[Senate Report 111-291]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
Calendar No. 566
111th Congress
2d Session SENATE Report
111-291
_______________________________________________________________________
REDUNDANCY ELIMINATION AND
ENHANCED PERFORMANCE FOR
PREPAREDNESS GRANTS ACT
__________
R E P O R T
of the
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND
GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
UNITED STATES SENATE
to accompany
H.R. 3980
TO PROVIDE FOR IDENTIFYING AND ELIMINATING REDUNDANT REPORTING
REQUIREMENTS AND DEVELOPING MEANINGFUL PERFORMANCE METRICS FOR HOMELAND
SECURITY PREPAREDNESS GRANTS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
September 16, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
WASHINGTON : 2010
COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY AND GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS
JOSEPH I. LIEBERMAN, Connecticut, Chairman
CARL LEVIN, Michigan SUSAN M. COLLINS, Maine
DANIEL K. AKAKA, Hawaii TOM COBURN, Oklahoma
THOMAS R. CARPER, Delaware SCOTT P. BROWN, Massachusetts
MARK L. PRYOR, Arkansas JOHN McCAIN, Arizona
MARY L. LANDRIEU, Louisiana GEORGE V. VOINOVICH, Ohio
CLAIRE McCASKILL, Missouri JOHN ENSIGN, Nevada
JON TESTER, Montana LINDSEY GRAHAM, South Carolina
ROLAND W. BURRIS, Illinois
EDWARD E. KAUFMAN, Delaware
Michael L. Alexander, Staff Director
Kevin J. Landy, Chief Counsel
Beth M. Grossman, Senior Counsel
Jason T. Barnosky, Professional Staff Member
Brandon L. Milhorn, Minority Staff Director and Chief Counsel
Robert L. Strayer, Minority Director for Homeland Security Affairs
Jessica L. Baetjer, Miniority Professional Staff Member
Trina Driessnack Tyrer, Chief Clerk
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
I. Purpose and Summary..............................................1
II. Background and Need for the Legislation..........................1
III. Legislative History..............................................4
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis......................................4
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact..................................5
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate........................5
VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported............6
Calendar No. 566
111th Congress
SENATE
Report
2d Session 111-291
======================================================================
REDUNDANCY ELIMINATION AND ENHANCED PERFORMANCE FOR PREPAREDNESS GRANTS
ACT
_______
September 16, 2010.--Ordered to be printed
_______
Mr. Lieberman, from the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, submitted the following
R E P O R T
[To accompany H.R. 3980]
The Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental
Affairs, to which was referred the bill (H.R. 3980) to provide
for identifying and eliminating redundant reporting
requirements and developing meaningful performance metrics for
homeland security preparedness grants, and for other purposes,
having considered the same, reports favorably thereon with an
amendment and recommends that the bill do pass.
I. Purpose and Summary
For years, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
has struggled to establish a system for determining the
effectiveness of the billions of dollars it gives to state,
local, and tribal governments to help them prepare for natural
disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters. Such
a system is essential to ensure that the taxpayers' money is
being used wisely and effectively. H.R. 3980 would address this
problem by requiring the FEMA Administrator to submit a plan to
Congress for developing performance measures for its
preparedness grants and to periodically report to Congress on
the implementation of these measures. It also would direct the
Administrator to submit a plan to streamline the grant process
by eliminating duplicative reporting requirements for grant
recipients.
II. Background and Need for the Legislation
Each year, FEMA awards approximately $4 billion in grants
to state, local, and tribal agencies and other organizations to
strengthen national preparedness. Nearly half of this funding
is directed at two programs--the Urban Areas Security
Initiative (UASI) and the State Homeland Security Grant Program
(SHSGP)--which together provide the primary assistance to
state, local, and tribal governments for preventing, preparing
for, protecting against, and responding to acts of terrorism.
