Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving Key
Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges (09-JUL-01,
GAO-01-832).
This report discusses the Federal Emergency Management Agency's
(FEMA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993. Although FEMA did not attain all of its
goals for selected key outcomes in its fiscal year 2000 annual
performance report, FEMA did make progress toward achieving the
outcomes. FEMA's progress varied for each outcome, and the
information presented in the performance report did not always
provide enough information to allow an independent assessment of
FEMA's progress in achieving the outcome. In general, FEMA's
strategies for achieving these key outcomes appeared to be clear
and reasonable. Although FEMA has more work to do on the outcomes
GAO reviewed, its fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal
year 2002 performance plan reflect continued improvement compared
with the prior year's report and plan. FEMA has refined its
performance goals and made them more outcome oriented. FEMA's
fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan generally addressed the management challenges
GAO had in earlier reports. The report and plan indicate that
FEMA has taken some actions to address strategic human capital
management and information security management challenges.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-01-832
ACCNO: A01346
TITLE: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Status of Achieving
Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges
DATE: 07/09/2001
SUBJECT: Disaster relief aid
Performance measures
Strategic planning
Reporting requirements
Personnel management
Information resources management
FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
FEMA Public Assistance Program
Government Performance and Results Act
GPRA
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Testimony. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-01-832
Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Governmental Affairs, U.
S. Senate
United States General Accounting Office
GAO
July 2001 FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY
Status of Achieving Key Outcomes and Addressing Major Management Challenges
GAO- 01- 832
Page 1 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
July 9, 2001 The Honorable Fred Thompson Ranking Minority Member Committee
on Governmental Affairs United States Senate
Dear Senator Thompson: As you requested, we reviewed the Federal Emergency
Management Agency?s (FEMA) fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal
year 2002 performance plan required by the Government Performance and
Results Act of 1993 (GPRA) to assess the agency?s progress in achieving
selected key outcomes that you identified as important mission areas for the
agency. 1 These are the same outcomes we addressed in our June 2000 review
of the agency?s fiscal year 1999 performance report and fiscal year 2001
performance plan to provide a baseline by which to measure the agency?s
performance from year to year. 2 These selected key outcomes are to
minimize human suffering and property losses after natural disasters,
provide timely responses to disaster aid requests, and prevent or reduce
harm and losses from future disasters through
mitigation efforts. As agreed, using the selected key outcomes for FEMA as a
framework, we (1) assessed the progress FEMA has made in achieving these
outcomes and the strategies the agency has in place to achieve them and (2)
compared FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan with the agency?s prior year performance report and plan
for these outcomes. Additionally, we agreed to analyze how FEMA addressed
its major management challenges, including the
1 This report is one of a series of reports on the 24 Chief Financial
Officers (CFO) Act agencies? fiscal year 2000 performance reports and fiscal
year 2002 performance plans. This report is based, in part, on our review of
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan issued in April 2001. According to
FEMA?s Acting Chief of Staff, FEMA is considering selective modifications to
this plan because of its recent realignment.
2 Observations on the Federal Emergency Management Agency?s Fiscal Year 1999
Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2001 Performance Plan (GAO/ RCED- 00-
210R, June 30, 2000).
United States General Accounting Office Washington, DC 20548
Page 2 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
governmentwide high- risk areas of strategic human capital management 3 and
information security that we identified. Appendix I provides detailed
information on how FEMA addressed these challenges.
Although FEMA did not attain all of the goals pertaining to the selected key
outcomes in its fiscal year 2000 annual performance report, the performance
report showed that FEMA made some progress toward achieving the outcomes.
FEMA?s progress varied for each outcome, and the information presented in
the performance report did not always provide sufficient information to
facilitate an independent assessment of FEMA?s progress in achieving the
outcome. In general, FEMA?s strategies for achieving these key outcomes
appeared to be clear and reasonable.
Planned outcome: Minimize human suffering and property losses after
natural disasters. FEMA?s report indicated that FEMA had made some progress
in achieving this outcome. It reported that it did not fully meet 5 of the
10 goals related to this outcome; and for 2 other goals, we were unable to
determine whether the goals had been achieved, based on the information
provided. The agency?s strategies for meeting its fiscal year 2002 goals
under this outcome appeared to be clear and reasonable. For example, the
agency plans several strategies to improve disaster response operations such
as enhancing interagency coordination through several groups, such as the
Catastrophic Disaster Response Group, and establishing improved disaster
declaration criteria.
Planned outcome: Provide timely responses to disaster aid requests. FEMA?s
report indicated that it is making limited progress in providing timely
responses to disaster aid requests. While it did not fully meet any of this
outcome?s three goals, FEMA reported accomplishing most of the performance
measures associated with the goals. Although FEMA provided a rationale for
why these goals were not fully achieved, it did not provide a detailed
strategy on how it plans to achieve these unmet goals in the future.
Planned outcome: Prevent or reduce harm and losses from future disasters
through mitigation efforts. FEMA?s report showed that the agency is
3 Key elements of modern strategic human capital management include
strategic human capital planning and organizational alignment; leadership
continuity and succession planning; acquiring and developing staffs whose
size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and creating results-
oriented organizational cultures. Results in Brief
Page 3 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
making progress towards preventing or reducing harm and losses from future
disasters through mitigation efforts. FEMA met the majority of its goals for
this key outcome, which included such results as (1) entering into formal
agreements with 11 agencies to support mitigation goals, (2) implementing
building standards that increased the use and effectiveness of mitigation
tools, and (3) refining and remeasuring savings achieved from flood- loss
reduction estimated by FEMA to be about $1 billion in fiscal year 2000.
Also, FEMA?s strategies for meeting its fiscal year 2002 goals appear to be
clear and reasonable. In addition, FEMA made progress in making performance
goals more outcome oriented by consolidating related goals. For example,
FEMA integrated several mitigation- related performance goals into a single
performance goal that will support the development of disaster resistance in
communities and states.
