[House Hearing, 111 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Printing Office]
THE FUTURE OF FEMA'S GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS,
PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
JUNE 29, 2010
__________
Serial No. 111-72
__________
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.gpo.gov/fdsys/
__________
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
64-698 PDF WASHINGTON : 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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 Daniel E. Lungren, California
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Zoe Lofgren, California Charles W. Dent, Pennsylvania
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas Gus M. Bilirakis, Florida
Henry Cuellar, Texas Paul C. Broun, Georgia
Christopher P. Carney, Pennsylvania Candice S. Miller, Michigan
Yvette D. Clarke, New York Pete Olson, Texas
Laura Richardson, California Anh ``Joseph'' Cao, Louisiana
Ann Kirkpatrick, Arizona Steve Austria, Ohio
Bill Pascrell, Jr., New Jersey Tom Graves, Georgia
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri
Al Green, Texas
James A. Himes, Connecticut
Mary Jo Kilroy, Ohio
Dina Titus, Nevada
William L. Owens, New York
Vacancy
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
Laura Richardson, California, Chairwoman
Eleanor Holmes Norton, District of Mike Rogers, Alabama
Columbia Pete Olson, Texas
Henry Cuellar, Texas 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)
William L. Owens, New York
Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi (ex
officio)
Stephen Vina, Staff Director
Ryan Caldwell, Clerk
Amanda Halpern, Minority Subcommittee Lead
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Statements
The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From
the State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on
Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response........... 1
The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the
State of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response..................... 2
Witnesses
Ms. Elizabeth M. Harman, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs
Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of
Homeland Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 5
Prepared Statement............................................. 7
Ms. Anne L. Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits,
Office of the Inspector General, Department of Homeland
Security:
Oral Statement................................................. 9
Prepared Statement............................................. 11
Mr. Alan Patalano, Fire Chief, Long Beach Fire Department, Long
Beach, California:
Oral Statement................................................. 18
Prepared Statement............................................. 20
Ms. MaryAnn Tierney, Deputy Managing Director, Office of
Emergency Management, City of Philadelphia:
Oral Statement................................................. 23
Prepared Statement............................................. 25
Appendix
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson of California......... 43
THE FUTURE OF FEMA'S GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE
----------
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
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 10:00 a.m., in
Room 311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson
[Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding.
Present: Representatives Richardson, Cuellar, Pascrell,
Cleaver, Rogers, and McCaul.
Also present: Representative Austria.
Ms. Richardson. The Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order.
The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on
``The Future of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate.''
I will now recognize myself for an opening statement.
Good morning. I want to welcome our panel of witnesses and
thank them for testifying on today's topic.
GPD, also known as the Grant Programs Directorate, is now
the Department's one-stop shop for administering more than $4
billion annually in homeland security and emergency management
grants. GPD plays a vital role in helping our State and local
partners build the capabilities necessary to prepare for,
protect against, and respond to, and recover from acts of
terrorism and other disasters.
We are especially looking forward today to hearing from
GPD's new assistant administrator, Ms. Elizabeth Harman, about
her priorities for the office. Ms. Harman has inherited several
significant management challenges at GPD, including high
turnover and low morale.
These challenges have been made more complex by
Administrator Fugate's focus on empowering the FEMA regions. I
remain supportive of giving the regions greater operational
responsibility when responding to disasters. However, FEMA
officials in the field are much better equipped to respond to
those situations than we are.
However, non-disaster grant management is a uniquely
different function than a disaster response. It is not clear to
me how handing control over the grants to the regions will
improve FEMA's grant management function. Adding FEMA regions
to the mix of actors threatens to overly complicate critical
infrastructure grant programs.
Finally, Congress created GPD in part to ensure that DHS--
and excuse all these acronyms, to people who might be here for
the first time--was consistently applying its grants policies
and rules. It will be very difficult for 10 FEMA regions to
consistently interpret grant policies. Accordingly, there is a
central question that we hope Ms. Harman will address this
morning: What problem is FEMA trying to solve by decentralizing
the grant management programs to the regions?
Beyond the questions of regionalization, we want to hear
from all witnesses their ideas for improving homeland security
grant programs. The inspector general recently issued a report
where he identified legislative, interagency, and State-level
barriers that impede maximizing the value of DHS grants. We
would like to understand how FEMA is addressing the IG's
recommendations and learn more about what impediments this
subcommittee ought to consider.
One grant challenge, that has recently been renewed and has
gotten a lot of attention, has to do with spending the grant
awards. For example, almost 50 percent of the fiscal year 2007
homeland security grant program--funds have not been spent.
That number jumps to 78 percent for port security grants, which
is of great concern to me in my district. That is an
astonishing number when you consider the massive security needs
at our Nation's ports.
In my district in California, the ports of Long Beach and
Los Angeles handle 30 percent of the entire Nation's shipping
imports. The economic impact of a nuclear attack on the Port of
Long Beach could initially exceed $1 trillion. Therefore, it is
vital that we have the funds to put the necessary security in
place.
There are many reasons for these draw-down numbers, some of
which the GPD can control and others that simply reflect the
time it takes State and locals to move through the grant
lifecycle. Nevertheless, the fact still remains: When Federal
dollars are not being spent to fill critical security gaps, our
communities--Americans--remain vulnerable.
I am very pleased to see Chief Patalano, from my district
in Long Beach, here with us today to speak on these issues. As
fire chief, you know first-hand the importance of these grants
and what they do for the city of Long Beach, so I look forward
to your testimony.
I would also like to welcome Ms. Tierney from Philadelphia,
who I know brings a wealth of knowledge to emergency
management.
I invite you both to tell us where the grant process can be
improved and how we can cut through the red tape so that our
first responders have the resources they need.
In conclusion, the subcommittee's underlying goal this
morning is to help FEMA improve the management of its grant
programs. The Congress, FEMA, and grantees all have a role to
play in reaching this goal, and I look forward to a productive
dialogue with all the witnesses this morning.
The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the
subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an
opening statement.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for
calling this hearing.
I want to thank the witnesses for being here and taking the
time to prepare for it. I know it is inconvenient, but it is
very helpful to us to be able to draw on your expertise, so
thank you for your time and commitment.
This hearing is being held to look at FEMA's Grant Programs
Directorate and the overall efficacy of the Department of
Homeland Security's grant programs. This is the first time that
Ms. Harman has testified before the committee since she became
the new assistant administrator for grants at FEMA. I want to
welcome her and thank her for her service, both in her current
capacity and as a former firefighter and paramedic.
DHS grants are essential to increasing our Nation's level
of preparedness, and we must ensure that these programs are
managed in an effective manner.
I would first like to commend FEMA for the outreach they do
with the State and local recipients of preparedness grants.
Gathering insight and recommendations from States and
localities is critical in helping GPD become more effective as
the 3-year-old directorate continues to evolve. I encourage
FEMA to continue emphasizing that level of stakeholder
outreach.
While FEMA has made progress in certain areas, the agency
needs to improve its ability to manage the grant application
and review process, conduct oversight of awards, and measure
the effectiveness of grants in bolstering preparedness and
response capabilities across the Nation.
I am concerned that FEMA has still not developed tools to
measure the Nation's overall preparedness or assess the
achievement and effectiveness of its grant programs, especially
since the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
and the 9/11 Act, both of which required such performance
metrics to be developed. While we recognize that it is not a
simple task, developing these metrics is crucial to assessing
the impact that these programs are having in protecting local
communities.
In addition, there seems to be a lack of clear vision as to
how to integrate FEMA grant management with the recent push
toward regionalization. Even with grant management functions
largely centralized at headquarters, FEMA has not always evenly
applied grant policies. Without a strong implementation plan
and adequate resources, the continued delegation of
responsibility to FEMA's 10 regional offices could lead to
inconsistency in grant polices as well as a strain on resources
in the regions as they try to carry out their normal duties.
Last, I am concerned about the amount of time it takes for
FEMA to conduct reviews and release funds under certain grant
programs once those funds have been awarded. A 2009 GAO report
found that mass transit security grant dollars were unavailable
for up to a year or more, in some cases, after they have been
awarded due to TSA and FEMA's internal review processes. These
delays are unacceptable. I am interested in looking at what
steps can be taken to address these funding delays and mitigate
the impact to State and local communities.
I want to thank our witnesses again.
Madam Chairwoman, if you don't mind, I would like to ask
unanimous consent that Congressman Austria be able to sit with
us on the panel and question the witnesses.
Ms. Richardson. Without objection.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you.
With that, I would yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Other Members of the subcommittee are
reminded that, under committee rules, opening statements may by
submitted for the record.
I welcome our panel of witnesses today.
I want to let you know that at approximately 10:30 we might
have votes. If we all do a good job, hopefully we can get
through your initial statements. Upon our return after votes,
we can go into questions and hopefully minimize your time
today.
Our first witness is the Honorable Elizabeth Harman,
assistant administrator for the Grant Programs Directorate. Her
job consists of overseeing the management of more than 50 grant
and financial assistance programs and representing
approximately $4 billion in non-disaster grant funding
annually. Ms. Harman comes to FEMA with over 20 years of
experience in the emergency management community and it is my
belief that her appointment was supported by both our Ranking
Member and Chair.
Our second witness, Ms. Anne Richards, is the assistant
inspector general for audits at the Department of Homeland
Security. Previously, Ms. Richards was the assistant inspector
general for audits at the Department of the Interior and spent
5 years as the regional audit manager for the Central Region
office, located in Denver, from 1984 to 1999, where Ms.
Richards also served in a number of positions with the U.S.
Army Audit Agency.
Our third witness, Chief Alan Patalano, is the fire chief
of Long Beach Fire Department in Long Beach, California. Our
chief served as the deputy chief for the past 8 years and has
worked with the city of Long Beach for more than 20 years. He
is a member of Los Angeles/Long Beach UASI Working Group, which
develops projects and allocates homeland security grant funds
to area agencies in support of regional domestic preparedness
and, may I add, that the program is in Tier 1 in some of the
most critical risk assessment areas.
Our final witness, Ms. MaryAnn Tierney, is the deputy
managing director for the Office of Emergency Management in the
city of Philadelphia. Since coming to Philadelphia in 2006, Ms.
Tierney has overseen a transformation of the city's emergency
preparedness program, focusing on developing operational and
emergency plans, conducting training and exercises, and
building partnerships with the community. Ms. Tierney spent
over 7 years with the New York City Office of Emergency
Management and has extensive experience coordinating large,
complex emergency response operations.
We are pleased to have all of you present with us today and
greatly appreciate your testimony.
Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be
inserted into the record.
I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement
for 5 minutes, beginning with Ms. Harman.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M. HARMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR,
GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY
Ms. Harman. Thank you.
Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members
of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Harman, and I serve as
the assistant administrator for the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's Grant Programs Directorate, or GPD. On
behalf of Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege to appear
before you today.
Madam Chairwoman, I have served as GPD's assistant
administrator since March 2010. I have spent much of these last
several months becoming better acquainted with GPD, with its
people, and how it works on a day-to-day basis.
GPD's role is one of great responsibility. Its mission is
to ensure that, through strategic use of Federal funding, our
Nation is well-prepared to respond to and mitigate all-hazard
events. Moreover, GPD must ensure that FEMA's grant programs
are administered responsibly, economically, and that each grant
dollar improves our Nation's capabilities and provides a strong
return on our investment.
The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
centralized most of the Department of Homeland Security's grant
programs under GPD's administration and oversight. This
centralization allowed for a more integrated, coordinated, and
transparent system of grant management.
As part of this transition, FEMA continues to build the
capacity to administer a new, different, and much larger grant
portfolio program. This includes improving our systems for
collecting and managing and reporting data, improving how we
operate on a daily basis, including a thorough review of our
most basic functions, such as program and financial monitoring,
and maintaining a highly skilled, motivated, and dedicated
staff.
Since March, I have reviewed our processes, our operating
procedures, and how GPD staff interacts internally and
externally with our State and local partners and stakeholders.
The goal is to ensure that GPD grant administration procedures
are effective and responsible.
While we are still in the preliminary phases of this
review, I believe that, with the support we have from FEMA and
DHS leadership, we can greatly improve our grant process. As
part of our efforts to improve GPD, we must ensure that we have
the capabilities in place to help us succeed.
One of our most valuable assets is an exceptional staff.
While decreased staffing levels in recent months has been a
challenge, we are moving quickly to meet GPD's staffing
requirements. Within the first 2 months of my appointment here
at GPD, 98 percent of our vacancies were announced. We fully
expect to have all vacant positions filled within the coming
months.
Another critical component of GPD's success is its ability
to ensure that Federal grant dollars have been accounted for
and that those grant dollars are meeting critical security
needs across the country. We at FEMA and DHS are committed to
doing this and are working closely with the Preparedness Task
Force created by the DHS fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act.
We are also exploring new ways and systems to manage and
report data we collect from grantees. We are committed to
creating a more efficient and accurate system of collecting and
reporting information. We are currently discussing system
requirements and are in the process of determining funding
needs and timelines for implementation.
Last, GPD must be able to carry out this mission within a
new and evolving FEMA structure. Administrator Fugate strongly
believes that emergency management organizations are most
responsive and effective when the authority to make operational
decisions is delegated to those command levels in the field
with boots on the ground.
FEMA is putting in place the structure in which
headquarters is responsible for the rules and tools of programs
we manage, while the regions are becoming increasingly
responsible for implementing these programs in the field. The
responsibility of headquarters is to prescribe and develop
systems in support of our National policy. Personnel in the
region's field are responsible for the actual policy
implementation as well as preparing for, responding to,
recovering from, and mitigating all hazards.
I recognize there has been much discussion over the impact
of empowering the regions as part of our strategy. Grant
regionalization is in an early stage; it is a work in progress.
We are currently assessing how FEMA grant programs will be
structured and administered and how accompanying roles and
responsibilities will be defined. Those determinations will be
made on a careful study of each grant program's requirements
after we have a clear understanding of the benefits derived
from having the program administered by the regions.
In fiscal year 2010, FEMA assigned full responsibility for
the implementation of six homeland security grant programs to
the regions. Since moving these six programs to the regions,
FEMA has provided the opportunity to step back and assess the
regionalization of these programs, study the grant process and
the various parts of the grant cycle, and to better understand
how roles and responsibilities may best be shared between
headquarters and regional staff.
This has provided the opportunity for detailed discussions
between headquarters and regional staff to better understand
the opportunities for improvement, establish corrective
actions, and identify best practices. I cannot emphasize enough
how critical the inclusion of our State and local partners will
be in our examination of regionalization and regional
empowerment.
Our decisions on regionalization will be driven by the same
key concerns that drive all FEMA and GPD decisions: How do we
better prepare our Nation for a natural disaster or terrorist
attack?
In conclusion, I would like to add a personal note. As a
former volunteer and paid firefighter and paramedic, I have
seen first-hand how these homeland security grants are being
spent. I understand how important Federal funding is for
preparing our communities, building capabilities at the local
level, and ensuring the safety of our citizens and of our first
responders.
My experience as a first responder gives me insight into
the importance of including frontline responders of all
disciplines into the design and planning of these grant
programs. I am committed to the inclusion of our stakeholders
in decision-making. The transparency of our processes and our
ability to work closely with our State and local partners is
critical to the success of GPD's mission.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am happy
to respond to any questions that you may have, Congressman
Rogers, and any other Members as well. Thank you very much.
[The statement of Ms. Harman follows:]
Prepared Statement of Elizabeth M. Harman
June 29, 2010
Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the
committee, my name is Elizabeth Harman and I serve as the assistant
administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA)
Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). On behalf of Administrator Craig
Fugate, it is a privilege to appear before you today to discuss GPD's
present and its future.
Madam Chairwoman, I have served as GPD's assistant administrator
since March 2010. I have spent much of these last several months
becoming better acquainted with GPD, with its people and how it works
on a day-to-day basis.