H.R. 3980 addresses two persistent concerns about these and
other grant programs: that FEMA has not yet developed a system
for measuring the effectiveness of its grants and that in
administering them, FEMA unnecessarily burdens state, local,
and tribal governments by requiring them to submit duplicative
information.
Both the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
2006 (Post-Katrina Act)\1\ and the Implementing Recommendations
of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (9/11 Commission
Recommendations Act)\2\ require FEMA to develop objective
performance measures for the grant programs it administers.
Specifically, the Post-Katrina Act requires FEMA to establish a
comprehensive assessment system for evaluating the nation's
capabilities and overall preparedness and specifies that the
system must include ``clear and quantifiable performance
measures, metrics, and outcomes.''\3\ FEMA must also report on
such measures, metrics and outcomes annually to Congress, as
part of a broader yearly assessment and report the Act mandates
on the nation's overall level of preparedness for natural
disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters.\4\
The 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act reiterates the
requirement that the Administrator use performance metrics in
accordance with the comprehensive assessment system and further
requires that states and high-risk urban areas receiving grants
from FEMA use exercises to test their progress against such
metrics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\P.L. 109-295, title VI; 120 Stat. 1394.
\2\P.L. 110-53, 121 Stat. 266.
\3\P.L. 109-295, section 649 (codified at 6 U.S.C. Sec. 749).
\4\P.L. 109-295, section 652 (codified at 6 U.S.C. Sec. 752, as
amended by section 103 of the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Four years after the passage of the Post-Katrina Act and
three years after the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act, FEMA
has yet to implement a comprehensive assessment system or to
develop associated performance measures. Even more troubling,
according to the Government Accountability Office (GAO), FEMA
continues to face problems collecting the data necessary to do
so.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\GAO, ``FEMA's Efforts to Develop and Implement a System to
Assess National Preparedness Capabilities, 2nd Quarterly Briefing for
Congressional Requesters,'' July 8, 2010 (briefing materials provided
to Committee staff).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
FEMA's various efforts at measuring performance have fared
poorly, and none has resulted in an objective method for
evaluating preparedness. This year, FEMA cancelled one of its
most prominent efforts, the Cost-to-Capabilities initiative,
which was intended to track and measure the impact of its
homeland security grant programs. Between 2008 and 2010, FEMA
spent $7 million on the initiative before discontinuing it in
the face of criticism, such as that it relied on subjective,
self-reported assessments to gauge performance.\6\ More
broadly, GAO reports that between fiscal year 2008 and fiscal
year 2010 FEMA budgeted approximately $58 million to develop
and implement seven evaluation efforts, including the
comprehensive assessment system.\7\ Despite this spending, FEMA
still cannot provide basic information on the effectiveness of
the preparedness grants or track with any precision what
recipients have used the grants to fund. Such information is
essential for the nation to understand how well prepared we
are, where our preparedness is lacking, and how best to
allocate our resources.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\GAO, ``FEMA's Efforts to Develop and Implement a Framework to
Assess National Preparedness Capabilities,'' 1st Quarterly Briefing for
Congressional Requesters, March 29, 2010. For a discussion of some of
the concerns about the Cost-to-Capabilities initiative, see
``Preparedness: What Has $29 Billion in Homeland Security Grants Bought
and How Do We Know,'' a hearing before the Subcommittee on Emergency
Communications, Preparedness and Response, Committee on Homeland
Security of the House of Representatives, October 27, 2009. There is no
indication that FEMA leadership made any effort to improve the system,
which was reportedly being used to collect at least some useful
information, before abandoning it.
