disasters already. I will say, you know, in the last few
years, FEMA has just done a great job of being ready for these
incidents.
Ms. DeFrancis, you talked about Anheuser-Busch helping with
some preparedness initiatives. How much do you work with local
businesses, particularly smaller businesses, to make sure that
they are aware of what they need to do to be prepared for a
disaster?
Ms. DeFrancis. Well, Mr. Rogers, that is what this program
is aimed at primarily, to work with smaller businesses who
don't have the time or resources to develop an elaborate COOP
plan and instead give them a way to self-assess and to measure
themselves and to do it on a web-based tool that is very easy
for them to do.
We hope to really expand this out, as I said, at about 16
different cities, but we will also be looking for companies
like Anheuser-Busch to help support that, because we need the
resources behind that to do it.
But we know that small businesses are very eager,
obviously, to take care of their employees. Their employees are
like family to them. But they worry, particularly if they are
ones with just 10 people, that they don't have somebody they
can dedicate as the preparedness officer, but we have tried to
make it really simple.
Also, things that we produce--like these tear sheets I
mentioned, those are very handy for small businesses to put up
in their, you know, vending room or whatever. We work with
small businesses a lot to try to get the message out, because
we find that getting the message out through the workplace is a
very effective tool of reaching people and families.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. At this time, the Chair would like to
recognize other Members for questions they may wish to ask the
witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and practice,
I would like to recognize Members who were present at the start
of the hearing, based on seniority of the subcommittee,
alternate between Majority and Minority. Those Members coming
in later will be recognized in the order of their arrival.
At this time, the Chair recognizes the Chairman of the full
committee, Chairman Thompson.
Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
appreciate you having the hearing, and I welcome the witnesses
to the subcommittee.
Welcome, Mr. Manning. You come very highly recommended, and
people sing your praises.
Mr. Jenkins has produced a document listing some concerns
about preparedness in a number of things. Have you had an
opportunity to respond back to the report? Are you in the
process of doing? If you do, can you share with the committee
some of that?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I have not had the opportunity
to see the full report. We have seen some of the draft
conclusions and have provided the GAO with our answers and
comments back and look forward to its publication in finality
so I can get a full look at it.
Mr. Thompson. So is there anything in the report that
strikes you?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I can't say I fundamentally
disagree with anything that was in the report. I think that
there are very good points that are made. As far as identifying
achievable outcomes and a strategic vision for how we are
engaging with communities and individuals and the furtherance
of preparedness.
Mr. Thompson. So your testimony to the committee is that,
under your direction, you will make sure that the shortcomings
identified in the GAO report will be satisfied?
Mr. Manning. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have not had the
opportunity--it hasn't been finalized or published yet. I
haven't seen the entire report, so I am not aware of the full
breadth of the recommendations included in the report. But of
what I am aware and what has been discussed so far in the
hearing this morning, I am in agreement and will take action to
resolve.
Mr. Thompson. Well, the point that strikes me most is GAO's
comment that FEMA still lacks an overall strategy for citizen
and community preparedness. That is the issue.
I am saying that if that is, in fact, irrefutable, are you
prepared to move the ball to resolve that issue?
Mr. Manning. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you.
Ms. DeFrancis, some of us were directly involved in
Katrina. Since the Red Cross is the only organization that is
Federally chartered to address this issue, one of the concerns
we heard is that the Red Cross did not reach out into the
broader community and involved stakeholders.
For instance, in the South at the time of Katrina, there
was one organization that the Red Cross had an agreement with
called the Southern Baptist Convention. As you know, so much of
what we heard during Katrina is that wasn't good enough.
Can you share the Red Cross's work since Katrina to resolve
that issue?
Ms. DeFrancis. Well, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
We learned one large lesson in Katrina, which is the Red
Cross can't do it all in a disaster of that magnitude and size,
and that we need to reach out to partner organizations to help
us do that. So since that time, we have worked to expand our
partnerships in a number of areas. You know, in Mississippi, we
have been working with the AME Church, with the NAACP, with
HOPE Worldwide to train more, shelter administrators to make
sure that they can get their congregations trained.
This is the multiplying effect that is--we are only going
to be successful when we do that. As you know, Warren Miller in
your State has done a great job with helping us reach out.
We have now more than 150 MOUs with other groups and
organizations to work with us. Of course, those are only as
good as how they are operational. We are continuing to work on
that. But we feel that we have made an excellent effort to
expand our reach into different communities and to really try
to become a more diverse organization.
The Red Cross doesn't have to run every shelter. We can
give training, and the church or organization can run that
shelter just as well as we can, as long as we are there to
support them.
So thank you for bringing that up, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you. The reason I did is in response to
something the Ranking Member said. Those of us who live in
rural communities many times get overlooked and, from a
preparedness standpoint, much of the training and other things
that is offered Mr. Manning is at the convenience of the
trainer, rather than the trainee.
So I am concerned that we prepare the model so that it can
be most effective. If the cooperation and coordination between
the agencies worked, then we are as a citizen and as a Nation
better prepared. But I would suggest to you, in light of the
GAO study, that there is significant work to be done and would
suggest, Mr. Chair, that either a follow-up hearing or some way
of measuring what is being done, I appreciate Ms. DeFrancis'
comment about the MOUs are only as good as what you do with
them.
Because the last time we had testimony before the
committee, staff did a sampling of organizations who had
executed MOUs, and that was as far as the process had gone. So
I would hope that, when staff do the next call around, the
results will be better.
I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
At this time, I would like to recognize Mr. Olson for 5
minutes.
Mr. Olson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
I want to thank the witnesses for taking time out of your
busy schedules to come and help enlighten us on the challenges
we have going forward. I have a couple of questions. I would
like to start out with Ms. DeFrancis.
I have been struck by your comments about how the
percentages of people who don't have a preparedness kit and
some of the challenges we face there. How can we start to
address the gaps in preparedness that have been identified in
this National survey?
For example, we know less than half the individuals
actually have a preparedness kit set aside in their homes. As
you mentioned there is sort of the mentality that it won't
happen to me.
In my district of Texas, we have sort of a corollary to
that mentality, because one of our biggest challenges is
hurricanes. We know they are coming. So people tend to have
this mentality that, ``I will just get what I need as the storm
is coming in,'' which as we know tends to create long lines.
The Home Depots, the Best Buys are just sold out, the grocery
stores, that kind of thing.
So I am just wondering if you have any indications or just
kind of give us your thoughts on a strategy we could use for
increasing the percentage over the next few years, working
together.
Ms. DeFrancis. Well, thank you, Mr. Olson.
Certainly, it is a very tough assignment, because, as you
say, there is complacency and people wait until the last
minute. In order to change behavior like that, it is going to
take a lot of time and a lot of effort and a lot of resources,
frankly, to really get people to pay attention, just like when
we put in anti-smoking campaigns or anti-obesity campaigns. It
takes a long time to change behavior.
One thing we think is very important is that the messages
be simple and that they be coordinated across all of our groups
and agencies so we are not sending conflicting messages and we
are saying the same thing and repeating it time and time again,
which is important. We think we need multiple messengers, as
was referenced. It can't just come from the Government, can't
just come from the Red Cross.
In fact, some research I have seen says that the person
people listen to most on preparedness, whether they are adults
or not, is their mothers. So we have to reach mothers. We have
a mothers' guide for preparedness, as well.
I think children are very effective in sending the message
home to their parents. We run a Masters of Disasters program. I
know in Mr. Rogers' statement, they have distributed a number
of CDs and curriculum on masters of disaster. That teaches kids
to be prepared, and they carry that message home.
Sometimes I think we are going to have to have a little fun
with this message, because, you know, preparedness can seem a
little like eating your vegetables, but, I mean, we sent out an
e-mail this year from Jamie Lee Curtis, who was our celebrity
spokesperson on preparedness, and she told people that she was
going to put in her preparedness kit chocolate and dental
floss. Well, we got more people responding to that e-mail and
opening that e-mail because it had a little humor to it.
So it is tough. It is going to take more resources.
Certainly, we thank this committee. We know that there is a lot
of money that does go out to local and State entities to do
this kind of work. We have been talking with your staff about
ways that nonprofits could help access those funds more
directly for the work that we do.
But I think it is great that the Secretary of DHS has
summoned us to this. I think it is great that everybody is here
talking about it so we can, you know, really get behind a good
program.
Thank you.
Mr. Olson. Thank you for that answer. I know we here on the
committee look forward to working with all of you all in the
Department to get this program even better than it is right
now.
Question for Ms. Smith. What challenges have you faced
there in McAllen in getting the Citizen Corps program up and
running in the committee? What challenges have you faced
maintaining an active council, once you get it up and running?
Again, I think you said you had seven teams funded with
$20,000?
Ms. Smith. McAllen has one team. Regionally, we have seven.
We have a very active program within our own city and
regionally. The cog is about--is embarking on nine new classes
with primarily church organizations. We have a waiting list.
Our trouble is primarily with trainers.
We use our own staff right now, which we are happy to do,
but sometimes that is a challenge. We think, also, a better way
to engage people would be to make those people who have gone
through this sort of program trained in order to teach.
There is a train the trainer program. Again, going back to
the number of hours in the day and when that is done, we have a
challenge, also, of making that happen within the time that the
volunteer has available nights and weekends.
We also try to keep the volunteers engaged in between--
natural disasters primarily is what we work on. So we involve
them in our preparedness campaigns and our fairs. We meet with
them at least 2 or 3 times a year and just let them know that,
you know, we do appreciate their volunteer service and we want
to keep them engaged in the process.
Mr. Olson. Thank you for that answer.
I see that I am out of time. Thank you again for what you
do. That is one of the fastest-growing parts of our State, and
I appreciate all you do.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Olson.
At this time, I will recognize, for 5 minutes, Mr.
Pascrell, from the great State of New Jersey.
Mr. Pascrell. Mr. Chairman--I look to what our Chairman and
the nature of his questions--and I am glad he referred to
Katrina, which is still a traumatic experience for this
country, because it really was a mirror to the underbelly of
the United States of America, phantom people who didn't exist
in our minds, as we do the business of the Congress, for sure.
It was like an onion. One layer at a time, each day being--
cover of which being peeled off, getting towards the center and
never getting to the center.
There was a book that just came out 4 months ago, which was
for at least 3 weeks on the best-seller list. It was a novel.
It was Zitoun--Z-i-t-o-u-n--about the experience of a
particular family during Katrina and how, through that family,
we failed in response. We do not need a Katrina to tell us how
we have failed. Unfortunately, it just was a mirror to our
failures.
So, Mr. Manning, we can all agree on this panel that we
have a long way to go before we can feel comfortable that the
American people are equipped and capable of dealing with a
large-scale disaster. What I am particularly concerned about is
the state of preparedness in different parts of America.
I come from a district that is centered on a dense urban
area, is then surrounded by sprawling suburbs, goes all the way
out to waterways, that consistently cause mass flooding in a
number of residential areas. It is probably ethnically,
culturally probably one of the top five diverse districts in
the country.
Each of these environments present a different challenge,
in terms of preparedness, and that is only in one district. I
wonder how we deal with the different challenges we face
throughout this Nation. What I would like to know from you is:
How does FEMA train through its programs for these different
environments we have to confront? Are we simply giving the same
lesson everywhere, or do we have a real targeted strategy?
Mr. Manning.
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
That is exactly, I think, the--you hit on the head one of
our shortcomings in the way we have--we as a Nation have been
undertaking community preparedness for a very long time. We do
have National efforts where we use consistent messaging and
consistent plans and programs, because we do know that
consistency is useful, consistency is what is required to get
people to recognize and take in a message.
But that said, the specific actions that are recommended
are as heterogeneous as the diversity of our Nation. It is
understanding with specific threats faced by a community, by a
neighborhood, by a city or township, by understanding the
specific threats that face a household, that is required before
you know what steps to take to mitigate those threats.
What we have tried to do over the years is engaging local
communities, providing the resources and tools to the local
communities to help them more specifically deal with the
threats facing those communities so that we don't have a
particular one set of recommendations that we at the Federal
level try to enforce around the country and try to give the
tools to local communities.
Ready, for example, as the campaign, includes a diverse
number of recommendations, diverse set of tools to apply to
various conditions. We try to encourage local governments to
take those and adapt them.
My experience, for example, in the rural New Mexico
mountains is that some of the messaging, some of the tools that
were provided me as a community member that were geared towards
hurricane preparedness were less helpful, for example, than
something that was geared more towards wildfires or severe
weather.
So we have to take that into account, of course, in our
messaging. We have to recognize the socioeconomic diversity of
our populations and include in our messaging things that
further preparedness beyond, essentially, the acquisition of
material, recognizing that, while we say--and it is absolutely
critical to have a kit and a plan and supplies and be prepared,
that there are families, there are households that simply may
not know where they are getting dinner tonight, much less 3-
day's-worth of food and water. We have to acknowledge that,
recognize that, and find solutions in ways to help those
households and those communities, as well.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you very much for your answer.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell, for your questions.
Mr. Manning, I am going to ask you in about 2 weeks to come
back to us, give us--even if it is a rough draft of a strategic
plan. I would ask you to contact Mr. Jenkins and Ms. Smith and
Ms. DeFrancis. They are not going to write it for you, but
they--I would like to get some input from them.
Now, when you were in New Mexico--I know I did my
dissertation on performance-based budgets, and I recall that
New Mexico does have strategic planning. Am I correct on that?
Mr. Manning. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cuellar. Right. You had one at your former job, didn't
you?
Mr. Manning. Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. So here is a great opportunity. There is
really not much in place. I think this is a great opportunity
to mold this into, I think, something, you know, using your
past experience at the state level.
Again, I would ask you to come back. I will ask the
committee to get you back here so we can follow up on this. So
I really--even if it is a rough draft, but I think the rough
draft is better than nothing at all. But, you know, you have
got a lot of experience at the State level, and I remember New
Mexico does have a plan from what I recall.
I don't have any questions.
Mr. Rogers, do you have anything?
Mr. Rogers. I have a comment.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay, comment. I recognize Mr. Rogers.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to tell Ms. DeFrancis, your organization did
a great job in my district in February of this year when we had
a tornado touch down below Oliver. Just the community was very
pleased with how Red Cross reacted and helped us. Thank you
very much for that.
Ms. DeFrancis. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. We appreciate that.
Our volunteers in your State are the ones that deserve the
credit for that.
I also want to--just to follow up with your question, when
you asked about working with small businesses, I should have
mentioned that we have met with the Chamber of Commerce. We
have met with the National Federation of Independent Business.
That is at the National level, and we hope to push that down
through our chapters at a local level.
Mr. Cuellar. Okay. We are going to go ahead and conclude,
but let me--again, I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here.
Ms. DeFrancis, I appreciate what the Red Cross does.
Ms. Smith, I appreciate what you all do in McAllen, in
south Texas, Mr. Jenkins, of course, GAO, and, Mr. Manning, I
think you have got a wonderful job and I think a great
opportunity to really shape it the way you think it should be
done, so we look forward to working with you.
We are going to follow up. You know, I am so interested in
bringing in technology, but there are so many pieces of new
technology that is available out there, and a lot of ideas, you
know, the ideas that you brought up--the pillowcase, I think
that is pretty neat. The code red, I think, that you all have
in McAllen and other ideas, there are a lot of ideas.
I guess the whole thing is, how do we put all of this
together? So we will set up another meeting. I really want to
follow up on this.
So I want to thank all the witnesses for their testimony
and the Members for the questions. The Members of the
subcommittee might have additional questions for the witnesses.
We ask you to respond as soon as you can to those questions in
writing.
Hearing no further business, this hearing is adjourned.
Thank you very much.
[Whereupon, at 11:10 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning
Question 1. The 2009 FEMA Preparedness Survey found that 81 percent
of respondents believe that prior planning would help them handle a
natural disaster. But just 60 percent believe prior planning would help
them respond to an act of terrorism. How can FEMA address the
perception that preparing for a terrorist attack is not as valuable or
effective as preparing for a natural disaster?
Answer. The 2009 FEMA Preparedness Survey results indicated that
individuals' confidence in their ability to respond to a disaster and
the perception that preparing would make a difference (response
efficacy) varies significantly by disaster type. Outreach, social
marketing, and risk communication strategies should take into account
that motivators and barriers to undertaking preparedness activities are
different for different types of hazards. Since perceptions of
susceptibility were key predictors for natural disasters, hazardous
materials accidents, and disease outbreaks, outreach efforts should
specifically educate people about their susceptibility to these types
of disasters. FEMA continues to work on honing its various messaging
initiatives.
For terrorist-related threats, communication strategies that seek
to increase preparedness must address individuals' lack of familiarity
with these types of threat and the appropriate response measures as
well as low levels of perceived response efficacy. Strategies should
educate individuals in basic understanding of and preparedness measures
for explosions, dirty bombs, improvised nuclear devices, and release of
chemical agents, emphasizing the effectiveness of advance preparation
and skill building in helping to make a difference in even the most
severe emergencies. Because practicing response protocols is critical
for effective execution, greater emphasis is needed on drills and
exercises for these less well understood hazards conducted at the
community level, through social networks including households and
neighborhoods, the workplace, schools, and faith communities.
In May 2010 FEMA, in partnership with the State of Nevada, will
hold National Level Exercise 2010 based on the detonation of an
improvised nuclear devise. This exercise provides a platform from which
public messaging can dispel the Cold War perceptions of a nuclear
threat and provide an accurate picture of today's terrorist landscape.
Information on realistic ways to survive such an attack could help
dispel the perception that there is nothing that can be done to prepare
for a terrorist attack.
Question 2. The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 moved the majority of the preparedness functions for acts of
terrorism and natural hazards to FEMA. In addition, the 2007 National
Preparedness Guidelines listed citizen preparedness as a National
priority. Yet GAO's testimony suggests that FEMA still lacks an overall
strategy for citizen and community preparedness. Do you agree with
GAO's conclusion? Why or why not?
Answer. Improving personal and community preparedness is an
inherently complex challenge requiring individual behavioral change and
significant organizational and community cultural change. The strategy
for achieving these changes must include partnerships and shared
responsibility across our society in both Government and
nongovernmental organizations. Determining causal correlations is also
problematic. Nonetheless, FEMA is implementing a National strategy
coordinated with partners and a multi-pronged approach to assess
impact.
First, FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) is leading an
agency-wide approach to developing an integrated National strategy and
performance metrics to assess community preparedness. This approach
identifies preparedness objectives in four areas: (1) Integrating
community preparedness and resilience in all Government policy and
guidance to support local implementation; (2) establishing effective
National partnerships and supporting local collaboration among all
sectors through all phases of emergency management; (3) identifying and
developing tools and resources for local implementation; (4) developing
comprehensive research agenda and ensuring all strategies are research-
based and evaluated for effectiveness.
This strategy builds on continuing work such as the National
Preparedness Guideline and the Common Target Capability for Community
Preparedness and Participation, the Nation-wide network of State,
Tribal, and local Citizen Corps Councils and volunteer programs, and
research. FEMA's Community Preparedness Division conducts primary
research through National household surveys, evaluates research
conducted by others, develops behavior change models, and solicits
input from leading researchers in the field to develop new tools and to
improve the identification of valid metrics for preparedness and
indicators for community resiliency. As part of the continuing work to
improve quantitative and qualitative information and support for local
preparedness, FEMA will be launching two web-based efforts in 2010.
FEMA will launch a new on-line registration tool for local Citizen
Corps Councils and CERT Programs to provide better data collection on
local partnerships and to increase our understanding of local activity.
FEMA also will be expanding the collection of good stories from around
the country to capture best practices and concrete successes.
Question 3. Does FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate have a
strategic plan in place? If not, when and how do you intend to develop
a strategic plan for the directorate?
Answer. FEMA/NPD currently has an Operating Plan, which is updated
annually and outlines priority goals, objectives, and performance
measures for the implementation of Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Act-directed and other key preparedness initiatives (i.e., National
Exercise Program, community preparedness, Comprehensive Assessment
System, etc.). The Operating Plan aligns with FEMA's current Strategy.
The Quadrennial Homeland Security Review is concluding, and a
review of Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD-8 recently
began, which will significantly influence NPD's approach to the
development and content of a Directorate Strategy.
Question 4. What are the challenges to getting citizens prepared
for a disaster and how can FEMA, working with its partners, take steps
to address these challenges?
To what extent do social groups, such as neighborhoods, the
workplace, schools, and faith communities, motivate people to become
prepared? How can the emergency management community better leverage
these groups to improve individual readiness?
Answer. One of the primary challenges to getting citizens prepared
is their high expectation for help from emergency responders in the
event of a disaster. FEMA is working with its partners, including
emergency management and responders, to create and disseminate messages
that emphasize the importance of self-reliance and convey a more
realistic understanding of emergency response capacity. Messaging
speaks to a shared responsibility and stresses that everyone has a role
to play in preparedness and response. Both the Secretary of DHS and
FEMA's Administrator are providing a strong National voice on this
message.
Research indicates that individuals also expect to rely heavily on
their social networks for information and support during critical times
of their lives. The 2009 Citizen Corps National Survey findings
indicate that the majority of individuals (70%) expected to rely on
their household members in the event of a disaster and a little less
than half (49%) expected to rely on others in their neighborhood. In
2009, 3 in 10 individuals (34%) reported talking about getting prepared
with others in their community. This data confirms that it is vital to
involve social networks in promoting and motivating individual and
community preparedness. Local emergency management should partner with
local community leaders when creating or revising any community
preparedness and response plans. These partnerships will ensure various
constituent needs are addressed in the planning process and throughout
the disaster cycle. Engaging trusted leaders to participate in the
process and assist with disseminating important information will also
ensure improved understanding of shared responsibility, an increase in
individual readiness, and greater compliance with preparedness
directives.
Question 5. How do you envision the Ready Campaign complementing
State and local emergency awareness efforts?
Answer. Citizen preparedness requires a team effort to effect the
culture change that will move individuals and communities towards
greater preparedness, and the Ready campaign is only one part of that
team. The role State and local officials and emergency awareness
efforts play in building citizen preparedness and engaging individuals
is critical.
The Ready Campaign and the Advertising Council have designed their
public service advertising (PSAs) in a format that is easy to localize.
This means State and local governments can ``tag'' the Ready PSAs with
their logo and URL to direct residents to their own local emergency
preparedness websites. The Ad Council can assist governments in
localizing the PSAs and securing local donated media commitments. This
allows these partners access to top-notch, strategically-driven
creative advertising, based on National consumer research for a very
minimal cost. Approximately 17 cities, States, and territories as well
as two military branches have localized the Ready Campaign over the
past 3 years. The Ready Campaign will continue to work with State and
local governments on localizing these PSAs.