GPD's role is one of great responsibility. Its mission is to ensure
that through the strategic use of Federal funding, our Nation is well
prepared to respond to and mitigate all-hazards. Moreover, GPD must
ensure that FEMA's grant programs are administered responsibly and
economically, and that each grant dollar improves our Nation's
capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment.
The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA)
centralized most of the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) grant
programs under GPD's administration and oversight, allowing for a more
integrated and coordinated system of grant management. Under PKEMRA,
GPD became the one-stop-shop for grants management, providing credible
leadership of FEMA's grant programs, a more transparent processes, and
collaborative partnerships with our stakeholders. GPD currently
administers 52 distinct disaster and non-disaster grant programs. Each
year, we award between 6,000 and 7,000 individual grants, totaling $7
to $10 billion each year.
FEMA is continuing to build capacity as we administer a new,
different, and much larger portfolio of grant programs. This includes
improving our systems for collecting, managing, and reporting data,
improving how we operate on a daily basis--including a thorough review
of our most basic functions such as program and financial monitoring--
and maintaining a highly skilled, motivated, and dedicated staff.
Also critical to GPD's ability to achieve its mission is being able
to show how each grant dollar improves our Nation's capabilities and
provides a strong return on our investment. We must work with our
partners at the State and local level to provide both the outputs and
outcomes of grants, underscoring how our investments are increasing
preparedness.
Lastly Madam Chairwoman, GPD must be able to carry out this mission
within a new and evolving FEMA structure. This new structure, a key
goal of Administrator Fugate, will not just empower the FEMA Regions,
but more actively involve them in the day-to-day administration of
FEMA's programs.
These then, are the four key principles for GPD:
(1) To administer FEMA's grant programs responsibly and
economically.
(2) To build and sustain the internal capabilities to ensure
success.
(3) To show how each grant dollar improves our Nation's
capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment.
(4) To carry out our mission within a new and evolving FEMA
structure.
Since March, I have dedicated a good deal of time and energy into
looking at how GPD does business. I have reviewed our processes, our
operating procedures, and how GPD staff interacts internally and
externally with our customers--our State and local partners and
stakeholders. The goal is to ensure that GPD's grant administration
procedures are effective and responsible--beginning the process with
the development of grant guidance and concluding with the close-out of
individual grants. While we are still in the preliminary phases of this
review, I believe that with the support we have from FEMA and DHS
leadership, we can greatly improve our grant process and how we do
business.
In our efforts to improve GPD operations on a day-to-day basis, we
must ensure that we have the proper capabilities in place. One of our
most valuable assets is an exceptional staff with the skills,
knowledge, and motivation, to succeed. There is no question that GPD is
comprised of dedicated professionals with years of experience in the
planning, execution, management, and monitoring of Federal grant
programs.
While decreased staffing levels in recent months have been a
challenge, with the support of FEMA and DHS leadership, we are moving
quickly to meet GPD's staffing requirements. We are actively recruiting
additional Federal employees: We currently have 48 advertised staff
position announcements and a new senior management position that will
be announced shortly. Once these positions are filled within the next
few months, GPD's staffing level will be at its full authorized level
of 192.
Another critical component of GPD's success is its ability to
ensure that Federal grant dollars have been accounted for, and that
those grant dollars are meeting critical security needs across the
country. Given the size of this investment, it is important for GPD, as
stewards of the taxpayers' money, to assess what these dollars have
bought, and what our investment has returned. At the end of the day, we
need to be able to show how each grant dollar improves our Nation's
capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment.
Madam Chairwoman, as this committee is aware, those of us at FEMA
and at DHS are committed to doing this. Intuitively we can say that we
are better prepared today than we have been in the past. We can point
to such things as the amount and type of equipment that has been
purchased. We can look at the improvements in physical security that we
have made and the improvements in planning and training that we have
put in place, and we conclude that we are better prepared. However, we
are and will continue to do even more. Through the development and
assessment of metrics, connecting the dollars we've spent to the
results that our grant money has achieved, we can better evaluate our
preparedness.
Recognizing that it is important to take a comprehensive look at
all our past efforts, the DHS fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act
instructed FEMA's National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), in
cooperation with the Department's Office of Intergovernmental Affairs,
to create and lead an effort to help us better understand preparedness
and how best to invest preparedness dollars. With the creation of the
local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force (Task Force),
FEMA and DHS are undertaking a comprehensive look at these questions.
The report and recommendations of the Task Force are due later this
year and will help move us closer to understanding how prepared we are
and how best to dedicate preparedness resources.
Further, as part of this effort, we are exploring new ways and
systems to manage and report the data we collect from our grantees. GPD
currently maintains several systems that were created at different
times and collect different types of information. Too often, pulling
and organizing data from these different systems is cumbersome and
time-consuming. We are committed to creating a more efficient and
accurate system of collecting and reporting information. We are
currently discussing system requirements with both FEMA and DHS
leadership and are in the process of determining time lines for
implementation and funding requirements. Once these changes are
implemented, they will provide us and the American people with a
clearer understanding of how our grant dollars are being used and what
results are being achieved. It will also give us a more effective tool
to monitor the spending decisions made by grant recipients.
Lastly Madam Chairwoman, GPD must be able to carry out this mission
within a new and evolving FEMA structure. Administrator Fugate strongly
believes that emergency management organizations are most responsive
and effective when the authority to make operational decisions is
delegated to those command levels in the field with boots on the
ground. FEMA is putting in place a structure in which Headquarters is
responsible for the ``rules and tools'' of the programs we manage,
while the regions are becoming increasingly responsible for
implementing those programs in the field. The responsibility of
headquarters is to prescribe and develop systems in support of our
National policy. Personnel in the regions and the field are responsible
for the actual policy implementation as well as preparing for,
responding to, recovering from, and mitigating all hazards.
I recognize that there has been much discussion over the impact of
empowering the regions as part of our strategy. Allow me to address
this. Grant regionalization (that is, empowering the regions by
providing them with increased responsibilities in the management and
administration of the homeland security grant programs) is still in an
early stage. It is a work in progress. We are currently assessing how
FEMA's grant programs will be structured and administered, and how
accompanying roles and responsibilities will be defined. These
determinations will be made based on a careful study of each grant
program's requirements, and after we have a clear understanding of the
benefits derived from having the program administered by the regions.
In fiscal year 2010, FEMA assigned full responsibility for the
implementation of six homeland security grant programs to the regions:
The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program, the Emergency
Operations Center Grant Program, the Regional Catastrophic Planning
Grant Program, the Citizen Corps Grant Program, the Metropolitan
Medical Response Systems Grant Program, and the Drivers License
Security Grant Program.
These programs have traditionally been characterized by high levels
of local involvement in their development and administration through
the use of local working groups, community councils, and State and
local agencies. For example, there is the Citizen Corps Grant Programs'
reliance on State and local Citizen Corps Councils to determine uses of
funds and to establish local program goals and objectives. Similarly,
the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems (MMRS) Grant Program relies
on local MMRS Working Groups to determine local program activities. The
Emergency Management Performance Grant Program is also directly
administered by State and local emergency management agencies.
Moving these six programs to the regions provides FEMA the
opportunity to step back and assess the success of grant
regionalization, to study the grant process and the various parts of
the grant cycle, and to better understand how roles and
responsibilities may be best shared between headquarters and regional
staffs.
Moving these six programs to the regions also will provide the
opportunity for detailed discussions between headquarters and regional
staff to better understand opportunities for improvement, establish
corrective actions, and identify best practices. This process will
allow us to pilot the regionalization of these six programs with our
State and local partners.
I also cannot emphasize enough how critical the inclusion of our
State and local partners will be to our examination of regionalization
and regional empowerment. At the end of the day, our decisions on
regionalization will be driven by the same key concern that drives all
FEMA and GPD decisions--how do we better prepare our Nation for a
natural disaster or terrorist attack.
Madam Chairwoman, in conclusion I would like to add a personal
note. As a former volunteer and paid fire fighter and paramedic, I have
seen first-hand how these homeland security grants are spent. I
understand how important Federal funding is for preparing our
communities, building capabilities at the local level, and ensuring the
safety of our citizens and our first responders. My experience as a
fire fighter and paramedic gives me insight into the importance of
including front-line responders of all disciplines in the design and
planning of these grant programs. I am committed to keeping our
stakeholders informed throughout the decision-making process. The
inclusion of our stakeholders, the transparency of our processes, and
our ability to work closely with our State and local partners is
critical to the success of GPD's mission.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to
respond to any questions that you, Congressman Rogers and the other
Members of the committee may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Richards to summarize her statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF ANNE L. RICHARDS, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR GENERAL FOR
AUDITS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND
SECURITY
Ms. Richards. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of
the subcommittee. I am Anne Richards. I am the assistant
inspector general for audits for the Department of Homeland
Security. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this
hearing on the future of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate.
Today I will discuss four barriers that impact the
effectiveness and efficiency of FEMA's preparedness grant
programs. I will also briefly discuss our audit work in the
areas of grants management and oversight in State and urban-
area grants.
The efficient and effective operation of preparedness grant
programs is affected by several barriers within the Department.
These include the way grant guidance is developed, the
requirements of various grant applications, how those
applications are reviewed, and the division of program
management among multiple offices.
First, guidance. FEMA issues separate annual guidance for
each grant program. This practice complicates coordination and
creates burdensome requirements for both FEMA and grantees. In
addition, FEMA has established requirements that vary across
programs, regardless of the similarities of the grant program,
making it difficult for States to have a streamlined planning
process that is consistent across all grant programs.
Concerning the application process, States have to apply
separately for each grant, even where activities overlap. Grant
programs also have different application formats, requiring
applicants to prepare and submit unique information for each
program regardless of the similarities of the proposed
activities.
Regarding application review, FEMA's ability to identify
duplicative or redundant funding requests is limited because
grant applications are reviewed one program at a time. FEMA's
review panels do not compare applications to other grant
proposals submitted by the same grantee under different grant
programs that fund similar activities.
Another barrier is that the grant program management is
split among several offices, creating organizational barriers
to coordination. Although the Grant Programs Directorate is
responsible for managing DHS preparedness grants, program-
specific management is split among different directorates
within DHS. FEMA has the lead for managing the review and
approval processes and coordinating grant guidance, while other
organizations within DHS identify the funding priorities,
provide guidance, and participate in the review process.
When these subject-matter experts reside outside of FEMA or
when different organizations within FEMA are responsible for
managing preparedness grants, the agency's ability to
coordinate across grant programs is impeded.
On a positive note, FEMA has taken steps to coordinate
application and investment reviews for four grants comprising
the Homeland Security Grant Program. This practice has the
potential for limiting duplication among the grant programs and
ensuring that the States' highest priorities are considered.
There are other barriers to effective and efficient
preparedness grant programs outside of FEMA's control, such as
legislative barriers and barriers at the State and local
levels, but I will not discuss those today.
I would also like to briefly summarize the audit work we
conducted in the areas of grants management and oversight and
State and urban-area grants.
In the grants management and oversight area, we reported
that FEMA did not consistently and comprehensively execute its
two major oversight activities: Financial and program
monitoring. This occurred, in part, because FEMA did not have
sufficient grants management staff and also because FEMA did
not have comprehensive policies, procedures, and plans for
oversight and monitoring.
Congress has sought to address the unresolved human capital
issues by mandating that FEMA identify its human capital needs
and develop a plan to address those needs. FEMA has formed an
Intra-Agency Grants Program Task Force that has developed a
FEMA grant strategy to drive future enhancements in grant
policies, procedures, systems, and processes.
Finally, I would like to discuss our audits of State and
urban-area grants. The States and urban areas we audited in
2008 and 2009 generally did an efficient and effective job of
administering the grant program requirements, distributing
grant funds, and ensuring that all available funds were used.
However, we identified areas for improvement, with most
States facing challenges and controls over personal property,
monitoring and oversight activities, and planning activities,
such as establishing measurable program goals and objectives.
Other challenges include questioned costs, complying with
Federal procurement practices, and financial planning,
reporting, and support.
We also identified nine effective tools and practices which
we recommended be considered for use by other jurisdictions.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I
welcome any questions that you or the Members of the
subcommittee may have.
[The statement of Ms. Richards follows:]
Prepared Statement of Anne L. Richards
June 29, 2010
Chairwoman Richardson and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you
for inviting the Office of Inspector General to testify at this hearing
entitled ``the Future of FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate.''
My testimony today will address challenges facing the Department,
and specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in mitigating
redundancy and duplication among preparedness grant programs. The
information provided in this testimony is contained in our March 2010
report ``Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs'' (OIG-10-69), and our March
2009 report ``Improvements Needed in Federal Emergency Management
Agency Monitoring of Grantees'' (OIG-09-38). I will also discuss
challenges facing the States and urban areas as addressed in our
summary reports issued for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Annual Report to
Congress on States' and Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security
Grant Programs (OIG-09-17 and OIG-10-31).
background
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the
Federal Government's role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the
effects of, responding to, and recovering from all natural or manmade
domestic disasters, including acts of terror. In fiscal year 2008, FEMA
awarded more than $3 billion to State and local governments;
territories; Tribal governments; and private, public, profit, and
nonprofit organizations through preparedness grants and other financial
assistance programs (referred to collectively as grants). DHS
preparedness grants are intended to enhance preparedness, protection,
response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities throughout the Nation
by funding such items as planning, training, exercises, equipment,
interoperable communications, and personnel costs.
Within FEMA, the Grant Programs Directorate is responsible for
business operations, training, policy, and oversight of all FEMA
grants. This new directorate was created on April 1, 2007, in response
to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, to
consolidate the operations of all FEMA grants under a single
organization. The Act consolidated not only grant operations, but also
preparedness grants that previously had program responsibility residing
in various DHS organizations.
The Grant Programs Directorate reviews, negotiates, awards, and
manages FEMA's preparedness grant portfolio; provides subject matter
expertise in response to regional office and stakeholder inquiries;
develops grant guidance and formulates risk methodology to support
grant allocations; and analyzes investments. This Directorate also
receives subject matter expertise through collaboration with offices
within FEMA and other components of DHS.
comparing and coordinating preparedness grant program applications
The preparedness grant application process risks being ineffective
because FEMA does not compare and coordinate grant applications across
preparedness programs to mitigate potential duplications and
redundancy. Barriers at the legislative, departmental, and State levels
impede FEMA's ability to coordinate these programs. Since grant
programs may have overlapping goals or activities, FEMA risks funding
potentially duplicative or redundant projects.
Legislative Barriers to Coordination
Three types of legislative barriers hinder FEMA's ability to
identify and minimize duplication and redundancy within preparedness
grants. First, Congress enacts legislation for preparedness grants that
have similar goals. Second, Congress appropriates funds on an annual
basis for these grants and in most instances, the legislation mandates
disparate application and award milestones. Finally, the annual
appropriation law may contain Congressional earmarks that dedicate
funds towards specific grant projects, precluding FEMA from
coordinating grant programs.
Multiple Grant Programs Have Similar Legislated Goals.--The 13
grant programs we reviewed during our audit have similar legislated
goals. At a broad level, these programs provide Federal assistance to
State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, emergency
responders, and port and transit authorities to improve homeland
security and emergency management capabilities. Specifically, the
legislated goals of these grant programs focus on activities to prepare
for or respond to acts of terrorism or other disasters.
For example, States may request funding for planning projects
through both the Urban Areas Security Initiative and the Regional
Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program. While the goals for both
programs are directed at improving preparedness planning in high-risk
urban areas, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program is
focused on all-hazards planning, while the Urban Areas Security
Initiative is focused on responding to acts of terrorism.
Disparate Milestones Are Legislatively Established.--Legislation
also mandates grant application processing and award milestones;
however, not all grants are set on the same schedule. When grant review
periods and award dates overlap, FEMA may not have sufficient time to
compare the numerous applications submitted by each State for similar
or related projects to prevent duplication. While we are not advocating
that all applications be due on the same date, we are identifying the
disparate schedules as a potential barrier to FEMA's ability to
coordinate related projects.