\7\GAO, FEMA's Efforts to Develop and Implement a Framework to
Assess National Preparedness Capabilities, 1st Quarterly Briefing for
Congressional Requesters, March 29, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complaints from grant recipients about redundant reporting
requirements have also troubled FEMA's grant programs,
including concerns that FEMA requires recipients to supply
similar information for each individual grant program. In
August 2009, FEMA created a Reporting Requirements Working
Group to address this issue and reduce unnecessary data
collection and reporting requests across the numerous grants
that FEMA administers. Over the course of several months, the
Working Group identified all FEMA reporting requirements and
noted opportunities for consolidation and elimination. It found
988 data reporting requirements and identified 376 that
appeared duplicative or unnecessary. However, FEMA disbanded
the Working Group in June 2010 before it could issue any
specific recommendations.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\GAO, FEMA's Efforts to Develop and Implement a System to Assess
National Preparedness Capabilities, 2st Quarterly Briefing for
Congressional Requesters, July 8, 2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
H.R. 3980 is intended to help ensure that FEMA effectively
carries out the mandates in the Post-Katrina Act and 9/11
Commission Recommendations Act to develop and implement
performance measures for its preparedness grant programs and
that the agency follows up on the largely completed work of the
Reporting Requirements Working Group in order to identify and
eliminate redundant reporting requirements. The bill would
require the FEMA Administrator to submit promptly to Congress
plans and timetables for measuring the effectiveness of UASI
and SHSGP grants, as well as any other grant programs that the
Administrator specifies, and for identifying and eliminating
redundant reporting requirements. The FEMA Administrator would
then have to submit periodic reports on the agency's progress
in implementing these plans.
H.R. 3980 would also require the FEMA Administrator to
enter into a contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) for assistance in developing and
implementing performance measures for grant programs
administered by the Department of Homeland Security. NAPA, a
congressionally chartered nonprofit organization that provides
assistance to government agencies in addressing a range of
management and other challenges, has extensive experience
working on performance measurement. Among other things, it
previously hosted the Performance Consortium, which was created
to assist federal managers improve government performance. NAPA
is also able to supplement the expertise of its network of over
600 fellows by consulting with outside experts where necessary.
In this case, the Committee encourages NAPA to consider
involving others with particular expertise in building homeland
security capabilities.
The Committee anticipates that FEMA would use its existing
management and administration funds in support of the required
contract with NAPA. The Fiscal Year 2010 Department of Homeland
Security Appropriations Act allows FEMA to use four percent of
the funding for its state and local programs for program
management.\9\ However, if these funds prove insufficient, H.R.
3980 also would authorize funding through a separate
appropriation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\P.L. 111-83.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
III. Legislative History
Representative Henry Cuellar introduced H.R. 3980 in the
House of Representatives on November 2, 2009. The House passed
H.R. 3980 on December 2, 2009 by a vote of 414-0.
On December 3, 2009, H.R. 3980 was received by the Senate
and referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs. On July 28, 2010, the Committee
considered the measure, and Senator Lieberman offered an
amendment in the nature of a substitute, which was adopted by
voice vote. The amendment largely made clarifying and
organizational changes to the House bill. It also added the
requirement that the FEMA Administrator enter into a contract
with NAPA for assistance in developing and implementing
performance measures. The Committee adopted the bill as amended
by voice vote and ordered it favorably reported to the Senate.
Members present for the vote on the substitute amendment and
the vote on the bill as amended were Senators Lieberman, Levin,
Akaka, Carper, Pryor, Landrieu, McCaskill, Tester, Kaufman,
Collins, and McCain.
IV. Section-by-Section Analysis
Section 1. Short title
This section provides the bill's short title, the
Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for
Preparedness Grants Act.
Section 2. Identification of reporting redundancies and development of
performance metrics for Homeland Security preparedness grant
programs
This section adds a new section 2023 to Title XX of the
Homeland Security Act (6 U.S.C. 601 et seq.), consisting of the
following subsections:
Subsection (a) defines ``covered grants'' to include grants
awarded under section 2003 (UASI) and section 2004 (SHSGP) of
the Homeland Security Act, as well as any other grants
specified by the Administrator. The Administrator has
discretion to assess or report on grants other than just UASI
and SHSGP, as the evaluation of redundancy or grant
effectiveness may make more sense when looked at across grants
than when individual grant programs are examined in isolation.