Although FEMA has additional work to do on the outcomes we reviewed, its
fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002 performance plan
reflect continued improvement compared with the prior year?s report and
plan. FEMA has refined its performance goals making them more outcome
oriented. FEMA began its performance planning effort in 1999 with 60 goals
and has reduced them to the 19 goals presented in its fiscal year 2002
performance plan. In addition, FEMA?s performance report and plan provided
more trend data and more descriptive details on performance goals such as
the benefits derived by achieving performance goals. For example, FEMA?s
fiscal year 2000 performance report used data on deployments of trained
safety and security staff from fiscal years 1998 through 2000 to illustrate
progress toward achieving its goal of providing a safe and secure
environment for FEMA and its emergency management partners at disaster
facilities. FEMA?s plan also included more explicit explanations of why
certain goals and measures were revised from previous years and did a better
job of providing detailed descriptions of the procedures the agency plans to
use to verify and validate performance data. However, unlike FEMA?s fiscal
year 1999 performance report, which clearly stated the extent to which goals
were met, its fiscal year 2000 performance report did not fully state the
extent to which some goals were met. For example, in the fiscal year 1999
performance report, FEMA reported it met 70 percent of its goal to make
communities more disaster resistant by increasing the use and effectiveness
of mitigation information tools. However, its fiscal year 2000 performance
report provided a narrative of progress made in achieving this goal, such as
providing technical guidance on new construction, but did not clearly
indicate the degree to which progress was made.
Page 4 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
The agency?s fiscal year 2000 performance report and fiscal year 2002
performance plan generally addressed the management challenges we
identified. The report and plan indicate that FEMA has taken some actions to
address strategic human capital management and information security
management challenges. For example, in the area of strategic human capital
management, FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan discusses the skills
required for the agency to achieve its key outcomes and establishes a goal
to create and maintain human resource systems that would help it accomplish
human resource planning and managing human capital missions. However, the
plan contains no specifics on leadership continuity and succession planning
and has limited discussion of strategic human capital planning and
organizational alignment. Similarly, FEMA reported taking actions to address
information security such as establishing a Critical Infrastructure
Assurance Officer position and an Information Assurance Branch in fiscal
year 2000 to address weaknesses in information security, but the agency?s
fiscal year 2002 performance plan does not have performance goals and
measures directly related to information security. As a result, it will be
difficult to assess future progress in this area.
We provided copies of a draft of this report to FEMA for its review and
comment. FEMA chose to meet with us to provide oral comments on the draft
report, and we met with FEMA?s GPRA Manager of the Administration and
Resource Planning Directorate on June 28, 2001, to discuss these comments.
The FEMA official agreed with the report, but provided us with clarifying
comments that we have addressed in the final report.
GPRA is intended to shift the focus of government decisionmaking,
management, and accountability from activities and processes to the results
and outcomes achieved by federal programs. New and valuable information on
the plans, goals, and strategies of federal agencies has been provided since
federal agencies began implementing GPRA. Under GPRA, annual performance
plans are to clearly inform the Congress and the public of (1) the annual
performance goals for agencies? major programs and activities, (2) the
measures that will be used to gauge performance, (3) the strategies and
resources required to achieve the performance goals, and (4) the procedures
that will be used to verify and validate performance information. These
annual plans, issued soon after Background
Page 5 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
transmittal of the president?s budget, provide a direct linkage between an
agency?s longer term goals and mission and day- to- day activities. 4 Annual
performance reports are to subsequently report on the degree to which
performance goals were met. The issuance of the agencies? performance
reports, due by March 31, represents a new and potentially more substantive
phase in the implementation of GPRA- the opportunity to assess federal
agencies? actual performance for the prior fiscal year and to consider what
steps are needed to improve performance and reduce costs in the future. 5
FEMA is an independent agency whose mission is to reduce the loss of life
and property and protect our institutions from natural and technological
hazards by leading and supporting the nation in a comprehensive, riskbased
emergency management program of mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery. Traditionally, the role of the federal government has been to
supplement the emergency management efforts of state and local governments,
voluntary organizations, and private citizens. According to FEMA?s strategic
plan, the nation?s emergency management capability is built on a partnership
of local, state, and federal governments; voluntary agencies; business and
industry; and individual citizens. FEMA?s focus is on building partnerships
and mitigating the effects of disaster by assisting state, tribal, and local
governments to prepare for, respond to, and recover from natural, manmade,
and technological disasters.
This section discusses our analysis of FEMA?s performance in achieving its
selected key outcomes and the strategies it has in place, particularly
strategic human capital management and information technology, for
accomplishing these outcomes. In discussing these outcomes, we have also
provided information drawn from our prior work on the extent to which the
agency provided assurance that the performance information it is reporting
is credible.
4 The fiscal year 2002 performance plan is the fourth of these annual plans
under GPRA. 5 The fiscal year 2000 performance report is the second of these
annual reports under GPRA. Assessment of
FEMA?s Progress and Strategies in Achieving Selected Key Outcomes
Page 6 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
According to its fiscal year 2000 annual performance report, FEMA has made
some progress in minimizing human suffering and property losses after
natural disasters. FEMA has 10 performance goals related to this key
outcome. It reported that it met three of this outcome?s goals, including
efforts to process disaster declaration requests within an average of 8.3
days and achieved an 85- percent customer satisfaction rating for elements
of its Public Assistance Program. We could not determine progress for two
other goals because FEMA did not provide data for all measures associated
with these goals. For example, FEMA did not provide data on reducing costs
for disseminating FEMA documents and public announcements making it
difficult to assess FEMA?s progress toward its goal of providing reliable
data and communications services to disaster locations. FEMA also reported
that it did not fully meet five goals related to this outcome but generally
provided explanations for why goals were not achieved. For instance, FEMA
reported that its growth rate for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)
policies fell short of its 5 percent goal but discusses a number of factors
that affected overall policy growth in fiscal year 2000.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report was similar to its fiscal year
1999 performance report in that it did little to identify significant
limitations that potentially affect the credibility of data used to measure
its performance. For example, FEMA has a goal associated with this outcome
to enhance recovery by expediting disaster operations through the National
Emergency Management Information System. FEMA does not acknowledge reported
limitations associated with this system. In a report to be issued in July
2001, we note that FEMA had identified weaknesses in the system, such as
untimely data, as reported in FEMA after- action reports.