To illustrate, Figure 1 reflects the different legislated milestone
requirements for the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Transit
Security Grant Program during fiscal year 2008. Both of these programs
may be used for costs to develop and implement homeland security
support programs, and adopt on-going DHS National initiatives such as
enhancing preventive radiological and nuclear detection programs. As
shown in Figure 1, FEMA must make award decisions for the Transit
Security Grant Program before completing its review of Urban Areas
Security Initiative applications, inhibiting coordination of
potentially related projects.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Congress Earmarks Funds for Specific Purposes.--Annual
appropriation law may contain Congressional earmarks that fund specific
grant projects. These earmarks limit FEMA's ability to ensure Federal
assistance is being provided to fund grant recipients' most urgent
homeland security and emergency management needs and priorities. They
also inhibit FEMA's ability for corrective action on potentially
duplicative investments for grant recipients who received grants
through normal risk-based application processes for purposes similar to
the earmarked funds.
Departmental Barriers to Coordination
In addition to legislative barriers, FEMA faces Department-level
challenges that impede its ability to coordinate grant applications
across the many programs. Departmental barriers include:
Interpreting legislation,
Developing grant guidance,
Requiring investment justification details,
Reviewing applications, and
Coordinating with subject matter experts located in separate
program offices.
Grant-Related Legislation Requires Interpretation.--FEMA, or its
predecessor organizations, created a barrier to coordination in
establishing separate stand-alone grant programs to accomplish
Congressional objectives. Typically, once Congress authorizes a grant
to fund an emerging homeland security or emergency management need,
FEMA develops a new and separate grant program. While the legislation
did not direct FEMA to establish a separate program, FEMA interpreted
the legislation as such. FEMA's development of separate grant programs
promotes fragmentation and complicates coordination at both the Federal
and State level.
Grant Guidance Is Developed for Individual Programs.--Creating
individual guidance for each grant program deters coordination because
the individual guidance documents establish a separate identity for
each program and each grant application will be tailored specifically
to the guidance. Grant guidance establishes the individuality and
details the scope of a grant program. The substance of individual grant
guidance includes identifying funding priorities, describing the
application and review process, providing the investment justification
template, and other year-to-year changes. While the FEMA Grant Programs
Directorate has the main responsibility for issuing grant guidance, the
directorate coordinates with individual program offices to develop the
substance of the grant guidance for each individual grant program. With
the exception of the Homeland Security Grant Program, which combines
grant guidance for four interrelated grant programs into one guidance
document, individual grant guidance results in a deterrence to
coordination because of the number of organizations involved.
Applications and Investment Justifications Request Different Levels
of Detail.--Typically, the level of detail in grant applications and
investment justifications is not sufficient for FEMA to identify
potential duplication and redundancy. Investment justifications are a
part of a grant application and provide a template for the applicant to
describe the proposed project and demonstrate how it addresses
deficiencies in current capabilities. However, the level of detail on
each project makes it difficult to identify whether States are applying
for similar projects under another grant program. The investment
justification template for the State Homeland Security Program, for
instance, does not provide grant applicants the ability to provide
specific details on their proposed projects. The investment template
covers topics including critical infrastructure, preparedness planning,
and interoperable communications. It also requests a high-level purpose
statement, funding plan, and outcomes. Without additional details, FEMA
cannot readily identify whether similar projects submitted separate
grant program applications overlap.
Applications Are Reviewed At the Department Level Without
Considering Other Grant Programs.--FEMA's ability to determine whether
the proposed grant application investments contain duplicative or
redundant requests is impeded when grant applications and investment
justifications are reviewed one program at a time. After a grant
application is submitted, a review panel evaluates applications and
proposed investments. While the panel compares the proposed investments
to the grant guidance for that program, the panel does not compare
proposals against applications for other grant programs submitted by
the same grantee.
With the availability of funds from numerous individual
preparedness grant programs for similar purposes, applicants may apply
for multiple grant programs for the same items to maximize their
chances to fully fund a project. Of the 13 programs we reviewed, 11
allow applicants to purchase interoperable communications equipment,
such as radios. Therefore, it is possible for a single organization
within a State to receive funding from multiple grant programs for
similar items. As one example, it is possible for a law enforcement
organization to build a cache of radios through multiple grant
programs, as shown in Figure 2 below. As these four programs undergo
different review processes, FEMA cannot readily identify whether funds
requested are for similar or overlapping projects.
[GRAPHIC(S)] [NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
FEMA has taken initial steps to coordinate application and
investment justification reviews for four individual grant programs.
The Homeland Security Grant Program is comprised of four interconnected
grant programs: (1) The State Homeland Security Program, (2) Urban
Areas Security Initiative, (3) Metropolitan Medical Response System,
and (4) Citizen Corps Program. During the review process, State and
local peer reviewers evaluate and score applications and investment
justifications for all four of the individual grant programs in a
single application submission and review process. However, while State
and local peer reviewers have the capability to perform an internal
comparison of grant programs under the Homeland Security Grant Program,
they do not have access to applications and investment proposals
submitted in response to other grant programs with similar purposes or
allowable activities.
Separate Program Office Responsibilities Hamper Coordination.--
Grant program management split among several offices creates
organization barriers to coordination. Although the Grant Programs
Directorate is responsible for managing DHS preparedness grants,
program-specific management is split among different directorates
within DHS. FEMA has the lead for managing the review and approval
processes and coordinating grant guidance, while separate organizations
within DHS identify the funding priorities, provide guidance input, and
participate in the review process. While each grant program has a
guidance document defining the application and review process for the
individual program, FEMA does not have an overarching policy to outline
the roles and responsibilities for coordinating applications across
grant programs.
When subject matter experts, who define funding priorities and
review investment justifications, reside outside of FEMA, the agency's
ability to coordinate across grant programs is impeded. For example,
the Buffer Zone Protection Program is not coordinated with other grant
programs at the Department level. This program provides funding to
secure predesignated critical infrastructure sites, which are
preselected by the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection. Once DHS
selects the sites, local officials work with site owners to develop
security plans and identify equipment needed to implement the plan.
Because FEMA does not have a process for ensuring applications are
coordinated across grant programs, the Office of Infrastructure
Protection is unable to validate with FEMA whether the applicant had
requested similar equipment items under other grant programs. While
FEMA relies on the subject matter expertise that these organizations
provide, it cannot easily identify duplications in its grant programs
without an overarching policy outlining roles and responsibilities for
coordinating applications across grant programs and across the
different organizations.
State-level Barriers to Coordination
FEMA encounters barriers at the State level that impede its ability
to compare and coordinate grant applications and investments across
preparedness programs. States do not have an overall grant strategy
that identifies specific projects and their funding sources.
Additionally, there is not one organization within the State that has
visibility over all State entities that receive DHS financial
assistance.
Not All States Have Overall Grant Strategies.--The three States we
visited did not have overall, comprehensive grant strategies. The
States had various preparedness strategies or plans that address target
capabilities and identify critical goals, objectives, and
implementation steps. However, the plans did not specifically address
how the States are using funds from the multiple DHS grants to improve
homeland security preparedness. A more comprehensive plan could provide
States a tool to promote coordination across the different grant
programs which are now planned and accounted for separately.
State-level Visibility Over All Grant Programs Is Not
Centralized.--FEMA cannot rely on the States to coordinate all
preparedness grant applications because grants are awarded to multiple
organizations within the State. At the three States we visited, none of
the States had an organization with visibility across all preparedness
grant programs. Some grants are awarded through State administrative
agencies while others bypass the State administrative agency and go
directly to recipients such as port authorities, local fire
departments, and first responders. The prerogative of each State to
determine its own organizational structure may or may not coincide with
the corresponding Federal grant program responsibility. Without the
State having visibility over all preparedness grants, FEMA cannot rely
on States to identify duplication and redundancy across DHS grant
programs.
efficiency of grant application processes
FEMA's grant application processes are not efficient because
application requirements, review processes, and timelines vary among
the grant programs. These numerous processes and requirements can be
burdensome on Federal and State resources because this creates
redundant work for both Federal and State personnel. Therefore,
coordinating and streamlining these application processes may help
ensure the most efficient use of limited Federal and State resources.
Inconsistent or Redundant Grant Application Requirements
FEMA issues separate annual guidance to outline the application
processes and requirements for each grant program which creates
burdensome requirements on both FEMA and grantees as the requirements
differ across grant programs. Additionally, the multiple application
processes have redundant requirements.
Grant Requirements for Similar Grant Programs Differ
Significantly.--Requirements in grant guidance vary across programs,
regardless of the similarities of the grant program, making it
difficult for States to have a streamlined planning process that is
consistent across all grant programs. Differences include program
priorities and investment justification templates that must be
followed.
While considerable potential overlap exists in the activities
supported by DHS preparedness grant programs, the priorities for these
programs may differ. For example, the fiscal year 2008 Urban Areas
Security Initiative, Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program,
and Emergency Management Performance Grant Program provide assistance
to improve preparedness planning processes. However, each program
focuses on a different priority.
The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides funds to high-
risk urban areas to build an enhanced and sustainable
capability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover
from acts of terrorism.
The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
supports improved and expanded regional collaboration for all
hazard and catastrophic events, including high-risk urban areas
and surrounding regions. This program focuses on eight National
planning scenarios identified by the Federal Government as the
most urgent for planning purposes.
The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program also
supports State and local all-hazards emergency management
programs and encourages applicants to address National planning
scenarios in their work plans, but is focused on evacuation
planning, logistics and resource management, continuity of
operations planning, and recovery planning.
Since each preparedness planning program focuses on a different
priority, States have to undertake three separate planning and grant
application processes to request funding under each program.
Grant programs also have different investment justification
templates as part of the application process. This requires applicants
to prepare investment justifications or documents with unique
information for each program regardless of the similarities of the
proposed funding activities. These varied templates and program
documents may provide consistency for panels reviewing project
proposals for the individual grant programs, but present an
administrative burden for grant applicants who must prepare similar
information in different formats.
Grant Applications for Similar Programs Incorporate Redundant
Requirements.--Grant applicants must perform redundant work to apply
for DHS preparedness grants, which is burdensome and time-consuming.
The use of the website grants.gov has streamlined the application
process, but it still requires applicants to prepare and submit
redundant information if an applicant applies for multiple grants.
FEMA's grant application process required each State Administrative
Agency, the designated applicant for 10 of the 13 grant programs
reviewed, to complete an on-line grant application seven times for the
10 grant programs. Submitting these similar documents multiple times
may increase the State Administrative Agency's opportunities for errors
on these forms. The process for the seven grant programs included
similar application, financial, and administrative compliance
requirements.
FEMA also requires State Administrative Agencies to use two on-line
systems to complete and file investment justifications for the Homeland
Security Grant Program. First, the State Administrative Agency must
complete the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security
Initiative investment justifications through the Department's Grant
Reporting Tool. Upon completion of the investment justifications, the
State Administrative Agency must submit the official copy of its final
investment justification through www.grants.gov with the grant
application. While these on-line tools helped to streamline the
application processes, they include an inefficient duplication of
effort for both Federal and State grant administrators.
Review Panels Differ Across Grant Programs
Grant programs have separate review processes to evaluate funding
requests for each grant program, which requires FEMA to convene
multiple review panels to evaluate applications and investment
justifications. For all programs, FEMA verifies the applicant's
compliance with administrative and eligibility criteria identified in
each grant program's application kit. FEMA then sends the eligible
applications through an investment justification review process to
evaluate the merits of proposed investments against grant guidance
criteria. However, FEMA uses various types of reviews to evaluate
proposed investments. The type of review and participants of the review
panel are based on the grant program. For the 13 grant programs we
reviewed, FEMA employed 6 different review processes, composed of
different personnel such as Federal, State, and local government
personnel; emergency responders; and members of National associations,
as shown in the following table.
Grant Program Review Methodologies
1. FEMA Review.--FEMA headquarters components and/or regional
offices review investments and make award determinations.
(Emergency Management Performance Grant Program)
2. DHS Review.--DHS components outside FEMA, such as the Office of
Infrastructure Protection review proposed investments. (Buffer
Zone Protection Program Grant)
3. Peer Review.--A panel of State and local representatives from
across the Nation, such as subject matter experts with
experience in fire and emergency response, review and score
proposed investments. (Homeland Security Grant Program,
Assistance to Firefighters Grants)
4. Federal Review.--A panel of subject matter experts from across
DHS, including components within FEMA and outside FEMA such as
the DHS Office of Emergency Communications, review proposed
investments. (Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant
Program)
5. National Review.--A panel of subject matter experts from across
DHS, including FEMA, non-DHS Federal components, or National
associations, review proposed investments. (Port Security Grant
Program)
6. Subject Matter Expert Review.--National subject matter experts
with experience in law enforcement and emergency response
review and score proposed investments. (Commercial Equipment
Direct Assistance Program)
These numerous panels create additional work for FEMA to request
review panel members from Federal, State, and local organizations,
depending on the grant program. FEMA must also train the numerous
panels, provide review materials, oversee the panels, and compile panel
results. Consolidating panels where grant programs have similar
purposes or activities would provide a more efficient use of Federal,
State, and local resources.
Sequencing Existing Grant Application Timelines
Grant timelines do not promote the most efficient application
preparation and review because they are not arranged in the most
optimal sequence. In many cases, the timelines are legislatively
established and do not allow States the opportunity to logically
develop investment justifications that address overarching needs or
define target capabilities while simultaneously focusing on more
narrowly focused programs. For example, law enforcement organizations
that provide transit security may receive funding through the Transit
Security Grant Program. These same organizations may also receive
funding for law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning,
training, exercise, and equipment activities through both the State
Homeland Security Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative.
While we have not defined the most optimal sequence for grant programs,
an organized sequence would increase efficiency at the Federal level by
allowing grant reviewers to use the outcome from various panels as they
review their investments and also by reducing the time that States may
spend developing investment justifications. This would also provide a
better review at the State level to ensure that redundant projects are
not duplicated across grant programs.
recommendations
We recognize that legislated requirements can complicate the
application and review of Federal assistance programs. However, FEMA
needs to identify alternate ways to improve its grant application and
review processes operating within currently legislated requirements or
work with Congress to modify the processes to ensure the most efficient
and effective use of limited Federal resources.
We recommended that the Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Identify preparedness grant programs that may overlap or
duplicate other programs and ensure the application and review
processes for these programs are coordinated to mitigate
potential duplication and redundancy.
Document specific agency roles and responsibilities for
cross-program coordination of grant application and review
processes and ensure internal DHS coordination is in place.
This may include establishing memorandums of agreement if roles
are outside the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Work with Congress and State grant administrators to
identify opportunities and implement actions to streamline and
standardize multiple preparedness grant program application
processes.
The Director of FEMA's Office of Policy and Program Analysis
provided written comments on a draft of this report. FEMA concurred
with our recommendations and outlined plans and actions to implement
our recommendations designed to improve the efficacy of these grant
programs.
other challenges in managing the homeland security grant program
Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, directed the Department of Homeland Security
Office of Inspector General to review and evaluate the grant management
and oversight practices of the Federal Emergency Management Agency.
Improvements are needed in FEMA's grants management and oversight
infrastructure to ensure effective monitoring of grantees.
Specifically, FEMA does not consistently and comprehensively execute
its two major oversight activities, financial and program monitoring.
This occurs, in part, because FEMA does not have sufficient grants
management staff. Congress has sought to address these unresolved human
capital issues by mandating that FEMA conduct an analysis and develop a
plan of action. In addition, financial and programmatic monitoring
policies, procedures, and plans are not comprehensive.
FEMA's financial and programmatic monitoring activities are
critical parts of an effective grant oversight program. FEMA needs an
appropriate oversight infrastructure to ensure that all financial and
programmatic monitoring activities can be accomplished, as specified in
its monitoring plans. Key components of this infrastructure include
implementation of a strategic human capital plan and associated
workforce analysis, adequate staffing, formal training, comprehensive
policies and procedures, realistic and representative monitoring plans,
consistent documentation of monitoring activities, and integrated grant
management systems.