The Ready Campaign will also continue to provide unique partnership
opportunities to State and local emergency efforts. One example of such
a partnership is with Discovery Education that reaches K-8 classrooms
across the country. ``Ready Classroom'' provides elementary and middle
school teachers with resources to integrate natural disaster
preparedness information into their curriculum. The program is an
extension of Ready Kids.
The Ready Campaign will continue to provide tools and materials
(i.e., PSAs, publications, National Preparedness Month, Minor League
Baseball and Resolve to be Ready toolkits, etc.) to State and local
emergency efforts, many of which are connected to or compliment local
and State Citizen Corps Council efforts to further leverage efforts of
others. According to the 2008 State Homeland Security Directors Survey
conducted by the National Governors Association Center for Best
Practices (NGA Center), ``Approximately 90 percent of respondents
reported using at least some of the Ready Campaign's tools and
resources. More specifically, 83 percent of survey participants employ
the Ready Campaign's family emergency plan and 75 percent use the
emergency supply kit.''
Question 6. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey found a direct
relationship between income and preparedness. Households making more
than $50,000 annually were much more likely than less affluent
households to have taken steps to prepare for a disaster. Given that
this gap revealed itself during Hurricane Katrina, what steps can FEMA
and the emergency management communities take to ensure individuals at
all income levels are taking the steps necessary to prepare for a
disaster?
Answer. FEMA has been conducting research on the status of disaster
awareness and emergency preparedness in socially and economically
disadvantaged households and communities through the Emergency
Preparedness Demonstration Program. FEMA will send a final report to
Congress by the end of the year to summarize the research with the goal
to design and implement demonstration projects to improve awareness and
preparedness in these households and communities. Early findings
indicate the importance of local outreach to engage and prepare this
population segment. Engaging leaders from these communities on local
Citizen Corps Councils will be a critical element of this approach.
In addition, institutionalizing preparedness education, training,
and drills in the workplace, schools, and other social networks will
ensure reaching a greater cross-section of the public. Based on the
2009 Citizen Corps Survey, of the respondents who reported taking
preparedness training within the past 2 years, 49% indicated they took
the training because it was mandatory for their job or school. In
response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006,
FEMA is also developing training to strengthen and extend mass care and
emergency assistance to meet the critical needs of less affluent
households under Emergency Support Function 6.
Question 7. FEMA's 2009 Preparedness Survey found that the high
expectation of help from first responders within the first 72 hours of
a disaster is a big reason why not enough people are preparing for a
disaster. How can FEMA and emergency managers at all levels of
government, as well as its partners like the Red Cross, begin to change
this expectation?
Answer. FEMA research from the 2009 Citizen Corps Survey on
Community Preparedness found 30 percent of individuals indicated that a
primary reason they had not prepared was because they believed that
emergency personnel would help them in the event of a disaster.
Further, 61 percent of participants indicated they expected to rely on
emergency responders in the first 72 hours following a disaster.
FEMA, emergency managers, and partners, need to develop messaging
that emphasize the need for all to share in the responsibility of their
health and safety in a disaster, particularly in large-scale events,
and that emergency responders will not be able to reach those impacted
immediately. FEMA, in coordination with State and local government and
non-governmental partners, will continue to work together to provide
information directly and to the media on what services individuals can
realistically expect in the first 72 hours and offer guidance on how
individuals can prepare for an event given the likely capacity of
emergency personnel to respond. This effort will go hand-in-hand with
outreach on local threats, community emergency protocols, local alerts
and warnings, and information on classes and training offered in the
local area or on-line. As previously referenced, the Secretary and
administrator's emphasis on shared responsibility contributes the
National voice to this critical message.
Question 8. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey report indicates a
low rate of individual participation in evacuation and shelter-in-place
drills. How are Citizen Corps and the Ready Campaign geared toward
improving participation in drills and exercises?
Answer. The FEMA Citizen Corps National Survey found only 4 in 10
individuals has participated in a workplace evacuation drill, and fewer
than 3 in 10 (27 percent) participated in a workplace shelter in place
drill. These numbers drop dramatically when talking about home-based
drills. Only 14 percent of individuals Nationally participated in a
home evacuation drill and 1 in 10 in a home shelter-in-place drill. Of
the 91 percent who had a household plan, 26 percent had practiced home
evacuation and 19 percent practiced sheltering in place.
Citizen Corps is geared towards improving participation in drills
and exercises both as an advocate and as a provider of tools for local
use. The membership of Citizen Corps Councils across the country
provides an effective outreach network to convey the importance of
experiential learning through training and drills at the local level.
Local Citizen Corps Council educational outreach includes local
businesses and employers, schools and educational organizations,
nonprofit organizations, faith-based groups and neighborhood groups and
homeowners associations. In coordination with local emergency
management, public health, law enforcement, and fire services,
expanding drills and exercises through these local businesses and
community organizations is a critical strategy for increasing drills
and exercises for individuals and families.
Additionally, Citizen Corps works with partner programs such as
Neighborhood Watch and Community Emergency Response Teams to build on
their core missions to include emergency preparedness and family and
neighborhood planning, drills, and exercises.
Question 9. The FEMA 2009 Preparedness Survey found that men
reported greater levels of preparedness and confidence in their
abilities to handle an emergency situation than women. How can FEMA and
the emergency management community address this gender gap?
Answer. To be effective, preparedness outreach needs to address the
specific motivators and barriers for the targeted audience. FEMA's
research and the research community are beginning to assess a more
refined profile of these attributes for a range of demographic
profiles. This will enable us to develop more precise strategies for
reaching women as well as other critical population segments.
While our research finds that men have greater levels of confidence
in their ability to handle different disasters, they are less likely to
report needing help in an evacuation. Men are significantly more likely
to have supplies in their workplace. There were no significant
differences relative to having supplies at home, having a family plan,
or participating in drills. Women on the other hand are more likely to
hold attitudes that our research shows support preparedness; for
example they feel that preparation will help them handle a natural
disaster and will look to rely on household members and people in their
neighborhood. As we look to identify motivators to preparedness
planning we believe that women are a critical target audience for our
work. Since women also tend to be very involved in community networks
such as schools and faith-based organizations, increased partnership
for education and training through these organizations and trusted
leaders is a promising strategy.
Question 10. The Citizen Corps program was initiated by President
Bush after September 11 and has not been authorized by Congress. What
changes, if any, do you intend to make to the program?
Will FEMA continue to operate the Citizen Corps grant program under
the Homeland Security Grant Program? Why or why not?
Answer. The Citizen Corps program is a component of community
preparedness. Community preparedness continues to be a National
priority as communities, families, and individuals are impacted daily
by natural and man-made disasters. Over time Americans have come to
depend on local-level responders when faced with an emergency. The new
message, and eventual cultural shift, is one that redirects the
preparedness focus towards enhanced personal preparedness through the
community and ultimately, through each individual that will drive a
societal response. This shift will highlight certain principles such as
preparedness is really very much about personal safety as a more
familiar term and activity. Many Americans understand the concepts,
message, and goals of personal safety and that familiarity and the
connection back to personal preparedness may lead to a more clear
understanding of the role they play in personal preparedness.
This approach diverges from an overriding emphasis in the past on
organizational preparedness to one focused on prepared citizens and the
deep reserve of community power they represent.
Question 11. For the last several years, the administration has
requested, and Congress has approved, a $15 million budget for Citizen
Corps. How much of this funding has been used for grants to localities
versus Citizen Corps program activities within FEMA? With Citizen Corps
being one of the main tools FEMA has to increase the level of
preparedness in communities, is the program funded adequately to
perform this task?
Are there other FEMA grants that States and localities can use to
foster individual preparedness? If so, how much funding has
historically been used for citizen preparedness programs?
Answer. The entire Citizen Corps Program (CCP) appropriation is
distributed as grants through the Homeland Security grant program. In
addition, because citizen and community preparedness is integral to
National preparedness, funding from multiple FEMA homeland security
grants is available for State and local jurisdictions to achieve this
mission. Ten of the fourteen homeland security grant programs allow
recipients to use the funding to support individual and community
preparedness, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the
Urban Area Security Initiative, and the Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness Grant Program.
Although there is not a single grant project category that can be
used for tracking grant funding for citizen and community preparedness,
an estimate could be determined by reviewing projects that were funded
to establish or enhance: (1) Citizen Corps Council, Partner, and
Affiliate activities, (2) citizen preparedness outreach and education,
(3) citizen training and exercises, or (4) volunteer initiatives.
From 2004 to 2008, the Department's Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) has provided over $268 million in support to State and local
government community preparedness efforts. Of this amount,
approximately $35 million has been directed by the Department to
support Citizen Corps activities. The remaining $263 million has been
provided at the discretion of States and localities from their broader
HSGP awards.
Question 12. On the Citizen Corps program's website and in much of
its literature, the claim is made that thousands of Citizen Corps
councils exist, providing coverage for 79 percent of America's
population. How does FEMA know whether it has an accurate number of
councils recorded, and therefore, an accurate calculation of the
percent of Americans that are ``covered'' by registered councils?
What are the mechanisms or processes by which FEMA stays informed
to the number of Citizen Corps councils and their activities?
Answer. The Homeland Security grant program guidance designates
State officials with the responsibility to maintain the information on
the Citizen Corps National website for Citizen Corps Councils and CERT
Programs within their State. When the new online registration process
is launched in 2010, FEMA will work with the States to reconfirm
Council data. The population served calculation is based on the Council
or CERT programs self-defined jurisdictions cross referenced to 2000
census data.
Each FEMA region has a community preparedness staff person or
contract personnel assigned the job of providing technical assistance
and guidance to Citizen Corps Councils and partner programs. To stay
informed of Citizen Corps Council activities, the FEMA Regions maintain
routine contact with the State Citizen Corps Program Managers, and hold
regular conference calls and meetings. Additionally, local communities
are encouraged to send information directly to the National program
office via email at citizencorps@dhs.gov. The Lessons Learned
Information Sharing website also includes a community preparedness
portfolio of good stories and best practices. In 2009 FEMA announced
the first National Citizen Corps Achievement Awards which drew over 100
submissions from Citizen Corps Councils around the country
demonstrating exceptional achievements in community preparedness.
Question 13. The Fire Corps program is one of the Citizen Corps'
partner programs and is operated by the National Volunteer Fire Council
(NVFC). What services do the NVFC offer to FEMA in managing Fire Corps?
What are the goals of the Fire Corps program nationally, and how
does FEMA determine whether the goals are being met?
Answer. The NVFC administers all facets of the Fire Corps program
from providing the staff necessary to operate the program including
managing the budget and creating resources and tools to help
departments implement the program. Some examples of tools and resources
NVFC has created are Department Fire Corps Starter Kit, Fire Corps
Liability Guide, and Fire Corps Toolkit for Citizen Corps Councils.
Additionally, NVFC provides marketing and communications services
for the program and works with Fire Corps' many partners such as the
International Association of Fire Chiefs, International Fire Service
Training Association, our fellow program partners (VIPS, CERT, etc.)
and more. NVFC maintains a database of registered Fire Corps programs,
the Fire Corps State Advocate Network, manages 1-800-FIRE-LINE which
connects volunteers with Fire Corps, and maintains the Fire Corps
website. NVFC also provides a vital connection to the fire service and
49 State fire associations through its own membership network.
The Fire Corps Program goal is to increase the number of Fire Corps
programs to build capacity for fire and emergency service departments
of all types (career, volunteer, and combination) by providing the
citizen support. Fire Corps works to achieve this goal by creating
resources and educating departments on successful implementation of the
program. Fire Corps numbers (of registered programs) are regularly
reported to FEMA as well as progress reports on other program
initiatives. Fire Corps currently has 933 programs Nation-wide (as of
10/26/09).
Question 14. Are you confident that FEMA has an accurate count of
the number of active Fire Corps chapters across the country? What
processes do you have in place to ensure that National Volunteer Fire
Council's directory of local and active chapters is accurate?
Answer. FEMA has an accurate count of all registered Fire Corps
programs, including new start-up programs and established citizen
volunteer programs. As is the case with all of the Partner Programs,
there are occasionally programs that register that may then become
inactive due to staff turnover or other challenges at the local level.
Fire Corps is working to identify inactive programs through the State
Advocate Network; the network are individuals representing Fire Corps
at the State level reaching out to local programs to identify those
that are active and notifying the National Citizens Corps office of
those that are inactive. The National Citizen Corps office then reaches
out to programs believed to be inactive to confirm their status and
assess whether they should remain in the database. The NVFC also sends
out periodic reminders to update program profiles in an effort to
maintain the most accurate records possible.
Question 15. The Community Emergency Response Teams or CERT teams--
is one of Citizen Corps partner programs. What are the goals of CERT
teams Nationally, and how does FEMA determine whether the goals are
being met?
Answer. The goals of the Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Program are to institutionalize the role of community members as
civilian responders during widespread emergencies and to create an
additional response asset for local emergency response agencies.
Assessing our success in achieving these goals is difficult. However,
the rapid growth in the number of local jurisdictions that have
established CERT programs, an average of 17% annually since 2004, as
well as the successful introduction of CERT training in businesses,
high schools, and on college campuses indicates that both goals are
being met. Currently, there are 3,374 registered CERT programs Nation-
wide (as of 10/26/09). In addition, the National CERT Program office
established a process in July 2008 for local jurisdictions to submit
reports on their use of local CERTs during emergencies. On average,
eight activations of local Teams in actual local emergencies across the
country are reported each month.
Question 16. The administration requested just $2.5 million for the
Ready Campaign, which seems to be a low amount for a National public
awareness campaign. What is the basis for the administration's budget
request and does it provide FEMA with the resources necessary to meet
the goals of the Ready Campaign?
Answer. The campaign has historically requested between $2 and $4
million. The higher levels of funding were in the early years of the
campaign to fund the start-up of ready.gov, as well as the Ready
Business and Ready Kids campaigns. Now that those efforts have been
established, Ready is able to continue its efforts with a $2.5 million
budget and leverages support from being a part of the Office of
External Affairs as citizen preparedness messages are underscored
across all FEMA communications and outreach efforts. This level of
funding has allowed the Campaign to successfully reach millions of
Americans through many different opportunities including public service
advertising (PSAs), collateral materials, public and private sector
partnerships, National Preparedness Month, and other outreach efforts.
Specifically, the campaign is able to utilize the strong relationships
with its State and local partners to promote its message. More than 15
territories, States, and localities have localized the National
campaign and PSAs for their local efforts. In addition, through our
work with the Advertising Council, the campaign has been able to garner
more than $823 million in donated media support. The campaign will
continue to aggressively and creatively use the funds obligated by
Congress.
Question 17. Has FEMA evaluated--or have plans to evaluate--the
impact of the H1N1 influenza pandemic on individual preparedness?
Answer. The FEMA National Citizen Corps Survey garners responses to
four different types of disasters: Natural hazards, terrorist acts,
hazardous materials accidents, and severe disease outbreaks. This
allows us to analyze important differences in knowledge and attitudes
relative to these different hazards both within each survey as well as
over time.
Because the 2009 Citizen Corps survey was being fielded during the
H1N1 outbreak we were able to conduct an analysis of responses prior to
the H1N1 outbreak and then in the initial weeks after the news coverage
of H1N1 began. The data shows that individuals did perceive that a
disease outbreak would be more likely in their community and that its
impact would be more severe, especially for individuals with children
living in the home.
Unfortunately these perceptions did not translate into immediate
behaviors of preparing supplies, creating family plans, or knowing
community plans. We do note that in a question added after the H1N1
outbreak, while media was a primary source of information, individuals
also received information on H1N1 from their social networks including
workplaces (24%), schools/child care (21%), health care provider (19%),
faith-based organizations (7%), and neighborhood associations (4%).
We will continue to monitor the effect of H1N1 in our next fielding
of the survey. We also have a database of surveys that are publicly
available and will continue to assess findings from other surveys that
support our work to increase individual and community preparedness.
Question 18. How is FEMA utilizing social networking tools, such as
Facebook and Twitter, to promote citizen preparedness?
Answer. Community preparedness is integrated into FEMA's overall
social media strategy and usage. Specifically, FEMA's Facebook,
YouTube, and Twitter pages regularly contain preparedness messages as
well as Citizen Corps and Ready Campaign information. In addition, the
Ready Campaign has a preparedness widget and an email subscription
service that has more than 35,500 subscribers. Both Ready and Citizen
Corps maintain and regularly update Twitter accounts. The Ready
Campaign has more than 4,800 followers and Citizen Corps has
approximately 1,000. Furthermore, the Community Preparedness Division
provides personal and community preparedness information updates via
two RSS (Really Simple Syndication) feeds, three Citizen Corps widgets,
and an email subscription service that currently has over 45,500
subscribers. The Community Preparedness Division continues to work with
FEMA External Affairs to identify other means of social networking
communication that can be used to further involve Citizen Corps
Councils, partners, and affiliates, and the general population. Future
development plans include free, on-line preparedness webinars and a
Citizen Corps Blog and Discussion Forum. Preparedness publications will
also be available to the public to read and download on Google Books.
Question 19. Mr. Manning, could you please outline the steps that
DHS, and FEMA specifically, are doing to work with the hospitality
industry on preparedness issues? In Las Vegas, we have more than
450,000 hotel rooms, with the potential for hundreds of thousands of
new visitors each day who are unfamiliar with the area and are likely
to be unaware of the city's emergency plans. What has FEMA done to work
with these types of businesses to ensure that guests and staff are
properly educated and prepared for emergencies?
Does the administration believe that enough is currently being done
in this area? What steps will the new administration take to improve
this important partnership?
Answer. Private industry is a key stakeholder in building a broader
coalition for community preparedness and FEMA has encouraged the
participation of local private sector representatives as Citizen Corps
Council members from the program's inception. Industries that serve
out-of-towners have a particular responsibility to ensure staff and
service recipients are trained in emergency response protocols. To
capture local participation from representatives of these industries,
the revised Council on-line registration tool will solicit information
on participation from the following: Privately Owned Critical
Infrastructure (e.g. power, transportation); Entertainment/Sports
Venues; Shopping Centers/Malls; and Hotel/Tourism.
Examples of local Citizen Corps efforts with these industries focus
on Community Emergency Response Team (CERT) training:
Detroit, Michigan Citizen Corps and Corporate Security at
Illitch Holdings implement the ``Citizen Corps Special Event
Program,'' which supplies local sports and entertainment venues
with trained volunteer security personnel who supplement
professional security staff during special events. Citizen
Corps volunteers assist professional security staffers in their
preparedness and response operations, conduct security
screenings, and act as street ambassadors. The program also
provides CERT training to security managers and other
professional staff at local stadiums.
The District of Columbia's Citizen Corps program and Amtrak
joined forces to provide CERT awareness training to Amtrak
employees throughout the National Capitol Region at Union
Station. The DC Metro Transit Police Department's Metro Citizen
Corps program provides additional training to local residents
who have completed the CERT basic training on Metro specific
safety, including rail safety and emergency preparation and
response and identification of terrorist activity. Participants
tour the metro tunnels and learn how to safely cross over the
electrified rail and open railcar doors in an emergency.
In the Virgin Islands, Citizen Corps partnered with local
hotels to provide staff with CERT training. To date, 77
participants have completed the training, including 40 staff
members of the Ritz-Carlton Hotel.
In Guam, CERT classes are generally offered once a month,
and Terlaje estimates that 500 to 600 Guam residents have
received CERT training since 2003. Some classes have consisted
entirely of employees of the island's large hotel industry.
New York City Citizen Corps partnered with the National Park
Service to provide CERT training for a group of 50 Ellis and
Liberty Islands' NPS employees, partners, and concession staff
to ensure the safety of all employees and visitors to these
iconic destinations.
FEMA will continue to emphasize the importance of Government
collaboration with the private sector and to inject
consideration for transient populations in emergency
preparedness planning, outreach, training, and exercises.
FEMA's Private Sector Division within the Office of External
Affairs has made it a priority to proactively educate and coordinate
with private sector entities before and after disasters. The Division
works to promote preparedness across all industries. It has not worked
directly with the hotel industry on preparedness issues; however, it
has worked with the American Hotel and Lodging Association, to provide
important information during the response and recovery phases of past
disasters.
In addition, the Division continues to collaborate with DHS'
Private Sector Office, the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection and
FEMA's Ready Campaign, integrating each component's existing
relationships and capabilities into the Division's National outreach
efforts with stakeholders.
The Division works with a number of National organization and
associations with broad reach to deliver essential information to
employees, members, and stakeholders of these entities. The Private
Sector Division is increasing its focus on regular outreach to the
private sector at large, using all tools available, including e-mail
alerts and weekly preparedness tips to over 18,000 subscribers (and
growing), as well as postings to media sites, such as Facebook,
YouTube, and Twitter. The Division initiated a weekly Private Sector
Preparedness tip during National Preparedness Month 2009, and
distributes these tips through the means noted here.
In addition, the FEMA Private Sector Web Portal provides
information and resources such as good practices in public-private
partnerships, weekly preparedness tips, training opportunities,
planning and preparedness resources, information on how to do business
with FEMA, information regarding policies and Presidential directives
impacting private sector engagement in emergency management, and more
(www.fema.gov/privatesector).
The Division also brings together public and private organizations
to share good practices and learn from each other. For example, the
Division recently worked with other FEMA partners to develop a workshop
on private sector and emergency management integration, which was
conducted during the 2009 National Conference on Community Preparedness
hosted by Citizen Corps. In June 2009, the Division hosted a private
sector roundtable with incoming FEMA senior leadership and two dozen
National trade associations, with the intent of providing a forum for
raising questions and interests on both sides that would further
public-private and collaboration on issues related to resilience.
To reach the hotel and lodging industry, the Division can reach out
through National associations like the American Hotel and Lodging
Association, and works with the DHS Office of Infrastructure
Protection, Commercial Facilities Sector Specific Agency, and the DHS
Private Sector Office. During Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, this proved an
effective way to get information on a pilot transitional housing
assistance program to hotel and motel managers, as well as to people
seeking shelter.
Looking forward, in 2010, the Division will be working more closely
with DHS subject matter experts to deliver targeted information to
different audiences, whether hotels or other venues.
On October 15, 2009, Department of Homeland Security Secretary
Janet Napolitano announced new proposed standards for a 9/11 Act-
required program, specifically, a voluntary, ``Private Sector
Preparedness Program,'' designed to assist the private sector in
improving its preparedness for disasters and emergencies. The goal of
the PS-Prep program is to enhance operational resilience, business
continuity management, and disaster and emergency management among
participating private sector partners. As part of the implementation of
the voluntary PS-Prep program, FEMA will work with the private sector
and State and local emergency management to promote improved
coordination and integration of emergency plans.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for William ``Bill'' O. Jenkins,
Jr.