The fiscal year 2000 performance report presented more descriptive details
for each of the annual performance goals than the fiscal year 1999
performance report, including more explanation on the goals? background and
why the goals are important. In some cases, FEMA included information on the
benefits derived from achieving goals. For example, one of the Response and
Recovery goals is to enhance a community?s disaster recovery process by
improving administrative processes and training. FEMA stated in its fiscal
year 2000 performance report that achieving this goal means that customers
are satisfied with the overall Public Assistance Program and are being
served in a timely manner by responsive, competent, and accountable staff.
In some cases, FEMA also identified special conditions that affected the
agency?s ability to meet the goals. For example, one of the measures used to
determine progress Minimize Human Suffering
and Property Losses After Natural Disasters
Page 7 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
toward the goal discussed in the previous example did not have complete data
on fiscal year 2000. As a result, FEMA reported on data for the first half
of the fiscal year and provided an explanation of why the data were not
available for the entire year. FEMA also indicated that incomplete data
would be a continuing problem because of the lag time between collecting and
analyzing data on this goal.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report also used more data to illustrate
progress toward achieving goals. For example, FEMA has a goal to increase
the effective delivery of response services by ensuring immediate response
to a governor?s request for a presidential declaration. One measure is that
FEMA will process a governor?s request within an average of 8.3 days. Figure
1 illustrates FEMA?s progress toward achieving its processing goal for
fiscal years 1999 and 2000.
Figure 1: Average Days to Process Presidential Disaster Declaration Packages
Source: FEMA?s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report.
Page 8 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
In its fiscal year 2002 performance plan, FEMA outlines several strategies
to improve disaster response operations such as enhancing interagency
coordination through a number of groups, including the Catastrophic Disaster
Response Group, Emergency Support Function Leaders, and the Regional
Interagency Committee and establishing improved disaster declaration
criteria. FEMA?s plan also discusses specific actions for coordinating with
other agencies to accomplish this goal. In the area of information
technology, FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan states that it plans to
reduce the resources needed and increase the speed for processing disaster
assistance within the National Emergency Management Information System.
However, FEMA mentions no specifics on how it plans to achieve this goal. In
the area of strategic human capital management, FEMA presents a strategy to
increase senior management effectiveness at disaster field offices for three
goals, but provides no specifics on how it plans to pursue this strategy.
Although FEMA reported accomplishing most performance measures under this
outcome, it reported that it did not fully meet any goal under this outcome.
This outcome contained three goals with numerous performance measures. For
example, FEMA?s goal to increase the level of internal and external customer
satisfaction with FEMA services contains nine performance measures. FEMA
reported that four of nine measures were accomplished, two were not
accomplished, and three were discontinued and not reported. Although FEMA
provided a rationale for why some of these goals were not fully achieved, it
did not provide a detailed strategy on how it plans to achieve these unmet
goals in the future. For example, FEMA explained it did not fully achieve
its goal of referring 100 percent of eligible delinquent debts to the
Department of the Treasury. However, the only discussion provided on needed
changes was that FEMA must develop a policy on the collection of delinquent
debts, publish rules and regulations in the Federal Register before
collecting such debts, and transfer remaining delinquent debts to the
Treasury.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has two performance goals under
this outcome that represent goals for several FEMA offices. FEMA
acknowledges that these goals are iterations of goals found in the other two
outcomes- minimizing human suffering and mitigation efforts. Although the
goals themselves appear to be clear and reasonable, they could result in
confusion over who is responsible for achieving these goals. For example,
the Response and Recovery Directorate has a performance goal in this outcome
to determine cost drivers in the response and recovery processes and
implement re- engineered processes to support improvements in FEMA cost
efficiency. Under the outcome to Provide Timely Responses
to Disaster Aid Requests
Page 9 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
minimize human suffering and property losses after natural disasters, FEMA
has performance measures to improve disaster processing by 5 percent and
reduce the total dollar value of assets at closed disaster field offices by
10 percent.
In the area of strategic human capital management, FEMA outlines the skills
base it needs to achieve goals under this outcome and has one goal for the
Human Resources Management Office to provide timely and effective human
resource tools, services, information, and assistance to FEMA organizations.
In the area of information technology, FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance
plan has measures to expand public access to information through e-
government services and deliver accessible and standardized information
technology services at 98 percent availability with no undetected virus
attacks. Expanding e- government services is a new administration
initiative, which FEMA plans to use to provide information to the public in
a more timely and efficient manner.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report showed that the agency was making
progress in preventing or reducing harm and losses from future disasters
through mitigation efforts. The agency reported meeting the majority of its
goals for this key outcome, which included results such as
entering into formal agreements with 11 agencies to support mitigation
goals,
designating 63 communities as Project Impact communities, 6
implementing building standards that increased the use and effectiveness
of mitigation tools, and
completing seven hurricane evacuation studies. Most of the performance
goals for this key outcome have at least one measurable or quantifiable
performance measure that helps demonstrate progress toward reaching the
goals. For example, FEMA reported that the Federal Insurance Administration
(FIA) 7 successfully refined and remeasured the savings achieved from flood
loss reduction. FEMA
6 Project Impact is a partnership initiative between FEMA and local
communities aimed at helping to protect communities from the devastating
effects of natural disasters by taking actions that dramatically reduce
disruption and loss.
7 FIA administers the National Flood Insurance Program- a major component of
the federal government?s efforts to provide flood- related assistance.
Prevent or Reduce Harm
and Losses From Future Disasters Through Mitigation Efforts
Page 10 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
estimated flood loss reduction amounted to just over $1 billion in fiscal
year 2000. It also reported that tests of the National Warning System showed
emergency alerts were disseminated within 2 minutes- exceeding FEMA?s goal
of 3- minute dissemination.