Effective oversight will ensure that grantees have adequate
internal controls, grant funds are being used as intended, grant
programs are carried out as prescribed, and grantees are complying with
the terms and condition of their grant award agreements.
FEMA has formed an Intra-Agency Grants Program Task Force that has
developed a FEMA Grants Strategy to drive future enhancements in grants
policies, procedures, systems, and processes. The task force has
identified projects including the development of comprehensive grant
management monitoring policies and procedures for the FEMA directorates
with program management and oversight responsibilities.
Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11
Commission Act of 2007, also required the Office of Inspector General
to audit individual States' management of State Homeland Security
Program and Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and annually submit
to Congress a report summarizing the results of these audits. In the 2
complete years since the law was enacted, the States we audited
generally did an efficient and effective job of administering the grant
management program requirements, distributing grant funds, and ensuring
that all of the available funds were used.
However, individual audit reports identified areas for improvement,
with the most States facing challenges in controls over personal
property, monitoring and oversight activities, and planning activities
such as establishing measurable program goals and objectives. Other
challenges included questioned costs, complying with Federal
procurement practices, and financial planning, reporting, and support.
We also identified nine effective tools and practices used by five
States that could be considered for use by other jurisdictions.
Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any
questions that you or the Members of the subcommittee may have.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Chief Patalano--I keep butchering your
name, and I actually know you--to summarize his statement for 5
minutes.
STATEMENT OF ALAN PATALANO, FIRE CHIEF, LONG BEACH FIRE
DEPARTMENT, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA
Chief Patalano. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and fellow
Members of the committee. My name is Alan Patalano, and I am
the fire chief for the city of Long Beach and a member of the
LA/Long Beach Tier 1 UASI Working Group. I would like to say
thank you for holding this meeting.
Emergency communications, preparedness, and response are
high priorities for the city of Long Beach and the entire urban
area, and I know you share these priorities as well. Long Beach
is a proud member of FEMA Region 9, and we are working hard
with our cities and the State of California to improve our
ability to mitigate or prevent a natural or manmade disaster.
As you are well aware, our local area has very serious
homeland security threats, including the port complex of Long
Beach and Los Angeles. Long Beach refineries are responsible
for one-third of the gasoline west of the Rockies. The port of
Los Angeles contributes almost $226 billion annually to the
National economy through trade. The ports of Los Angeles and
Long Beach handle 30 percent of all U.S. shipping imports.
Additionally, our region presents unique targets to acts of
terrorism. As the center of the film and entertainment
industry, the Southern California region is the face of iconic
American culture.
Over the past 4 years, the combined Los Angeles-Long Beach
region received over $400 million through UASI funds and the
State Homeland Security Grant Program. These funds have been
instrumental in increasing the overall capabilities within the
region.
Working in collaboration with 30 fire agencies, my
department has upgraded existing communication capabilities,
increased our capacity to treat multiple victims, developed
urban search and rescue capabilities that are available for
deployment to other areas through our very robust California
mutual aid system, and implemented a hazardous materials team
to protect our court complex.
Our local police department has also benefited from
homeland security funds. The capabilities of the SWAT team have
been increased through the purchase of specialized equipment
and PPE. The region has also improved communications
interoperability and significantly increased intelligence-
gathering capabilities. In addition, on automated license plate
recognition system has been implemented that allows for rapid
identification of suspect vehicles.
Homeland Security funds have also increased the region's
capabilities to distribute medicine during a significant
disaster, improved our local lab's ability to detect and
analyze chemical and biological threats, and improve securities
at the many airports within the region, including Long Beach
and LAX.
Long Beach and the region strongly believe that Homeland
Security dollars must be targeted to the areas of highest
threat and need, and Long Beach is very supportive of DHS's
risk-based funding approach.
Despite DHS's intent to fund cities at highest risk, the
LA-Long Beach urban area has experienced a decrease in UASI
funding since 2006. During this time, our funding has decreased
13 percent overall. In comparison, over the same period, other
UASI regions have grown by as much as 51 percent.
It is important to remember the unique cultural,
geographic, and economic aspects of the Los Angeles-Long Beach
urban area. We strongly believe that the region needs more
Homeland Security aid in our fight against terrorism, precisely
because it is a high-value target and an attack would have
enormous consequences that would be felt around the world.
In terms of future needs, the region is counting on the
support of the Federal Government to develop complete
interoperable communications between public safety agencies
within the region's operational area. Long Beach supports
additional dedicated funding for interoperable communications
for all regions based on risk.
The capability that Long Beach and other cities have
developed over the past decade must be sustained into the
future. As we move forward, much of the equipment secured will
eventually need to be replaced. We support allowing replacement
of previously purchased equipment as an eligible grant use.
Additionally, we appreciate the support of Congress to
continue to provide Homeland Security funds without the burden
of a matching requirement. Cities are not in the financial
situation to afford any type of match.
Speaking for the LA-Long Beach UASI, we also request that
Congress and DHS reevaluate the allowances for administering
grant programs. Currently, we are constrained to 3 percent of
the total grant amount to administer the grant. The workload to
administer the grants has increased, but the funds to support
administration have decreased. A reevaluation of the 3 percent
allowance could help local governments tremendously in handling
the administrative duties of effective grant management.
We enjoy a very good working relationship with FEMA Region
9 representatives. Because of this relationship, we support
FEMA's concept of regionalization of some aspects of grant
programs or functions. If the regions are supported with
adequate personnel and flexibility, we believe that programs
can be streamlined and issues addressed quickly. However, if
the proposal simply creates another layer of approvals or
review, this will significantly hamper effectiveness. We are
optimistically awaiting the details of the proposal.
Finally, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to thank you again
for allowing this opportunity to share with the committee a few
of the many activities that are going on in FEMA Region 9 in
the LA-Long Beach UASI area. We wholeheartedly appreciate the
support you have bestowed upon us throughout the years, and we
look forward to continuing our partnership in the best interest
of National security and protecting our communities.
That concludes my remarks, and I stand ready to answer any
questions.
[The statement of Chief Patalano follows:]
Prepared Statement of Alan Patalano
June 29, 2010
Good morning Chairman Richardson and fellow Members of the
committee. I want to first thank you for holding this hearing.
Emergency communications, preparedness and response are high priorities
for the city of Long Beach and the region and I know you share these
priorities as well. Long Beach is a proud member of FEMA Region 9, an
active member in the Mutual Aid system, and we are working hard with
our local cities and the State of California to improve emergency
communications, preparedness, and response in the unfortunate event of
a natural or man-made disaster.
As you are well aware, our local area has very serious homeland
security threats, including foremost the Ports of Long Beach and Los
Angeles. Both Los Angeles and Long Beach continue to require
significant Federal assistance to secure these two ports, which are
incredibly valuable economic generators for the entire Nation.
To give an example, Long Beach refineries are responsible for one-
third of the gasoline west of the Rockies. The Port of Los Angeles
contributes $226.9 billion annually to the National economy through
trade, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle 30 percent of
all U.S. shipping imports. According to a 2005 RAND study on the short-
term and long-term economic impacts of a nuclear attack on the Port of
Long Beach, the economic impact could initially exceed $1 trillion
dollars.
Additionally, our region is uniquely vulnerable to other acts of
terrorism. As the center of the film and entertainment industry, the
Southern California region is the face of iconic American culture. The
region puts on hundreds of events each year that are broadcasted to the
rest of the world. While not permanent pieces of infrastructure, these
high profile events with large clusters of people are targets for
terrorists and need to be taken into greater consideration when
evaluating risk.
However, our Operational Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
Areas have been the beneficiary of Federal assistance to develop a
significant preparedness and response capability to potential terrorist
threats. Over the past 4 years, the combined Los Angeles/Long Beach
local region received over $400 million dollars through Urban Area
Security Initiative funds and the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. These funds have been instrumental in increasing the overall
capabilities of emergency operations in the Region.
In the case of Long Beach, over the past 10 years Long Beach has
received $61 million dollars in Federal grant funding. These funds have
come from eight programs including the Department of Defense, Office of
Domestic Preparedness, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Office of
Justice Programs, State Homeland Security Grant Program, Citizens Corps
Program, Law Enforcement Tactical Planning and Preparedness, but
mostly, from the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Urban Area
Security Initiative has been instrumental in furthering emergency
preparedness and protections for the city. Of the $61 million in
Homeland Security funding Long Beach has received, $55 million was
funded through the Urban Area Security Initiative.
Specifically, the Long Beach Fire Department has upgraded existing
communications capabilities at our state-of-the-art ECOC, or Emergency
Communications and Operations Center. The addition of a command-and-
control platform and the upgrade of radio equipment and technology will
ensure that communications with partner response agencies are possible.
These funds have also allowed us to work with fire agencies within our
Operational Area. We have also standardized the Self Contained
Breathing Apparatus, which is integral in keeping our public safety
personnel safe as they work to bring others to safety. Additionally, we
have added interoperable connectivity to our breathing equipment so
that firefighters can assist each other.
We have seen in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, that the
ability to move many people at once is absolutely necessary. Our Urban
Area Security Initiative funds have allowed Long Beach and the region
to increase our capacity to treat multiple victims with the deployment
of Mass Casualty equipment and supplies. To this end, we have also used
Urban Area Security Initiative funds and other Homeland Security grants
to enhance our Urban Search and Rescue capabilities.
The Port of Long Beach is a significant asset in our region. As the
Port receives mass amounts of goods and supplies from around the world,
we have, in cooperation with the Port and the region, secured the
capabilities to deploy a Hazardous Materials Team equipped with
protective equipment and medicines to keep our public safety employees
safe while they work to protect the public and keep the Port complex
functioning. However, despite some investment in this area, protecting
international trade is a core responsibility of the Federal Government
and a much larger commitment is needed to truly protect our community
and the entire Nation.
Our local police department has also benefited from Homeland
Security grant funds. The capabilities of the SWAT team have been
increased through the purchase of specialized equipment, personal
protective equipment, and an armored vehicle. In coordination with
other law enforcement agencies in the Operational Area, the region has
secured communications equipment for interoperability and significantly
increased intelligence capabilities by participating in the Joint
Regional Intelligence Center. These funds have also implemented an
Automated License Plate Recognition system that has given regional law
enforcement agencies the ability to quickly identify vehicles within
the city and apprehend individuals that pose a threat to our community.
Homeland security funds have also increased the region's
capabilities to distribute medicine during a significant disaster with
the development of Point of Dispensing sites throughout the Region.
Funds have also been utilized to increase the capabilities of our local
laboratory to analyze, detect, and rule out chemical and biological
threats.
The Los Angeles/Long Beach region is home to many airports,
including Long Beach Airport. Homeland Security funds have increased
security at Long Beach Airport with the installation of physical
barriers and cameras. These homeland security upgrades have also been
implemented at other airports in the region.
Since the onset of the Homeland Security grants and even prior to
the current Homeland Security model, Long Beach has focused on
utilizing these funds to increase our region's overall capabilities. We
apply for and use these funds based upon risk and the ability to
utilize awards in conjunction with local resources.
Long Beach and the region strongly believe that Homeland Security
dollars must be targeted to areas of highest threat and need, and Long
Beach is supportive of the Department of Homeland Security's risk-based
funding approach to Homeland Security grants. Funding formulas that
guarantee minimum amounts to all States regardless of risk should
continue to be reduced significantly.
Despite the Department's intent to fund cities at highest risk, the
Los Angeles and Long Beach Urban Area has consistently experienced a
decrease in UASI funding since 2006. Even with a slight increase in
funding in fiscal year 2010, funding has decreased 13 percent overall
since fiscal year 2006. In comparison, over the same period, the Bay
Area has received an increase of 51 percent, the New York region has
increased 22 percent, and the Chicago region has increased 4 percent.
It is important to remember the unique cultural, geographic, and
economic aspects of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Urban area that are
sometimes not taken into account. We strongly believe that the region
needs more homeland security aid in the fight against terrorism
precisely because it is a high value target for terrorists and an
attack would have enormous consequences that would be felt around the
world.
In terms of future needs, the region is counting on the support of
the Federal Government through Homeland Security funds to develop
complete interoperability between public safety agencies within the
Region's Operational Area. This interoperability project is currently
in the design phase and will need significant funding in the future to
be successful. Long Beach supports additional dedicated funding for
interoperable communications for regions based on risk, and not based
on a formula that distributes funds to all States regardless of risk.
As you all know, there are always many shifting management
components whenever a disasters strikes. This is why training exercises
during times of peace is so important. Long Beach and the entire region
is counting on the Federal Government to continue to support training
exercises so that we can be prepared to assist our communities and the
Nation in the unfortunate event of a disaster.
The capability that Long Beach and other cities have developed over
the past decade must be sustained into the future. As we move forward,
much of the equipment secured will eventually need to be replaced. Long
Beach supports the Department allowing replacement of previously
purchased equipment as an eligible grant use, as much of the equipment
purchased under the first rounds of UASI grant funding will have to be
eventually replaced to maintain the current level of response
capability.
Long Beach and the region area are also requesting that Homeland
Security play a role in meeting our personnel costs. Emergency
communications, preparedness, and response is a personnel intensive
operation. The ability for us to move forward requires the continuous
development and maintenance of personnel, training, and plans.
Additionally, we appreciate the support of Congress to continue to
provide homeland security funds without the burden of a matching
requirement. Cities are not in the financial situation to afford any
type of match, and much of the response personnel the Federal
Government will require in the event of a National emergency will be
the local first responders that local governments already provide for
utilizing local funds.
Long Beach also requests that Congress and the Department of
Homeland Security reevaluate the administration allowances in the
various grant programs. Under the UASI program for example, local
regions are constrained to 3 percent of the total grant amount to
administer the grant, while States are allowed to set aside up to 20
percent. This imbalance leaves local areas with very few funds to
administer these complex grant programs, and a reevaluation the 3
percent allowance could help local governments tremendously in handling
the administrative duties of effective grant management.
We have enjoyed a very good working relationship with Region 9
representatives because they understand the complexity and needs of
this area. Because of this relationship, we support FEMA's concept of
moving some grant programs or functions to the Regions. If the Regions
are supported with adequate personnel and flexibility, we believe that
programs can be streamlined and issues addressed quickly. However, if
the proposal simply creates another layer of approvals or review, this
will significantly hamper effectiveness and threaten the excellent
relationship we have enjoyed to date. We are optimistically awaiting
the details of the proposal.
Finally, Chairwoman Richardson, I would like to thank you again for
allowing this opportunity to share with the committee a few of the many
emergency communications, preparedness, and response activities that
are going on in FEMA Region 9. We wholeheartedly appreciate the support
you have bestowed upon us over the years, and we look forward to
continuing this partnership in the best interests of National security
and protecting our communities.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you for your testimony.
I now recognize Ms. Tierney to summarize her statement for
5 minutes.
STATEMENT OF MARYANN TIERNEY, DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE
OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
Ms. Tierney. Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking
Member Rogers, and Members of the committee. I want to thank
you for the opportunity to testify on the important subject of
the future of GPD.
My name is MaryAnn Tierney, and I am the director of
emergency management in the city of Philadelphia. Today, I am
going to discuss with you the role of FEMA regional offices and
the need for coordination and consistency throughout the grant-
making process, as well as several aspects of the Homeland
Security Grant Program managed by GPD.
To the extent possible, Federal departments, State
administrative agents, and applicants should synchronize their
efforts. For example, agencies like DHS, HHS, and DOJ should
coordinate grant guidance to ensure funding supports National
priorities and is mutually complementary. In addition,
applicants should be jointly reviewed to avoid funding that is
duplicative or working at cross purposes.
Similarly, SAAs within the State should be required by
their funders to meet, discuss, and together review
applications and monitor project implementation. Applicants
should be required to undergo similar coordination activities.