Question 1. Your testimony indicated that FEMA does not have
performance metrics in place to gauge the impact of Citizen Corps
grants on individual and community readiness. Has GAO, through other
studies, found whether FEMA has performance metrics in place for other
grant programs? If so, could FEMA use them as a model for creating
metrics for Citizen Corps?
Answer. In September 2009, we testified on the results of our 2007
survey of Federal managers, which showed that FEMA ranked 28th out of
29 agencies in the use of performance information when making
management decisions.\1\ Several factors contributed to this low
ranking, including inconsistent commitment of agency officials to use
performance information and a weak alignment among agency, program, and
individual goals. However, not all FEMA units ranked low. FEMA's
Mitigation Directorate was identified as a FEMA subcomponent that
encouraged the use of performance information to plan and respond to
events, and as a means to make improvements and achieve results.\2\
Mitigation Directorate officials attributed their emphasis on
performance and accountability to a leader who encouraged it. For
example, the Mitigation Directorate set an annual performance target
(93 percent of communities adopting current flood rate maps within a
certain time frame) and incorporated the target into State grant
agreements and regional performance scorecards. Performance was
frequently monitored and communicated, for example through weekly
conference calls with regional staff. While the metrics (sometimes
referred to as measures) for Citizen Corps would be different, the
model for encouraging the use of performance information adopted by the
Mitigation Directorate might provide insights. Overall FEMA has taken
steps, such as developing training on performance measurement, to
improve the quality and use of performance information; however, we
reported that these efforts have been limited.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ GAO, Government Performance: Strategies for Building a Results-
Oriented and Collaborative Culture in the Federal Government, GAO-09-
1011T (Washington, DC: September 24, 2009) and Results-Oriented
Management: Strengthening Key Practices at FEMA and Interior Could
Promote Greater Use of Performance Information, GAO-09-676 (Washington,
DC: August 17, 2009).
\2\ Flood Mitigation Assistance, a program under the Mitigation
Directorate, provides grant funds to assist States and communities
implement metrics that reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of flood
damage to buildings, manufactured homes, and other structures insurable
under the National Flood Insurance Program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not specific to FEMA, our past work on Federal grants
management may provide insights into the key strategies that could be
useful in helping Citizen Corps design and implement grant performance
accountability mechanisms, including program metrics, by which
individuals or organizations are held accountable for meeting specific
performance-related expectations.\3\ Specifically, our review of
literature on grant design, interviews with experts, and our review of
selected cases identified five key strategies to facilitate the
effective selection, design, and implementation of grant performance
accountability mechanisms.\4\ For example, one of the five key
strategies--ensure mechanisms are of sufficient value to motivate
behavior--entails ensuring that the grantor and grantee are clear on:
(1) What a specific level of performance is worth to them, and (2) what
it will cost to achieve that level of performance. Another strategy--
ensuring appropriate measurement selection--entails ensuring that
metrics represent performance that is within the grantee's sphere of
influence, can be reasonably achieved with the specified time frames,
and tested over time to minimize unintended consequences or perverse
incentives. In addition to these strategies, our report highlighted
other factors critical to the success of designing and implementing
grant performance accountability provisions, including the use of
partnerships and collaboration and regular and effective oversight and
feedback. We stated that these practices are often associated with
high-performing organizations and organizations that effectively used
performance information to manage.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ GAO, Grants Management: Enhancing Performance Accountability
Provisions Could Lead to Better Results, GAO-06-1046 (Washington, DC:
September 29, 2006).
\4\ The five key strategies are: (1) Ensure mechanisms are of
sufficient value to motivate desired behaviors, (2) periodically
renegotiate and revise mechanisms and measures, (3) ensure appropriate
measurement selection, (4) ensure grantor and grantee technical
capacity, and (5) ensure phased implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In April 2009, we reported that FEMA has tried several methods of
assessing preparedness and improvements in emergency preparedness that
have been achieved through the use of Federal grants.\5\ However, we
found that FEMA did not have an effective method for measuring the
results achieved with Federal emergency preparedness grants or an
integrated approach for developing such metrics.\6\ FEMA's
Administrator is required under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006 (Post-Katrina Act) to develop a comprehensive system
(that is, the National Preparedness System) to assess, on an on-going
basis, the Nation's prevention capabilities and overall preparedness
with clear and quantifiable performance metrics and outcomes.\7\ FEMA
has work underway to develop National preparedness metrics that likely
will include Citizen Corps metrics. Specifically, FEMA includes
Community Preparedness and Participation as one of the 37 key target
capabilities to be assessed in the National Preparedness System. FEMA
officials said that a draft revision of the current version of this
capability will be issued in the second quarter of fiscal year 2010 for
public comment, and will include specific outcomes, metrics, and
resources for implementation. The current version of this capability
includes the number of local Citizen Corps Councils Nation-wide and the
percent of the population served by a Citizen Corps Council as
preparedness metrics. Based on our October 2009 testimony, the accuracy
of these metrics could be improved, and they are not useful indicators
of community preparedness.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ GAO, National Preparedness: FEMA Has Made Progress, but Needs
to Compete and Integrate Planning, Exercise, and Assessment Efforts,
GAO-09-369 (Washington, DC: April 30, 2009).
\6\ GAO, Actions Taken to Implement the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006, GAO-09-59R (Washington, DC: November 21,
2008). For a description of the methodological and coordination
challenges FEMA faces in developing a Comprehensive Assessment System,
see GAO-09-369.
\7\ The Post-Katrina Act was enacted as title VI of the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2007, Pub. L. No. 109-295, 120
Stat. 1355, 1394-1463 (2006).
\8\ GAO, Emergency Management: Preliminary Observations on FEMA's
Community Preparedness Programs Related to the National Preparedness
System, GAO-10-105T (Washington, DC: October 1, 2009).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question 2. FEMA Grants Directorate has told committee staff that
the FEMA Regional Offices administer the Citizen Corps grant program.
Yet FEMA's Preparedness Directorate is responsible for the programmatic
aspects of Citizen Corps. Was GAO able to determine clear lines of
responsibility and coordination for Citizen Corps between FEMA
Preparedness Directorate, FEMA Grants Directorate, and the FEMA
regional offices?
Answer. Our on-going work on FEMA's challenges with regard to
community preparedness was not designed to examine whether FEMA had
established clear lines of responsibility and coordination for Citizen
Corps, between FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate, FEMA's Grant
Programs Directorate and FEMA's regional offices. However, coordination
and clear lines of responsibility between these organizations may be
difficult because, as we reported in August 2009, FEMA has not
consistently aligned its agency goals with those of its components.\9\
Furthermore, in our October 2009 testimony, we reported that FEMA had
not developed a strategic plan for implementing the National
Preparedness System, or established how its community preparedness
programs fit within the system.\10\ Aligning agency-wide goals and
objectives and aligning performance metrics at each operating level
with those goals and objectives is an effective management practice.
FEMA has a strategic plan, but in our recent work FEMA officials
acknowledged that the goals and metrics are at the agency level and
that establishing performance goals at the regional or division level
would help FEMA to cascade organizational goals down to the individual
staff level.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ GAO-09-676
\10\ GAO-10-105T.
\11\ GAO-09-676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Responsibility for Homeland Security Grant Program administration
and management was transferred from the Grant Programs Directorate
(GPD) to new Regional Grant Program Divisions based on a February 2008
FEMA memorandum outlining a Concept of Operations for Regional-National
Preparedness. GPD Investment officers were responsible for managing
grant programs until capabilities were developed in the regions, based
on the memorandum. As of October 30, 2009, five grant programs had been
transferred to the regions, including the Citizen Corps program grant
in 2008, according to FEMA grant officials.\12\ The 2008 memorandum
outlined the relationship envisioned between the regions and FEMA
headquarters as one in which the National Preparedness Directorate
(NPD) develops National policies, while FEMA regions are to implement
and manage programs across Federal agencies, States, Tribes, local
jurisdictions, non-governmental organizations, the private sector, and
citizens. NPD issued Preparedness Priorities and Programmatic Guidance
for the Regions in August 2009 establishing regional expectations and
guidance for regions to use in preparing their regional annual program
plans. One of the Deputy Administrator's seven preparedness priorities
outlined in the guidance is Community and Individual Preparedness.\13\
The Community Preparedness Division, had one priority--Citizen Corps
and community preparedness.\14\ The regional plans were expected to be
submitted by October 1 to cover the period of October 1, 2009 to
September 30, 2010. Our work did not include whether the plans were
submitted.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ The other four grants transferred to the regions included the
Emergency Management performance grant, Metropolitan Medical Response
System program grant, Emergency Operations Center grant, and the
Driver's License Security grant program (formerly REAL ID).
\13\ The Community and Individual Preparedness priority is to
execute programs in the region and support initiatives from
headquarters or the region that promote comprehensive community
preparedness, especially individual preparedness and accountability.
\14\ Regions are required to address the Deputy Administrator's
priorities but not all the Division priorities. Four of the 10 National
Preparedness Directorate (NPD) Divisions included regional priorities
in the memorandum. In addition to the Community Preparedness Division,
the other three divisions established multiple priorities for the
regions, covering areas such as exercises, training, and technological
hazards. The 2009 guidance indicates a need to balance resources across
various regional needs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
While not a focus of our review of the Citizen Corps program, we
have several observations from our work related to coordination and
lines of responsibility among the Preparedness Directorate, GPD, and
FEMA Regional Offices that may be valuable as new relationships are
being developed.
Citizen Corps program officials stated that they have worked
with FEMA grant officials to establish grant guidance for the
Citizen Corps grant program and other Homeland Security grants
used for community preparedness purposes. GPD is to ensure that
grant requirements are followed. For example, grant guidance
requires Citizen Corps grant recipients to register their
Citizen Corps Council on the website and to manage their
program and contact information. This information is used by
the Citizen Corps program officials as an indication of the
program's accomplishments. As our October 1, 2009 testimony
indicated, the requirement to manage program information was
not always met because we found registered Citizen Corps
Councils that were not active.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ GAO-10-105T.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citizen Corps program officials also stated that it has been
difficult to use grant-related data to obtain information for
program management purposes. Officials indicated, and our work
also reflected, that it is difficult to extract data from GPD's
database to specifically identify the amount of funding awarded
for community preparedness purposes and how the funding was
used. These officials also said they found Citizen Corps grant
program data collected from FEMA's on-site grant monitoring
process to be difficult to analyze because the information is
in narrative form and not easy to aggregate. Further, Citizen
Corps officials said they were limited in the number of Citizen
Corps questions that could be included for use by FEMA
officials during their monitoring visits to grant recipients.
Citizen Corps grant questions were included for on-site
monitoring in 2007 and 2008. However GPD officials said that
there are no Citizen Corps questions planned for 2009 grant
monitoring because there is a limit on the questions that can
be addressed during such visits and the Citizen Corps grants
are relatively small.
Question From Honorable Dina Titus for William ``Bill'' O. Jenkins, Jr.
Question. What assessment work has GAO done to evaluate DHS and
FEMA on their work with the private sector, specifically the
hospitality industry? Is it GAO's estimate that FEMA has done enough to
build strong educational and operational relationships with the
hospitality industry? If not, what steps would you recommend for FEMA?
Answer. We have done very limited work with regard to the private
sector and disaster assistance and recovery, including the hospitality
industry, and we have not assessed FEMA's efforts to build
relationships with the industry. Thus, we are not positioned to
recommend what steps FEMA could take to build these relationships.
Hotels are one form of immediate post-disaster housing that FEMA has
used in the past. Concerns over FEMA's provision of temporary housing
assistance following Hurricane Katrina led to the development of the
National Disaster Housing Strategy, which is to address the mix of
temporary housing options that could be used following a disaster.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cueller for Wendy L. Smith
Question 1. How is your Community Emergency Response Team--or
CERT--effective in increasing the level of community emergency
preparedness? How do you know?
Answer. Many of our team members join for the specific purpose of
coordinating emergency preparedness teams within their faith-based
organizations, workplaces or neighborhoods. The City of McAllen's team
is remarkable in its diversity, with team members ranging from
homemakers to professors to health professionals, representing various
ethnicities and ages. Recruiting is done primarily by word of mouth by
these trained participants. The effectiveness of the program is
measured by the waiting lists for future classes.
Question 2. What can FEMA do to help localities improve their
community preparedness efforts?
Answer. Additional funding is always welcome so that more
volunteers can be trained. However, eliminating categorical
restrictions within the grant, allowing more flexibility in the areas
where funds are really needed, will also help local governments expand
community preparedness efforts.
Question 3. What are the challenges to getting citizens prepared
for a disaster and how can FEMA, working with its partners, take steps
to address these challenges?
Answer. Complacency is a challenge, but we have found that
introducing programs into the school system results in a greater impact
on adults and children alike. This has worked particularly well with
the City of McAllen's recycling program. We have one of the highest
recycling rates in the State, while at the same time growing a
generation of environmental stewards. If children are conscious of the
need for individual disaster preparedness, those around them will be as
well.
Question 4. To what extent do social groups, such as neighborhoods,
the workplace, schools, and faith communities, motivate people to
become prepared? How can the emergency management community better
leverage these groups to improve individual readiness?
Answer. Social groups, like the ones listed, are the primary method
by which we recruit volunteers and communicate the message of community
preparedness. These groups often have disaster response committees
which are coordinated by CERT-trained volunteers. Targeted marketing
through churches, schools, hospitals and other large employers improves
individual readiness more efficiently than one-to-one contact.
Question 5. How can the Ready Campaign best complement State and
local emergency awareness efforts?
Answer. The Ready Campaign is a useful tool for those citizens who
already have an interest in emergency planning. Additional marketing
and expanded local/State information within the site would aid State
and local emergency awareness efforts.
PREPAREDNESS: PART II
WHAT HAS $29 BILLION IN HOMELAND SECURITY GRANTS BOUGHT AND HOW DO WE
KNOW?
----------
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
U.S. House of Representatives,
Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and
Response,
Washington, DC.
The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:05 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Henry Cuellar
[Chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Cuellar, Richardson, Cleaver,
Titus, Thompson (ex officio), Rogers, and McCaul.
Also present: Representative Kilroy.
Mr. Cuellar [presiding]. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony
regarding ``Preparedness, What Has the $29 Billion in Homeland
Security Grants Bought, and How Do We Know?''
Good morning and on behalf of the Members of the
subcommittee, let me welcome our three witnesses that we have
here today. In particular I note we have three Parliament
members from the Republic of Austria. Are you still here? Yes.
You are back there. If you all want to stand up, and we want to
welcome you. I think you are up here with the State Department
and looking at how we do things in Homeland Security, and we
appreciate you all coming to visit us. So thank you very much.
Welcome.
The subcommittee is holding this hearing to receive
testimony on FEMA's initiative to measure the return on
investment from the Homeland Security Grant Program. Congress
has appropriated $29 billion for homeland security grants since
fiscal year 2002. This number does not include the $4.17
billion that Congress approved for fiscal year 2010. So when
you add that amount, you are talking about way, $32, $33
billion in the last 7 years that we have had this part of the
system.
Congress and FEMA must know what the taxpayers have gotten
for their money. We need to understand how much more prepared
our communities are as a result of homeland security grants;
that is, what are the results, what results are we trying to
measure when we look at this? It is for this reason that
Congress has directed FEMA to establish performance metrics
that would allow States and urban areas to demonstrate the
capabilities they have built and sustained with Federal
funding.
FEMA calls its effort to measure the return on homeland
grants the Cost-to-Capabilities Initiative, the C2C. FEMA
describes the C2C as a tool that will allow States and urban
areas to objectively measure the impact of homeland security
grants on the preparedness levels. FEMA wants C2C to replace
the current method of awarding homeland security grants by
2010. FEMA brought in 17 States and cities this summer to test
the C2C prototype. To better understand the C2C, the committee
asked all participants to fill out a survey with their feedback
on the project. I want to highlight a couple of the concerns
with the C2C project that stakeholders identified for us.
For example, the first one was that C2C is being sold as a
tool that would objectively measure the capability gained or
sustained for each homeland security dollar. But in reality,
C2C remains entirely subjective. Grantees are simply asked to
guess the impact of the grants on their preparedness levels. I
thought C2C was supposed to get rid of that guesswork and look
more at the results.
The second concern that was brought up is that the C2C does
not take into account the risk or the threat levels for a
particular State or a city. Without taking into account risk,
C2C cannot lead the effective distribution of homeland security
grants.
These are not the only flaws with the C2C that were brought
up by the stakeholders, and they raise serious questions about
whether FEMA will be ready to mandate C2C for homeland security
grants next year. Texas, Mr. McCaul, our State, is currently
testing the tool right now. I am eager to get their feedback
because it seems that C2C may have too many flaws to make it
worth the effort.
I hope we can have a forward-leaning discussion today on
C2C and the larger question of how FEMA is measuring
preparedness. Joining us to wrestle with this issue is FEMA's
Deputy Administrator for National Preparedness, Mr. Tim
Manning. Thank you for being here with us; good seeing you
again.
Mr. Manning, you inherited the C2C from your predecessor,
and I would like for you to tell us whether Administrator
Fugate and Secretary Napolitano intend moving forward with the
C2C and, if so, how FEMA will correct its many weaknesses.
Certainly I want to have a discussion on that because, as you
know, I did do my dissertation on performance measures, and
this is a little different from what I have seen.
But joining Mr. Manning are two homeland security advisers
who have tested the C2C tool. I am pleased to welcome Mr. David
Maxwell, Director of Arkansas' Department of Emergency
Management, and thank you for being here. I would like to
extend my congratulations to you, Mr. Maxwell, for recently
assuming the presidency of the National Emergency Management
Association. So we look forward to your testimony.
C2C is also intended for cities that are party of this
urban area security initiative. I am pleased to also say that
we have Ms. Crandall, who is a Director of Homeland Security
for Franklin County in Ohio. Ms. Crandall, I want to thank you
very much for being here with us today.
I want to thank all of you, Mr. Manning, Ms. Crandall, and
Mr. Maxwell for being here. Measuring preparedness is a
difficult task. I think if you look at the 50 living
laboratories of the 50 States, we have gone through this
already. The Federal Government is behind on performance
measures, is behind on coming up with the measures. If anybody
says that it is difficult we understand the definition of what
results are to be difficult. But if you look at the different
50 States, you can certainly get a lot of ideas of what is out
there so you can measure preparedness.
Again, I hope this hearing will help us better understand
how FEMA can successfully move forward on that.
Before recognizing the Ranking Member, I need to mention
that the Members of this subcommittee also are not very happy
with FEMA's new policy of limiting preparedness grants from
being used to keep vital homeland security equipment
operational. FEMA never briefed the committee on the policy
before it was released, and I believe it clearly violates the
9/11 Act.
I am glad that Ms. Kilroy, Representative Kilroy,
identified this policy as one that would hurt her district, and
she has introduced legislation to overturn FEMA's policy, and I
support the bill and I hope to advance it this fall. Hopefully
FEMA could maybe take some action before we get to this point.
I anticipate Members will have questions for our three
witnesses about the policy and its impact on homeland security.
I would ask for unanimous consent to enter into the record
two statements. The first statement is a National Governors'
Association statement on C2C. The second is the National
Emergency Management Association statement on Ms. Kilroy's
legislation that addresses FEMA's policy on grant funding for
maintenance projects. Hearing no objection, it is so ordered.
[The information follows:]
Statement of the National Governors Association
The National Governors Association (NGA) wishes to thank Chairman
Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, and other distinguished Members of the
subcommittee for holding this hearing and allowing Governors the
opportunity to participate in this important discussion regarding
homeland security funding.
The following statement will focus on three areas of importance to
Governors and their homeland security advisors: (1) The importance of
measuring homeland security capabilities; (2) the State role in
managing and administering grant funds, including measuring, assessing
and reporting State-wide capabilities; and (3) the importance of
ensuring that capabilities are not only built and developed, but also
maintained over time.
measuring capabilities
Governors believe Federal funding provided to States should focus
on developing or enhancing common core capabilities and support efforts
to measure the effectiveness of grant funds in building and maintaining
preparedness and response capabilities (see appendix A, NGA homeland
security policy). As States and urban areas face varying threats and
vulnerabilities and utilize different approaches to allocate homeland
security resources, Federal leadership in providing tools and a common
methodology to assess baseline capabilities is critical.
To help address this issue, the Grant Programs Directorate (GPD) at
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has recently conducted
pilot programs in several States and urban areas to test the Cost-to-
Capability (C2C) initiative. C2C attempts to measure the effectiveness
of the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) and the Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant program by asking grantees to
utilize the National Planning Scenarios and the Target Capabilities
List (TCL) to categorize projects. Grantees are then asked to assign
capability gains and sustainment percentages to the associated grant-
funded projects. As envisioned and tested by GPD, C2C would be used to
make recommendations for the award and use of grant funds in future
years.
C2C has the potential to reduce the evaluation and reporting burden
placed on States. Currently, FEM's National Preparedness Directorate
(NPD) and GPD require States to submit the same information using
different processes to produce the same outcome. For instance, NPD
requires information using different processes to produce the same
outcome. For instance, NPD requires States to report on capabilities
and investments through the State Preparedness Report. Similarly, GPD
requires States and urban areas to submit detailed investment
justifications, including information regarding capability development
and resource needs, as part of the peer review process used to asses
the effectiveness of grant applications. C2C or a similar initiative
could be very helpful if it were used to bridge the gap between NPD and
GPD by utilizing a single process to collect the necessary information
to assess the effectiveness of grant programs.
While C2C is well-intentioned, it will require significant
modification and greater coordination among FEMA divisions in order to
produce meaningful assessments. The following summarizes some of the
feedback received from participants in the first of two pilot projects:
C2C's reliance upon documents that are under on-going
revision will make it difficult to assess capability
development over time.--C2C relies on the TCL and National
Planning Scenarios; however, both of these documents are
currently being revised by FEMA. C2C would require States to
assess the percentage of capability gain and sustainment
against the existing TCLs to form a baseline, making it
difficult if not impossible to demonstrate progress over time.
C2C does not provide sufficient guidance to grantees to
assign value to projects.--The initiative requires grantees to
assign percents of capability gain and sustainment to both the
development of entire capabilities and to individual projects.
Without the use of common benchmarks or metrics, which are not
defined clearly in the current TCL, assessments would be
entirely subjective making their use inappropriate to determine
the allocation of future grant funds. Assessing State-wide
capability gains/sustainment at the local project level is
particularly challenging and may not be the best methodology.
C2C would be more effective if it incorporated consideration
of specific threats facing States and urban areas and the
resulting regional risk. In its current form, C2C relies upon
the National Planning Scenarios that do not apply to all
grantees in all areas and, therefore, have not been used by
many grantees in their planning processes. One alternative
would be to use existing State and urban area homeland security
strategies that have been used for years to guide the grants
process. These strategies have long been important in
identifying priorities for enhancing local, regional, and State
capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to, and
recover from terrorist attacks, natural disasters, and other
man-made events. Utilizing existing strategic plans of grantees
would make C2C more practical and effective for all users.