In addition, as we pointed out in our May 2001 testimony, opportunities are
emerging to better measure the success of the NFIP in protecting lives and
preventing loss of property. 8 FEMA?s FIA has a number of performance goals
aimed at improving the results of the NFIP, including increasing the number
of insurance policies sold. FEMA did not meet the 5 percent annual increase
goal for policies sold in fiscal years 1999 and 2000. However, it decided
not to change the goal, according to the acting FIA Administrator, because
FIA felt it was an effective workforce driver. Although this goal may serve
a workforce purpose and provide insight on program volume, it does not
measure the degree of participation by the most vulnerable residents- those
living in flood- prone areas. Capturing data on the number of both uninsured
and insured structures in floodprone areas could provide FEMA with another
indication of how effectively the program is penetrating into those areas
most at risk of flooding, whether the financial consequences of floods in
these areas are increasing or decreasing, and where to better target
marketing efforts.
Our May 2001 testimony also pointed out that opportunities are developing
for FEMA to obtain valuable information about the program?s success through
analysis of the rate of participation for those communities involved in the
program. The participation rate is obtained by dividing the number of
properties located in special flood hazard areas (SFHA) with flood insurance
by the total number of properties in these SFHAs. FIA maintains a database
on the number of flood insurance policies in force, including the number in
SFHAs. However, the data FEMA has on the national and local community levels
for the number of structures in SFHAs are of varying quality, according to
FIA?s Acting Administrator. Even so, several current mapping technologies
can be used to facilitate the collection of data on the number of structures
in the SFHAs. Local communities, such as Dekalb County, GA and Charlotte,
NC, are using mapping technologies to estimate the number of structures in
SFHAs. Combining these technologies with the digital flood maps that FEMA is
already producing would increase accuracy in the identification of
8 Emerging Opportunity to Better Measure Certain Results of the National
Flood Insurance Program (GAO- 01- 736T, May 16, 2001).
Page 11 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
structures within SFHAs and the calculation of participation rates. FIA
officials agree that program participation rates are a useful measure that
can provide insights for measuring the program?s success, including the
effectiveness of marketing.
However, it is still difficult to determine the degree of progress FEMA has
made in achieving some of it goals. This is because FEMA did not clearly
state whether some goals were fully achieved. For example, FEMA cited that
it had achieved ?substantial advancement? in achieving its efforts to
evaluate the effectiveness of the mitigation planning. It would be more
helpful if FEMA clearly stated whether or not the goal had been met or not
met as required under GPRA, then discuss the degree of achievement FEMA made
under this goal.
In addition, FEMA did not report the results achieved for some of the
performance measures. For example, FEMA?s goal to increase public awareness
of fire hazards has two performance measures: (1) increase the usage of
public education materials by 4 percent and (2) increase the number of
hotels and motels with automatic sprinkler and smoke detection systems by 20
percent. FEMA provided performance data for the first measure but did not
provide any performance data or information on the second measure. Also,
FEMA still needs to provide better information on significant limitations to
the data used to measure performance. Although the Director of FEMA
acknowledges there are limitations with some of FEMA?s data in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report, the report did not always discuss where data
limitations exist and how they affect the accuracy, completeness, and
availability of performance measurement data under this outcome.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan shows that the agency has made some
improvements in its strategies by streamlining a number of its mitigation
goals into one outcome- oriented goal that will support the development of
disaster resistance in a number of communities. FEMA reports that this
consolidation is in recognition that several fiscal year 2000 goals were
better identified as means and strategies to the revised goal. FEMA?s
strategies for achieving progress towards this key outcome include
conducting post- disaster economic impact studies and coordinating with
other federal departments and agencies via Memorandums of Understanding to
identify ways existing programs and new initiatives can support national
mitigation goals.
In the area of strategic human capital management, FEMA discusses the skills
needed to achieve performance goals under this outcome in its fiscal
Page 12 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
year 2002 performance plan. In the area of information technology, FEMA
plans to evaluate and apply emerging technologies that enable more
costeffective modeling and mapping.
For the selected key outcomes, this section describes major improvements or
remaining weaknesses in FEMA?s (1) fiscal year 2000 performance report in
comparison with its fiscal year 1999 report and (2) fiscal year 2002
performance plan in comparison with its fiscal year 2001 plan. It also
discusses the degree to which the agency?s fiscal year 2000 report and
fiscal year 2002 plan address concerns and recommendations made by the
Congress, GAO, FEMA?s Inspector General, us and others.
FEMA made a number of improvements in its fiscal year 2000 performance
report, such as using more trend data and providing explanations about
variations in its performance goals but omitted a key piece of information
that highlighted the degree of progress it made towards achieving its
performance goals. However, unlike FEMA?s fiscal year 1999 performance
report which clearly stated the extent to which goals were met, FEMA?s
fiscal year 2000 performance report did not include a quantitative
assessment of the progress the agency made in achieving each goal, which
makes it difficult, in some cases, to determine whether the agency achieved
its goal.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report used more data to illustrate
progress towards achieving goals. The report made frequent use of graphics
to illustrate trends- which is helpful to the reader. For example, FEMA has
an annual performance goal to provide a safe and secure environment for FEMA
and its emergency management partners at disaster facilities. One measure is
to provide trained safety and security staff for 80 percent of major
declared disasters. FEMA illustrates its achievement with a graph of
security staff deployments to major disasters for fiscal years 1998 through
2000. Comparison of
FEMA?s Fiscal Year 2000 Performance Report and Fiscal Year 2002 Performance
Plan With the Prior Year Report and Plan for Selected Key Outcomes
Comparison of Performance Reports for Fiscal Years 1999 and 2000
Page 13 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report also showed improvement in
providing explanations for its inability to meet some of its performance
goals and measures. For example, FEMA reported that it did not meet its goal
to increase the number of policies in the NFIP but cited several factors,
such as lack of flood activity and drought conditions across many parts of
the United States, that affected overall policy growth. In addition, when
applicable, FEMA identified whether its goal changed in the next fiscal
year.