Subsection (b) requires the FEMA Administrator to submit an
initial report to Congress within 90 days of the enactment of
H.R. 3980 that identifies redundant grant reporting
requirements. The Committee anticipates that FEMA has already
gathered, but not released, much of the required information as
part of the work of the Reporting Requirements Working Group.
The initial report must also provide specific timetables for
the elimination of these redundant requirements as well as for
promptly developing quantifiable performance measures and
metrics for assessing the effectiveness of the covered grants.
Subsection (c) requires that no later than one year after
enactment and every two years thereafter, the Administrator
must submit to Congress a grants management report on FEMA's
progress in implementing its plans to eliminate redundant
reporting requirements and develop grants performance measures,
including meeting the timetables. The subsection also requires
that FEMA include in this biennial report an overall assessment
of the covered grant programs, including recommendations for
modifications to improve the effectiveness of the programs or
to address changed or emerging conditions.
Subsection (d) requires the FEMA Administrator to enter
into a contract with the National Academy of Public
Administration (NAPA) within 30 days of enactment of H.R. 3980
for assistance in studying, developing and implementing
performance measures for grants the Department of Homeland
Security administers. Requiring the involvement of NAPA is
intended to bring a practical expertise in performance
measurement to the process, to assist the Administrator in
establishing quantifiable assessment tools across the
Department's grant programs and to help ensure that the
previously enacted mandate to develop performance metrics will
now be met. The Administrator must submit a report to Congress
that describes the findings and recommendations of NAPA's work
within one year of entering the contract.
V. Evaluation of Regulatory Impact
Pursuant to the requirements of paragraph 11(b) of rule
XXVI of the Standing Rules of the Senate, the Committee has
considered the regulatory impact of this bill and determined
that the bill will have no regulatory impact. The Congressional
Budget Office states that the bill contains no
intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs
on state, local, or tribal governments.
VI. Congressional Budget Office Cost Estimate
August 4, 2010.
Hon. Joseph I. Lieberman,
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, U.S.
Senate, Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: The Congressional Budget Office has
prepared the enclosed cost estimate for H.R. 3980, the
Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for
Preparedness Grants Act.
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contact is Daniel
Hoople.
Sincerely,
Douglas W. Elmendorf.
Enclosure.
H.R. 3980--Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced Performance for
Preparedness Grants Act
H.R. 3980 would authorize the appropriation of whatever
amounts are necessary for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) to develop plans to eliminate redundant rules,
regulations, and reporting requirements for certain grant
programs, including the State Homeland Security Grant Program
and the Urban Area Security Initiative, and to develop
performance metrics to assess the effectiveness of those
programs. Under the legislation FEMA would submit an initial
report to the Congress no later than 90 days after enactment
and would provide status updates within one year of
transmission and every two years thereafter. The act also would
direct FEMA to enter into an agreement with the National
Academy of Public Administration to review the implementation
of the plans required under this act and to provide
recommendations to the Congress after one year.
Based on the cost of similar requirements, CBO estimates
that implementing H.R. 3980 would have a negligible impact on
federal spending over the next five years; any additional
spending would be subject to the availability of appropriated
funds. Enacting this legislation would not affect direct
spending or revenues; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures do
not apply.
H.R. 3980 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector
mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act and
would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.
On November 19, 2009, CBO transmitted a cost estimate for
H.R. 3980 as ordered reported by the House Committee on
Homeland Security on November 17, 2009. The two versions of the
legislation and their estimated costs are similar.
The CBO staff contact for this estimate is Daniel Hoople.
This estimate was approved by Theresa Gullo, Deputy Assistant
Director for Budget Analysis.
VII. Changes to Existing Law Made by the Bill, as Reported
In compliance with paragraph 12 of rule XXVI of the
Standing Rules of the Senate, changes in existing law made by
S. 3267 as reported are shown as follows (existing law proposed
to be omitted is enclosed in brackets, new matter is printed in
italic, and existing law in which no change is proposed is
shown in roman):
TITLE 6--DOMESTIC SECURITY
CHAPTER 1--HOMELAND SECURITY ORGANIZATION
Subchapter XV--Homeland Security Grants
PART B--GRANTS ADMINISTRATION
SEC. XXX. IDENTIFICATION OF REPORTING REDUNDANCIES AND DEVELOPMENT OF
PERFORMANCE METRICS.