For example, equipment purchased, regardless of funding
source, should be governed by similar requirements, such as the
use of an authorized equipment list. The DHS authorized
equipment list identifies equipment meeting specific standards
that may be purchased utilizing DHS grant funds and insures
operability, especially for highly technical equipment used for
emergency communications. Currently, the use of such a list is
not required by all Federal departments. This could result in
purchasing communications equipment that does not meet
interoperability standards and, therefore, might not work with
communications equipment purchased with other grants.
I have attached a copy of FEMA's May 2009 report to
Congress that is an excellent roadmap for improving the grant-
making process. This report's recommendations emphasize the
need for coordination amongst all parties and offers options
for how this can be achieved.
FEMA regional offices that are properly staffed and
adequately supported by GPD can enhance the overall grant-
making process on a micro level. However, this must be coupled
with centralized management and macro-level coordination across
regions to ensure consistency.
Regional offices can serve as conveners, facilitators, and
possibly the primary point of contact for grants, provided
there is centralized management and monitoring of policy
interpretation and implementation. Guidance should be developed
that creates boundaries and allows for flexibility to
accommodate the many unique needs of applicants. Similar
guidance should be provided to SAAs to ensure grant programs
are being implanted as intended and consistently within a
State.
GPD should be commended for issuing Information Bulletin
336, which provided a logical and balanced policy for utilizing
grant funds for sustainment. However, GPD should revise
Information Bulletin 329 and develop a more manageable process
for environmental and historic preservation review.
Construction, which typically prompts an EHP review, is not an
allowable activity under the Homeland Security Grant Program.
Rather, most projects involve equipment, purchases, and
professional services contracts.
More needs to be done to facilitate funding for projects
over multiple grant periods. Currently, projects can be funded
for a given grant period but are assigned an artificial end
date to coincide with the expiration of the grant, which may or
may not match the actual end date of the project. This can
complicate strategic planning and may result in a more
expensive project.
It is essential that management and administration funding
be sufficient to meet the need to manage projects and the back-
office activities that bring those projects to fruition. For
example, the Philadelphia urban area may be juggling up to $60
million at any given time. Organizations of this size cannot
function like a mom-and-pop pizza shop. We use M&A funds to
retain professional staff and also provide for a fiscal agent
to ensure that grant reporting requirements are met and grant
funds are spent appropriately.
I want to emphasize that the GPD programs provide an
enormous opportunity to improve preparedness. For example, the
Philadelphia urban area has invested over $20 million in the
development of a four-State, 11-county interoperable
communications systems, known as SECOM Net. This network
patches existing radio systems together through a network of
secure microwave communication towers. Whether you are in a 911
center, an emergency operations center, or at the scene, you
can communicate with any response organization, regardless of
their location in the region.
The value of SECOM Net is both in the technology provided
and the governance structure established to plan, manage, and
maintain the network. It is an excellent example of improving
preparedness by coupling planning with resources provided by
the GPD programs.
In conclusion, solely examining GPD and its role in the
grant-making process can create the false impression that
tweaking one cog in the wheel will enable the Nation to better
counter threats and respond to emergencies. Coordination beyond
GPD is necessary. Likewise, the grant-making process can be
enhanced by connecting central management to regional
involvement.
I once again thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am
happy to answer any questions you may have.
[The statement of Ms. Tierney follows:]
Prepared Statement of MaryAnn E. Tierney
June 29, 2010
Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I want
to thank you for the opportunity to testify on the important subject of
the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Grant
Programs Directorate (GPD). My name is MaryAnn Tierney and I am the
Director of Emergency Management in the city of Philadelphia. I have
been in this position since November 2006. Prior to that, I was the
Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Preparedness with the New York
City Office of Emergency Management where I worked from 1999 until
2006. Attached to this testimony is a detailed biography for your
reference. Today I am going to discuss with you the need for
coordination and consistency in the grant-making process as well as the
potential role of FEMA Regional Offices in this process. Additionally,
I will provide testimony on specific aspects of the Homeland Security
Grant Program (HSGP) managed by the GPD. Lastly, I will explain how the
Philadelphia Urban Area Workgroup (UAWG) sets priorities and will
highlight a project that has been funded by the HSGP. To the extent
possible given regulatory and/or statutory constraints, Federal
departments, State Administrative Agents (SAA), and applicants should
coordinate their efforts at every step of the grant-making process to
more effectively prepare the Nation to prevent, respond to, recover
from, and mitigate threats and risks. At the Federal level this should
involve coordinating the development of grant guidance between agencies
like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of
Health and Human Services (DHHS), and the Department of Justice (DOJ)
to ensure that funding supports National homeland security and
emergency preparedness priorities and is complementary towards one
another. Additionally, during the grant application review process,
jurisdictions or their component agencies should be required to detail
all actual or potential funding sources. Applicants seeking multiple
funding sources should be reviewed through an interagency process to
ensure funds are not working at crosspurposes nor are duplicative.
I have attached to my testimony a copy of the ``Interagency Report
on Preparedness Grant Programs.'' This report was provided to Congress
by FEMA in May 2009. While I find the entire report to be an excellent
roadmap to improving the grant-making process, I want to draw your
attention to the following recommendations:
Recommendation 4.--Coordinate across Federal agencies during
program development to set clear, coordinated goals for
preparedness-related programs that: (a) Support recipients'
development of clearly defined goals and milestones for use of
awarded funds and (b) facilitate the measurement of recipient
performance and program outcomes.
Recommendation 5.--Coordinate across Federal agencies to:
(a) Apply consistent evaluation standards to the evaluation of
program progress and end results, and (b) account for the
resources and effort needed to sustain capabilities.
Recommendation 8.--Federal agencies should improve pre-award
information sharing about requested, pending, and awarded
grants to facilitate greater transparency of programs, reduce
the data entry burden for applicants and recipients, and allow
awarding agencies to make more informed allocation decisions.
Recommendation 9.--Congress should authorize Federal
agencies to streamline the grants coordination process through
official agreements such as Memorandums of Understanding.
Recommendation 11.--Coordinate across Federal agencies
administering relevant homeland security programs to agree on
the use of a standardized format and structure for guidance and
reporting requirements, specifically inclusion in guidance of:
(a) An acronym and definition list, (b) clear language defining
application, reporting, and performance expectations, and (c) a
multi-agency list of relevant homeland security grant programs.
Recommendation 12.--Coordinate across Federal agencies to
provide a consolidated public resource of information related
to homeland security grant programs such as application forms,
reporting materials, and program requirements. If this
capability is not developed in Grants.gov, departments that
administer relevant grant programs should provide on their
public website a consolidated source of related grant program
information, including all relevant resources on Grants.gov,
guidance, application and reporting requirements, related
documentation, and systems used by recipients to submit this
information. Similarly, the SAAs for different grant funding
streams should be required by their funders to meet, discuss,
and develop multi-agency State strategies as well as conduct an
interagency process to review applications and monitor program
and project implementation. Lastly, applicants should be
required to undergo similar coordination activities in the
development of applications and in the implementation phase of
programs and projects.
For example, equipment purchased, regardless of funding source,
should be governed by similar requirements, such as by requiring all
grant funding sources utilize the Interagency Advisory Board
Standardized Equipment List (SEL) or the DHS Authorized Equipment List
(AEL). The DHS AEL identifies which equipment may be purchased
utilizing DHS grant funding and ensures that equipment purchased meets
specific standards. The use of standards ensures equipment can be made
interoperable. This is especially important when equipment is highly
technical, such as communications equipment. Currently, the use of such
a list is not required by all Federal departments' homeland security or
emergency preparedness grant programs. This can result in purchasing
communications equipment with one grant that does not meet industry
standards for interoperability and therefore cannot work with
communications equipment purchased with another grant.
Recommendation 10 of the ``The Interagency Report on Preparedness
Grant Programs'' supports this by stating, ``Federal agencies should
work jointly to develop robust national standards for describing the
functionality and performance characteristics of preparedness resources
and capabilities for use by relevant homeland security grant programs
to enable cross-program coordination.'' I do not advocate handing over
the grant-making process to FEMA Regional Offices. This will result in
a haphazard and disjointed system that will frustrate SAAs and
applicants alike. I do believe that FEMA Regional Offices properly
staffed and with adequate support from GPD, could add substantial
value. FEMA Regional Offices provide an opportunity to enhance the
grant-making process on a micro-level. However, this must be coupled
with centralized management and macro-level coordination across
regions. It is important that the grant-making process be centrally
managed, with input from FEMA Regional Offices, to ensure consistency.
FEMA Regional Offices should serve as conveners and facilitators for
many of the multiparty coordination groups I described above during
various steps of the grant-making process. Additionally, FEMA Regional
Offices maintain the day-to-day relationships with stakeholders and
should serve as the primary point of contact for grants, provided there
is centralized management and monitoring of policy interpretation and
implementation. A tool to ensuring consistent application of policy
would be to develop and provide implementation guidance and options
that creates boundaries for FEMA Regional Offices to operate in and
allows for flexibility to accommodate the many unique needs of
applicants. Similar implementation guidance and options should be
provided to SAAs to ensure grant programs are being implemented as
intended and consistently within a State. Recommendation 13 of the
``The Interagency Report on Preparedness Grant Programs'' supports this
by stating, ``Federal agencies should provide more consistent training
and technical assistance offerings to recipients and Federal staff who
administer programs in the areas of technical/information technology
needs (e.g., Grants.gov training) and grants management (e.g., program
management), including sharing of best practices within and across
programs and agencies.'' I would like to now turn from policy and
process-oriented comments to specific aspects of GPD managed grants.
GPD should be commended for issuing Information Bulletin 336, which
provided a policy for utilizing grant funds for sustainment. The policy
is logical and balanced. GPD should revise Information Bulletin 329 and
develop a more manageable process for environmental and historic
preservation review. The policy adopted is similar to the one utilized
by another FEMA grant program--the Public Assistance Program. Since the
Public Assistance Program typically involves construction projects, a
very rigorous process is in place to ensure environmental and historic
preservation considerations are addressed. Construction is not an
allowable activity under HSGP, and most projects involve equipment
purchases and professional services. Projects funded over multiple
grant periods should be addressed. Currently, projects can be multi-
year within a given grant period, but it is as if a wall exists at the
end of that grant period and a project is assigned an artificial end
date that may not match the actual end date of the project. This
prevents applicants from the kind of strategic thinking many in the
field advocate for.
The last specific component of HSGP I want to address is funding
for Management and Administration (M&A). The Philadelphia Urban Area
utilizes M&A funds to properly manage the tens of millions of dollars
that are received. This includes having professional staff on hand to
manage the work of the UAWG and assist stakeholders with managing and
executing projects as well as retaining a fiscal agent to ensure that
grant reporting requirements are met and grant funds are spent
appropriately. Organizations like this cannot function like a mom-and-
pop pizza shop. In business terms, they are multi-million dollar
operations that require competent staff and robust systems. To provide
perspective, in any given year at least three grant periods are open.
For the Philadelphia Urban Area, that can mean juggling up to $60
million dollars in various stages of being utilized, from bidding to
closeout. It is essential that M&A funding be in place to ensure an
operation like this does not falter, and that the funding equal the
need to manage the many programs and projects as well as the back-
office activities that bring those programs and projects to fruition.
With all that said, I want to emphasize that grants programs like those
managed by the GPD provide an enormous opportunity to improve
preparedness. I have seen first-hand the incredible leaps forward that
have been made to build capabilities in a thoughtful and judicious
manner. The Philadelphia UAWG is organized around discipline-specific
workgroups that develop and execute projects and an Executive Board
that provides oversight and coordination. The annual HSGP application
is developed through a process that emphasizes building on existing
programs and projects, while allowing for worthwhile innovations to
surface and receive funding. The Executive Board aligns its priorities
with National priorities and prioritizes funding programs and projects
that address these priorities. Further, the Philadelphia UAWG
emphasizes regional partnership and collaboration, with some projects
involving up to four States and eleven counties in the greater Delaware
Valley region. The project I want to highlight involves the development
of a multi-State, multi-county interoperable communications network,
known as SECOM Net. Since 2002, the Philadelphia UAWG has invested over
$20 million to build and enhances interoperable communications
capabilities. SECOM Net allows eleven counties in four States to
communicate on a secure microwave network. This communication can occur
between 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, or person-to-person
on the scene of an emergency, through the microwave network that
patches together existing radio systems. Currently, SECOM Net is
integrating the communication networks of university police departments
and port partners. Future plans for SECOM Net include a capability to
transmit data in addition to voice. The value of SECOM Net is not just
in the technology that has been purchased, but also the governance
structure that the Interoperable Communications Workgroup has
established to plan for, manage, and maintain the network. It is an
example how thoughtful planning coupled with funding to resource what
is needed can lead to improved preparedness.
In conclusion, solely examining GPD and its role in the grant-
making process can create the false impression that tweaking one cog in
the wheel will enable the Nation is to better counter threats and
respond to emergencies. As I have described above, the nature of
homeland security grants is complex and requires coordination beyond
DHS to include other Federal departments, the SAAs, and the applicants
themselves. Likewise, central management is not the enemy. Centralized
management can be enhanced by closely connecting regional involvement
to the grant-making process. Lastly, the revision to the maintenance
and calibration policy is an example of how GPD can effectively respond
to the concerns of applicants while remaining careful stewards of
taxpayer dollars. The environmental and historic preservation policy is
an example of where more needs to be done to balance those needs. M&A
is a valuable tool that allows grantees to focus on work rather than
paperwork. A more stable funding process tailored for projects that
span multiple grant periods would allow applicants to think more
strategically about how and what is funded.
Once again thank you for the opportunity to testify, I am happy to
answer any questions you may have
Ms. Richardson. Thank you very much for your testimony.
I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony, and
remind each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to
question the panel. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes.
Votes have been called, and we have approximately 13
minutes plus the time to get there. What I would like to do is
myself and Ranking Member Rogers through in these first 10
minutes, and then when we come back the Members would be first
up, which should only take about a 20-minute vote, if everyone
is in agreement.
Okay. The first question I would like to ask is for Ms.
Harman. I am only going to take 2 minutes; maybe then we can
get more people through.
Ms. Harman, you heard some of Ms. Tierney's very direct
suggestions, as well as our chief. Are you willing to consider
looking at their suggestions and getting back to us in writing
your responses on ways that you might incorporate them?
Ms. Harman. Absolutely.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. Thank you.
My second question has to do with regionalization. Ms.
Harman, Chairman Fugate announced back in July 2009 this whole
idea of regionalization. I really want to get a sense from you
what is really the objective that we are attempting to reach by
conducting regionalization. What is the problem that you are
anticipating solving?
Ms. Harman. I don't see any problems quite yet, but what I
see us doing is strengthening FEMA as a whole. We are--and I
will quote Administrator Fugate, as he speaks--FEMA is one part
of a team that ultimately plays in this large scale of
responding to disasters, providing assistance, helping build
capabilities. We are one part of that. We have 10 fingertips,
10 regions, to extend and provide customer service to our
grantees and stakeholders. I don't think those have been used
effectively and efficiently in the past.
I think we can strengthen them. I think we can provide the
rules and tools at our headquarters. With the proper, training,
outreach, monitoring, and mentoring with our FEMA regional
partners, I think you will see better customer service in the
end to the States, to the transit folks, to the port
authorities as well.
Together, if they can conduct the monitoring and the boots
on the ground within the regions, we can gather much more data
to provide up to us to help us better assess where we are and
how prepared we are.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Harman, I just heard what you said. I
stayed up until 1:00 in the morning reading all this
information. I still don't think, though, you have answered the
question.
Ms. Harman. Okay.
Ms. Richardson. I think everyone would pretty much agree
that, from a regional perspective, it would clearly be more
helpful, if a disaster occurs, to have the people who have the
authority to respond. We all agree with that.
What we are talking about specifically is the grant
program. If you are mentioning regionalization in terms of
monitoring and making sure the dollars are being spent where
they should, we all agree with that. However, we are talking
about the very basics of sending out an application, reviewing
an application, and determining the dollars.