C2C should be adjusted to allow for risk-based local
allocations.--C2C assumes that all States allocate the 80
percent local share of grant funds based on a competitive
process; however, there are several States that utilize a risk-
based methodology to allocate the local share of the funds. In
order to be fully utilized by all States, C2C must be adjusted
to allow for the use of risk-based local allocations.
C2C does not differentiate between the State share (20
percent) of funds and the local share (80 percent) in producing
investment options.--For instance, the optimal investment
portfolio recommended by C2C may propose local projects for
only 50 percent of the grant funds, which is not currently
permissible under law.
C2C is not intuitive or user-friendly.--The current C2C
prototype employs a complicated methodology with limited
transparency on critical elements. For example, the
prioritization of the Target Capabilities is done by ranking
the National Planning Scenarios but the linkage between the two
is not entirely clear. FEMA should work with State and local
stakeholders to ensure the system is both intuitive and
transparent.
state role in managing grant funds
Federal funds provide critical support to State and local efforts
to prevent, prepare for, and respond to terrorist attacks, natural
disasters, and man-made events. States play an important role in
building, coordinating, managing, and assessing the use of such funds
to support homeland security capabilities throughout the State.
As discussed above, States establish homeland security strategies
and plans that are updated on an on-going basis. These strategies guide
the use of Federal, State, and local funds to build and sustain
critical capabilities such as interoperable emergency communications,
hazardous materials response (HAZMAT), and critical infrastructure
protection. The planning, administration, and oversight of Federal
funds is an extremely important and labor intensive effort, given the
numerous grant programs, open contracts, and significant amount of
funds (Federal and State) currently being administered by States.
Since the establishment of the Department of Homeland Security,
Federal reporting requirements have increased. For instance, States are
required to complete an annual State Preparedness Report in which they
must self-assess current capability levels. This report is time-
consuming to put together, and it must assess funding received from all
preparedness grants. Participation in working groups and pilot programs
such as C2C are also important but time-consuming.
As these requirements have increased over time, the amount of grant
funding States may use for management and administrative (M&A) purposes
has been reduced from 5 percent to 3 percent for many of the major
grant programs. Prior to fiscal year 2008, States were permitted to use
up to 5 percent of grant funds for M&A purposes. The Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (Pub. L. 110-53)
limited M&A to only 3 percent of the grant award, which has put a
strain on the ability of States to fulfill their management and
oversight responsibilities and meet the increasing reporting
requirements of the grant programs. The often short deadlines
associated with the grant programs further exacerbate the challenges
facing State Administrative Agencies and highlight the need for
additional resources.
Given the increased emphasis on accountability and to ensure the
effective use of grant funding, allowing 5 cents of every dollar to
support the planning, management, and oversight of the funds is a wise
investment. Additionally, greater flexibility to ``pool'' M&A funds
across different FEMA preparedness grant programs would improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of State oversight activities. Currently,
M&A from different grants must be discretely accounted for. This is
onerous and puts personnel managing multiple grants in a difficult
position trying to figure out how much time is spent on what grant and
what grant year. This is even more challenging at the local, county,
and municipal level where fewer people manage more grants.
As the Federal Government and Congress consider changes to the
grant programs and their affiliated requirements, Governors urge
consideration for greater flexibility in the use of grant funds to meet
such requirements. Restoring the ability to use up to 5 percent of
funds for M&A will help ensure that grants are used as effectively as
possible by providing proper oversight and coordination. It will also
support critical planning and assessment activities (such as State
participation in C2C or similar initiatives) that provide the basies
for the on-going development, revision, and implementation of National
homeland security priorities.
sustainment of homeland security capabilities
An additional concern to Governors is the ability to not only build
homeland security capabilities but also to sustain them over time. May
capabilities, such as interoperable communications, intelligence, and
information sharing through fusion centers, and HAZMAT response, have
been built using a combination of Federal, State, and local funds.
While building these capabilities requires an infusion of funds, more
moderate but consistent levels of funding are required to maintain
necessary systems and equipment and ensure personnel receive proper
training. Without sufficient flexibility in the homeland security grant
programs to allow for the sustainment of capabilities, preparedness,
and response capabilities that hve been identified as National
priorities will be severely weakened or lost entirely.
FEMA recently informed States that they may only use grant funds to
pay for maintenance agreements, user fees, and other sustainment costs
as long as the equipment was purchased with FEMA preparedness grant
funding and the costs fall within the performance period of the grant
that was used to purchase the equipment. This policy is inconsistent
with past practice and will have a severe adverse effect on many
States.
As discussed in a letter sent by NGA to Homeland Security Secretary
Napolitano (Appendix B), this policy is inconsistent with the stated
goal of the Homeland Security Grant Program and will have the
unintended consequence of reducing capabilities and wasting scarce
resources. Without greater flexibility to use grant funds for
sustainment purposes, many projects may be cancelled and equipment may
need to be replaced well before its serviceable lifetime would
otherwise end. For example, information technology projects that
support interoperable communications systems or intelligence fusion
centers are dependent upon the maintenance of software agreements,
technology upgrades and user fees throughout the life of the system. If
grant funds from current and future years cannot be used to support
these costs, it will have an immediate negative effect on these
national homeland security priorities. As another example, level A
HAZMAT response teams must maintain the ability to operate in hazardous
environments. To do so requires that annual recalibration and
preventative maintenance be performed on equipment monitoring and
hazard prediction systems.
Together, governments as all levels have invested billions of
dollars over past several years to build capabilities to prepare for
and respond to acts of terrorism, natural disasters, and other man-made
events. Governors urge the Federal Governement and Congress to revise
the current FEMA policy on sustainment funding to ensure that the
partnership among States and the Federal Government to build, support,
and maintain homeland security and emergency management capabilities
continues and the taxpayers dollars are used in the most cost effective
manner.
conclusion
On behalf of the Nation's Governors, thank you for the opportunity
to provide comments on the important issue of homeland security
funding. Homeland security is a joint responsibility involving State
and local governments and their Federal partners. Intergovernmental
cooperation and coordination is essential to protect the safety and
security of the country. Thank you for your consideration of the State
role in this partnership and the challenges and opportunities it
creates.
______
Statement of the National Emergency Management Assocation
Chairman Cueller, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the
subcommittee, as President of the National Emergency Management
Association (NEMA) I appreciate the opportunity to submit this
statement for the record regarding H.R. 3837. NEMA represents the
directors of emergency management in the 50 States, territories, and
District of Columbia. The legislation introduced by Congresswoman
Kilroy is in response to a recent ruling by the Grant Programs
Directorate (GPD) at the Federal Emergfency Management Agency (FEMA)
regarding allowable sustainment costs in grant funding.
The new policy clarification issued through FEMA-GPD has created a
major impact on States' ability to sustain homeland security and
emergency management capabilities as grantees will no longer be able to
pay for maintenance agreements, user fees, and other sustainment costs
for equipment outside the performance period of the grant that was used
to purchase the equipment. For nearly 10 years, State and local
governments have invested billions of dollars in critical lifesaving
equipment with Federal grant assistance. State and local governments
are willing partners in sharing the cost burden in conjunction with
Federal grants, but this recent ruling will cause an undue burden on
many organizations across the country.
As sensitive communications, detection, and other lifesaving
equipment is purchased long-term maintenance and calibration contracts
are often required to maintain a state of readiness and effectiveness.
These sustainment costs have traditionally been an allowable expense
under available grant funding, but this recent ruling has discountinued
the policy. Should this policy not be reversed and the eligibility of
these costs be called into question, States would be faced with an
insurmountable challenge of maintaining this lifesaving equipment
without the assistance of grant funds used to originally purchase the
assets.
Equipment purchases and maintenance are not the only aspects of
emergency management suffering as a result of this policy. The grant
guidance for the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) of 2008 states
the UASI program is, ``intended to assist participating jurisdictions
in developing integrated regional systems for prevention, protection
response and recovery'' (p. 30). Utilizing multiple grants has allowed
UASI regions to identify weaknesses, design solutions, and deploy
regional systems through investments to local jurisdictions that
collectively create a regional system or capability. Ther are several
regional UASI initiatives that will be seriously jeopardized if UASI
funds may no longer be used to sustain these efforts.
While State and local governments are willing to share some of the
burden with the Federal Government, the cost of this policy is well
beyond the means of governments in this time of economic crisis. We do
not, however, wish to see these grant programs become block grants for
nothing more than maintenance and sustainability costs. NEMA has
therefore requested Secretary Napolitano intervene to assist in
overturning this policy as swiftly as possible.
As for NEMA's position on H.R. 3837, at this time the bill remains
under consideration by the Homeland Security and Lgeislative Committees
of NEMA and should there be recommended changes, we will submit those
to the House Homeland Committee Staff accordingly. We agree with the
legislation in principle, and have assisted with obtaining co-sponsors,
but we are also carefully analyzing each aspect of the bill to ensure
all the measures are appropriate. It is our hope this issue can be
resolved administratively through FEMA, DHS, the Office of Management
and Budget, and the administration prior to resorting to legislative
opions.
Thank you for this opportunity to address the subcommittee through
this written statement. NEMA stands ready to work with committee staff
to resolve this unfortunate situation as expeditiously as possible be
it through legislative or administrative channels.
Mr. Cuellar. So with that let me again thank our witnesses
for their participation. I look forward to hearing your
testimony and working with you to ensure that we all are
getting the best results for our homeland security dollars.
The Chair now recognizes my friend the Ranking Member of
the subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for
an opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for calling this
important hearing and I want to thank the witnesses for taking
time out of your busy schedules to be with us. I know you have
other things you could be spending this time on. Being here is
important, and I appreciate your preparing for this hearing and
being here.
As you heard the Chairman, this hearing is being held to
examine how FEMA is meeting Congressional mandates to measure
the Nation's preparedness levels as well as to establish
performance metrics for State and local homeland security grant
programs. DHS grants are essentially increasing our Nation's
level of preparedness. We must ensure that these programs
continue to receive robust funding. It is concerning that more
than 8 years after September 11, FEMA still cannot answer the
question: How prepared are we? Since 2006, Congress has
mandated FEMA to develop tools to answer this question and to
assess the achievement and effectiveness of its grants
programs.
As a result of one such Congressional directive in 2008,
FEMA launched the Cost-to-Capabilities Initiative.
Unfortunately, this committee has learned from many States and
localities that the new cost-to-capabilities tool is very
subjective and is not user friendly and has not yet found a way
to accurately measure preparedness. So I am interested in
learning how FEMA plans to improve C2C.
I am also interested in discussing the feedback and
recommendations the agency received from the States and locals
that participated in the first phase of C2C.
I want to hear from the panel on how FEMA is harmonizing
C2C with all the other preparedness benchmarks required by the
Congress, including the target capabilities list, the
comprehensive assessment system, and the State preparedness
report.
Finally, I want to underscore the importance of the Fire
and SAFER Grants Programs in achieving preparedness
capabilities as well. I am interested in learning how the
effectiveness of these programs is being measured in
coordination with other key homeland security programs.
The Fire Grants Reauthorization Act of 2009 was recently
marked up by the Science and Technology Committee, and this
bill will likely be on the floor soon. As we were talking
before this meeting, I sent a letter to Chairman Thompson
stating my support for his request that this committee receive
a sequential referral of that bill. This bill authorizes and
makes significant changes in the Fire Grant Program. It is
important that our committee and this subcommittee in
particular assert its jurisdiction to provide key input on this
bill before it is considered on the floor.
With that, I want to thank our witnesses again for being
here. I thank the Chairman for calling the hearing and yield
back my time.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. Other Members of the
subcommittee are reminded that under the committee rules,
opening statements may be submitted for the record.
[The statement of Hon. Richardson follows:]
Prepared Statement of the Honorable Laura Richardson
october 27, 2009
Mister Chairman, thank you for convening this very important
hearing today focusing on the return on investment from homeland
security grants. I know of your commitment to this issue.
Thank you Mr. Manning, Ms. Crandall, and Mr. Maxwell for taking the
time to be here today to discuss this important issue. It is an
important duty of Congress to provide adequate funding so agencies like
FEMA are able to carry out their mission. But it is equally important
that we can account for those funds so the American public knows that
taxpayer dollars are spent efficiently and effectively. Congress should
take every opportunity to weed out waste in Government, especially in
the current economic climate.
The Cost to Capability (C2C) prototype is a tool established by
FEMA to help States and urban areas evaluate the effectiveness of
programs funded in whole or in part by homeland security grants. In
this way, State and local governments will be armed with the
information regarding what works and what does not, and the Federal
Government will have empirical data which can be used to determine
funding priorities.
The 37th Congressional District of California, which I am
privileged to represent, has a vital interest in ensuring that homeland
security resources are used effectively. My district is located in
Southern California, which is no stranger to natural disasters ranging
from earthquakes to mudslides to wildfires. The 37th district is also
home to many high-value terrorist targets, such as the Port of Long
Beach.
While I am happy to hear that FEMA is making an effort to measure
the return on investment from homeland security grants using the C2C
application, I am troubled by some of the concerns expressed by States
and urban agencies, particularly those in the Los Angeles/Long Beach
urban area in my home State of California.
For example, it is my understanding that the Los Angeles/Long Beach
urban area was one of the cities selected to participate in the first
C2C pilot. The purpose of this pilot program was to test the C2C
program measurement capabilities. After participating in the study,
city officials identified a number of concerns about the prototype, all
of which call into question its effectiveness as an analytic tool.
These problems led the city of Los Angeles to conclude that the C2C
prototype is inadequate as an accounting and reporting tool.
Specifically, L.A. Mayor Villaraigosa identified the following
concerns:
1. The prototype does not include a methodology for evaluating
capability enhancements and capability sustainment, which means
that reports provided by the tool have little or no utility in
assessing homeland security investments.
2. The prototype tool does not account for local funding
contributions (many States and localities invest significant
amounts of their own funds) which has the effect of overstating
the impact of Federal contributions.
3. The prototype does not analyze how dollars spent on homeland
security impact more than one target capability.
4. Information entered is inconsistent in terms of the parties and
jurisdictions participating, so the mixture of data results in
inaccurate reports and analysis.
5. The prototype does not identify risk factors that should and do
dictate how local homeland security funds are allocated.
Mister Chairman, it is important that FEMA collects and reports
reliable data so decisions can be made on the basis of sound and
accurate factual information. Homeland security is too important for
FEMA to rely on inaccurate reports on preparation levels produced from
mixed and incomplete data.
A good analytic tool is one that takes into account homeland
security strategies already in place, such as in Los Angles and in
California. A good analytic tool takes into account that resources
should be invested in the places of the greatest need, and it would
reliably and accurately identify where those places are. The potential
costs are simply too great, not just in monies wasted, but in lives
lost in the event of a public emergency for which we have not
adequately prepared.
I look forward to working with the committee and hearing from our
panel of witnesses in how we can redevelop this tool to better identify
those areas. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman, for convening this hearing.
I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. Cuellar. Again, to the panel of witnesses, the first
witness will be Mr. Tim Manning, who serves as the Deputy
Administrator for National Preparedness at the Federal
Emergency Management Agency, and again thank you for being
here. Of course our second witness is Ms. Kathy Crandall,
Director of Homeland Security and Justice Programs for Franklin
County in the State of Ohio, and of course the third and final
witness is Mr. David Maxwell, Director of the Arkansas
Department of Emergency Management and State Homeland Security
Adviser.
Again, we are happy that you are here. I hope you are
happy, too. Without objection, the witnesses' full statements
will be inserted in the record, and I will now ask Mr. Manning
to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF TIMOTHY W. MANNING, DEPUTY ADMINISTRATOR, NATIONAL
PREPAREDNESS, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT
OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Mr. Manning. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Chairman Cuellar,
Ranking Member Rogers, Chairman Thompson, good morning, Members
of the subcommittee, on behalf of Administrator Fugate, it is a
privilege to be here this morning before you today to discuss
our ability to identify and measure the benefits that are
accrued from nearly a decade of homeland security spending.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
requires the implementation of a National comprehensive system
to assess emergency management efforts. The PKEMRA states that
preparedness must be expressed in terms of measurable
capabilities that are aligned with definable inputs and the
ability to perform specific tasks.
Intuitively, we could answer the question ``Are we better
prepared?'' with a ``Yes.'' We could validly point to the
amount and type of equipment that has been purchased, the
physical security improvements that have been made, and the
planning, training improvements that have occurred and conclude
that, yes, we are better prepared. However, intuitive
conclusions are not good enough, and DHS and FEMA are committed
to answering the questions of preparedness with a greater
degree of accuracy.
The many new programs enacted since September 11 have
substantially contributed to the National preparedness but
along the way have added significant new reporting requirements
to our stakeholders. In 2007, FEMA commissioned the analysis of
Federal preparedness requirements in order to assess the impact
of the 41 preparedness programs and over 270 preparedness
requirements on State emergency management and homeland
security agencies.
Published in fiscal year 2009, the analysis of State and
local officials' views on Federal preparedness requirements
report outlines the views and recommendations of 20 States and
urban areas and presents 75 different recommendations from
State and local officials for improving the reporting process
for Federal requirements. Many of the findings and
recommendations focus on the need to reduce the volume of
reporting requirements and develop a more efficient system for
collecting data from State emergency management and homeland
security agencies.
In this past August, FEMA developed a reporting
requirements working group consisting of representatives from
all of the various FEMA offices and directorates and officials
from State, local, and Tribal governments throughout the
country. The goal of this working group is to make the
collection of data from State, territorial, Tribal, local
governments more efficient, transparent, and predictable but,
more importantly, a more reliable indicator of the
effectiveness of our policies.
The working group will seek ways to enhance communications
between FEMA and its partners in emergency management and
homeland security agencies throughout the country. Enhancing
the communications process will not only reduce duplication of
existing requirements, but will also enhance the utility of
preparedness data for all levels of government.
Finally, the working group will provide realistic and
measurable recommendations for data collection priorities. That
is the future. But today FEMA has a number of existing
approaches and measurement systems for preparedness. These
include the Cost-of-Capabilities Initiative developed by FEMA's
Grants Program Directorate.
C2C was designed as a multiyear effort to develop, test,
and implement a method to better enable State and local and
Federal Governments to strategically manage the portfolio of
homeland security grant programs and optimize the impact of
those grant dollars. In its initial phase, C2C conducted a
``look back'' and a ``look forward'' to determine the best
measures of capability gained through the application of grant
dollars that supported the National Strategy on Homeland
Security, the National preparedness guidelines, and should look
to support individual State homeland security strategies and
priorities.
The look back confirmed that neither GPD nor its
predecessor offices at the Department had ever asked grantees
to measure outcomes from grant dollars and therefore the
existing data tell us very little about our return on
investment or level of performance. FEMA's GPD developed in an
accomplishments report a summary of additional findings from
fiscal years 2003 through 2007 in May of this year. This report
lists the accomplishments of over $10 billion in homeland
security grant spending, and with the committee's permission I
would like to enter it into the record.*
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The document has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Another initiative underway to assess preparedness and
response capability is FEMA's Gap Analysis Program. GAP was
designed to be a multiyear program that allows States to
evaluate levels of preparedness through analysis of varying
data sets. There are many other efforts underway, but I would
like to use the balance of my time to underscore one final
point.
Establishing meaningful frameworks for the measurement of
preparedness is a priority at FEMA, and we look forward to
working with the committee and Congress toward a methodology
that will inform future decision-making without placing undue
burden on our partners in Tribal, State, and local governments.
Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers, thank you for allowing
me to be here today, and Members of the subcommittee, I
appreciate the opportunity to testify and I am happy to answer
any questions you may have.
[The statement of Mr. Manning follows:]
Prepared Statement of Timothy W. Manning
Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member Rogers, Members of the
subcommittee, I am Timothy Manning, and I serve as Deputy Administrator
of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). On behalf of
Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege to appear before you today to
discuss our ability to identify and measure the benefits that have
accrued from nearly a decade of homeland security spending.
Mr. Chairman, since fiscal year 2002, the Department of Homeland
Security's (DHS) homeland security grant programs have provided more
than $27 billion to State, local, Tribal, and territorial jurisdictions
across the Nation. These funds are a direct investment in enhancing the
Nation's capability to prepare for, protect against, and respond to a
full range of natural and man-made hazards. Given the size of this
investment, it is critical for us as stewards of Federal dollars, to be
returned. At the end of the day, we need to answer some very
fundamental questions. The most fundamental of these is simply: ``What
have we bought?'' Once we are able to answer this basic question, we
should then be able to ask the more important one that logically
follows, ``Are we better prepared?''
The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 (PKEMRA)
requires the implementation of a National, comprehensive system to
asses emergency management efforts. PKEMRA states that preparedness
must be expressed in terms of measurable capabilities that are aligned
with definable inputs (e.g., people, training, and equipment) and the
ability to perform specific tasks. Section 649 of PKEMRA requires the
FEMA Administrator to ``establish a specific tasks.'' Section 649 of
PKEMRA requires the FEMA Administrator to ``establish a comprehensive
system to asses, on an on-going basis, the Nation's prevention
capabilities and overall preparedness, including operational
readiness.'' The law also requires annual Federal and State
preparedness reports, including the results of a comprehensive and
strategic assessment of capabilities and resources at all levels of
government.
Inituitively, we could answer the question ``Are we better
prepared?'' with a ``Yes.'' We could validly point to the amount and
type of equipment that has been purchased, the physical security
improvements that have been made, and the planning and training
improvements that have occurred, and conclude that we are better
prepared. Our National, State, local, Tribal, and territorial efforts
have certainly increased our interagency planning across the spectrum
of preparedness. This is in itself an achievement that greatly improves
our ability to act decisively in a crisis.
However, intuitive conclusions are not good enough. DHS and FEMA
are committed to answering questions of preparedness with a greater
degree of accuracy.
This is not to say that this is an easy task. ``Are we prepared?''
and ``Are we better prepared?'' are questions that we have wrestled
with throughout the history of these grant programs. In the end, the
answer to these questions will be found in rigorous analysis and the
development of precise metrics which will enable us to connect dollars
spent to results achieved and ultimately to improvements in
preparedness.
There are several efforts currently underway to measure our
preparedness by identifying gaps in our preparedness and response
capability and attempting to measure improvements supported by our
multi-billion dollar National investments.
``cost-to-capabilities'' (c2c)
One existing approach which has been underway for the last 18
months, and which we continue to evaluate, assess, and improve, is the
``Cost-to-Capabilities'' (C2C) initiative developed by FEMA's Grant
Programs Directorate (GPD).