(a) Definition.--In this section, the term `covered grants'
means grants awarded under section 2003, grants awarded under
section 2004, and any other grants specified by the
Administrator.
(b) Initial Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date
of enactment of the Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced
Performance for Preparedness Grants Act, the Administrator
shall submit to the appropriate committees of Congress a report
that includes--
(1) an assessment of redundant reporting requirements
imposed by the Administrator on State, local, and
tribal governments in connection with the awarding of
grants, including--
(A) a list of each discrete item of data
requested by the Administrator from grant
recipients as part of the process of
administering covered grants;
(B) identification of the items of data from
the list described in subparagraph (A) that are
required to be submitted by grant recipients on
multiple occasions or to multiple systems; and
(C) identification of the items of data from
the list described in subparagraph (A) that are
not necessary to be collected in order for the
Administrator to effectively and efficiently
administer the programs under which covered
grants are awarded;
(2) a plan, including a specific timetable, for
eliminating any redundant and unnecessary reporting
requirements identified under paragraph (1); and
(3) a plan, including a specific timetable, for
promptly developing a set of quantifiable performance
measures and metrics to assess the effectiveness of the
programs under which covered grants are awarded.
(c) Biennial Reports.--Not later than 1 year after the date
on which the initial report is required to be submitted under
subsection (b), and once every 2 years thereafter, the
Administrator shall submit to the appropriate committees of
Congress a grants management report that includes--
(1) the status of efforts to eliminate redundant and
unnecessary reporting requirements imposed on grant
recipients, including--
(A) progress made in implementing the plan
required under subsection (b)(2);
(B) a reassessment of the reporting
requirements to identify and eliminate
redundant and unnecessary requirements;
(2) the status of efforts to develop quantifiable
performance measures and metrics to assess the
effectiveness of the programs under which the covered
grants are awarded, including--
(A) progress made in implementing the plan
required under subsection (b)(3);
(B) progress made in developing and
implementing additional performance metrics and
measures for grants, including as part of the
comprehensive assessment system required under
section 649 of the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 749);
and
(3) a performance assessment of each program under
which the covered grants are awarded, including--
(A) a description of the objectives and goals
of the program;
(B) an assessment of the extent to which the
objectives and goals described in subparagraph
(A) have been met, based on the quantifiable
performance measures and metrics required under
this section, section 2022(a)(4), and section
649 of the Post-Katrina Emergency Management
Reform Act of 2006 (6 U.S.C. 749);
(C) recommendations for any program
modifications to improve the effectiveness of
the program, to address changed or emerging
conditions; and
(D) an assessment of the experience of
recipients of covered grants, including the
availability of clear and accurate information,
the timeliness of reviews and awards, and the
provision of technical assistance, and
recommendations for improving that experience.
(d) Grants Program Measurement Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 30 days after the
enactment of Redundancy Elimination and Enhanced
Performance for Preparedness Grants Act, the
Administrator shall enter into a contract with the
National Academy of Public Administration under which
the National Academy of Public Administration shall
assist the Administrator in studying, developing, and
implementing--
(A) quantifiable performance measures and
metrics to assess the effectiveness of grants
administered by the Department, as required
under this section and section 649 of the Post-
Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006
(6 U.S.C. 749); and
(B) the plan required under subsection
(b)(3).
(2) Report.--Not later than 1 year after the date on
which the contract described in paragraph (1) is
awarded, the Administrator shall submit to the
appropriate committees of Congress a report that
describes the findings and recommendations of the study
conducted under paragraph (1).
(3) Authorization of appropriations.--There are
authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator such
sums as may be necessary to carry out this subsection.