Is that something that is best placed in a regional
perspective? Could you answer that question very directly?
Ms. Harman. Sure. We actually have a working group that is
going to be put together and will be kicking off later, mid-
July--it will be a conference call--and have a face-to-face
meeting August 3 through 5. That will consist of one member
from each region, as well as stakeholders, if we can, and
headquarters personnel.
The grant process is a very long process, and I don't think
the entire process is well-suited to be placed in the region,
whereas parts of it may be more appropriate, whereas the
drafting of the guidance, creation of guidance, application
period, peer-review process, possibly all the way up through
award could occur within headquarters. The beginning of that
process could have a lot of interaction with our regional
partners, but maybe we take care of the award at headquarters.
Once that award is given and the proper tools and staffing
and resources within each region, that could then be handed
down to the regions to be that first point of contact for any
grantee if they have questions on their grant--what the
guidance means, what their investment justifications mean and
how they go about attaining that and meeting what they said
they were going to do in the grant.
So I don't see a whole piece of every grant program--the
whole entire package. I see pieces of it, in a partnership
fashion.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Harman, I might suggest that--you said
you may include a stakeholder. I would suggest that you do.
Ms. Harman. We would like to, yes.
Ms. Richardson. The other point I would make is, keeping in
mind what the AG's comments are I think would be most helpful.
Mr. Rogers, I will recognize you for 5 minutes.
Mr. Rogers. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Harman, you talked about 98 percent of the vacancies
that you have in the Department are now posted.
Ms. Harman. Correct.
Mr. Rogers. How many vacancies is that?
Ms. Harman. We were just under 50. I can get you that exact
number. Roughly 25 percent of our workforce of 192 full-time
personnel, almost 50, in the high 40s.
Mr. Rogers. Is there a particular sphere where those
vacancies occur? Is it management?
Ms. Harman. Unfortunately, they are throughout. Right now,
I am significantly lacking some senior management. We are
missing--our deputy assistant administrator left not long after
I came on-board, as well as several significant leadership
positions, branch chiefs, within our Financial Division left.
Mr. Rogers. The mid-level, upper-level management positions
throughout the Department have been problematic, keeping those
people.
Ms. Harman. Right.
Mr. Rogers. What unique challenges do you think you are
going to face in trying to get people of the caliber you want
to fill those positions and retain them?
Ms. Harman. Right. It is an interesting concept, coming in
and looking at the management style that has been used in the
past. From my perspective, it has been a very top-down approach
with management, leading to some of the vacancies, I believe. I
don't think our employees have been empowered. I don't think
they have been given the opportunity for continuing education,
for training, to have more of an engagement in the process,
understanding what that is; which then, of course, leads to
morale.
So it is a vicious cycle that, right now, we are trying to
break. We are very fortunate to have the support of FEMA
leadership. The first week I came on-board, I met with our HR
department. Vacancy announcements were posted. All, I think,
but four positions were posted within the first 2 months.
Everything now has been posted. I have a full day of interviews
scheduled tomorrow with the rest of the staff.
I am very pleased to see that. We have support all the way
up through the DHS leadership, as well, on that.
Mr. Rogers. I know, throughout the Department, employee
surveys on job satisfaction are done. What is the most recent
time that surveys were done in your Department, do you know?
Ms. Harman. Within the directorate, I can't answer that. I
can get back to you on that. But there has been one done within
FEMA, organization-wide.
Mr. Rogers. Since you have been there?
Ms. Harman. Yes. We have had an opportunity to--we were
asked to give time for our staff to take on hour out of their
day to provide comments on where FEMA is going.
You see a lot of similarities across directorates, where,
you know, most of the time, the employee is not really familiar
with: What are my roles and responsibilities? Truly, what am I
charged with?
Mr. Rogers. So you have had a chance to have that
information presented to you and review it?
Ms. Harman. Yes. Yes.
Mr. Rogers. Okay. Good.
Ms. Harman. Additionally, we have also had two additional
workforce analyses conducted within the Grant Programs
Directorate, and I am working with that data, as well.
Mr. Rogers. Again, we see this consistently throughout the
Department. I would be very interested in, during your period
of time there, to see that done annually so that you can start
trying to track shortcomings. Because we see a lot of
institutional knowledge go out the door as we lose these mid-
and upper-level people, and we have to figure out how to keep
them.
Ms. Harman. Agreed.
Mr. Rogers. One other point before I let my time go. I
represent a rural Congressional district. As you know from
being a former firefighter, most rural areas of the country
depend on volunteer departments. In fact, in my Congressional
district, the overwhelming number of first responders are
volunteers. They depend heavily on these DHS grants.
Can you talk to me about that area of the grant process and
what you see are its shortcomings and what we can do to make
sure that those needs are met?
Ms. Harman. Sure. As you know, the majority of the funding
that comes out of the Grant Programs Directorate goes through
the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the UASI Program.
Those dollars go directly to the State administrative agency,
as designated by the Governor in each State. Those SAAs are
required to work within their State to identify areas of
greatest need of where those dollars should go.
Unfortunately, at times, what happens and what has been
brought to my attention and from my experience in the past is
that those small, rural areas are sort of left out. They don't
have a seat at the table. They may not be in an area of high
risk. They may not be a high priority for that particular
State.
It is important for us and in my position now to teach
individuals like that and organizations how to leverage
existing dollars that are out there. You have the State
Homeland Security moneys and the UASI moneys that I mentioned,
but you also have an AFG program which bypasses the State. So
there are pros and cons to that----
Mr. Rogers. How are you going to teach them?
Ms. Harman. It is a lot of outreach. A lot of it is
relationship building. A lot of it is having a seat at the
table.
I have had an opportunity to be at a lot of different
conferences now and speak. You hear from the folks who have
money, and then you hear from folks who don't have the money.
It is--they don't have a seat at that table. I ask them, are
you at the table when the State is making the decisions on
where those dollars are going? Most of the time, they don't.
They need to have that.
Mr. Rogers. Good. Good answer.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
I gave back 50-plus seconds on the time. The Chairwoman
will now recognize other Members for questions they may wish to
ask the witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and
practices, I will recognize Members who were present at the
start of the hearing, based on seniority of the subcommittee,
alternating between the Majority and Minority. Those Members
coming in later will be recognized in the order of their
arrival.
The Chairwoman will now recognize for 5 minutes the
gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell. But please keep in
mind, we are down to 3 minutes and 52 seconds left to vote.
Although, 300 Members have yet to vote.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Absolutely.
Mr. Pascrell. Assistant Administrator Harman, it took us a
long time to get people who are involved, both policemen and
firemen, in homeland security. So we decided to finally go
bottom-up. Therefore, I am thankful that you are in the
position that you are in, being both a volunteer and career
firefighter.
Ms. Harman. Thank you.
Mr. Pascrell. So I am sure you will appreciate the question
I am going to ask.
Ms. Harman. I will let you know. Thank you.
Mr. Pascrell. The homeland security grant activity
receiving the largest cut in the--you knew what I was going to
ask--fiscal year 2011 budget proposal are the two firefighter
assistance grants--probably, according to third-party
evaluations, two of the most efficient, proficient programs in
the entire Federal Government.
Ms. Harman. Uh-huh.
Mr. Pascrell. You are agreeing with me?
Ms. Harman. I would agree with you on that, yes.
Mr. Pascrell. I mean, we worked it out that way. The
staffing for adequate fire and emergency response, the SAFER
Act, and the Assistance to the Firefighter Grant Program, AFG,
that collectively the two programs would receive $610 million.
That is $200 million less than in fiscal year 2010. We are
going backwards.
We fought so hard, Members from both sides of the aisle,
both sides, to make sure that this was an adequate response.
Considering you get about $3.5 billion in application, we are
definitely going backwards.
I want you to explain to the committee the agency's
decision to cut the money.
Ms. Harman. Thank you for your question.
Although I was not present and have been on-board about
3\1/2\ months now, unfortunately I did not have the opportunity
to participate in the budget process and the submission process
on that.
As I understand, the budget that was submitted from FEMA
was higher than prior years' submissions from FEMA. But, still,
that is less than what is being asked for by your committee.
That is something I can certainly look into in the future. I am
not sure, I haven't been educated on that process yet, but we
can certainly look into that.
Mr. Pascrell. Madam Chairwoman, I think this is of great
importance for people on both sides of the aisle who have made
this a major priority. We should be funding the programs that
are efficient and proficient and looking at those programs that
aren't working well.
Here we have the biggest--going through the programs that
are doing the best. This is peer-oriented. We save a lot of
money in doing that. It has been fair. We don't have the usual
rural-versus-city flak. I mean, this, from the very inception,
has been done the way it should have been done, the way all
programs should be done. No politics are involved since
Congressmen like myself cannot get involved in its evaluations.
What are we doing? It makes no sense. So I would like for
you to go back and tell your superiors that it makes no sense.
Ms. Harman. Yes, sir. Will do.
Mr. Pascrell. Thank you very much.
Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell.
In light of the fact that we now have 17 seconds to vote,
but 200 Members have yet to vote, the committee will stand in
recess to allow Members to vote on the floor. I believe we have
two votes before us. The committee will reconvene in 10
minutes, after the conclusion of the last vote in this series
of floor votes.
[Recess.]
Ms. Richardson. The hearing will come to order.
I recognize myself for as much time as I might need to go
through several questions.
First of all, Ms. Harman, I want to come back to a couple
of things. We were a little rushed because votes were called,
and I want to make sure for the record some things were clear.
Mr. Pascrell was stating to you his concern of the cuts,
regarding specifically the firemen programs. Your response was,
was that the overall budget was suggested to be increased for
DHS. But I don't think you really answered the point of his
question, which was, specifically, as we move forward, do we
have an understanding from you of the value of the firemen
grants section and an understanding that you will work with us
to ensure that those levels stay at the appropriate full-year
2010 numbers as we move forward?
Ms. Harman. Yes. I will do my best for that.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you.
Again, I wanted to be clear that Ms. Tierney, I think,
spent a lot of good time going through some specific, very
basic things that could be done to improve what is happening
for the first responders and stakeholders. You committed to
going through that. The chief also laid out several options for
you to consider, and you said you would get that back to the
committee in writing.
Ms. Harman. Yes, I will.
Ms. Richardson. I also wanted to come back to he mentioned
that Tier I has experienced a decrease in funding, however in
the second tier there has actually been an increase. Can you
give us any thoughts as to why that is happening and how we can
expect that to revert back to its original goals?
Ms. Harman. Sure. As you are aware now, the UASI pot of
money is a static pot of money right now. The budget that is
being proposed for next year, I believe there is not any
significant increases or decreases. The formula that is looked
upon for all of the UASI cities--there are currently 64--is
being looked at for the fiscal year 2011 cycle. Actually, all
risk formulas across the board will be looked at to ensure that
they are clear, solid business processes, and risk is truly a
factor. There is currently fresh data that is being used to
associate risk with each city as it is on there. The Secretary
has asked us to look at those risk formulas, and then there
will be a determination made on the 64 cities that are
currently on there on how that is going to fall out.
Ms. Richardson. So will you follow up with the chief to
give an understanding of why it was down in this last year and
how we can ensure that that doesn't happen again? When we talk
from a risk assessment, there really isn't a larger problematic
area in terms of ports and water treatment facilities and the
many other issues that we have in that particular area.
Ms. Harman. Sure. We can work together on that.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. I also wanted to clarify for the
record what has been of much question for this committee is the
regionalization. As I understood you to say, before I gave back
my time trying to allow for other committee Members, you did
not see the regionalization rollout to include the actual
granting of the awards or the reviewing of the awards and that
it was done more from a monitoring perspective. I don't want to
put words in your mouth, but could you re-clarify for the
record what your thoughts are at this point?
Ms. Harman. Sure. I certainly, as the Assistant
Administrator for the Grant Programs Directorate, have a vision
of how I would like to see it, but it is important for me also
to hear from the working group that is being put together on
really, truly what is feasible and what is going to work.
I think if you were to graph out the grant process from the
drafting of the grant guidance all the way out through closeout
and all of those different boxes in there, I think there are
parts of that that belong at headquarters, there are parts of
it that are shared, and there are certain parts that belong in
the regions. Up through and including award, I believe the
majority of those functions should stay at headquarters to
allow us to maintain standardization, provide rules, and tools.
We certainly will have to have interaction with the regions
when it comes to the applications and the States as they are
applying and they are writing their investment justifications,
we go through peer review processes on the various programs. It
is important for them, because they do have that boots-on-the-
ground perspective of what is going on in those States in the
regions that they are responsible for to provide us some
clarity on where we are going in the grant programs.
But up and to award, there are a lot of administrative
processes, including Congressional notifications and things
like that that are probably more suited to stay at
headquarters. I think once that award is made, it goes out to
the regions, we provide the rules and tools saying, hey, these
are some new grantees, or here are your high-risk grantees, or
here are folks that you really need to monitor this year. We
sort of tier that and help them in that approach so that they
can truly be that face-to-face contact with all of the
grantees.
So that is just my concept. We will be able to solidify
that through the work of the working group.
I have had an opportunity talk with all of our 10 regional
administrators about 2 weeks ago in Boston at their meeting.
They are very open to this. They are very excited about the
fact that we are including them in the process and having them
help drive where this goes. So I think that is important. But
that is my concept, but I want to hear from the stakeholders
and the working group.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richards, based upon what Ms. Harman
has just laid out, what would be your thoughts on that in light
of what you have already considered?
Ms. Richards. Well, as you know, we haven't had a chance to
look at what FEMA's working group hasn't put together yet.
Without the blueprint that they put together of how they are
going to regionalize, I am really not in a position to offer
comments on their regionalization plan.
In general, regionalization, as Ms. Harman has described
it, is very feasible from our point of view, but until we can
see the details, I really cannot form an opinion of how well it
would work.
Ms. Richardson. So at what point, Ms. Harman, do you
anticipate releasing this information? I think in my notes it
said there is going to be a rollout in July, which is next
month.
Ms. Harman. We solicited to the regional administrators to
provide us one name from each region. We are still selecting
input from specific personnel within the grant program
directorate of who is going to participate on that, as well as
trying to identify our stakeholders in that as well. There will
be a conference call scheduled in late July, so that the
working group should be put together by mid-July, conference
call late July, face-to-face meeting August 3-5. I believe that
region 9 has offered to host that for us. I see them getting
together, putting this information together, and hopefully we
can start rolling out for fiscal year 2011.
Now, what that rollout means is up to the working group. We
are still working with resource deficiencies, staffing
deficiencies, so I don't see any need to rush any of this. I
want to take a very slow, methodical approach so that everyone
has an opportunity to provide input on where this should go,
how it should go, what programs should go to the regions, at
what time should they go to the regions. It is really much a
work in progress right now; and if I can work with you and your
staff, I would be more than happy to do that.
Ms. Richardson. Well, Ms. Harman, if you could provide the
committee at least a preliminary rollout, that you anticipate
so that we can, as we interact with you in the upcoming months,
continue to have this discussion that would be most beneficial.
But let it be said that, from my perspective at least,
regionalization from the response perspective, I completely
concur; from a monitoring of grants, I completely concur; but
from everything other than that, I do not. So, hopefully, we
will see the working group echo those concerns and we will see
that reflective in your policy.
Out of respect for Mr. Cleaver, who was here earlier, I am
going to recognize him for 5 minutes; and then return for my
last questions.
So Mr. Cleaver from Missouri is recognized.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richards, and maybe to some degree the chief, I am a
former mayor, and mayors do not appreciate, no matter what
political affiliation, the fact that money flows from
Washington to State capitals. In fact, we would like to have
Governors eliminated from the plan. What generally happens is
that the money goes into the State; and, unlike cities, the
States may have multiple departments that handle Homeland
Security issues but the question is always standards. Is there
something that we can do that would make sure that even if a
State has two or three different State departments deal with
Homeland Security issues that they operate with the same
standards that come from the Homeland Security office or FEMA
office here in Washington?