C2C resulted from GPD's need to better inform itself as well as its
stakeholders about the impact of grant dollars on both State and
National preparedness. Beginning in early 2008, GPD took an extensive
look at what has been done to date with preparedness grant dollars and,
from that, developed the C2C Initiative. C2C was designed as a multi-
year effort to develop, test, and implement a method to better enable
local, State, Tribal, and Federal levels of governments to
strategically manage the portfolio of homeland security grant programs
and optimize the impact of those grant dollars on preparedness efforts.
C2C's objective is to identify the information and develop the
tools needed to effectively manage GPD's homeland security and
preparedness grant programs. With the tools and measurements generated
by the C2C initiative, we hope that grantees will be able to maximize
their local preparedness investment strategies and align their grant
dollars with the Nation's homeland security priorities. The tools and
measurements could lead to changes in the Nation's homeland security
strategy, translating into a clear prioritization of capabilities-based
investments that all levels of government can use. C2C tools are meant
to inform grantees' use of inherently finite grant funding and better
measure how grants increase the capability of States and local
communities to respond to all-hazards.
In its initial phase, C2C conducted a look back and a look forward
to determine the best measures of capability gained through the
application of grant dollars that supported the National Strategy on
Homeland Security, the National Preparedness Guidelines and should
support individual State homeland security strategy and priorities. The
``look back'' confirmed that GPD and its predecessor offices at the
Department had never asked grantees to measure outcomes from grant
dollars. Therefore, existing data tells us very little about our return
on investment or our level of preparedness. GPD developed an
Accomplishments Report; Summary of Initial Findings (fiscal year 2003-
2007), in May of this year. This report identifies the uses and
accomplishments of over $10 billion in Homeland Security grant funding.
With the committee's permission, i would like to enter this report into
the hearing record.
gap analysis program
Another major initiative underway to assess FEMA's preparedness and
response capability is FEMA's Gap Analysis Program (GAP), which focuses
on the performance of six distinct phases. These six phases are: (1)
Selection of Disaster Scenario, (2) Estimation of Response
Requirements, (3) Measurement of Baseline Preparedness, (4)
Identification of Gaps, (5) Development and Implementation of
Strategies, and (6) Evaluation and Application of Lessons Learned.
These phases are driven by the Capabilities-Based Preparedness Process
outlined in the DHS National Preparedness Guidelines (NPG) and are
designed to provide emergency management agencies at all levels of
government with greater situational awareness of response resources and
capabilities. Like the NPG, GAP is an all-hazards, risk-based, and
capabilities-driven program.
Once data is collected, users can measure any scenario against the
GAP data to generate additional response requirements and can apply
multiple concurrent scenarios or scenarios in succession. GAP provides
its greatest value, in this all-hazards functionality. States are
encouraged to reference their Statewide Hazard Mitigation Plan is
required by the Stafford Act in the development of a disaster scenario,
which helps ensure the selected hazard has been prioritized through a
process of hazard identification and risk assessment. GAP provides
flexibility to States in the scenario development process to ensure the
scenario is useful to States' needs while still giving FEMA and other
Federal partners a better understanding of potential requests from
States. This flexibility has the added benefit of allowing better
integration of GAP into existing efforts the States and Federal
Government may already have planned or underway.
In wake of the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, many new
Federal programs were created to enhance the overall preparedness of
our Nation by providing State, territory, local, Tribal, and
territorial governments assistance in building and sustaining their
capability to effectively prepare for, protect against, respond to,
recover from and mitigate natural disaster and terrorist attacks. While
these new initiatives have bolstered our Nation's level of
preparedness, they have also created new Federal requirements for
State, territory, local, Tribal, and territorial emergency management
and homeland security agencies. FEMA's key partners in emergency
management and homeland security report that the existing volume of
requests for information is placing a significant strain on their
resources.
In 2007, FEMA commissioned the Analysis of Federal Preparedness
Requirements in order to assess the impact of 41 preparedness programs
and 275 preparedness requirements on State emergency management and
homeland security agencies. Published in fiscal year 2009, the Analysis
of State and Local Officials; Views on Federal Preparedness
Requirements report outlines the views and recommendations from 20
States as well as the New York and Los Angeles Urban Areas and presents
75 recommendations from State and local officials for improving the
reporting process for Federal requirements. Many of the findings and
recommendations focus on the need to reduce the volume of reporting
requirements and to develop a more efficient system for collecting data
from State emergency management and homeland security agencies.
FEMA has engaged State, local, Tribal, and territorial government
officials as well as representatives from the National Emergency
Management Association and committed to seek opportunities to
consolidate and reduce duplicative or similar reporting requirements.
In March 2009, FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis was tasked
by the Acting FEMA Administrator with leading an effort to identity
ways to reduce the impact of FEMA's information collection requirements
on State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments while continuing
to provide the information used to assist Federal decision-makers. This
initiative engaged FEMA Offices and Directorates as well as officials
representing State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.
On July 17, 2009, FEMA Administrator Graig Fugate issued a
moratorium on new requests for information that require a response by,
or action from any State, local, Tribal, and territorial government. In
addition, Administrator Fugate directed a more thorough review of
FEMA's reporting requirements to include an assessment of the agency's
needs for information as identified by individual Offices and
Directorates and information required by legislation such as the
PKEMRA.
This past August, FEMA developed the Reporting Requirements Working
Group, consisting of representatives from FEMA Offices and Directorates
and officials from State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments.
The goal of this Working Group is to make the collection of data from
State, territorial, local, and Tribal governments more efficient,
transparent, and predictable.
FEMA must better communicate its own information needs and
understand the information needs of State, local, and Tribal
governments. To achieve this goal, the working group has begun
developing a calendar of all FEMA reporting requirements in order to
provide recommendations for consolidating similar requests and
identifying ways to better align its processes with the addition, the
Working Group will seek ways to enhance communication between FEMA and
its partners in emergency management and homeland security agencies
throughout the country. Enhancing the communication process will not
only reduce duplication of exiting requirements, but it will also help
enhance the utility of preparedness data for all levels of government.
Finally, the Working Group will provide realistic and measurable
recommendations for data collection priorities.
conclusion
Continuing to establish a meaningful framework for the measurement
of preparedness is a priority at FEMA, and we look forward to working
with this committee and the Congress toward priority at FEMA, and we
look forward to working with this committee and the Congress toward a
methodology that will inform future decision-making without placing
undue burden on our partners in Tribal, State, local, and territorial
government. Thank you Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Rogers and Members
of the subcommittee, for the opportunity to testify today. I am happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Manning, thank you very much.
At this time, I would like to recognize Ms. Crandall to
summarize her statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF KATHY B. CRANDALL, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF HOMELAND
SECURITY & JUSTICE PROGRAMS, COLUMBUS URBAN AREA, FRANKLIN
COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS,
FRANKLIN COUNTY, OHIO
Ms. Crandall. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members.
The Columbus urban area participated in a Cost-to-
Capability Initiative. We were in the first group to test that
program. I would like to say that C2C is a program that
supports capability-based planning and decision-making process.
It identifies a weighted score to prioritize investments and to
maximize capability gained while validating sustainment cost
and clearly indicating investments that would not be cost-
efficient or maintain sustainability.
The initiative does support the States and urban areas in
maximizing the development, funding, and implementation of our
preparedness projects. When utilized as a decision-making tool,
C2C can give us a reduction in jurisdictional and disciplinary
bias within our working groups. It evens that out. It gives us
a defined return on investment unlike our narrative reporting
has historically provided. It identifies geography-based gaps
in preparedness, and we have never seen that outcome in our
planning previously. It can collate multiple funding streams,
including non-FEMA DHS funding streams to support a single
project.
There is a clear and concise corollary of tasks to
development and sustainment by the target capabilities, and
there is data-driven reporting that clearly conveys the level
and cost of capabilities gained in sustainment.
As with any assessment and evaluation tool, C2C can and
should be modified in enhancement capabilities that are risk
threat specific to each State and urban area.
Our experience on the negative side of C2C was that they
have used the National scenarios as the base for C2C. In doing
that, each State and urban area's specific analysis for threat
risk and the strategies that we have built to address the
threat risk are ignored. Instead, we are looking at the value
base of the National scenarios toward the target capabilities.
So we suggest that there is an assigned value to each
target capability based on the individual State and urban area
strategy, and that data collection supports a comprehensive
strategy for moving forward based on historical progress and to
provide a clear State and local position through collective and
shared data for both capability gain and sustainment.
We feel we need to integrate precision and performance
reporting between the National Preparedness Directorate and the
National Grants Directorate. If we do that, there is an
elimination of the expensive and subjective peer review
process. It would eliminate narrative-based investment
justifications and the cost of that peer review process with
the investment justifications, reduce reporting requirements
through enhanced collaboration between GPD and NPD, and
increase value through objective data-based reporting. We would
also be able to reduce or eliminate the opinion-based guesswork
assessment and evaluation of the State and local preparedness.
One of the largest pieces of C2C is how we are sustaining
that which we build. GPD has consistently addressed building
and sustaining capabilities in the grant guidance, planning,
training, and exercising. The investment justification template
actually addresses sustainment. What are you doing? How are you
going to sustain what you are using money for in this project?
With a long-term approach to sustaining capabilities
developed by the investment, and having participated in peer
review 2 of the last 3 years, I can say that most States and
urban areas say that they are going to sustain these projects
with Federal grant dollars from DHS.
In Ohio, in the urban area, we have a State-wide
information-sharing network that is connected through our
State's attorney general, and our smaller suburbs and
jurisdictions cannot possibly afford the monthly air cards to
keep that information-sharing system moving. For intelligence
gathering, we are using rapid ID and automated license plate
readers. Those too take monthly air cards from now until
forever to be able to work, and we have to be able to sustain
the equipment that we purchased and have that on-going cost met
by Federal funds.
Interoperable communications is probably the largest user
of sustainment dollars for the Columbus urban area in the State
of Ohio. Shared systems, new towers, ACU 1,000 mobile bridges,
mobile and portable radios that have to be repaired, batteries,
et cetera. Then we have our CBRNE--the chemical, biological,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive detection. The meters that
we have purchased have to be calibrated. Their sensitivity is
so extremely high, and that is an on-going maintenance cost as
well as the PPE that has to be replaced every time OSHA or
NIOSH changes the standards. That is on-going cost. Then we
have technology and training, and each upgrade of technology
takes seat licensing or you have to pay for the next upgrade of
that software. Those are sustainment costs that we need.
Billions of dollars have been expended Nation-wide to build
capabilities to prepare and protect our critical infrastructure
and key resources across this country. The National Association
of Counties has stated that every county in the country will be
negatively impacted if we do not use sustaining dollars to be
able to support that which we have already built. Tens of
millions have been spent in the Columbus urban area and
throughout Ohio on equipment and training critical on building
our priority target capabilities to strengthen our
preparedness.
Columbus urban area needs FEMA preparedness grant funding
to support sustainment costs and requests that the policy of
GPD be reversed.
Thank you.
[The statement of Ms. Crandall follows:]
Prepared Statement of Kathy B. Crandall
The Cost to Capability (C2C) Initiative
The Cost to Capability (C2C) program supports a capability-based
planning and decision-making process. It identifies a weighted score to
prioritize investments to maximize capability gain and validate
sustainment costs while clearly indicating investments that would not
be cost-efficient increasing or maintaining capability. The C2C
initiative supports the States and urban areas in maximizing the
development, funding, and implementation of preparedness projects. C2C
also supports programs to build, enhance, and sustain the target
capabilities necessary for an effective state of preparedness.
When utilized as a decision-making tool, the positive elements that
C2C offers are:
Reduction in jurisdictional and disciplinary bias in Urban
Area Working Group;
Defined Return on Investment (R.O.I.);
Clear target capability gains and cost of sustainment;
Identified geo-based gaps in preparedness;
Delivery of data-driven prioritized funding options with
allowance for State and local override to meet evolving trends
and conditions;
Collation of multiple funding streams (including non-FEMA/
DHS) to support a single project;
Clear and concise corollary of tasks to the development and
sustainment of target capabilities;
Data-driven reporting that clearly conveys level and cost of
capability gain and sustainment.
As with any assessment and evaluation tool, C2C can be modified and
should be enhanced with system capabilities that are risk/threat
specific to each State/urban area. The current underpinning of the C2C
initiative is the National Scenarios. The National Scenarios provide a
broad-based preparedness assessment country-wide: however, they do not
prioritize target capabilities identified by the State/urban area as
addressed in their respective strategies. The Grants Program
Directorate (GPD) can refine the C2C system capabilities to reflect the
respective user's threat, risk, and need by incorporating the State/
urban area strategy with assigned values as part of the base formula
behind the program. Non-transparent algorithms that drive C2C must be
supported by user selected priority target capability values based on
the threat and risk identified by the State/urban area and not as
identified by the National Scenarios.
Suggested capabilities that a C2C enhancement must address include:
Assigned value to each target capability based on individual
State/urban area strategy;
Data collection to support a comprehensive strategy for
moving forward based on historical progress;
Ability to provide a clear State and local preparedness
position through collective and shared data for capability
gains and sustainment;
Integrated position and performance reporting to Grants
Program Directorate (GPD) and National Preparedness
Directorate.
The Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) developed and implemented
by the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD) is intended to
continually assess overall preparedness as required by Congress. Within
the CAS is the State Preparedness Report (SPR). The SPR is to be
completed by all States/urban areas as the foundation for C2C which is
under the Grants Program Directorate (GPD) and contained within a
separate system. Integration of assessment, evaluation, and reporting
functions between NPD and GPD must be built into C2C to eliminate
redundancy and greatly reduce ineffective time burdens placed on the
grantees. Projected C2C system capabilities and enhancement can
maximize State and local grantee's time, reduce cost, and eliminate
redundancy in reporting.
Potential time/cost savings resulting from integration and
implementation of C2C:
Elimination of expensive, subjective Peer Review process;
Elimination of the narrative based Investment
Justifications;
Reduction in reporting requirements through enhanced NPD and
GPD collaboration;
Increased value through objective data-based reporting;
Reduced and/or eliminated opinion-based (guesswork)
assessment and evaluation of State and local preparedness.
use of fema/dhs funds for sustainment costs
The clarification below was received in email form on September 22,
2009 by all States and urban area Points of Contact. In preparation to
testify before the Congressional committee, I contacted the National
Association of Counties (NACo) to ascertain their position on the
sustainment issue. NACo is in full agreement that this FEMA/Grants
Program Directorate (GPD) policy is contrary to past practice, phased
planning, and implementation, and most importantly, to protecting the
foundation of preparedness that we have built across the Nation.
gpd clarification statement
Sent on behalf of C. Gary Rogers, Director, Grants Program Directorate/
Grants Development & Administration Division
Below is a clarification of the FEMA/Grant Programs Directorate
policy regarding the use of preparedness grant funding for sustainment
costs:
``Grantees may use FEMA preparedness grant funding to pay for
maintenance agreements, user fees, and other sustainment costs as long
as the equipment was purchased with FEMA preparedness grant funding and
the sustainment costs fall within the performance period of the grant
that was used to purchase the equipment. These sustainment costs are
eligible under the equipment category unless the equipment is M&A
related (grants management equipment). Grantees may not use future year
preparedness grant funding to pay for additional agreements and user
fees. These on-going sustainment costs are the responsibility of the
grantee. For example, the purchase of 2-way devices to provide
connectivity and interoperability between local and interagency
organizations to coordinate CBRNE response operations is allowable.
Grant funds may be used to cover only those services provided during
the grant performance period in which the device was purchased. All on-
going expenses after the performance period has expired may not be paid
for with FEMA preparedness grant funding. Devices purchased for those
individuals involved in coordinating response operations or for
eligible planning activities are eligible under the `equipment'
category. If purchasing devices for those individuals involved with the
grants management portion of these programs, then the costs are
eligible under M&A. Please ensure that these costs do not supplant
previously budgeted line items.''
GPD has consistently addressed the building and sustaining of
capabilities in grant guidance, planning, training, and exercising. The
Investment Justification template includes a section specific to
Sustainability and asks, ``What is the long-term approach to sustaining
the capabilities developed by this investment?'' Having participated in
Peer Review 2 of the past 3 years, I can testify that most States and
urban areas answered the question stating that they would rely on
Federal funding to continue to sustain the investment.
Examples of State (Ohio) and Urban Area (Columbus) Projects Adversely
Impacted
Information Sharing.--Ohio Law Enforcement Information
Network: this State-wide system connects every law enforcement
agency in the State with the State's Attorney General's Office.
It requires monthly air cards for all users for connectivity
through their respective wireless provider as well as
maintenance agreements for the mobile data terminals.
Intelligence Gathering.--Rap ID (digital fingerprint
identification scanners), Livescan (digital fingerprint entry
system) and Automated License Plate Reader Technology: local,
regional, and State-wide systems developed and implemented to
capture data, shared with three F.B.I. databases and requiring
maintenance agreements and monthly air cards for all users for
connectivity through their respective wireless provider.
Additionally, geospatial mapping capabilities at the primary
State fusion center is under an annual maintenance contract
agreement. This intelligence gathering is critical to the
success of Ohio's fusion centers.
Interoperable Communications.--Shared systems, new towers,
ACU 1000 mobile bridges, mobile and portable radios, and
communications vehicles have been purchased to ensure voice and
data interoperability for incident command and control. Every
piece of equipment requires on-going maintenance, user fees,
licenses, upgrades to technology, and/or batteries.
Chemical, Biological, Radiological, Nuclear, and Explosive
(CBRNE) Detection.--The meters and monitors required to detect
CBRNE are extremely sensitive and must be tested and calibrated
on an on-going basis to ensure reliability. Personal Protection
Equipment (PPE) required by NFPA and OSHA is constantly being
tested and upgraded to enhance the level of protection
resulting in repair, replacement parts, and additional
equipment being certified and recommended.
Technology & Training.--Each upgrade of technology and
equipment requires users to be trained on that technology and/
or equipment capability. In addition costs for seat licenses,
user fees, software upgrades, program integration, and data
storage are on-going capital expenditures.
Columbus Urban Area Supports Sustainment Funding
Billions of dollars have been expended Nation-wide to build
capabilities to prepare and protect our critical infrastructure and key
resources across the country. The National Association of Counties
(NACo) has stated that every county in the country will be adversely
affected by this policy. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent in
the Columbus Urban Area and throughout the State of Ohio on equipment
and training critical to building our priority target capabilities to
strengthen our preparedness. The sustainment of these capabilities is
an on-going cost that requires homeland security funding to support in
full--or in part--augment State and local funds. The Columbus Urban
Area needs FEMA preparedness grant funding to support sustainment costs
and requests that the policy of GPD be reversed.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you again, Ms. Crandall, for your
testimony. At this time I would like to recognize Mr. Maxwell
to summarize his statement for 5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF DAVID MAXWELL, DIRECTOR & HOMELAND SECURITY
ADVISOR, ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
Mr. Maxwell. Thank you, Chairman Cuellar, Ranking Member
Rogers, Chairman Thompson, and the Members of this
subcommittee, for your invitations today to talk about the FEMA
Cost-to-Capability Pilot I.
I am testifying today on behalf of the State of Arkansas.
My staff participated in the C2C Pilot I in July here in
Washington, DC. Our staff, after spending the week testing the
program and providing feedback to the FEMA program staff, came
back to the State to test the program using Arkansas-specific
information from fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year 2009 Homeland
Security Grant Program. They found the concept of the tool
innovative and a step in the right direction in regards to
providing a connection between dollars spent toward homeland
security goals and the capabilities that are produced as a
result of these dollars.
Arkansas, as a recipient of these funds, is committed to
and supports building and measuring our capability. However,
the tool that is not distinguished between actual dollars spent
and its correlation to an actual increase or a decrease in the
capability of the State or local jurisdiction. I am not
comfortable with the tool being able to take so many factors
into account and it results in an accurate reflection of our
capability and preparedness levels. I am also concerned that
the tool requires a subjective judgment of our base
capabilities and, perhaps more importantly, how much an
investment has increased a capability.
As a State Director, I do not want this tool to be used as
a ``report card'' to publish our preparedness efforts. The tool
should be used as a macro-level planning piece to help
determine the Nation's preparedness levels. Arkansas is
committed to the openness of our business practices, but the
potential exists to highlight perceived potential weaknesses in
our preparedness efforts, and this only gives terrorists an
additional area to exploit.
The C2C tool relies on the State preparedness report data,
a ranking of the National preparedness planning scenarios, and
the State's assertion of its own capability as baseline data to
determine a relationship between dollars spent and a capability
gained. I am not convinced that this tool can accurately
measure those disparate pieces of data.
Much of the tool is dependent on subjective data determined
solely by the States. The States' preparedness report is a
basis for much of the tool's baseline data. While a great deal
of effort goes into producing an accurate SPR, without a
detailed set of standards such as those used by the Emergency
Management Accreditation Program, we cannot be assured that the
tool correctly analyzes the data. Thus, the results of the C2C
tool could produce an inaccurate picture of the State's true
capability level.
Currently no standards exist to measure capability or
sustainment gains in the C2C tool.
Sustainment is another important issue, and with the
addition of this tool, there becomes two definitions of
sustainment used within the grant allocation process. Dollars
used to sustain a capability are extremely difficult to
measure. Dollars used to sustain current equipment can be
measured. For the 10 years of the grant program, substantial
investments have been made with the assistance from these
Federal funds.
Current equipment and future purchases are in jeopardy if
funds cannot be used to sustain equipment beyond the initial
grant performance period.
Sustainment is an important part of the grant process.
Investments, a core principle of the grant process, are the
backbone of the equipment acquisition process for both the SAA
and the sub-grantees. If we truly want to be effective,
efficient, and prudent with our grant dollars, we cannot be
forced to purchase new replacement equipment solely because we
are not allowed to expend grant dollars to sustain our
equipment.
As we study C2C further, we as an emergency management
community must realize that no matter what tools we have at our
disposal, the teams of people at the State and local level
responsible for this program must be taken into account. This
tool should always remain a decision support tool.
I appreciate this committee's attention to this matter. I
also want to thank the full committee for its study of the C2C
tool. FEMA has done good work, but the work is never done and
major refinements are needed. We must continue to work to
protect our cities, States, and our Nation.
Thank you very much.