In some cases, it is difficult to determine the degree of progress FEMA made
towards achieving goals under its three outcomes because FEMA did not
provide a quantitative assessment of progress. For example, the goal on
evaluating the effectiveness of mitigation planning processes and related
initiatives does not explicitly state whether the goal was met. The
narrative under ?Achievement? states fiscal year 2000 efforts have resulted
in substantial advancement in mitigation planning. The text goes on to
discuss a variety of mitigation planning activities but does not clearly
state whether the goal has been achieved. Both GPRA and the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A- 11?s guidance for developing
performance plans and reports require that agencies provide an indication of
whether a goal is or is not met.
FEMA made some improvements to its fiscal year 2002 performance plan as
compared to its fiscal year 2001 performance plan. FEMA continued to
streamline its performance goals and make them more outcome- oriented. FEMA
also provided more descriptive details on the background of the goals and
means and strategies for achieving them; more graphics and trend data on
annual outcomes; and added goals to reflect FEMA?s commitment to the
administration?s reform goals. FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also
shows improvement in providing details about the procedures for verification
and validation for most of the performance goals. However, the agency did
not generally provide information on significant limitations that may
potentially affect the credibility of the data used to measure performance.
As mentioned previously, FEMA continued its streamlining by consolidating a
number of goals. As a result, FEMA has 19 performance goals in its fiscal
year 2002 performance plan compared with 30 in its fiscal year 2001
performance plan. The fiscal year 2002 performance plan?s goals have some
measures that were performance goals in the fiscal year 2001 plan. For
example, FEMA consolidated a number of mitigation- related Comparison of
Performance Plans for Fiscal Years 2001 and 2002
Page 14 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
goals to form a more outcome- oriented goal to support the development of
disaster resistance in communities and states.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan also has more descriptive details
for each of the outcomes. For example, FEMA outlines a number of mitigation
tools, education and outreach activities, and partnership agreements it will
pursue to support the development of disaster resistance in communities and
states. FEMA plans to coordinate with other federal departments and agencies
to identify ways in which their existing programs and new initiatives can
support national mitigation goals. FEMA also plans to discuss specific
actions for coordinating with other agencies to accomplish these goals. FEMA
makes use of trend data, for example, to illustrate the costs FEMA avoids
when purchasing new equipment by recycling previously used equipment in
support of its goals to operate a logistics program that provides timely and
cost effective resources in support of emergency management missions.
FEMA added six goals to its fiscal year 2002 performance plan in support of
its commitment to the administration?s reform goals issued in February 2001
through OMB. Five of the six reform goals are part of the outcome to provide
timely responses to disaster aid requests. Of these five goals, one has
elements of strategic human capital management- determine management levels
for streamlining purposes. The remaining four goals include reducing
erroneous payments, expanding on- line procurement, and making greater use
of performance- based contracts. The sixth goal- related to minimizing human
suffering and property losses after natural disasters- calls for the
development of a disaster declaration process that better defines federal
and state responsibilities for providing disaster assistance. Three of the
six goals have quantitative measures to measure success, but FEMA does not
provide any details on its strategies for achieving the goals.
FEMA has addressed weaknesses that we identified in the 1999 plan by
providing additional descriptions of the procedures for verification and
validation for most performance goals. For example, FEMA plans to use
additional verification and validation strategies to measure progress in
supporting the reduction of loss of life from fire- related incidents.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan states it will use reports from
several sources, including the National Fire Data Center, the National
Center for Health Statistics, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission to
compare data on fire- related deaths, injuries, and losses.
Page 15 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
However, FEMA still needs to do a better job of identifying limitations that
potentially affect the credibility of the data used to measure performance
and identifying external factors that may affect performance data. For
example, FEMA has a goal to improve response operations for which one
measure requires FEMA to act on requests for water, food, and shelter within
12 hours after a presidential disaster declaration. FEMA reports the goal?s
intent is to coordinate through partnerships with other federal agencies,
states, and local governments and private and voluntary organizations for
initial provision of these basic needs. The difficulties inherent in working
with so many other agencies and organizations are not acknowledged, although
they may have an effect on FEMA?s ability to meet this performance goal.
We have identified two governmentwide high- risk areas: strategic human
capital management and information security. We found that FEMA?s
performance plan had goals and measures related to human capital, but the
agency?s performance report did not explain its progress in resolving human
capital challenges except that progress had been made in improving Disaster
Field Office operations. We also found that FEMA?s fiscal year 2000
performance report discusses information security activities such as the
interception of major viruses and strengthening its Internet firewall
policies, but the fiscal year 2002 performance plan had no goals and
measures directly related to information security.
While FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan has no goals and measures
directly related to information security, it does have a performance measure
indirectly related to information technology that is associated with its
customer satisfaction goal. FEMA has a two- part performance measure that
calls for (1) delivering accessible and standardized information technology
services at 98- percent availability with no undetected virus attacks and
(2) resolving 80 percent of help desk trouble issues on the first call. In
its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA reported it had established a
Critical Infrastructure Assurance Officer position and an Information
Assurance Branch and was taking actions to protect and strengthen its
Intranet/ Internet assets. FEMA also reported that it had intercepted major
viruses, conducted network scan and security audits, and implemented
Intranet security measures. However, as part of an audit of FEMA?s fiscal
year 2000 financial statements, an independent auditor reported a material
weakness in computer- based controls over FEMA?s automated financial
information systems. FEMA?s Efforts to
Address Its Major Management Challenges Identified by GAO
Page 16 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
In addition, we identified three other major management challenges facing
FEMA. In our January 2001 Presidential and Congressional Transition effort,
we identified three management challenges- determining the cost
effectiveness of mitigation efforts, reducing the cost of disaster
assistance, and improving the financial condition of the NFIP. For these
three major management challenges, FEMA?s performance plan had 19 goals or
measures that were directly related to these challenges. Appendix I provides
detailed information on how FEMA addressed these challenges, high- risk
areas that we identified, and the challenges identified by FEMA?s Office of
Inspector General.