Ms. Richards. That is one of the barriers that we recognize
in our report, that in some States they don't have a coherent
view that would allow all the players from the State to have a
seat at the table to apply for and receive the grant money. I
don't have an answer for you on how to fix that, but we have
recognized that as a barrier and have tried to work with FEMA
to help them work with the States to try and clarify the
situation as well as FEMA can through its guidance on how the
monies are to be distributed.
Mr. Cleaver. Chief, do you find that there is a question in
California where Sacramento is operating the grants program but
they may have three different departments involved?
Mr. Patalano. In the State of California, they do have a
fairly robust Office of Emergency Services that manages the
grant programs. However, we do see that there is a little bit
of a disconnect between several of the groups that are involved
in that process; and certainly several of the larger UASIs have
recommended or suggested that direct funding to Tier I UASIs
might be a way to limit the burden on the State and also
improve the efficiency of the program.
Mr. Cleaver. Ms. Harman, realizing that this is an issue--
or maybe it is an issue for people like me but maybe not all
over, but do you have any suggestions on what we can do to
standardize the way State departments function so that there
won't be inconsistencies?
Ms. Harman. Sure. As I shared with Mr. Rogers today, a lot
of it has to do with building those relationships at the State
level and having a seat at the table. There is only so much
that the Federal Government can do within particularly the
grant program directorate under the guidelines that are set
forth in the legislation of specifically who gets the money and
then providing the guidelines of how that money should go down.
We want to do our best to allow States the flexibility to
identify their own unique risks within their State and learn to
build the capabilities specifically that they need.
For example, if you are in one State, maybe you don't have
an earthquake problem, you may not have hurricane problems over
here. We want to give them flexibility to do that. Then in turn
it becomes a balancing act to make sure that they do have the
proper people at the table. But without forcing them to do
that--which I am not sure if that is something we could do or
should do--I don't think it would be well received from the
grantees and the stakeholders as they continue to ask for
flexibility with their grant dollars. I have to ask them
continually, please have a seat at the table, request people to
have a seat at the table, and for those who are not getting
funding, go find your seat at the table.
But I think we can do a better job of showing people and
teaching people how to leverage existing dollars out there that
aren't necessarily Homeland Security dollars. They may be
coming from HHS, DOT, DOE. There are a variety of grant dollars
out there that if you can't get one from one spot you can get
it from the other, and I think we have a responsibility to show
our stakeholders how to do that until there is a different type
of system under which we are working.
Mr. Cleaver. I don't know whether we can dictate to States
either. I don't think so. But it is an issue that I think
deserves some attention.
One final question, and it is related to the number of
contractors compared to the number of employees. Now, there has
been suggestion that we have one for one, but that is not in
concrete.
Ms. Harman. I have not heard that suggestion. I believe the
grant program directorate has 192 full-time Feds that are
authorized. As I mentioned before, we are missing just under 50
of those, which I am hoping to bring on board, and hopefully no
one else leaves. We will try to fix that, too.
Contractor-wise, we are about 210 contractors. We have been
asked by the division of our administrator, Fugate, to build a
workforce, build a team, allow people to come in at lower GS
levels to build that institutional knowledge so that one day
they are the folks running the show and have senior management.
We have been asked to insource as much as possible. We have
begun that effort with several different contracts that we see
to be long-term contracts of supporting mechanisms, where we
will convert those folks into Federal employees, and there is a
cost savings to that. So you will see that FEMA-wide.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman.
Ms. Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver.
Coming back to the staffing question and following up with
Mr. Cleaver, contractors you said approximately 210, and
regular Government staff you only have 192. So, clearly, that
builds not just to the rumor but to the fact.
Ms. Harman. Sure.
Ms. Richardson. The second question I would say, out of the
50 vacancies, how many of those would you see being in the
region?
Ms. Harman. The current vacancies are vacancies within the
Grant Programs Directorate. There are vacancies within each
region. Of course, there are additional resources that will be
needed in each region. We have been asked by Deputy
Administrator Serino to provide positions to the regions.
Ms. Richardson. How many?
Ms. Harman. A total of 15 from the preparedness, from the
PNP. I believe from ours was six positions from within the
Grant Programs Directorate, and I believe that was offset
because of the number of contractors that we are going to be
insourcing.
Ms. Richardson. So, according to my notes, the regions
currently have a total of 65 staffers with the role of
preparedness and grant management administration. Is that
correct?
Ms. Harman. I can get back to you on that. I don't have the
specific numbers.
Ms. Richardson. Well, then, according to the--I think it
was the Governors--wait a second--well, I believe Ms. Richards
and then there is another group that had also highlighted that,
currently, with the regions with their own existing
assignments--okay, at the request of Congress, the National
Academy of Public Administration, NAPA, initiated a panel in
October, 2008, to evaluate FEMA's efforts to build robust
regional offices. NAPA surveyed the regional staff and found
that regions themselves felt that they did not have the staff
or expertise necessary to fulfill their current grant
management duties. Further, regions indicated that there were
lengthy delays in receiving guidance from FEMA headquarters on
how to implement their grant responsibilities.
Ms. Harman. Sure. I am not familiar with that report.
Ms. Richardson. So what would you say to that in light of
your vacancies that you have and in light of the potential of
additional responsibilities that you are seeking to put on if
already they felt they couldn't do the job?
Ms. Harman. Sure. What I like about our regions is they are
very engaged in the FEMA mission and what we are there to do.
The enhancements of customer service to our stakeholders is
very important to everyone. So I want to be sure when we are
regionalizing and we are giving more responsibilities to the
regions, it may not occur in every region at the same time
because of the resource issues, because of the staffing issues,
because of the current physical space issues.
We are going to have to take a very slow, almost customized
approach to build up to true regionalization and what it is
that we define as regionalization, again, whether that is every
grant program, some grant programs. But the resources have got
to be taken into account to do that. Otherwise, we are just
going to provide poor customer service.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Richards, what do you view as the
problem for the grant drawdown?
Ms. Richards. Insofar as the grantees being able to receive
the money?
Ms. Richardson. Yes.
Ms. Richards. I don't have any specifics with me today. I
would have to get back to you on that.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Harman, do you have an explanation of
what the problem is?
Ms. Harman. Sure. On the grant drawdowns, we hear a lot of
concern on grant drawdowns, that money has been obligated but
has not yet been drawn down. I want to throw always caution out
that the drawdown of grant dollars is not always a good
indicator of performance. In cases of purchasing equipment,
such as in our ASG programs where it is a quick piece of
equipment, nothing has to be ordered; you don't have to go
through some sort of city council procurement process or
anything like that. So that goes much quicker, and the drawdown
rates increase.
When you are dealing with large capital projects, such as
the transit security program and the port security program,
those are long-term capital projects that require lots of
planning, environmental historic preservation reviews, budget
reviews, constantly a lot of negotiations and working with our
partners to figure out what is the project and how do we get to
the end. And on large capital projects it is not uncommon for
the majority of those dollars to be drawn down at the end of
their grant period, which typically is a 36-month period of
performance.
So the money is available to be drawn down usually, but we
are also in a system that allows for reimbursement. So the
money has to be spent before it can be requested for drawdown.
So most of those capital projects, the money is not going to be
spent until later on. Much of the time in that period of
performance is going to be spent planning.
Ms. Richardson. Chief, what would you say are some of the
problems with the grant drawdown?
Mr. Patalano. I think I would echo Ms. Harman's comments on
a lot of those issues. We are doing the planning for a project
that might be large scale and cover the regions, so you have to
involve a lot of stakeholders in the procurement process and
you have to follow each city's guidelines as the way that they
procure and spend. So we are spending, in essence, the city's
money ahead of time and then seeking the reimbursement once
that has been done. So we don't enter into the project until
the money has been awarded to us, and then we start the
planning process since we don't want to plan for a project that
we are not going to then institute. So that is one of the
issues.
There are a lot of internal processes that have to go on
with each individual jurisdiction, and so I think that adds
some of the timeline that is included in the time it takes us
to spend some of the projects. So we have been very supportive,
and we appreciate the extensions that would go for a larger-
scale project.
I think we are going to see continued problems with grant
drawdowns as we move into more complex regional projects. They
just take longer to do.
Ms. Richardson. Ms. Tierney, did you want to add anything
in terms of the grant drawdown problem?
Ms. Tierney. No. I would just agree with Chief Patalano
that the projects that we are dealing with now are multi-
county, multi-year projects that involve millions of dollars,
not just buying boots and suits. So the procurement is very
difficult, especially when you cross county lines. Procurement
rules differ according to different counties, and that can make
things more difficult.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Cleaver, did you have a second round of
questions?
Mr. Cleaver. I do have one question I would ask of Ms.
Tierney and then Ms. Harman.
Can you give me one pro and one con with regard to the
grants management function?
Ms. Tierney. I think one pro that I saw this year, I found
the process to be much more efficient this year than in years
past. I have been dealing with these grants for 7 years now. So
I think over time, as the grant program directorate grows into
its own, things are becoming more efficient and effective. I
think that is one good thing, that we are seeing positive steps
towards improving processes and a willingness to make changes
when it is necessary.
I think one con--and I know, Chairwoman Richardson, you
disagree with this to some extent--is the lack of regional
involvement in the grants process. I think that on a day-to-day
basis, I interact, the State interacts with people from the
FEMA region, FEMA region 3; and those relationships are really
valuable in terms of monitoring the projects and assisting with
maybe overcoming some of these hurdles that we have discussed
today. I think it is a balance that needs to be struck.
I agree that just dumping the grant program management into
the regions would create a lot of inconsistency across regions
and would make it very difficult to manage them centrally. So I
think there is definitely a role for central management like
maybe Ms. Harman said, up to award; and then, from there,
project monitoring and implementation would be handled at the
regional level. But I think that the regions do play a valuable
role in the grants process.
Mr. Cleaver. Thank you.
Ms. Harman.
Ms. Harman. Sure. With regard to pros--and we are looking
at the grant programs directorate as a whole?
Mr. Cleaver. Yes.
Ms. Harman. I think the pro that we have right now going
for us, we have a lot of money to manage. The people that get
that out the door are the people that currently work there.
And, honestly, I don't know how they do what they do with the
resources that we have right now, being down as many folks as
we are and working with some of the multiple systems that we
are working with until we can streamline that. We have some
very dedicated staff that truly believe in the FEMA mission and
have been there through evolving structures, through mergers,
and different management styles--and I mentioned earlier,
styles that I don't particularly care for that is very top
down. We have folks there that believe in the mission, want to
learn, want to contribute, and want to be empowered. That is
going to get us where we need to be in the end.
As far as the con, the overall grant process is a very
arduous process to get grant guidance together, to have
applications and systems and just getting everything out the
door. There is not a whole lot we can do about it, but we can
streamline where we can. But the system is the system. So it is
not the best system to work in, but we do with it the best that
we can right now.
Ms. Richardson. I just have a few last questions.
Ms. Harman, it has been explained, and I went before the
Budget Committee regarding Department of Homeland Security. I,
like many Members of this committee, expressed our concern with
the reduction in fire grants.
I also want to note for the record my concern of the safe
port as well. It originally had $400 million that was
authorized. However, for the full year 2011, it was only
requested $300 million. Some of those same problems--and I
won't go through them again--that we discussed about the fire
grants are equally with the ports. I and many people view that,
other than the airports, it is probably one of our greatest
vulnerabilities. So to again look at cutting some of these key
areas where we have had great success, where we have managed to
maintain and avoid a disaster, to not see that reflective in
terms of a budget priority is very concerning. So I wanted to
say that for the record.
The second thing that I wanted to mention had to do with
Ms. Richards' report where she talks about some of the barriers
that the regions and stakeholders are finding--legislative
barriers, organizational barriers, and State-level barriers to
coordination. A couple of the recommendations that she provides
is document-specific agency roles and responsibilities for
cross-program coordination of grant application and review
processes and ensure internal DHS coordination is in place.
This may include establishing memorandums of agreements if
roles are outside of FEMA. Have you considered that as of yet?
Ms. Harman. Yes, and we are actually under way with some of
that, particularly with TSA, who is our partner with the
transit, as well as Coast Guard. We even had an offer from the
Coast Guard to provide us reservists to help us with our
monitoring right now while our staffing levels are low, and we
are working up an interagency agreement with them right now.
So, yes, I have directed not only TSA to be done quickly
but the port and then any other partners where FEMA takes the
lead on most of the grant programs, but we do require
partnerships and relationships with subject matter experts. So
I do intend to establish MOUs with all of them.
Ms. Richardson. Okay. My final question, Ms. Harman, I have
said a couple times now in hearings, and every time when I say
it people are always somewhat surprised, but with you being
new, I think it is important to say again, and that is the
whole thing with COG, continuity of government.
When I was on the city council for 6 years, in the State
legislature for 6 months, and now in Congress, no one--and I
will repeat even to this day even though I have said it
publicly at least three times--no one has ever said to me, if
something happens, where do I go and what do I do? No one has
said that. So one of the other parts of importance within your
jurisdiction is the continuity of government. When we look at
the problems of what happened with Katrina, all we have to do
is turn on the news right now and look at the oil spill. You've
got Governors who everyone is pointing different fingers.
Where does COG fit in your grant process, and has there
been a priority to understand that beyond it just being on
paper that there is real work that must be done from the
Federal, State, and local level to get governments all working
correctly in the event of a disaster?
I had the same situation in American Samoa when we had the
earthquake and the subsequent tsunami, where you have a
Governor who was supposed to do one thing, and the Governor may
not necessarily be the right person to make all of those
decisions. So what are we doing to address COG in your grants
that you have so far?
Ms. Harman. Sure. Continuity of government clearly is very
important. We have a lot of grants to get out of the door.
There might be emergencies that pop up and catastrophic events
that pop up in a variety of different regions at different
times; and it is important that, although there are emergencies
and there are things to do there, that we are still getting
grants out the door to build capabilities and preparedness in
other areas of the country. We can't stop to do that. That is
very, very important.
COG was one of the first things I was introduced to when I
came to FEMA 3 months ago. We had an exercise at Mount Weather
that executed some of that, where we tested that; and I believe
you had an opportunity to visit us at that time. So it is at
the top of the list of things to do. Our COG program is in the
process within the grant program directorate. We are currently
being updated with new personnel, names, and things like that.
There has also been some training that has occurred as well.
Ms. Richardson. But where specifically in the grants that
are available would a local government or a State be able to
utilize funding for COG development?
Ms. Harman. I believe COG development can be utilized under
the State Homeland Security program, the UASI program. Of
course, we have EMPG, which is providing emergency managers out
there to plan for things like this. Of the 50-some different
programs, I am sure there are a variety of others as well, but
those would be the main.
Ms. Richardson. If you could provide that back to the
committee, what your recommendations would be, because that is
an area that I plan on working on.
Ms. Harman. Sure, will do.
Ms. Richardson. Mr. Cleaver, any further questions?
Mr. Rogers.
All right. I thank the witnesses for their valuable
testimony and the Members for their questions. The Members of
the subcommittee may have additional questions for the
witnesses; and we will ask you to respond in a timely fashion,
preferably in less than 2 weeks, in writing to those questions.
Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned.
[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.]
A P P E N D I X
----------
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson of California for Elizabeth
M. Harman
Question 1. You indicated in response to a question that the Grant
Programs Directorate is forming a working group to evaluate which grant
functions to shift from FEMA headquarters to the ten regions. What is
FEMA's timetable for receiving, reviewing, and acting upon the
recommendations made by the working group?
Answer. The working group met at the beginning of August and
provided recommendations to GPD leadership. FEMA leadership approval is
expected by the end of September. Once FEMA leadership approval is
obtained, an implementation plan will be developed during early fiscal
year 2011.
Question 2. In December 2009, Deputy Administrator Manning told the
committee that FEMA, in coordination with other DHS components, was re-
evaluating the risk formula that informs homeland security grant
allocations. What is the status of that review? Do you anticipate any
changes to the risk formula for the fiscal year 2011 grant cycle?