[The statement of Mr. Maxwell follows:]
Prepared Statement of David Maxwell
October 27, 2009
introduction
Thank you Chairman Cuellar, Mr. Rogers (Ranking Member) and
honorable Members of this subcommittee for your invitation to speak
today on the FEMA Cost-to-Capability Pilot I. I am David Maxwell,
Director and Homeland Security Adviser for the Arkansas Department of
Emergency Management. I am testifying today on behalf of the State of
Arkansas. My staff participated in the C2C Pilot I in July here in
Washington, DC.
cost-to-capability review
Members of my staff, as well as a staff member from the Arkansas
Department of Information Systems, traveled to Washington to
participate in the Pilot of the Cost-to-Capability project. After
spending a week testing the program and providing feedback to the FEMA
program staff, they came back to the State to test the program using
Arkansas-specific information from the fiscal year 2008 and fiscal year
2009 Homeland Security Grant Program. They found the concept of the
tool innovative and a step in the right direction in regards to
providing a clear connection between dollars spent towards homeland
security goals and the capabilities that are produced as a result of
those dollars. Arkansas, as a recipient of these funds, is committed to
and supports building and measuring our capability. However, the tool
does not distinguish between actual dollars spent and its correlation
to an actual increase or decrease on the capability of a State or local
jurisdiction. I'm not comfortable with the tool being able to take so
many factors into account and it result in an accurate reflection of
our capability and preparedness levels. I am also concerned that the
tool requires a subjective judgment of our base capabilities and
perhaps more importantly how much an investment has increased a
capability. As a State Director, I do not want this tool to be used as
a ``report card'' to publish our preparedness efforts. This tool should
be used as a macro-level planning piece to help determine the Nation's
preparedness levels. Arkansas is committed to the openness of our
business practices but the potential exists to highlight perceived
potential weaknesses in our preparedness efforts and this only gives
terrorists an additional area to exploit. The C2C tool relies on State
Preparedness Report data, a ranking of National Planning Scenarios and
the State's assertion of its own capability as the baseline data to
determine a relationship between dollars spent and a capability gain. I
am not convinced that this tool can accurately measure these disparate
pieces of data.
As I stated in my response to the House Committee on Homeland
Security's questions about this project, my hesitation and concern come
from the calibration of the data used to determine a final capability
score and portfolio ranking.
Much of the tool is dependent on data determined solely by the
States. The State Preparedness Report is the basis for much of the
tool's baseline data. While a great deal of effort goes into producing
an accurate SPR, without a carefully detailed set of standards, such as
those used by the Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)
process, we cannot be assured that the tool correctly analyzes that
data. Thus, the results of the C2C tool could produce an inaccurate
picture of the State's true capability level. Currently, no such
standards exist to measure capability or sustainment gains in the C2C
tool.
The issue of sustainability also concerns me with regards to the
C2C tool. After the SPR data is entered into the tool, one of the next
steps is to assign a dollar figure to each project and Target
Capability or Capabilities that are associated with that project. These
dollar figures are assigned to gain capability or to sustain a
capability. Without some objective measure, the States are using a
``best guess'' method to determine preparedness and capability levels
as they assign these allocations. Arkansas currently awards its HSGP
dollars on a population formula basis. When you distribute the volume
of projects and Target Capabilities that these projects are associated
with, it becomes almost impossible to determine that $1,500 of a $6
million award equals a .005% increase in the Interoperable
Communications Target Capability. The user burden with this tool is
extensive.
The tool asks for two complete ``percentage'' gains. One determines
the overall gain in capability. For example, a Fusion Center project
may be rated by the C2C tool at a current 30% capability. The state
then has to determine how much of an increase this project and its new
funding gives the state. If the project only gives the state a 5% gain,
the State then must determine the dollar amount associated with that 5%
gain.
To follow up with sustainment issues, with the addition of this
tool, there become two definitions of sustainment used within the grant
allocation process. Dollars used to sustain a capability are extremely
difficult to measure. Dollars used to sustain current equipment can be
measured. For the 10 years of the grant program, substantial
investments have been made with assistance from these Federal grants.
Current equipment and future purchases are in jeopardy if funds cannot
be used to sustain equipment beyond the initial grant performance
period.
Sustainment is an important part of the grant process. Investments,
a core principle of the grant application process, are the backbone of
the equipment acquisition process for both the SAA and the sub-
grantees. If we truly want to be effective, efficient, and prudent with
our grant dollars, we cannot be forced to purchase new, replacement
equipment solely because we are not allowed to spend money to keep our
current equipment in working order. For example, Arkansas and our local
jurisdictions have purchased expensive bomb-handling equipment. If we
are not allowed to expend sustainment dollars out of future grant
programs, the cost of maintenance would quickly exceed local budgets.
This equipment is vital to the mission of the Homeland Security Grant
Program. Sustainment is an issue that we care deeply about and more
should be done to ensure that it is an allowable cost in each grant
program and can be used on equipment purchased in any of the prior
grant programs under the HSGP.
conclusion
As we study C2C further, we--as an Emergency Response Community--
must realize that no matter what tools we have at our disposal, the
people responsible for this program must be taken into account. These
teams of people at a State level are vital to continued success of this
tool. Their judgments and experience help to shape this program. No
tool will ever completely override this judgment and experience. As
long as this program remains the State's responsibility to execute and
administer, deference should be given as to the allocation and
distribution of the funds. This tool should always remain a ``decision-
support'' tool. If it does, our State, as well as others, can continue
to evaluate all relevant data to ensure we continue to fulfill the
mission of the HSGP and continue protecting our States from future
terrorist attacks.
I appreciate this subcommittee's attention to this matter. I also
want to thank the full committee for its study of the C2C tool. FEMA
has done good work, but the work is never done. We must continue to
work to protect our cities and States and the Nation.
Mr. Cuellar. Mr. Maxwell, thank you very much. At this time
without objection, the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy is
authorized to sit for the purposes of questioning the witnesses
during the hearing today.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. At this time, I also would like to recognize
the Chairman of the full committee, Mr. Thompson, from the
State of Mississippi.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I
apologize for being a little late. I was detained at another
meeting.
I have heard the witnesses this morning, and I have been
concerned about how much money we have, as an agency, spent on
going toward grants and refining different programs. The C2C
program that we have heard a lot of conversation about this
morning continues to cause me significant concern. It has been
around in one form or another for a little while. But Congress
since 2006 has kind of nourished FEMA in this direction to come
up with some measurement instrument, and it still appears to be
a work in progress.
I would hope that, Mr. Manning, you can help resolve that
issue with us. We spend a good bit of money, as you know,
trying to do what is right to help communities when they are in
need, as well as going forward in the planning and preparation.
One of the issues that I do want to address during the
question-and-answer period is we gave communities significant
moneys to buy equipment, and rightfully so. We told them going
in that you can take this money and you can help keep it up and
then in the middle of the stream we said, oh, by the way, we
have changed our mind. Well, most States and localities can't
operate that fast. I think it puts those States and localities
in very difficult positions.
There are a lot of other things we could talk about. Mr.
Chairman, you talked about that maintenance issue, also. That
concerns a lot of us because when we go home we see these
individuals in church, we see them in our various other
affiliations, and they are very concerned about it. I am glad
that Representative Kilroy has taken the lead in overturning
this policy. Sometimes we have to do it at committee level when
we can't get the agency to do it. A lot of money we need to put
it in, we need to work with our State and locals. We brought
people to town. My own State, Mr. Maxwell, had similar concerns
about what you raised in your testimony. We need to involve
people more before we just roll out these policies.
I think, Mr. Chairman, as we go forward with the questions,
I think you will see some of these issues brought out. I thank
both of you gentlemen for pulling together this hearing. Thank
you very much.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would
like to remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes
to question the panel, and I will recognize myself for 5
minutes.
Mr. Manning, I do understand you inherited this so we
understand that fully. FEMA piloted the C2C project this summer
with 17 States, urban areas, and Tribal governments. I
understand that the pilot participants identified a lot of
weaknesses with the tool.
Why did FEMA initiate a second pilot program this fall with
17 additional stakeholders without changing the tool to reflect
the first pilot?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, thank you for the question. The
initial phase of the field trials of the C2C system, the tool
looked at 17 different jurisdictions. Midway through that
analysis, there was a determination made by the Grants Program
Directorate that the 17 jurisdictions that were being looked at
didn't fully account for the various sizes and complexities of
the different jurisdictions that needed to be evaluated. So
they selected an additional 17 to go through the trial. There
was never an intent to change the system or to not change the
system before going to the next phase of an analysis or to go
live with it----
Mr. Cuellar. I am sorry, Mr. Manning, so the 17 States and
cities or areas did not fit what? Aren't we trying to fit the
tool to match the customer instead of trying to get the
customer to match the tool? That is what it sounds like you all
are doing.
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I am sorry if that is how I made
it sound. No. The intent, it is my understanding the Grants
Program Directorate, GPD, wanted to bring in additional cities,
additional information prior to making the changes to the
interface. There were concerns recognized very early on with
some of the methodology and most certainly the interface, the
programming of how the tool worked, which is a lot of the early
input, before the methodological concerns came up. The addition
of an additional 17 jurisdictions was simply to increase the
amount of data available prior to the analysis and the large
change to the system.
Mr. Cuellar. Did you take any of the input from those 17
States, cities, counties, local folks, and make any adjustments
to the tool?
Mr. Manning. Prior to the second phase? No, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Isn't that the purpose why you have a pilot
program?
Mr. Manning. As it has been explained to me, that was the
intent of adding the 17 was to get more data before making the
substantial changes to the system prior to another phase of
either piloting, testing, or rolling out.
Mr. Cuellar. Basic question. Title of the hearing today,
``Preparedness: What Has the $29 Billion in Homeland Security
Grants Bought, and How Do We Know?'' Answer that question.
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, the C2C is often looked at as
simply the tool that is being tested in these first----
Mr. Cuellar. Forget the C2C. Can you answer that question?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I believe there is a first step
towards answering that question in what is actually the first
phase of the Cost to Capabilities Initiative, which is the
look-back report that was provided in early May 2009, and that
is a cataloging, going back, scrubbing all the records, of
cataloging what was actually bought, what was actually
exercised and what was actually done with the grant money from
2003 through 2007.
Mr. Cuellar. We have to account to the taxpayers. If
somebody asked me in Austin, Texas, 6th Street, somewhere
around there, they ask me, you all just spent $29 billion since
2002. What have you provided on the issue of preparedness? How
do I respond to that question, besides saying well, we work in
a C2C tool, on the fact that there is some reports. How do I
answer that question?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I think it is, we have clearly
improved our level of preparedness, we have clearly improved
our ability to identify emerging terrorist threats and plots
throughout the activities at the fusion centers and things that
didn't exist prior to these grant programs. There is
demonstrable improvement over the last many years. Aside from
what we have been able to catalog for the actual items, that
equipment that responders use to respond to potential acts of
terrorism and emergencies and disasters every day, and aside
from being able to point to the training, the exercise, the net
increases in the number of people who are trained and certified
to be able to respond to weapons of mass destruction incidents,
we have solid data to be able to point to. Beyond that, we have
not historically done anywhere near as good a job at measuring
what we have actually in a net respect gained over the last 8
years.
Mr. Cuellar. Let me interrupt because my time is up. But
let me just ask you. If I was to measure your performance, I am
talking about the Agency's performance or even State levels, I
am sure that two States here, Ohio and Arkansas, have done
this, basic questions to ask agencies in a budgeted program
review, basic questions and you get the answers on this. What
is your program's or agency's primary purpose? No. 1. What
citizens are you trying to affect? What key results are
expected from the use of the taxpayers funds? What key results
are expected from the taxpayer funds?
What are the key performance indicators that you use to
track progress attaining results? What were the results in the
most recent years? How do these results compare to your target?
Have any of the results been unexpectedly good or unexpectedly
poor?
How do results compare to other benchmarks, and let's say
Ohio versus Arkansas or Texas whatever? If the targets were
missed, why were those targets missed? What is the variants?
What is currently being done to improve deficiencies? What
actions does your new proposed budget include in improved
results? How would the results change if your funding would be
increased by 5 percent or decreased by 5 percent?
So, questions, there are a couple other questions. Free
advice. How much did you pay for your C2C?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I don't have the answer to that.
Mr. Cuellar. You have got to have a general idea. I know
you do.
Mr. Manning. I know it is somewhere in the $5 million
range, as I understand.
Mr. Cuellar. Free advice for $5 million. I think we can do
a little better and, Mr. Manning, I don't mean to be harsh on
you because you took over this, but I think sometimes it is
better to not defend something that is not working. Just say we
already invested $5 million, and we are trying to make it work,
go from 17 localities to another 17 to find the right feedback
on that. I can give you this for free and, in fact, without
objection I will put this part of the record, the basic
questions on that. But you can get the same measurements. Now
there is a lot of work in getting that information. I
understand that. But to spend $5 million on a tool, I would ask
you to reconsider that.
At this time I would like to recognize the Ranking Member
for his 5 minutes of questioning.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and again I thank the
witnesses.
Mr. Manning, a little over a month ago, Ranking Member Gus
Bilirakis and I sent a letter to Administrator Fugate and one
to Secretary Napolitano that I would like to have admitted into
the record if there is no objection----
Mr. Cuellar. No objection.
[The information follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Rogers [continuing]. In which we were expressing
opposition to ACORN receiving a million dollar fire grant. I
represent a large, rural, poor Congressional district and $1
million goes a long way with all these volunteer fire
departments. I understand you all stopped it. We haven't
received a formal response. But why was ACORN going to receive
a fire grant? Can you tell us that?
Mr. Manning. Certainly, Congressman Rogers. The grants that
ACORN received under the fire grant programs were awarded, were
selected by a peer review panel of the Fire Service. There was
a peer review panel empaneled by the Fire Service of members of
the Fire Service to identify grant applications that would be
effective. This particular part of the grant what ACORN's
proposal was, was fire protection activities in low-income
areas, specifically installing smoke detectors in low-income
areas, in inner cities. That was what the grant was for.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. I have another question.
The FEMA policy interpretation on the use of grant funds such
as they cannot be utilized to sustain equipment is very
concerning to me. A striking example of how this may negatively
impact homeland security preparedness in response is the
Securing Cities Initiative. In order to exist beyond 3 years,
DHS has a strategic plan for the program States that homeland
security grants funding could be leveraged to expand the
capability as deemed useful by the region. This grants strategy
is, in fact, frequently touted as the perfect solution for New
York City to fund its vital homeland security program.
My question is, how do you propose New York City maintain
millions of dollars worth of radiological detection equipment
if the administration is not requesting funds for it any more
and suggesting that they apply to the grant program that would
be rejected for that purpose under FEMA's new policy?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Rogers, the policy, FEMA's policy, GPD's
policy, on the limitations of expenditures for maintenance and
sustainment, has been in place since the beginning of the
grant, beginning of the grants. It has been a--while not well
understood and not well explained over time, it has been in
place in part of the grant programs. There are questions in the
guidance every year about how does the jurisdiction intend to
sustain the investment made under this year's grants?
There are no limitations on maintenance for sustainment
within the grant cycle that the equipment is procured. So over
a multi-year grant those activities are available under the
grant funds.
It has been GPD's, it has been FEMA's policy, DHS's policy
prior to it being in FEMA that the responsibility for the
upkeep for taking on the maintenance tail of procurement be
transferred to the grantee with the expiration of that
particular grant cycle. What we did in the last, what FEMA did
in the last few months, as I said, it was unclear. The guidance
was unclear and vague over the years. There was repeated
questions of us by grantees for clarification. FEMA issued this
clarification of the existing policy, but in such a way, clear
enough, that it appeared to be new to many grantees and has
expressed a number of concerns, which while we had heard
anecdotally prior, we are now hearing very explicit examples of
where that is a concern.
I can assure you that that issue is receiving the highest
level of attention. We are looking at all the concerns that are
being raised by the grantees. The explicit examples, as we
heard in testimony this morning, are very helpful to allow us
to examine our policy in depth and figure what is the best
thing for the safety of the American public.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you. Ms. Crandall----
Ms. Kilroy. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Rogers. Sure.
Ms. Kilroy. I would invite the gentleman, which is
concerned about the maintenance of the safety in New York City
and other communities across our country, to consider
cosponsoring legislation that would make this a requirement.
Mr. Rogers. I am, thank you.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you.
Mr. Rogers. Ms. Crandall, you mentioned earlier in your
testimony how the lack of sustainment funds could affect your
interoperability of your communication system. This is
deviating a little bit from the subject matter of this hearing,
but it piqued my interest. Are you finding that you have solved
your challenges with interoperability within your system or
not?
Ms. Crandall. We have solved our problems in the Columbus
urban area, yes, we have.
Mr. Rogers. I am so proud to here somebody has finally done
that. That is the first person I have come before this
committee to tell me that they have solved that.
Mr. Maxwell, I want to note that you are the only person on
this committee without an accent, and I am proud to have you
here. What recommendations--in particular, you talked to about
C2C--what specific recommendations do you have for FEMA that
would improve the C2C Initiative?
Mr. Maxwell. I think with Mr. Manning's help, we are
working toward defining what is ``preparedness.'' We have
talked around standards for preparedness for years and years
and years, and I don't think there is a common understanding of
what is preparedness, what capabilities do we need.
I think as we go forward, we have to define those things,
establish some standards that are flexible enough to meet the
needs of rural States and urban States, rural communities,
urban communities.
Mr. Rogers. So it is just a definitional problem as far as
you are concerned?
Mr. Maxwell. I think so. A lot of it is establishing those
standards so we can clearly, across the board, identify what we
have done and what we need to do.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you very much. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Rogers. At this time I
recognize the Chairman from Mississippi, Mr. Thompson.
Mr. Thompson. Thank you very much. I have followed with
great interest the questions that have been raised so far.
Mr. Manning, you have inherited this responsibility. Have
you and the Secretary, Mr. Fugate, whomever, had an opportunity
to study this C2C program and determine whether it makes sense
or we might need to do it like we have done all these other
programs when there is some question as to their viability?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, we have looked closely at all of
our initiatives. One of the very first things that
Administrator Fugate did when he came on board was to issue a
moratorium on new data calls essentially, new big initiatives
that go out to our partners at the State and local, Tribal
governments for new bits of information.
We had by different counts, different numbers, but five
major initiatives on par with C2C collecting data from our
partners, grantees, and State, local, and Tribal governments.
The C2C initiative, one of them, the first part with the look
back was a very effective cataloging, I think, of what we have
done to date. The next part was to be to look forward. Now at
the same time we have another, a number of other initiatives
looking at similar things, and as part of that moratorium the
administrator directed me to establish this working group, on
which Mr. Maxwell serves, to identify all the different things
we are asking at the same time and what is the best way to do
that, with the hope that in the future, we have an effective,
we do exactly as you are describing, Mr. Chairman, of taking
C2C and where it is similar to the GAP program, or the
Comprehensive Assessment System, or the NIMSCAST, or any
others, and do it once so we have a methodologically sound data
collection that results in outcomes, not simply outputs as the
Chairman has pointed out in the past, and has the least amount
of impact on our grantees as possible, allows them to get on
with their work with preparing the Nation for emergencies and
disasters.
Mr. Thompson. Well, maybe I need to say when are you going
to finish? I heard what you said. What I am really trying to
get at is you are basically prepared to go forward with the
program at this point?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, we do not intend to use it for
making grant allocation decisions, as described previously. It
is a good assessment system that we have to take, we have to
take the input we have heard into account and make sure that
system is correct before it goes----
Mr. Thompson. So what are you going to use it for?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, it was designed to assess the
increase in capability. I think what we are planning to do is
to take a close look at the results of the pilot. We have to
look closely at the results of the entire--our evaluation of
how well the system worked as well as the input taken from the
partner governments that have worked with us, both the first
and second half of the two gangs of 17 that helped us in that.
We will use it in conjunction with our State preparedness
reports, the other assessments systems, but ultimately, Mr.
Chairman, to identify a unified single way of assessing what we
are doing and do it correctly. It does nobody any good, Mr.
Chairman, I think, to go forward with a program that has not
been completely vetted and doesn't have the support of the
grantees, doesn't necessarily meet the methodologic rigor that
we require in order to make informed decisions.
Mr. Thompson. The term that the committee has been provided
is that C2C will put meaningful measures in place that show how
homeland security grants are used to enhance the Nation's
preparedness.
Now if I just heard what you said is you are now going to
modify that to do something else.
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I think the system, the C2C
system, was designed specifically to look at capability
increases. While there are certainly, as pointed out in the
other witnesses' testimony this morning very ably, there are
problems with how it does that at the benchmark level, in the
beginning. But, if we can solve some of those issues, it may
measure the increases in capability effectively. However, it
doesn't take risk into account. It doesn't take threat into
account. So before we can use it or anything like it to make
any kind of--it can inform our decision-making but it can't be
used to make funding allocation decisions until it is
consistent with the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform
Act.
Mr. Thompson. I guess my point is if you keep moving the
ball, can you imagine what our State and locals are going
through with this? It is a real challenge. The committee was
provided with this chart, which it looks good, like, you know,
most charts we get presented. But when you start trying to put
the realities of the how things get done, I can understand Mr.
Maxwell's concern about definitions and some other things. I
would suggest to you, sir, that you probably need to revisit,
and I think this is a 3-week-old chart of this process. Some of
the testimony that we heard today is a little inconsistent with
what we hear, what we have on this chart. I would suggest that
you probably have your people look at it again.
I yield back, Mr. Chair.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. At this time, I would
like to recognize the gentleman from Texas, Mr. McCaul.
Mr. McCaul. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Manning, I think I
heard you correctly, you said that C2C does not take into
account threat or risk levels. You know from the inception of
this committee and when the Department was created, we have
attempted to tie funding to the areas of greatest threat and
risk. So to me that is disturbing. I know, Ms. Crandall, you
said that C2C should be modified to take into account threat
and risk. In your words you said it is ignored under the C2C.
That is probably the biggest flaw, if you will, that I see
in the system. I know you just sort of inherited this. But I
would like to get comments from the two of you on that and how
you can modify it and change it so that it is threat- and risk-
based.
Mr. Manning. Mr. McCaul, I think whether or not we can
modify this existing system to incorporate risk, I actually
don't have the answer to that. The purpose of the pilots is to
see how effective this system may have been in measuring
increases or potential increases in the capability to respond
to essentially our policy-driven planning scenarios, the target
capabilities list and the National planning scenarios.
Incorporating threat and risk I believe is something that
probably has to happen with the output of the C2C system. We
think of risk as threat, vulnerability, and consequence. With
the C2C being the increase in capability or another way to look
at the vulnerability of a particular jurisdiction, invert that,
it is something that can be used to inform our idea of risk and
then make the funding decisions. That was probably as far as
where we were able to go with the system.
It is simply meant to measure the increase in capability
that can be gained from the application of resources with grant
dollars.
Mr. McCaul. Ms. Crandall, what is your take on that?
Ms. Crandall. I think we are looking at two different
pieces here. At the FEMA-DHS level, they were looking at how to
measure capability, gain, sustainment and the cost of it across
the country. They based that on the National scenarios.
The problem with that is that the National scenarios are
not fully implemented or needed in every State and urban area.
We have our own threat risk and need clearly identified and
written in our strategy. When you try to nationally judge and
evaluate something and you put up standards that don't apply--
prime example, when I did cost to capability for the Columbus
urban area, improvised explosive device came out to be one of
the lowest things we needed to worry about when in reality it
is the top thing we worry about based on our assessment
evaluation. Things that are prevalent in Arkansas and Texas we
will never see in the State of Ohio.