As agreed, our evaluation was generally based on the requirements of GPRA;
the Reports Consolidation Act of 2000; guidance to agencies from OMB for
developing performance plans and reports (OMB Circular A- 11, part 2);
previous reports and evaluations by us and others; our knowledge of FEMA?s
operations and programs; our identification of best practices concerning
performance planning and reporting; and our observations of FEMA?s other
GPRA- related efforts. We also discussed our review with agency officials
and with FEMA?s Office of Inspector General. The agency outcomes that were
used as the basis for our review were identified by the Ranking Minority
Member of the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee as important mission
areas for the agency and generally reflect the outcomes for all of FEMA?s
programs or activities. The major management challenges confronting FEMA,
including the governmentwide high- risk areas of strategic human capital
management and information security, were identified by us in our January
2001 Performance and Accountability Series and High- Risk Update or in our
January 2001 Presidential and Congressional Transition effort. The
management challenges identified by FEMA?s OIG were included in a December
2000 letter from the OIG to the Director. We did not independently verify
the information contained in the performance report and plan, although we
did draw from some of our other work in assessing the validity, reliability,
and timeliness of FEMA?s performance data. We conducted our review from
April 2001 through June 2001 in accordance with generally accepted
government auditing standards.
We provided a draft of this report to FEMA for its review and comment. FEMA
chose to meet with us to provide oral comments on the draft report, and we
met with FEMA?s GPRA Manager of the Administration and Resource Planning
Directorate on June 28, 2001, to discuss these comments. While the FEMA
official agreed with the report, she provided suggested changes that we have
included in this final report. The Scope and
Methodology Agency Comments
Page 17 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
suggested changes that we incorporated in this report include (1) adding
clarifying language that FEMA did not ?fully meet? five goals related to the
outcome to minimize human suffering and property losses to recognize the
progress FEMA had made, (2) adding five goals outlined in FEMA?s fiscal year
2002 performance plan related to the major management challenge to support
terrorism preparedness coordination, and (3) adding additional information
on progress made to resolve the major management challenge to improve the
financial condition of the NFIP.
FEMA also asked us to identify its key outcomes with FEMA?s own numbering
system in its performance plan in addition to the narrative description we
provided to increase clarity in the discussion of agency outcomes. We did
not include this change because it does not improve the clarity of the
report.
As arranged with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days after
the date of this letter. At that time, we will send copies to appropriate
congressional committees; the Director, Federal Emergency Management Agency;
and the Director, Office of Management and Budget. Copies will also be made
available to others upon request.
If you or your staff have any questions, please call me at (202) 512- 8984.
Key contributors to this report were Mark Abraham, Julia Duquette, David
Gill, Signora May, Robert Procaccini, and Carrie Watkins.
Sincerely yours, JayEtta Z. Hecker Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 18 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
The following table identifies the major management challenges confronting
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), including the governmentwide
high- risk areas of strategic human capital management and information
security. The first column lists the challenges identified by our office
and/ or FEMA?s Office of Inspector General (OIG). The second column
discusses the progress that has been made in resolving the challenges as
discussed in FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report. The third column
discusses the extent to which FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan
includes performance goals and measures to address the challenges that we
and/ or FEMA?s OIG identified.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report generally discussed the agency?s
progress in resolving its challenges. Of the agency?s 9 major management
challenges, its performance plan had (1) 38 goals or measures that were
directly related to 7 challenges; (2) 3 goals or measures that were
indirectly applicable to 2 challenges- one of these challenges also has
goals or measures directly related to it; and (3) no goals or measures
related to 1 challenge- financial management systems- but discussed
strategies to address this challenge. Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s
Efforts
to Address Its Major Management Challenges
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 19 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Table 1: Major Management Challenges Major management challenge
Progress in resolving major management challenge as discussed in the fiscal
year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO-
designated governmentwide high risk
Strategic human capital management: GAO identified shortcomings at multiple
agencies involving key elements of modern human capital management,
including strategic human capital planning and organizational alignment;
leadership continuity and succession planning; acquiring and developing
staffs whose size, skills, and deployment meet agency needs; and creating
results- oriented organizational cultures.
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA reported progress was made
in improving its Disaster Field Office operations, such as convening a
council to review operations and implementing corrective actions on a FEMA
OIG report. However, it is still struggling with effectively utilizing its
disaster cadre in the most efficient, economical, and effective manner
possible.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains a goal directly related to
this challenge- to create and maintain human resource systems that help FEMA
accomplish its mission, including planning and managing human capital. The
plan also contains a goal indirectly related to this challenge- to manage
processes and procedures that support the agency and a measure to determine
appropriate management levels that would result in streamlining FEMA?s
organizational units. The plan states that this measure reflects an
administration initiative to reduce middle management layers.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 20 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Information security: Our January 2001 high- risk update noted that the
agencies? and governmentwide efforts to strengthen information security have
gained momentum and expanded. Nevertheless, recent audits continue to show
federal computer systems are riddled with weaknesses that make them highly
vulnerable to computer- based attacks and place a broad range of critical
operations and assets at risk of fraud, misuse, and disruption.
(FEMA?s OIG also designated information technology management, including
areas related to information security, as a management challenge.)
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA reported that it had
intercepted 24 major viruses, conducted network scan and security audits on
its Intranet/ Internet assets, strengthened its Internet firewall policies,
and implemented a Intranet firewall. The report stated that FEMA also
deployed firewall controls to a National Emergency Management Information
System module and tested and implemented a firewall at the National
Emergency Training Center. The report also stated that FEMA is constantly
reviewing and improving its systems security and, as a result, security and
change controls are stronger and complementary manual controls were
implemented as warranted.
Notwithstanding FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 performance report, an independent
auditor evaluated computer controls over FEMA?s financial information
systems as part of its audit of FEMA?s fiscal year 2000 financial
statements. The auditor reported that computer- based controls do not
contribute to the reliability of the accounting systems and that control
deficiencies in FEMA?s automated Integrated Financial Management Information
System, particularly in the areas of access controls and program change
controls, were a material weakness.