Answer. FEMA has been reviewing and evaluating the risk formula
that informs homeland security grant allocations in coordination with
the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Office of Infrastructure
Protection, and the Risk Management Division. At this time no decisions
have been made regarding changes to the risk formula for fiscal year
2011 grant cycle.
Question 3. In September 2009, FEMA announced that it was extending
the Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process to the
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). In practice, this means that
State and local grantees must complete time-consuming EHP reviews for
all of their grant projects, even if they will have no adverse impact
on the environment. The committee understands that FEMA has drafted a
rule to exclude the majority of HSGP-supported grant projects from EHP
reviews. When will FEMA finalize this categorical exclusion?
Answer. GPD's Grant Development and Administration Division (GD&A)
has recently finalized the GPD Programmatic Environmental Assessment
(PEA), which has resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI)
for certain grant activities under all Programs administered by GD&A.
The FONSI will reduce the number of projects that require an
information submittal for an EHP review. The analysis in the PEA
document will serve as the EHP documentation for those certain types of
projects; therefore grantees will not need to provide further EHP
documentation for those projects. GDA has developed an EHP review
process to streamline the review period for all projects not covered by
the PEA. These projects will be triaged to determine whether an
environmental assessment is required. If a further review reveals that
a project can be categorically excluded, that action is quickly taken
so that funds for the project can be released. As is current policy,
projects requiring an environmental assessment will be sent to the
applicable FEMA Region for action. The GDA EHP program continues to
provide outreach and education to grantees to explain the EHP process
and regularly receives feedback on ways to make it as grantee-friendly
as possible.
Question 4. Please describe which FEMA grants support continuity of
government operations and how that support is generally carried out at
the State and local level with FEMA's grants.
Answer. Several FEMA/GPD preparedness grant programs, including the
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and its associated sub-programs
support continuity of government (COG) operations. COG activities are
also supported under the Emergency Management Performance Grants
(EMPG). Activities undertaken at the State and local level utilizing
HSGP and EMPG funding include developing/refining COG plans and
procedures, executing tabletop and functional exercises to test COG
plans, providing communications equipment to essential Government
personnel, renovating facilities to act as alternate Emergency
Operations Centers (EOC), and, in the case of HSGP, target hardening of
critical Government infrastructure.
Question 5. Please provide the current number of vacant permanent
full-time positions within the Grants Program Directorate at
headquarters and discuss how many full-time filled and vacant positions
will be moved to the Regions.
Answer. The Grant Programs Directorate currently has 34 vacant
permanent full-time positions. The vacant positions have all been
advertised through USAJobs, lists of qualified applicants have been
compiled and reviewed and interviews with candidates have been or are
being scheduled. As of July 2, 13 job offers have been made and
accepted. These individuals are all currently in the FEMA security
clearance process. GPD envisions this first round to on-board no later
than pay period 18 (August 29, 2010).
GPD has supported the enhancement of FEMA's regions by transferring
six vacant positions to regions. As part of enhancing the FEMA regions,
FEMA has also convened a working group to determine which portions of
the grant life cycle will be moved to the regions, which will remain at
headquarters and which will be shared with the regional offices. This
working group is expected to provide recommendations to FEMA leadership
by the end of September. FEMA leadership approval is expected by the
end of September. Once FEMA leadership approval is obtained, an
implementation plan including personnel resources will be developed
during early fiscal year 2011.
Question 6. At the hearing, Chief Patalano, Ms. Tierney, and Ms.
Richards, offered several recommendations to FEMA and Congress for
improving the management of the homeland security grant program,
including:
Lifting the statutory 3 percent limit on the amount of grant
funding a recipient can retain for management and administrative
purposes to 5 percent;
Coordinating the development of State and local grant guidance
between the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and
the Department of Health and Human Services in order to ensure the
Federal preparedness grants are not duplicative or working at cross-
purposes;
Developing a more manageable process for completing Environmental
and Historic Preservation reviews for preparedness and critical
infrastructure grant programs;
Providing more flexibility to grantees to use grant funds to
support multi-year homeland security projects;
Permitting grantees to use a greater share of their homeland
security grants for personnel; and
Developing memorandums of understanding that describe the roles and
responsibilities of each DHS-component in the grant-making process.
What are FEMA's views on these recommendations and what steps has
FEMA taken, if any, to implement these recommendations?
Answer. Below is an update on the steps that FEMA has taken to
implement the recommendations that were offered during the hearing:
1. Lifting the statutory 3 percent limit on the amount of grant
funding a recipient can retain for management and
administrative purposes to 5 percent.--This change was adopted
in many of the GPD grant programs for fiscal year 2010. Almost
all of the fiscal year 2010 preparedness grant program Guidance
and Application kits include a provision that allows for
grantees and their sub-grantees to utilize up to 5 percent of
their award for management and administrative (M01&A) costs.
These programs include: HSGP, NSGP, RCPGP, DLSGP, THSGP, IECGP,
EOC, TSGP, IPR, FRSGP, and IBSGP. Others allow for 5 percent
M&A at the grantee level and 3 percent at the sub-grantee
level. These include: EMPG and PSGP. BZPP allows for 5% M&A at
the grantee level.
2. Coordinating the development of State and local grant guidance
between the Department of Homeland Security, Department of
Justice, and the Department of Health and Human Services in
order to ensure the Federal preparedness grants are not
duplicative or working at cross-purposes.--DHS and HHS co-chair
a grants coordinating committee representing 20 agency offices
with health and medical preparedness grant programs. This
committee meets monthly by conference call and twice yearly in
person. Committee activities can lead to identifying and
avoiding overlaps in funding, to assisting grantees, and to
leveraging and coordinating our various programs.
Representatives from FEMA have also started meeting regularly
with DOJ to coordinate the law enforcements aspect of programs
such as the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants & Office of
Justice Program's Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance
Grant Program.
3. Developing a more manageable process for completing
Environmental and Historic Preservation reviews for
preparedness and critical infrastructure grant programs.--GPD's
Grant Development and Administration Division (GD&A) has
recently finalized the GPD Programmatic Environmental
Assessment (PEA), which has resulted in a Finding of No
Significant Impact (FONSI) for certain grant activities under
all Programs administered by GD&A. The FONSI will reduce the
number of projects that require an information submittal for an
EHP review. The analysis in the PEA document will serve as the
EHP documentation for those certain types of projects;
therefore grantees will not need to provide further EHP
documentation for those projects. GDA has developed an EHP
review process to streamline the review period for all projects
not covered by the PEA, These projects will be triaged to
determine whether an environmental assessment is required. If a
further review reveals that a project can be categorically
excluded, that action is quickly taken so that funds for the
project can be released. As is current policy, projects
requiring an environmental assessment will be sent to the
applicable FEMA Region for action. The GDA EHP program
continues to provide outreach and education to grantees to
explain the EHP process and regularly receives feedback on ways
to make it as grantee-friendly as possible.
4. Providing more flexibility to grantees to use grant funds to
support multi-year homeland security projects.--FEMA/GPD
encourages the use of preparedness grant funding to support
multi-year homeland security projects, and program funding is
allowable over multiple years in most cases.
5. Permitting grantees to use a greater share of their homeland
security grants for personnel.--The Personnel Reimbursement for
Intelligence Cooperation and Enhancement (PRICE) of Homeland
Security Act (Public Law 110-412) directed FEMA/GPD to allow
for up to 50 percent of grant funding to be used for personnel
costs. FEMA/GPD responded by including this provision in all
grant guidance kits that include personnel costs as one of the
allowable costs.
6. Memorandums of understanding that describe the roles and
responsibilities of each DHS-component in the grant-making
process.--MOA's are in place between FEMA-GPD and the Office of
Infrastructure Protection for the Buffer Zone Protection
Program and FEMA-GPD and Office of Environmental and Historical
Preservation to coordinate the implementation of requirements
under the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, an MOU
between FEMA GPD and DHS's Screening Coordination Office is
being considered for the REAL ID and the Driver's License
Security Grant Programs. The MOA's detail the roles and
responsibilities of the various offices to maintain effective
communication and collaboration for complete and successful
development and implementation of the various grant programs.
Under the Agreements, FEMA-GPD retains its primary
responsibility for grant program development and
administration, and the other offices retain their primary
responsibility for subject matter expertise, policy
development, program implementation and strategic oversight. We
are in the process of developing MOA's with other
organizations.
Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson of California for Anne L.
Richards
Question 1. The 9/11 Act directs the Inspector General to annually
complete audits of individual States' management of the Homeland
Security Grant Program. Has the Office of the Inspector General been
able to identify any common challenges with grant management that
multiple States are struggling with, particularly the process for
drawing down funds? If so, what are your recommendations to FEMA for
addressing those challenges? Did rural States or States with large
populations of volunteer first responders encounter different or more
complex challenges managing grants then States with more urban areas or
paid professionals?
Answer. The 12 States and 1 urban area we audited in 2008 and 2009
generally did an efficient and effective job of administering the grant
management program requirements, distributing grant funds, and ensuring
that all of the available funds were used. However, we identified
common challenges and made recommendations to improve grants management
functions, with most States facing challenges in controls over
equipment and property, monitoring and oversight activities, and
planning activities such as establishing measurable program goals and
objectives. Other more localized challenges included questioned costs,
complying with Federal procurement practices, and financial planning,
reporting, and support.
Our completed audits did not identify challenges regarding the
drawdown of funds, or any differences in the complexity of challenges
between rural States and States with more urban areas. Challenges and
recommendations included:
Equipment and Property.--Our audit reports identified equipment and
property weaknesses and included recommendations to strengthen property
controls within the homeland security grant management programs. Some
examples include:
Unauthorized expenditures were charged to Federal funds
because the agency did not sufficiently review the acquired
items to ensure compliance with grant terms.
The State did not establish policies for controlling
centrally purchased equipment distributed to local
jurisdictions, resulting in a lack of equipment accountability.
The State did not ensure that subgrantees established and
maintained effective control and accountability systems.
Monitoring and Oversight Practices.--Monitoring and oversight
weaknesses were cited in most State audit reports, resulting in
recommendations to improve the States' monitoring and oversight of
grant programs and processes. The reports noted that several States
have implemented proactive measures to improve their monitoring and
oversight processes, including developing policies, procedures, and
program monitoring guidance; performing equipment reviews; and
preparing a formal subgrantee guide for site monitoring efforts. Noted
weaknesses included:
States' emergency management organizational structures did
not change with the addition of new homeland security grant
responsibilities, resulting in monitoring and oversight
weaknesses.
Lack of written plans to monitor financial or programmatic
performance against strategic goals, and therefore had
insufficient assurance that program goals were being achieved
or that grant funds were being properly expended.
Infrequent monitoring and site visits to subgrantees.
Monitoring generally did not cover programmatic issues, only
financial issues.
Measurable Program Goals and Objectives.--A common challenge was
for States to establish specific, measurable program goals and
objectives linking the State's strategy and subgrantees' use of grant
funds to acquire equipment, training, and exercises. Our audit reports
included recommendations to improve grant management procedures,
demonstrate progress in achieving goals and objectives, and measure
improvements in local jurisdictions' capabilities in terms of
equipment, training, and exercises. Without measurable goals and
objectives, the States: (1) Could not adequately evaluate the relative
impacts that grant funds had on first responders' ability to respond to
terrorist attacks or natural disasters, (2) lacked important tools for
allocating grant funds and providing oversight to subgrantees, and (3)
were unable to assess first responder capabilities or justify continued
grants.
Questioned Costs.--Our audit reports identified over $3.5 million
in questioned costs, and made recommendations to resolve or recover the
expenditures. Examples included:
Ineligible costs (unauthorized equipment, unauthorized
purpose).
Equipment used for unauthorized purposes, or not being
utilized or maintained as intended.
Unapproved transfers and commingling of grant funds.
Accrued interest earned on grant funds not remitted to the
Federal Government.
Lack of supporting documentation.
Federal Procurement Practices.--States did not ensure that Federal
procurement regulations were followed at the subgrantee level,
resulting in recommendations to establish and implement procedures to
ensure Federal requirements are followed by grant recipients. Specific
examples include:
Required cost analyses not performed for noncompetitive
procurements contracts.
State not notified of noncompetitive procurements, as
required prior to awarding the contracts.
Contract awarded to the firm that developed the
specifications for the contract, creating an organizational
conflict of interest and undermining full and open competition.
Financial Planning, Reporting, and Support.--The State audit
reports identified areas where financial planning and reporting
controls were not properly implemented. States have already taken
actions to implement the recommendations and improve their processes.
Question 2. Since the inception of the Homeland Security Grant
Program (HSGP) following 9/11, grantees have been challenged to quickly
spend--or ``drawdown''--their grant awards. What steps could FEMA and
States take to expend their HSGP grant awards in a more expeditious
manner?
Answer. While FEMA has taken steps to permit States to expend their
Homeland Security Grant Program funds more expeditiously, other actions
are needed to streamline the grant review and approval process in order
for grantees and subgrantees to receive their funds in a timely manner.
In 2005, FEMA incorporated the application process of four
complementary grant programs into the Homeland Security Grant Program:
State Homeland Security Program;
Urban Areas Security Initiative;
Citizen Corps Program;
Metropolitan Medical Response System.
In 2010, the Operation Stonegarden program was added to the
Homeland Security Grant Program. While the grant programs retained
their distinct and separate identities, the Homeland Security Grant
Program provides a single application kit and program guidance to
facilitate coordination and management of State and local homeland
security funding. This also helps ensure that available funding is
leveraged for maximum impact.
Our March 2010 report titled ``Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs,''
identified areas where improvements are needed to improve the
effectiveness and efficiency of all of FEMA's preparedness grant
programs, specifically involving application timelines, application
submission requirements, and application review panels.
Existing Grant Application Timelines Are Not Arranged Optimally.--
Grant timelines do not promote the most efficient application
preparation and review because they are not arranged in the most
optimal sequence. In many cases, the timelines are legislatively
established and do not allow States the opportunity to logically
develop investment justifications that address overarching needs or
define target capabilities while simultaneously focusing on more
narrowly focused programs. Although the scopes of these programs may
overlap, we did not identify a consistent pattern in the current
sequence that would allow States to develop investment justifications
for similar programs or related projects in a logical and efficient
order.
Inconsistent or Redundant Grant Application Requirements Preclude
Efficient Planning.--FEMA issues separate annual guidance to outline
the application processes and requirements for each grant program which
creates burdensome requirements on both FEMA and grantees as the
requirements differ across grant programs. Requirements in grant
guidance vary across programs, regardless of the similarities of the
grant program, making it difficult for States to have a streamlined
planning process that is consistent across all grant programs. Grant
programs have different investment justification templates as part of
the application process. This requires applicants to prepare investment
justifications or documents with unique information for each program
regardless of the similarities of the proposed funding activities.
These varied templates and program documents may provide consistency
for panels reviewing proposed project proposals for the individual
grant programs, but present an administrative burden for grant
applicants who must prepare similar information in different formats.
Review Panels Differ Across Grant Programs.--Grant programs have
separate review processes to evaluate funding requests for each grant
program, which requires FEMA to convene multiple review panels to
evaluate applications and investment justifications. For all programs,
FEMA verifies the applicant's compliance with administrative and
eligibility criteria identified in each grant program's application
kit. FEMA then sends the eligible applications through an investment
justification review process to evaluate the merits of proposed
investments against grant guidance criteria. However, FEMA uses various
types of reviews to evaluate proposed investments, depending on the
grant program, and include Federal, State, and local government
personnel; emergency responders; and members of National associations
on the review panels. These numerous panels create additional work for
FEMA to request review panel members from Federal, State, and local
organizations, depending on the grant program. FEMA must also train the
numerous panels, provide review materials, oversee the panels, and
compile panel results. Consolidating panels where grant programs have
similar purposes or activities would provide a more efficient use of
Federal, State, and local resources.
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