So to build a target capability to be able to evacuate
Columbus, Ohio, with 3 days' warning is absurd because it will
never happen to us. We don't have hurricanes. So the problem
comes into can C2C be formulated to come down to the threat
risk of my urban area so that for me that cost to capability is
what we need in Columbus and not what we see Nationally in a
very broad-based program.
Mr. McCaul. I think that is great advice to Mr. Manning. I
think that this money in my view is not to be used to supplant
State and local budgets so they can spend money elsewhere. It
really should be designed based on the risk and the threat in
the area and where can we direct the dollars throughout the
country where they are most needed? This has really been a
problem since the inception of this.
Mr. McCaul. Also, it is so subjective. There is no
objectivity to this at all. You just simply send the survey to
the locals, and they fill out: Does this help you make you more
prepared? Of course, you are going to say yes because they want
to continue the flow of dollars to their jurisdiction.
It seems to me that there needs to be something more
objective in place to oversee how the dollars are spent;
otherwise, we are going to be looking at duplicative spending
and waste, fraud, and abuse. Do you have any thoughts on that,
Mr. Manning?
Mr. Manning. Certainly, Congressman McCaul. I think you hit
on what is probably the most difficult part of the
methodological problems with the system as it was rolled out
there. Everything is based on what is currently a fairly
subjective ranking of your level of capability against one of
the target capabilities. In order to have measurable data, in
order to have useful data that is empirically sound across all
of the jurisdictions, it has to be done the same way across
every one of the jurisdictions. Currently, we would have 118
different measurements for every one of those sliding scales.
Until we can come up with a sound methodology for determining
that based on capability in the beginning, we are going to have
that problem. That is something that is certainly at the core
of the concerns.
Mr. McCaul. I agree with that. I see my time has expired.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you very much. At this time, I would
like to recognize the gentlewoman from Nevada, Ms. Titus.
Ms. Titus. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Nevada was selected as one of the 17 in the second phase of
the pilot program. I wonder if you can tell me kind of why
Nevada was chosen. I also would like to be updated on how it
does in that pilot program. I will be talking to the people in
Nevada as well.
Then my second point, I would like to ask you about the
urban areas security grants. My district in Las Vegas contains
one of the most well-known unique tourist destinations in the
world. We have people coming from all over the globe to visit
there, and this also makes us, unfortunately, a target for
terrorists.
Yet, the current model for allocating those grants I don't
think takes into account some of those unique qualities of Las
Vegas. For example, it doesn't take into account the long-term
impact, which is pretty unimaginable. Also, when you have
formulas just based on population, that doesn't take into
account the millions of tourists who are there who also have
special needs. So I wonder if you could tell us what you are
doing to improve those allocation metrics so that we can do a
better job of giving out those grants.
Mr. Manning. Certainly. If I may start with the last
question and work my way back. The current risk formula is
being evaluated. We continually evaluate how we do all of our
programs and policies, and we are looking at how we think of
risk, how we think of threat, and how the grant distribution
decisions are made.
As to the tourist population, there is transient
population, visitors, visitor data. Those data are used in the
determination of population daytime, nighttime populations and
numbers from various sources on tourists and visitors are
brought into bear on those calculations. Whether they receive
the right amount of ranking, that is something that we are
examining and we will continue to examine.
As to why Nevada was selected for the second round of the
pilots on the cost capability assessment, that was Nevada is a
good representative State of some of the unique attributes of
the western United States. I come from New Mexico. We have very
similar concerns there, the high density or high population
centers surrounded by vast rural areas and small towns and
communities. There are aspects to time and distance and
geography in the western United States that don't manifest in
the eastern United States, especially in building capabilities,
things like special response teams where a plainer view on the
map they may look like you can get there in an hour, but in
fact, it takes six to get around a mountain range. Things like
that. So it was aspects, those types of aspects that were
looked at trying to grow the number of 17 to make sure that
they were a representative sampling of jurisdictions taken into
account in the first round of analysis of the tool.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Would you keep me updated on how
Nevada is doing? Like I said, I will talk to the people in
Nevada, too. Your reassessment of those metrics for the grants,
will they be ready for the next cycle of allocations or not?
Mr. Manning. Ma'am, we will continue to evaluate these
things, all of these systems and work through the
administration and the Secretary. As we find, as we identify
places for changes in policy, we will make those
recommendations to the Secretary. I don't have an answer
directly to your question.
Ms. Titus. It is just on-going. It is not time-certain.
Mr. Manning. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Titus. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Ms. Titus. At this time, we would
like to recognize the gentleman from Missouri, Mr. Cleaver.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manning, is there maybe an unspoken assumption in the
agency that an increase in spending directly correlates with an
increase in capability?
Mr. Manning. Yes, sir. I think that the fundamental concept
of how we were implementing these grant programs, they are
inherently designed to increase capability. I think there is--
yes, sir, there would be the presumption that as we implement
new programs, there would be some measurable increase in
capability. However, we constantly strive to measure that
effectiveness. Whether they are efficient and effective in
increasing capability or preparedness is certainly the question
and what we are trying to measure.
Mr. Cleaver. I think several other Members, I think Mr.
McCaul mentioned the subjectivity here and you heard probably
more than you want to hear today. But that is a very real and
strong concern that I have. I have a list of all the agencies
in my Congressional district in Missouri that would be impacted
by this, and I have this weird belief that I was sent up here
to protect our interests. So I am very concerned about that.
But I guess--and I got here late.
I am in a markup in Financial Services, so I apologize for
being here late. But maybe the most significant question for
me, and maybe the Chairman has already dealt with this, I don't
understand why there were no changes made prior to the
implementation of the second pilot program. I think the
Chairman requested that.
Mr. Manning. Congressman Cleaver, I think the simplest way
to answer the question would be to consider it two halves of
the same assessment. It wasn't designed to be a phase one, make
changes; phase two, to test the changes. It was going out with
phase one and kind of adaptive methodology in the evaluation
system. I think they went with phase one, their initial 17,
realized that they weren't collecting the data they needed to
be able to make a valid assessment. They certainly were getting
input. They were certainly collecting valuable information on
the effectiveness of the programming, of the code, of the
philosophy behind the system. But they wanted to measure
against, as I was describing a minute ago, with other
jurisdictions. Not simply to find jurisdictions that fit the
tool better, but to find other jurisdictions that stressed the
tool, that had different planning considerations behind the
jurisdictions that maybe didn't come into account with places
like New York and California or Columbus. I think in my
experience, too, granted, while I wasn't involved in that
decision-making, I always prefer more data than less data, and
I think they were simply trying to get more information to be
able to make decisions on how to change the tool before they
moved forward. That is how I understand it.
Mr. Cleaver. I appreciate that. You know, I guess what
happens if we say to our constituents that changes are going to
be made, and then only to discover that they were not? I
understand what happened. I am not sure that I have a high
level of appreciation for not being told what was going on. I
have--I mean, the Chairman was quite eloquent and capable of
doing it, of dealing with this himself. It was just something
that troubled me.
Finally, let's move back to this subjectivity, because
subjectivity, and at least with regard to this program, depends
a lot on who is inputting the data. Can you say something to me
that would cause me to believe that the data inputter has
something that would reduce the subjectivity? Or do we just
understand this is going to be subjective, very subjective, and
that is just the way it is and let's move on?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Cleaver, I cannot. I think that is the
biggest flaw to the system that has been identified. I
recognize that as well, and--when I saw the system, and I think
that is something that is being closely looked at.
Now, Mr. Maxwell commented in his remarks about how do we
measure. When we talk about are we prepared, we have to define
preparedness. We have to decide against which, against what are
we trying to prepare. So I am not sure that we will ever be
able to get away from some degree of subjectivity.
Mr. Cleaver. I agree. Let me tell you my nightmare. I
happen to believe in earmarks. I believe that that is the only
thing that the Constitution says that Members of Congress are
supposed to do is spend, spend the money. That is the only
description of Congress in the Constitution. But I always have,
and the reason I support it, because I have this nightmare that
there is somebody down in the basement who has never gone west
of the Mississippi River making decisions about Kansas City,
Missouri. I just don't feel comfortable with them, whether they
are in the basement or upstairs, because--well, this--I will do
this, I will do that. I understand that, unfortunately, God
only created humans, so we don't know what else we can deal
with and there is going to be subjectivity there. But I would
surely hope that there could be put in place something that
would at least monitor the subjectivity or in some instances
interfere with it if things go awry. Maybe there is nothing
that we can do about it.
I needed to express my concern about my own State, my own
district with regard to--you know, I tell people I am from
Kansas City, and they say, well, how are things in Kansas? I
mean. So, and they don't even know the difference. I was mayor,
and people would say, are you mayor both of Kansas City,
Missouri and Kansas City, Kansas? I would say, yeah, just like
the mayor of New York and the mayor of New York in Montreal.
But people--I mean, I don't want those people making decisions
about my community and they have absolutely no understanding of
it. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. At this time I would
like to recognize the gentlewoman from Ohio, Ms. Kilroy, for 5
minutes.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, very much. I
appreciate the opportunity to join you this morning. As you
know, I am very concerned about the FEMA's new policy
restricting preparedness grants for being used to maintain
homeland security equipment. The clarification, Mr. Manning,
that you discussed certainly does look like a reversal of
course to those in the trenches. Someone who came from local
government, came from county, I know very well how the planning
for the use of the equipment and the cost of this equipment,
and now complicated by lower funds available for local
government in these economic times is a very major concern. The
reversal, of course, right now certainly does need to have your
highest attention as you said. I also want to make sure,
though, that Congress restates its intent, because I believe
that this policy violates Congressional intent. That is why I
introduced legislation, H.R. 3837, the Sure Act, to make sure
that the agency does recourse on this. I want to thank Chairman
Cuellar and Chairman Thompson for cosponsoring this bill and
for working with me on this issue. I hope that it is something
that the State and county organizations that are facing this
issue takes to their bodies, such as the Emergency Management
Association, look forward to working with you and hopefully
getting your input.
I am also concerned because, as you heard in questioning
from Mr. Rogers and Ms. Crandall's testimony, that Franklin
County and its first responders, its local officials, its
elected officials made interoperability and protecting the
first responders our top priorities for usage of UASI grants
and other funds that might be available for us. I would like to
ask Ms. Crandall to elaborate on how the interoperability might
be adversely affected should this policy remain in place.
Ms. Crandall. Thank you. The interoperable communications,
as I stated previously, is probably the largest investment that
we have to sustain. There is a migration currently from
analogue, 800 megahertz to digital, 700 megahertz to improve
and expand beyond Ohio and across the country the capability
for interoperability.
The equipment that we purchased with homeland security
dollars and local dollars and justice dollars not only has to
be maintained on a consistent basis to keep those towers up and
running, but we also have to now migrate some of that equipment
that we have spent tens of millions on from an analogue
platform to a digital platform. The planning that went into
interoperability in the Columbus urban area was over a 2-year
period. We have used 50 percent of homeland security funds
since the beginning of homeland security grants to build that
capability to reach the highest level of interoperability on
the spectrum and the continuum that is put out by FEMA/DHS.
If we can't upgrade the towers, if we can't flash upgrade
radios, if we can't continue to buy batteries and pay repair
costs, if we can't use the interoperability for data, which is
the next step, and instead have to buy all new equipment to run
parallel, the cost will be staggering in the duplicity for
absolutely no reason.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you. It is always a major concern, and a
concern that came about taking a look at the reports from some
National incidents about where the vulnerabilities were we
needed to address. But it was also local peer-to-peer
discussions that allowed that to happen.
I am also somewhat concerned that this C2C system now won't
allow for that unity of purpose to be able to be generated and
also have that State and local input.
So I would like to again ask Mr. Maxwell and Ms. Crandall
about how your local communities see the assessment of your
local threatened risk with the C2C system and obtaining unity
among your very first responders.
Ms. Crandall. For the Columbus urban area, the urban
working group as we work through C2C we had to do the State
preparedness report as an urban area because it is the base of
C2C. We started there, and we started with the discussion of
where is it going to take us if we are valuing preparedness for
wildfires and hurricanes and issues that do not apply to the
State of Ohio, let alone to the Columbus urban area.
The frustration is great. National scenarios, again, very
broad-based and perhaps Nationally most important. But to the
Columbus urban area and the State of Ohio, we wrote a strategy
after evaluating and assessing to tell us where our
vulnerabilities were, to tell us the level of target
capabilities we have that are critical to faith, and prepare
for the threat and risks specific to us. C2C doesn't allow for
that at this time.
Ms. Kilroy. I would say, Mr. Manning, that I am concerned
that the C2C is trying to be too much of a one-size-fits-all
and too much Washington-based and, as Mr. Cleaver indicated,
not taking in the concerns of local communities. We--if you
refer back to our founding, it is one if by land, two if by
sea. Well, we won't have two if by sea in Franklin County and
Union County and Madison County in Ohio, and but we do have
real threats that should be monitored, should be assessed, and
should have the most effective strategy to prepare for. Could
you address the Nationalization of this process?
Mr. Manning. Certainly. Yes, ma'am. In the assessment of
the level of capability, that is ultimately to the grantee, to
the user. So in the case of Franklin County, the determination
of the baseline, where are they against--and how capable are
they against a particular capability. That determination is
made by Franklin County. But where the problem lies, Mr.
Cleaver is alluding to, and I believe that you are alluding to,
as well as some of the foundational documents that aren't part
of C2C but on which C2C is built, and that is the target
capabilities list, the National planning scenario, some of the
doctrinal things that DHS has generated over the years. They
presume--the target capabilities, for example, were a policy
that was trying to establish baseline capabilities that need to
be achieved in every community across the country. That was
recognized pretty quickly to be unachievable; that the level of
capability needed by Franklin County is not probably the same
as needed by Luna County in New Mexico.
So there is a new--there was a revision in process to try
to base that on population. However, that doesn't take into
account the complexities of various jurisdictions that we have
all I am sure experienced, again, as Mr. Cleaver is alluding
to, from Kansas City. So we recognize that as well. These are
all important things and that were identified. Ultimately the
purpose of a pilot study to assess whether a new system will
achieve its intended goals, in this case, measuring the level
of capability, again, I think we have identified a number of
significant shortfalls in the system that need to be addressed
prior to it being used for anything other than a simple narrow
look into the effectiveness of the grant program based on the
assessed, the stated goals of a particular jurisdiction.
Ms. Kilroy. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
Mr. Cuellar. Ms. Kilroy, thank you very much. At this time,
I recognize the gentlewoman from California, Ms. Richardson,
for 5 minutes.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Manning, based upon what you have heard so far today,
what would your recommendation to the Secretary and the
administrator be?
Mr. Manning. Ms. Richardson, I believe the recommendation
would be that the cost capabilities pilot, while we need to
examine closely--continue the analysis of all the data
collected, that the system as it currently stands is useful to
assess a particular jurisdiction's increase in capability over
their stated beginning point, and beyond that can be used
possibly to help inform grant decision-making, but not--it is
not a system that can be used to solely make grant distribution
decisions.
Ms. Richardson. Have you seen the letter from the mayor in
my area dated September 21 to the Secretary, mayor of Los
Angeles, the second largest city in this Nation? Have you read
this?
Mr. Manning. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. So how, if you have read this, can you say
this system was useful if the whole point of the pilot was to
evaluate the system?
Mr. Manning. Ma'am, I don't believe that the system--the
concerns addressed in Mayor Villaraigosa's letter are valid,
are directly on point. They hit with all of the points we have
discussed this morning, the fact that it doesn't take risk into
account, the fact that there are critical points in the
methodology which are subjective.
When I describe that I think that it is useful, I think it
is not useful, it may not be a useful tool as originally
intended, as piloted and reflected in the mayor's letter. It
may be useful in simply measuring the gain from one point to
another as assessed by the jurisdiction, which is very
different from being useful and making any kind of grant
distribution allocations.
Ms. Richardson. I just got through with flying 24 hours
from Samoa, so I am going to apologize for my frankness. There
is no such thing as being half pregnant. You are either
pregnant or you are not. In my opinion, when you look at the
second largest city in this Nation that participated in a pilot
that says provided no guidance or value for assessing homeland
security investments, are not based upon the methodology
approach, and as a result, the project scores will be
inconsistent or accurate, even though I am going through--there
are seven points here.
I don't understand how you can say, well, it might be
useful for this, it might be not useful for that. You know, the
American public is spending hard-earned money that many people
don't have shoes on their feet, you know, don't have jobs, we
are spending money continuing to implement something that you
know does not work.
To me, in my opinion, that is the epitome of wasteful
spending and the Government's continued failure to listen and
to adjust. We don't need to continue what we know does not
work. We should put--in my opinion, you should put your feet on
the brakes and reevaluate and get something that does make
sense and then continue your process. But to continue something
with 17 other locations that you know doesn't work, I mean,
help me understand how you can, in your professional opinion,
do that.
Mr. Manning. Yes, ma'am. I agree that there are significant
problems with the methodology to use that system to cross-
analyze multiple jurisdictions. Absolutely.
Ms. Richardson. Isn't that the point of what the tool is
for?
Mr. Manning. The tool--yes, ma'am. That is why we are doing
the pilot study, was to collect all of the problems with the
system, to identify if there are problems. Which we have. We
have received those same comments from many other jurisdictions
that have gone through the pilot program.
Ms. Richardson. So why are you continuing it?
Mr. Manning. We are continuing the pilot program. We are
continuing to the conclusion of the pilot program and the
analysis of all the data so we can make our final decision and
make a recommendation through to the administrator and the
Secretary.
Ms. Richardson. You don't have a recommendation right now?
Mr. Manning. I am aware of all the concerns, but I don't
have--the pilots are not complete and we haven't looked at all
of the data. We certainly have heard the concerns and
understand the concerns of Los Angeles and New York and Houston
and other jurisdictions. Yes, ma'am.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. You are familiar with the cost and
the time and everything. How much does it cost to do this
program?
Mr. Manning. Ma'am, I don't have the information on a per
jurisdiction basis or the pilot, the expected cost to
completion. But I can collect that information and provide it
to you.
Ms. Richardson. My time has expired. What I would say to
you, from my experience and from your testimony and what I have
heard from my colleagues, I believe, as I said, this is a
perfect example of Government waste and abuse and poor work. I
would hope that, rather than us continuing down this road, that
you would properly make some evaluations and stop. Then as you
go forward and make true evaluations--and I can't stress
enough. If you come from a district which Secretary Napolitano
has flown over it, where you have refineries and ports and
airports and water treatment facilities and all that, if it is
not working here, you are wasting our time. I have got to tell
you, like I said, coming from countries and places America
Samoa who really need our help and need FEMA to be active, I
just think this is an embarrassment. Thank you.
Mr. Cuellar. Thank you, Ms. Richardson. Mr. Manning, I
don't know if you noticed, there is a tsunami of concerns on
this issue. Do you have anybody that liked this C2C?
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Cuellar. Besides the contractor.
Mr. Manning. Mr. Chairman, I have not--to my knowledge, I
have not received any letters in support.
Mr. Cuellar. Who is your customer, if I can use that term?
Mr. Manning. Absolutely. The customers are the grantees,
the State and local governments and the American people.
Mr. Cuellar. So if your customers, along with the oversight
committee, ourselves, are having concerns about this, I
understand as you mentioned to Ms. Richardson you are going
through the process to finish your pilot program. But I hope
that you consider this. I still ask you to go back and just go
back to the basics. If you go to mission performance, you have
got to look at what is your mission, what is your goal, what is
your strategy. As you develop the goals and the strategies of
performance measures, you are going to come up with, I think
Mr. Maxwell brought up, Mr. Rogers, is your definitional
issues. It takes a long time.
For example, as Mr. Rogers mentioned, what is preparedness?
Who is going to define that? You are going to have a
definitional issue there. So do you prepare that, or do you get
in with the organizations and come up with what preparedness
comes up? It might be different what Ohio might want and what
California might want or Texas might want or Arkansas, but you
have got to develop at least some basic structures that fits
under the definition of preparedness. I think if you don't go
back to the basics--and, again, we understand, Mr. Manning, you
are in a difficult situation because you are picking up the
baton where it was left. But I still ask you to go back, just
go back to what I gave you this for free. I think it was--you
mentioned $5 million when you answered my question before she
got in.
But out of curiosity, the committee, I am going to ask you
to submit the information what the cost of the software was for
this, and if you can provide that information. But I think what
we are seeing here is the focus is using a software to
substitute basically what we can do, that is, on the
performance measures. What goes in is going to come out on
that. I am not using those terms. I haven't had 24 hours on the
airplane, so I will be more a bit more diplomatic. But
basically what is going in is going out on that. But I would
say that--I mean, I would say you have just got to go back to
the basics and don't put your eggs on this tool, because I
think everybody is saying we don't like this tool. I think if
you sat down and asked the association Mr. Maxwell is going to
be the new president or is the president on, and say, okay,
what should be our mission, what should be the indicators, what
is the performance measures, what is the strategy, what is the
goal, where do we have issues with definitions.
I think if you do that you will save yourself $5 million
plus, and I think you will save yourself a lot of headaches
also. Mr. Manning, you are doing a good job. This is it, but I
know on the strategic plan that we asked you, I think you are
one of the first ones that has given us that information before
anybody. It is a new leaf turned. I know you are in a difficult
situation. But I want to ask you to seriously consider the
tsunami of negativisms that you are getting in from the locals
and from the oversight committee.
Mr. Rogers? Anybody want to add anything else before we go?
Mr. Cleaver, any Kansas City things? All right. Ms. Kilroy,
thank you for the bill that you filed. I appreciate the
leadership.
At this time, I want to thank all the witnesses for being
here. Members on the subcommittee might have additional
questions for the witnesses, and we ask you to respond to that
as soon as you can. Ask you to do that. Also, members, I want
to ask you, with your permission, without objection, the chart
on how the CQC--if you haven't seen that, I would ask that be
made part of the record, but before that is made part of the
record, I want to pass that on and have you hand that over to
the clerk so you can get an idea.* We are making this very
complicated, and I would ask you to really seriously consider
modifying this to something that works a lot easier.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The information has been retained in committee files.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Manning, I would love to sit down with your staff,
whoever your persons are on performance, and ask you to sit
down and we will give you some ideas, some suggestions. It is
up to you. You are the Executive branch. But we would like to
give you some suggestions. Hearing no further business, the
hearing is adjourned. Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 11:38 a.m., the subcommittee was adjourned,
and the hearings were concluded.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Timothy W. Manning
Question 1. Your testimony suggests that FEMA may choose not to
integrate the Cost to Capability (C2C) tool into the fiscal year 2011
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) as initially envisioned.