FEMA reported it has established a Critical Infrastructure Assurance Officer
position and an Information Assurance Branch and was taking actions to
protect and strengthen its Intranet/ Internet assets.
FEMA?s fiscal year 2002 performance plan did not identify any goals that
directly related to this management challenge. However, a performance
measure associated with FEMA?s goal to increase levels of internal and
external customer satisfaction with FEMA services indirectly relates to this
challenge. The measure calls for delivering accessible and standardized
information technology services at 98- percent availability with no
undetected virus attacks.
The Chief Information Officers Council in coordination with the National
Institute of Standards and Technology and the Office of Management and
Budget has developed a framework for agencies to use in determining the
current status of information system controls and, where necessary, for
establishing a target for improvement. FEMA could use this framework as a
means of measuring progress in improving its information security program.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 21 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan GAO
and OIG- designated major management challenges
Determine the cost- effectiveness of disaster mitigation efforts: In August
1999, GAO recommended that FEMA, among other things, establish an analytical
basis to support the cost- effectiveness of acquiring substantially damaged
properties in floodplains and conduct periodic reviews of projects after
they have been implemented to determine whether they are costeffective. a To
provide the best available
data for analyzing the cost- effectiveness of proposed flood hazard
mitigation projects, GAO also recommended that FEMA:
conduct postdisaster verifications of flood hazards for use in evaluating
and possibly revising flood hazard map information and
Make the agency?s information on past insurance more readily available for
FEMA staff conducting benefit- cost analyses.
(FEMA?s OIG also designated aspects of mitigation strategies as a management
challenge.)
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA reported it is establishing
a system to measure whether state and local mitigation plans identify
activities that they will undertake. FEMA is also developing an evaluation
instrument to measure and document best planning practices so the states and
local communities can assess their own strengths and weaknesses and make
adjustments according to the results so that FEMA is better positioned to
target technical assistance, training, and funding levels for further
capability building.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains two goals directly related to
this management challenge.
1. To support the development of disaster resistance in communities and
states. Measures include (1) reducing by 5,000 the number of lives, by 2,200
the number of structures, and by 150 the elements of infrastructure at risk
and (2) increasing by 10% the number of communities who take actions to
foster disaster resistance.
2. For the second goal on state and local preparedness and mitigation
capability, FEMA?s plan calls for developing clearly defined and mutually
agreed- upon strategic goals and priorities for its Emergency Management
Performance Grant program agreements in collaboration with federal and local
governments. Measures associated with this goal include having all eligible
recipients of program grants developed work plans that include goals and
priorities and to improve baselines established in prior year grants.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 22 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Reduce the cost of disaster assistance: One way to reduce federal disaster
assistance costs is to change the eligibility criteria under the public
assistance program. In 1996, GAO made several recommendations regarding
changing the eligibility criteria. FEMA has since made changes to
eligibility, but eligibility and oversight issues remain.
(FEMA?s OIG also designated reducing the cost of disaster assistance as a
management challenge.)
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA states that the integration
of the map modernization plan into the Flood Hazard Mapping Program will
reduce the cost of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and reduce
disaster costs.
FEMA analysis of flood loss reduction savings indicates that the projected
$1 billion in savings by fiscal year 2002 has already been met and
recalculation of the projected savings will be done.
FEMA also reported that it reduced disaster assistance cost by avoiding the
cost of purchasing new equipment and using recycled disaster equipment
instead.
FEMA?s implementation of reengineered response and recovery processes will
support a 2- percent improvement in FEMA?s cost efficiency.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains two goals directly related to
this management challenge.
1. FEMA plans to increase overall customer satisfaction with its Public
Assistance programs. The measure is to manage public assistance programs to
achieve an overall customer satisfaction rate of 87 percent. 2. FEMA also
plans to manage
processes and procedures that support the agency in its efforts to provide
effective and efficient services. Measures for this goal include expanding
public access to information through e- government services, to complete
research to determine cost drivers in response and recovery processes, and
implement re- engineered processes to support improvements in agency cost
efficiency.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 23 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Improve the financial condition of the NFIP: The program has had to borrow
funds from the Treasury to cover operating losses resulting from heavy
flooding in recent years that produced flood insurance losses exceeding the
premiums collected from policyholders. Two major factors underlie financial
difficulties- the program, by design, is not actuarially sound; and it has
experienced repetitive losses.
(FEMA?s OIG also designated improving the financial condition of the NFIP as
a management challenge.)
As stated in the fiscal year 2000 performance report, in fiscal year 2000
efforts were focused on identifying a target group of repetitive loss
properties and the transfer of their insurance policies to a special
servicing facility to better oversee claims and to coordinate and facilitate
insurance and mitigation actions. FIA continued to reduce the amount of the
NFIP subsidy and developed recommended alternatives for reducing the subsidy
enjoyed by certain policyholders and held a series of meetings to refine the
recommendations.
Further reported for 2000, the NFIP Compliance Strategy helps states measure
and ensure the effectiveness of local floodplain management programs. FEMA
is undertaking several specific NFIP compliance initiatives to make more
efficient use of and better target limited resources in the areas of
technical assistance, training, and funding for floodplain management.
The NFIP Community Rating System provides incentives that encourage state
and community mitigation programs, planning, and initiatives. The system
rewards community activities that go beyond the minimum standards of the
NFIP, lead to a reduction of flood losses in the United States, include
community recognition, and result in reduced flood insurance rates for NFIP
policyholders in system communities.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains three goals directly related
to this management challenge.
1. Reduce flood- loss: Through the NFIP?s insurance and floodplain
management activities, reduce potential annual flood losses by more than $1
billion. The measure associated with this goal is that refined measurement
systems confirm that reduced or avoided flood damage costs exceed the
estimate $900 million. 2. Reduce repetitive losses and
subsidies: Implement a repetitiveloss initiative to reduce the almost $200
million per year in losses to properties that have sustained flood damage on
multiple occasions. Rate and coverage changes will be implemented in keeping
with legislative authorities. The measure associated with this goal is that
the program?s underwriting experience and financial performance will be
analyzed and projected in the aggregate and for discrete classes of
business. New projections will be made based on loss and expense
expectations for historical average loss- year levels. 3. Flood insurance
policy growth. To
increase the number of flood insurance policies: Increase sales of insurance
policies in force by 5 percent annually.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 24 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan OIG-
designated major management challenges
Financial management: Much more must be done to ensure that FEMA?s financial
management systems and operations can produce, in a timely manner, accurate,
and relevant financial information.
The performance report stated that (1) improvements made during fiscal year
2000 to streamline the financial statements preparation process made the
financial statements available for audit more than 1 month earlier than the
1999 fiscal year?s and required substantially less year- end adjustments,
(2) corrective actions have resulted in stronger security and change
controls, and (3) complimentary manual controls were implemented as
warranted.
None. As this area is a FEMA OIGdesignated major management challenge, goals
or measures addressing the weaknesses in financial management should be
included in the performance plan. While FEMA has realized an important
objective in obtaining an unqualified opinion, financial accountability goes
well beyond an unqualified opinion. The key is to take steps to continuously
improve internal control and the underlying financial and management
information systems as a means to ensure accountability and enhance the
effectiveness of government. These systems must generate timely, accurate,
and useful information on an ongoing basis, not just at the end of the year.
Grant management structure: FEMA needs to improve its grant management
structure. In its fiscal year 2000 performance report,
FEMA notes it has made strides in its grant management activities/
functions. Prior to fiscal year 1998, FEMA did not have a grant management
structure that was sufficient to ensure how funds were dispensed to states.
There were weaknesses in grants awarded for both disaster recovery and
emergency preparedness. FEMA?s OIG was satisfied in fiscal year 1999 that
FEMA was making an effort to improve its grants management capability.
Grants management will continue to be monitored in fiscal year 2001 to
ensure satisfactory improvements.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains one goal directly related to
this challenge- in collaboration with federal and local governments, states
are to establish clearly defined and mutually agreed- upon strategic goals
and priorities for their Emergency Management Performance Grant agreements.
Two measures are associated with this goal:
1. All eligible recipients of such grants are to develop work plans that
include strategic goals and priorities. 2. Improvements are to be made to
baselines established in prior year program grants.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 25 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Determine how to measure state and local preparedness programs: FEMA still
does not have the ability to measure state disaster risks and performance
capability.
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA notes that in collaboration
with state partners, it revised the State Capability Assessment for
Readiness; and in fiscal year 2000, 56 states and territories completed the
self- assessment. Analysis of the data provides FEMA and the states with
information on areas where states will focus their efforts for improvement.
A local capability assessment is being developed, and a tribal (Native
American) version is being considered.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains two goals directly related to
this challenge.
1. The first goal is State, tribal, and local, and private sector
preparedness capability. Provide federal, state, tribal, local and private
partners with the tools to improve their knowledge, skills, abilities in all
phases of comprehensive emergency management. The two measures associated
with this goal are to (1) involve partners in the development and
recommended practices in the fiscal year 2001 and (2) develop, update,
revise, and deliver training in fiscal year 2002. 2. The second goal is to
support the
development of disaster resistance in communities and states. The measures
associated with this goal are to increase community resistance to natural
hazards and reduce losses from future disasters.
Appendix I: Observations on FEMA?s Efforts to Address Its Major Management
Challenges
Page 26 GAO- 01- 832 Federal Emergency Management Agency
Major management challenge Progress in resolving major management
challenge as discussed in the fiscal year 2000 performance report
Applicable goals and measures in the fiscal year 2002 performance plan
Support terrorism preparedness coordination: FEMA needs to support
terrorism- related emergencies.
In its fiscal year 2000 performance report, FEMA has a key role in
developing and maintaining a national strategy to support terrorism- related
emergencies. FEMA established an Office of Terrorism within the Office of
the Director.
The fiscal year 2002 performance plan contains five goals directly related
to this challenge. There are no measures associated with these goals.
1. To provide clear and concise guidance on FEMA?s roles and
responsibilities in terrorism related activities. 2. To ensure FEMA supports
federal, state, and local consequence management planning, training, and
exercise programs. 3. To improve coordination and
sharing of program information among federal, state, and local communities.
4. To establish an organizational
structure for coordinating terrorism preparedness within FEMA. 5. To develop
systems to monitor
and track resources needed to support FEMA?s terrorism consequence
management programs and activities.
a Disaster Assistance: Opportunities to Improve Cost- Effectiveness
Determination for Mitigation Grants (GAO/ RCED- 99- 236, Aug. 4, 1999). b
Disaster Assistance: Improvements Needed in Determining Eligibility for
Public Assistance (GAO/ RCED- 96- 113, May 23, 1996).
(394003)
The first copy of each GAO report is free. Additional copies of reports are
$2 each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. VISA and MasterCard credit cards are also accepted.
Orders for 100 or more copies to be mailed to a single address are
discounted 25 percent.
Orders by mail:
U. S. General Accounting Office P. O. Box 37050 Washington, DC 20013
Orders by visiting:
Room 1100 700 4 th St., NW (corner of 4 th and G Sts. NW) Washington, DC
20013
Orders by phone:
(202) 512- 6000 fax: (202) 512- 6061 TDD (202) 512- 2537
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly available reports and testimony. To
receive facsimile copies of the daily list or any list from the past 30
days, please call (202) 512- 6000 using a touchtone phone. A recorded menu
will provide information on how to obtain these lists.
Orders by Internet
For information on how to access GAO reports on the Internet, send an email
message with ?info? in the body to:
Info@ www. gao. gov or visit GAO?s World Wide Web home page at: http:// www.
gao. gov
Contact one:
Web site: http:// www. gao. gov/ fraudnet/ fraudnet. htm
E- mail: fraudnet@ gao. gov
1- 800- 424- 5454 (automated answering system) Ordering Information
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
*** End of document. ***
|
NEWSLETTER
|
|
Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list
|
|
|