Recognizing that the administrator inherited this program from his
predecessor, what is FEMA's time line for reviewing the two C2C pilot
programs and making a decision on C2C's future?
Question 2. Please describe how FEMA intends to incorporate
feedback from C2C's two pilot programs into the final tool.
Answer. FEMA has requested a rollup of all comments related to the
first two C2C pilots from pilot participants. This information will be
reviewed along with other evaluation and assessment efforts currently
being conducted in FEMA. FEMA wants to ensure that State and local
jurisdictions are only asked to provide data once (instead of multiple
times) and that this data can be shared across all applicable programs
in FEMA.
We have received a number of useful suggestions relative to
measuring the effectiveness of grant funds. We will determine a course
forward based on all available data and ensure that our partners in
Congress are briefed on our future course.
Question 3. Why did FEMA choose to base the C2C tool on the
National planning scenarios rather than target capabilities? Please
explain how the C2C tool maps target capabilities to the National
planning scenarios.
Answer. The C2C prototype utilized the National planning scenarios
in a simple approach to prioritize the target capabilities. The
approach used both the scenarios and the target capabilities in a two-
step process that resulted in a set of relative weights for all target
capabilities. The process was adopted because of its intuitive nature
and its ability to compensate for inconsistencies in the input data and
still generate a consistent result. With the understanding that the
current effort is a pilot of a prototype, it was assumed that the
prioritization approach could change based on grantee input. The other
parts of the prototype are independent of the prioritization approach,
but require that the prioritization results in relative importance
weights for the target capabilities.
Question 4a. Please provide the following information for each of
these programs: Cost to Capability pilot, Target Capabilities List,
Comprehensive Assessment System, Federal Preparedness Report,
Catastrophic Resource Report, and the State Preparedness Report:
The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional
authorization of the program;
Question 4b. whether any of the work for the program has ever been
or is currently being completed by a contractor;
Question 4c. the contract number(s) for any and all work that has
been or currently is being completed by a contractor; and,
Question 4d. a breakdown of the number of Federal employees and
number of contractors per project.
Answer.
Cost to Capability Pilot:
1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional
authorization of the program: $4.2M FY 2008, $2.7M FY 2009
(coverage through Sep 2010).
2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is
currently being completed by a contractor:
3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or
currently is being completed by a contractor: FY 2008 and FY
2009 contract: (TAD) GS-23F-9755H; Task Order #: HSHQVT-07-F-
00015; Sep 2009 through present contract: (C2C) HSFEEM-09-F-
0263
4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of
contractors per project: All FY 2008 work completed by 0.5
Federal FTE program director and 21.5 contractor FTEs; all FY
2009 work through Aug 2009 completed by 0.7 Federal FTEs
(program director and systems advisor) and 13.5 contractor
FTEs; as of Aug 2009, work split between 5.5 contractor FTE on
new contract, 13.75 contractor FTE on old contract for pilot
report surge and short-term transition and 4.5 Federal FTE
(full time director and staff).
Target Capabilities List:
1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional
authorization of the program:
2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is
currently being completed by a contractor:
3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or
currently is being completed by a contractor:
4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of
contractors per project:
In the on-going Target Capabilities List (TCL) Implementation
project, the role of contract support is to provide the Program Office
with management and administrative assistance, coordination support to
participating Federal, State, and local subject matter experts, meeting
facilitation, and research and analysis on policy guidance, standards
and statutory requirements influencing capability development. The
draft capabilities are the product of feedback from the Federal, State,
and local subject matter experts to the Program Office.
In fiscal year 2007, FEMA spent $863,000 on the development and
finalization of Version 2.0 of the TCL through Contract #HSHQDC-07-F-
00203 with 3 contractor FTEs and 4 Federal FTEs. The initiative to
update the TCL in accordance with Section 646 of the Post-Katrina
Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 began in fiscal year 2008, with
FEMA spending approximately $1,780,000 on the TCL Implementation
Project through Contract #GS-10F-0148J and #SP0700-03-D-1380-0151-06 SV
TAT 06-25 and dedicated 2 federal FTEs to the effort with 10 FTE
contractors provided support. In fiscal year 2009, FEMA spent
approximately $1,900,000 on the TCL Implementation Project with
Contract #HSFEHQ-08-A-1889 and #HSFEHQ-08-J-0005 dedicating 3.5 Federal
FTEs and 10 contractor FTEs to the effort.
Comprehensive Assessment System:
Federal Preparedness Report:
Catastrophic Resource Report:
State Preparedness Report:
1. The amount spent per fiscal year since the Congressional
authorization of the program:
2. Whether any of the work for the program has ever been or is
currently being completed by a contractor:
3. The contract number(s) for any and all work that has been or
currently is being completed by a contractor:
4. A breakdown of the number of Federal employees and number of
contractors per project:
In fiscal year 2008, FEMA spent approximately $6,800,000 on the
Comprehensive Assessment System (CAS) and State Preparedness Report
(SPR) through the following contracts. These efforts were overseen by
approximately 2 Federal FTEs. Approximately $2,000,000 through Contract
#N65236-03-D-7849 was applied to the initial organization of the CAS
Working Group, data collection and support with 10 contractor FTEs, and
then an award of approximately $4,000,000 to Contract #GS23F8096H at
the end of the year for analysis of SPR and CAS data. Analysis of
catastrophic resources was included in this contract. Approximately
$800,000 from Contract #GS-10F-0184J supported the SPR analysis and the
Federal Preparedness Report with approximately 5 contractor FTEs.
In fiscal year 2009, FEMA spent approximately $7,000,000 on the SPR
and the CAS through the following contracts. Contracts #HSHQDC-07-X-
00245 and #HGS10F0374U for $3,100,000 provided support for development
of the SPR Survey Tool with .5 Federal FTE and 21 contractor FTEs. The
CAS was supported by Contract N65236-03-D-7849 for $1,650,000 overseen
by 1 Federal FTE and approximately 7 contractor FTEs, and then
supported by Contract #GS23F8096H for $2,500,000 awarded at the end of
the fiscal year.
Question 5. FEMA has stated its goal in revising the target
capabilities list is to develop capabilities for three tiers of
locations, based largely on population. How does FEMA plan to identify
the critical capabilities--and tasks--for each of these tiers? How does
it expect to validate them? What is the timeline for completing this
review of the 37 target capabilities?
Answer. FEMA works closely with the lead departments, agencies, and
offices with lead subject matter expertise in the development of each
target capability. FEMA also leverages existing stakeholder working
groups (e.g., NIMS Resource Typing Groups, National Advisory Council,
the Interagency Board) to obtain subject matter experts to assist in
their development. For each capability, a working group will be formed
comprised of Federal, State, and local government representatives to
define the risk factors, critical target outcomes, and resource
elements for each capability. Workshops are hosted by the FEMA Regions
inviting practitioners from their respective States and localities.
To the greatest extent possible, existing policy, doctrine, and
standards are used to form the basis for the TCL guidance. For example,
the National Emergency Communications Plan provides goals for the
``Communications'' capability, the Baseline Capabilities for State and
Major Urban Area Fusion Centers provides goals for the ``Intelligence''
capability, and the measures being developed by the Logistics
Management Directorate for the new Logistics Capability Assessment Tool
(LCAT) provide the goals for the ``Critical Resource Logistics''
capability.
FEMA will soon create a Task Force comprised of State, Tribal,
local, and Federal stakeholders to examine all aspect of preparedness
grants, including benchmarking efforts such as the Target Capabilities
List. We will be in a better position to plan our way forward according
to timelines when we have received critical input from this Task Force.
Question 6. To what extent, and how, is the gap analysis for
hurricane preparedness useful for developing preparedness measures for
the broader National preparedness system?
Answer. Data collection is a critical component of effective
planning which is the essential element of preparedness. The data
collected thru GAP or any other effort is designed to identify
potential shortfalls and vulnerabilities within local, State, and
Federal capabilities as compared against requirements for key
categories for specific disaster scenarios. By identifying these needs
prior to the advent of a disaster, strategies for addressing the
vulnerabilities can and should be developed.
Question 7. What roles does the Emergency Management Accreditation
Program play in assessing State disaster preparedness, including
assessing the clarity of roles and responsibilities? What are its
principal uses and limitations?
Answer. The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP)
provides guidance, technical assistance, and evaluating the efficacy of
State and Urban Area emergency management programs. EMAP is operated by
the National Emergency Management Association. EMAP supports the
emergency management community through its use of the standards
development process among emergency management practitioners to
determine the Emergency Management Standard, as well as to use a peer
review process to evaluate emergency management program effectiveness.
The Emergency Management Standard assists State and local jurisdictions
in reviewing their emergency management programs. The Emergency
Management Standard provides standards in context of Program Management
and Program Elements and specifies programs, policies, or procedures.
Through the use of peer reviews, States or Urban Areas are able to
understand what program elements need to be created or improved. The
collaborative process also fosters and promotes the sharing of lessons
learned and best practices among communities. The limitation of the
EMAP standard is that it is focused primarily on the programmatic
aspect of emergency management and does not generally specify the level
of capability to be built or maintained. As such, the EMAP standard
should be used to compliment the guidance found in other standards and
the TCL. FEMA is working directly with EMAP and NEMA to ensure
connectivity among our efforts.
Question 8. In developing preparedness metrics, in what ways does
FEMA plan to use capabilities-based planning versus scenario-based
analyses? What, in your view, are the benefits and limitations of each
approach?
Answer. The Comprehensive Preparedness Guide (CPG)-101 ``Developing
and Maintaining State, Territorial, Tribal, and Local Government
Emergency Plans'' (March 2009) outlines the three common approaches to
developing plans to include: Scenario-, Function-, and Capabilities-
based planning. CPG-101 further recognizes that most planners use a
combination of these approaches. For example, a jurisdiction may
develop an all-hazards emergency operations base plan that outlines
activities and roles and responsibilities for the delivery of certain
functions or capabilities, but use scenarios to test the planning
assumptions and desired functions or capability levels.
The current measures within the Target Capabilities List (TCL) are
organized by capability--not scenario. However, since the targets or
goals are intended to build capabilities to address large-scale, non-
routine events, scenarios, and historical events are often used to
inform measure development. Thus, consistent with CPG-101, a hybrid
approach is employed in measure development.
The benefits of a capability-based process include not restricting
the applicability of the measure to a limited set of scenarios. A
capabilities-based approach ensures an all-hazards focus. However, the
complementary use of scenarios and historical events are very useful to
test and validate the appropriateness of the capability measures.
Question 9. What are FEMA's priorities in the next 12 and next 24
months for developing and implementing measures of preparedness?
Answer. FEMA's priorities include working closely with its
stakeholders and partners to develop and refine the measures, as well
as to update and modify them to ensure that they are useful,
measurable, and applicable across the Nation. FEMA's priorities also
include updating its exercise evaluation, assessment, training
development, and other efforts to closely align with the updated
measures.
Within the next 24 months, FEMA endeavors to build a more bottom-up
approach to how a community uses and evaluates preparedness measures.
FEMA is considering the feasibility of a local, State, Tribal, and
Federal Preparedness Task Force that may play a role in reviewing the
current manner in which FEMA develops and uses preparedness measures,
as well as how such measures are applied to evaluate and improve
capabilities.
Question 10. What are the most critical challenges that FEMA and
its partners face in developing preparedness measures? What is FEMA's
plan for addressing these challenges and in what period of time?
Answer. There are numerous challenges inherent in establishing
measures for emergency management. First and foremost, any such
measures must recognize that State and local governments--not the
Federal Government--are primarily responsible for emergency management.
Therefore, preparedness measures must be written in close collaboration
with State and local government representatives in a manner that
recognizes the different risks and needs that exist across the Nation.
To address this challenge, FEMA will leverage the use of subject matter
experts from State and local governments to assist in the development
of measures from the very start.
Another challenge to preparedness measure development is the fact
that the departments and agencies with lead subject matter expertise
and responsibility for the capability are often external to FEMA. For
this reason, a great deal of coordination is necessary among Federal
partners.
FEMA is considering the feasibility of a Task Force to be comprised
of local, State, Tribal, and Federal officials to examine preparedness
efforts and measures that may be applied. Consultation with these
stakeholders will allow FEMA to develop aggressive, yet realistic
timelines for the implementation of effective preparedness measures.
Question 11. We understand that FEMA this summer approved dozens of
fiscal year 2009 homeland security grant projects that are intended to
keep vital first responder equipment operational. Does FEMA intend to
notify grantees/subgrantees that they may no longer use funding for
these previously-approved projects given the 22 September 2009 policy
announcement on maintenance projects?
Answer. The September 22, 2009 email to States and locals was
notification clarifying the existing policy regarding maintenance/
sustainment to include maintenance, upgrades, repairs-replacement
parts, and user fees. The use of funding for maintenance and
sustainment has never been allowable other than during the period of
performance of the grant under which the equipment was purchased. Once
a grant's period of performance ends, the grantee is responsible for
maintaining equipment purchased with grant funds. Because we believed
that grantees may not have been clear on the policy, the September 22
email was sent to all grantees. Based on a number of issues, FEMA
reviewed the existing policy and revised the policy to allow grantees
to use funds for maintenance and sustainment in active and future grant
awards as of November 20, 2009.
Question 12. The consequence of FEMA's new policy is that grantees
will be forced to discard perfectly usable equipment if they cannot
afford to maintain it. Does it not then follow that grantees will have
to use future homeland security grants to buy brand new equipment at a
cost far greater than simply maintaining the equipment they currently
have?
Answer. Under FEMA's previous policy, the grantee is responsible
for maintaining equipment once the period of performance of the grant
under which the equipment was purchased expires. However, working with
DHS and the administration, FEMA conducted a careful review of this
policy, and revised the existing policy on Friday, November 20. FEMA
issued an Information Bulletin (#336) noting that effective
immediately, the use of FEMA preparedness grant funds for maintenance
contracts, warranties, repair or replacement costs, upgrades, and user
fees are allowable under all active and future grant awards, unless
otherwise noted. However, the bulletin notes that routine upkeep is the
responsibility of the grantee and may not be funded with preparedness
grant funding, and that maintenance contracts and warranties are only
an allowable expenditure for equipment purchased with FEMA preparedness
grants.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for Kathy B. Crandall
Question 1. How do Franklin County and the Columbus Urban Area
Working Group (UAWG) measure its preparedness capabilities? What was
the process for developing these performance measures?
Answer. The Columbus Urban Area Working Group (UAWG) developed our
strategy based on the Target Capabilities pertinent to our identified
threat, risk, and need. Each capability has a respective impact area
defined by need not geography. The UAWG performs an annual assessment
and evaluation of the progress on meeting the goals of the strategy and
modifies accordingly. The implementations step(s) to meet the objective
for each goal is the performance measure. The metrics for each measure
are in accordance with the Universal Tasks required under the
respective Target capability.
Question 2. Does Franklin County and the Columbus UAWG prepared for
disasters using capabilities based planning, scenario-based planning,
or both? What, in your view, are the benefits and limitations of each
approach at the Federal level?
Answer. The Columbus Urban Area utilizes capability and scenario-
based planning. Local scenario-based planning is utilized specific to
our Urban Area to identify the capabilities we need to build, enhance,
and sustain. National scenarios are not used for planning purposes
because they are too broad-based and fail to incorporate local threat,
risk, and need.
Capability-Based.--The benefit at the Federal level is a clear and
refined picture of prevention, protection, response, and recovery
capability and cost of capability at the local level. The limitation at
the Federal level is clearly the unique individualized assessment and
evaluation of each urban area is much more timely and costly to
identify, track, and compare preparedness efforts across the Nation.
Scenario-Based.--The benefit at the Federal level of using the
National scenarios is that it reduces individualization and acts as a
National equalizer to reduce the effort of measuring preparedness. The
limitation at the Federal level is the lack of specificity to risk and
threat in respective local/State jurisdictions presents a false state
of preparedness.
Question 3. To what extent has your agency been involved in FEMA's
Target Capabilities Implementation Project? Please describe, in your
view, the strengths and weaknesses with this project.
Answer. I am not aware of a specific ``Target Capabilities
Implementation'' project. The National Framework identifies the Target
Capabilities and we have been advised that those are under revision and
update. GPD has completed the ``Program Accomplishments Report'' that
assessed grant funds utilized to support Target Capabilities. These are
the only two initiatives I am aware of in progress or undertaken
recently and we did not participate in either project.
Question 4. Approximately how much of your fiscal year 2009
Homeland Security Grant Program award were you intending to use to
maintain previously purchased homeland security equipment? Had FEMA
approved these investments prior to its September 22, 2009 policy
announcement?
Answer. Approximately $735,000 of the award was dedicated to
maintenance and sustainment of previous investments. FEMA has reviewed
the proposed fiscal year 2009 investments through the Peer Review
process and did not deny in whole or in part any investment.
Question 5. FEMA has suggested that its maintenance policy was
always in place but loosely enforced. Had FEMA ever previously
prohibited your agency from maintaining homeland security equipment
with subsequent preparedness grants?
Answer. The Columbus urban area has experienced differing decisions
from FEMA based on the GPD/NPD personnel answering the question or
reviewing the proposed project. Situation specifics have dictated a
FEMA response to prohibit use of funds more often than allowed.
Questions From Chairman Henry Cuellar for David Maxwell
Question 1. Has Arkansas developed its own means of measuring
current and future capability levels? If so, please describe the
process for developing these measures. Are there lessons learned from
your experience that would be beneficial for FEMA as they develop
preparedness metrics?
Answer. Arkansas is in the initial phase of developing a
capabilities assessment tool. This tool will focus on the equipment
purchased with Homeland Security Grant Program. This tool will rely
heavily on the Target Capabilities List that has been developed. Each
piece of equipment has been identified as serving a specific TC. We
will be working with a contractor to develop the methodology to achieve
this analysis.
Question 2. Does Arkansas prepare for disasters using capabilities-
based planning, scenario-based planning, or both? What, in your view,
are the benefits and limitations of each approach at the Federal level?
Answer. Arkansas uses an all-hazards functional approach to
planning with the format of our plan falling in line with the National
Response Framework. Arkansas uses the principles in FEMA's
Comprehensive Planning Guidance documents in all planning efforts. I
feel strongly that at least at the State and local levels the all-
hazards functional approach gives the best results.
A limitation of capabilities-based planning is being unprepared for
events beyond your current capability. A limitation of scenario-based
planning is real events will rarely, if ever, match the chosen
scenario(s). These types of plans will often stovepipe the planning
effort.
Whatever planning approach is utilized it is the planning process
of getting all of the parties involved that is most important. We can
develop great-looking/-sounding plans on paper but if the users of the
plan have not been involved in the development the plan will most
likely fail.
Question 3. What have been the strengths and weaknesses of the
State Preparedness Report? What recommendations, if any, would you make
to FEMA on improving the SPR?
Answer.
Strengths of the SPR include:
The report provides a single-source reporting mechanism for
information to FEMA. The one-stop-shop approach prevents multiple
reporting requirements from different parts of FEMA for basically the
same information.
The report gives an overall view of the program instead of
fragmented or stove-piped pieces of information.
Weaknesses of the SPR:
The report has had at least 3 formats which makes consistency
difficult at best.
The newest format which has not been finalized and implemented as
of today (11/13/2009) streamlines the entries to numerical scores but
does not define the numerical values so it is very subjective.
The first iteration of the SPR was narrative and difficult to
extract meaningful information. The second iteration was a spreadsheet
and although simplified it was very difficult to compile each unique
State's capabilities and situations into a comprehensive National
report. The fine line between being able to aggregate the State reports
to develop a National report and leaving out each State's unique
capabilities is difficult to balance.
Recommendations:
Clearly define the numerical scores in the latest tool so States
are compiling information in a consistent manner that can then be
rolled up into a comprehensive National preparedness report.
Question 4. To what extent has your agency been involved in FEMA's
Target Capabilities Implementation Project? Please describe, in your
view, the strengths and weaknesses with this project, as applicable.
Answer. ADEM Planning Branch Manager is a representative on the
Planning Target Capability Working Group. The working group is in place
to provide input from the user community that FEMA seeks as the Target
Capabilities are updated.
One of the main strengths of this project is providing standards
for overall preparedness at various levels of government by breaking
capabilities down into classes and specifying target capabilities for
jurisdictions of different sizes.
The Implementation Project's weakest point may be in attempting to
set measurable Target Outcomes. Not every capability is quantifiable.
Target Capabilities are not currently used in our planning effort at
either the State or Local level in Arkansas. We do not feel the TCLs
are beneficial to the planning process.
The ADEM Exercise Section Chief participated in a Target
Capabilities List (TCL) Version 3.0 Capabilities Framework Workshop. A
draft copy of the Weapons of Mass Destruction/Hazardous Materials TC
was distributed for comment. The framework consisted of three matrices:
1. Performance classes; 2. Performance objectives; and 3. Resource
elements.
1. Performance classes.--The classes are too broad. The
recommendation was made to make the classes temporary so they
can be used as a guide to measure performance. In relation to
Arkansas under the current performances, some counties will
never meet the risk factors. Not all jurisdictions are affected
by certain natural disasters.
2. Performance Objectives.--In order to evaluate using the matrix
outlining the performance objectives a user guide with more
clarity of the text, and definitions of terms would be
beneficial. Concern was expressed that limiting response to
within a certain time frame is not realistic for some rural
areas.
3. Resource elements.--Designed to provide guidance for meeting
target outcomes and metrics through capability-based planning.
Tables were not user-friendly because they ignore the issue of
mutual aid and make the assumption that resources are available
when needed; they do not seem to link to training and ignore
the stair-step approach used to respond to emergencies. More
explanation of the resource elements and headings would be
beneficial. The current TCL does not link planning, training,
and exercise. The direction of the new TCL once completed will
benefit jurisdictions measuring their capabilities. Arkansas
has not conducted an exercise utilizing the new TCL.
Question 5. Approximately how much of your fiscal year 2009
Homeland Security Grant Program award were you intending to use to
maintain previously purchased homeland security equipment? Had FEMA
approved these investments prior to its September 22, 2009 policy
announcement?
Answer. Arkansas does not budget a specific amount dedicated to
sustainment. Arkansas awards its SHSGP dollars to 77 jurisdictions on a
population basis. Each jurisdiction develops of a budget of anticipated
expenditures. Each jurisdiction can determine the appropriate budget
amount for sustainment expenses. They do not have a pre-determined
budget allowance for sustainment expenses.
Question 6. FEMA has suggested that its maintenance policy was
always in place but loosely enforced. Had FEMA ever previously
prohibited your agency from maintaining homeland security equipment
with subsequent preparedness grants?
Answer. FEMA has not previously disallowed any sustainment
purchases made by sub-grantees. Sustainment has been a part of the
submitted Investment Justifications during previous applications.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
