Civil Defense

A State public safety department obtained approval of a communications system, Federal share $175,499, to be used in law-enforcement activities. This system was needed for normal operations because of the obsolescence of the old system, rather than for civil defense as certified by the applicant. Actually, a Federal Communications Commission ruling required the equipment change.

A county police department obtained approval for the cost of leasing a complete radio system, Federal share $97,742, which was required, not for civil defense as certified by the applicant, but rather for the normal operations of the police department.

The centralized traffic control program was designed to provide Federal funds to assist applicants in modifying existing traffic systems to provide for coordinated traffic signalization for use in a civil defense emergency. We reviewed three project applications, Federal share $427,456, approved by OCDM under this program since its inception in 1957. Most of the equipment approved by OCDM was needed by the applicants to replace or expand obsolete or outdated traffic control systems in order to handle normal traffic control problems.

The helicopter program was started by OCDM in 1955 to assist the States and their political subdivisions in obtaining helicopters to perform specialized civil defense emergency functions. Our review of 7 of 12 helicopters approved by OCDM showed that all 7 were being used in normal governmental activities of the applicants. Two of the seven helicopters were used extensively by the applicants for revenue-producing spraying operations for which they had received $97,000, over a period of a year and half, from landowners and the U.S. Forest Service. The remaining five were being used for regular police, fire, or traffic control activities, and four of these had been acquired several months prior to request for OCDM approval of the project applications.

Hospital generators have been an approvable item under the engineering program since 1954 and were included to provide essential electrical operation of hospitals in the event of an extensive enemy attack. Our review showed that OCDM approved one-half of the total cost of many generators which were completely or partially for the applicants' normal emergency requirements rather than for civil defense, mainly because the regional offices were not provided with criteria to determine what portion of generating power was for civil defense and over and above hospitals' normal requirements.

Under the emergency welfare program, OCDM approves feeding, sleeping, heating, and administrative equipment for use in reception areas during civil defense emergencies. Feeding equipment appears to include all items necessary to operate a cafeteria or kitchen. We reviewed five project applications for cafeteria equipment which represented a Federal share of $124,894, or about 20 percent of the total obligated under this program. This equipment was being used or would be used for the daily feeding of schoolchildren and patients of a home for the aged and was needed regardless of civil defense.

The police services program is designed to assist States and their political subdivisions in acquiring equipment required by auxiliary police and to expand police facilities to meet civil defense requirements. For fiscal years 1955 through 1960, OCDM has approved about $346,000 under this program. From our review of four applications, Federal share $20,532, we have concluded that most of the equipment, principally firearms, under these applications, approved by OCDM on the basis of civil defense need, was acquired and is being used for the normal needs of the applicants.

Our review also showed some other basic deficiencies in management controls which permitted (1) about $1 million in nonlegal payments, (2) unnecessary or premature advances of millions of dollars in Federal funds, (3) improper payments because of insufficient documentation for claims paid, and (4) OCDM approvals of project applications, Federal share $188,407, for generators in hospitals financed by the Public Health Service of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare although such dual Federal participation was not legal.

Further, OCDM does not perform comprehensive and continuing reviews at the State and local levels to determine whether applicants are complying with pertinent laws or OCDM policies, procedures, and requirements, and, as a result, information has not been available to management for the evaluation of the program procedures and performance to achieve effective administration of the program.

SURPLUS PROPERTY PROGRAM

The surplus property program was initiated by OCDM under authority contained in Public Law 655, 84th Congress, approved July 3, 1956. The program was intended to provide a means by which States and their political subdivisions could obtain Federal surplus property for civil defense purposes. Since inception of the program in 1956 through September 1960, surplus property with an original acquisition cost to the Federal Government of about $150 million has been donated to States and their political subdivisions for civil defense purposes.

The intent of the Congress in enacting the law was that surplus property would be donated to and used by public bodies for civil defense purposes only, with the exception of use during a natural disaster. OCDM has acknowledged this intent. Our review indicates that OCDM has placed little emphasis on administering this program and that management controls established by OCDM are not adequate to provide for operation of the program in accordance with the law. In its administration of the program, OCDM has not developed standards or criteria for use by its regional offices or by State civil defense offices to carry out assigned responsibilities in order to achieve some standard of program operation. Neither has OCDM made adequate program reviews at the regional, State, and donee levels to determine the effectiveness of program operations and compliance with law, policy, and procedures.

Our review of about 1,000 donations of surplus property disclosed that the majority of property involved had been obtained for and was being used in normal governmental activities of the donees.

Donees obtaining surplus property under the program are, for the most part, the usual operating departments of State and local governments such as police, fire, public works, and highway departments. Most of the surplus items acquired by these donees, on the basis of a civil defense need, are the same type which they ordinarily purchase for use in day-to-day operations. Our review showed that donees have used the program to acquire property which substituted for that which they would normally purchase. For example, the administrative manual of one State reviewed urged State agencies to obtain and use civil defense surplus property in normal operations. In one large city, a directive of the city controller instructed city departments to fill their normal procurement requirements through the program. Further, many local civil defense and other municipal officials have advised us that all surplus property obtained under this program on the basis of civil defense need was intended for use in normal operations.

Civil defense property is meant to supplement other property, and its distribution is intended to have available more property for use in case of an enemy attack upon the United States. Both the civil defense property and the property ordinarily used in normal operations should be in existence in event of an enemy attack. If a political entity uses civil defense property in its normal operations, the civil defense property is not supplementary property at all; it is substitute property.

Under OCDM regulations, donees are not required to have civil defense plans to be eligible to receive surplus property. Our review showed that many donees with no civil defense plans or only partially complete plans obtained property. For example, one county obtained surplus property with an original acquisition cost to the Federal Government of over $2 million without a complete civil defense plan. This program could have been a valuable tool in stimulating the preparation of local plans if such plans had been required as a basis for eligibility under the program.

We noted instances of misuse of almost every type of property which we reviewed such as trucks, bulldozers, road graders, armored cars, boats, marine engines, helicopters and other aircraft, cranes, radar sets, diesel engines, revolvers, shotguns, tugboats, barges, snowplows, and forklift trucks. We also noted the misuse of many expendable items such as clothing, paint, wire, small tools, tarpaulins, and mosquito nets.

SURVIVAL PROJECTS PROGRAM

The survival projects program was initiated by OCDM under authority contained in the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, as amended. The program was intended to provide a means for the States and political subdivisions to prepare operational survival plans for use in a civil defense emergency. These plans were designed to specify the required actions and the manner of carrying

out the emergency duties and responsibilities of the State and local governments, including coordinated action for evacuation, reception, and shelter within and between States in a civil defense emergency.

In carrying out the program OCDM expended about $12.8 million. OCDM entered into written contracts with the States under which Federal funds were provided to the States for the development of operational survival plans by project staffs employed by the States.

Our review showed that OCDM's administration of the program was inadequate and that, as a result, State plans were accepted by OCDM as meeting contract requirements and being operational when basic elements of the plans had not been prepared and tests of the plans had not been made to determine their workability.

We attempted to obtain from OCDM certain documents evidencing the discharge of its responsibilities for administration of the survival projects program, but OCDM has denied us access to these records on the basis that they were staff reports on which the Director did not rely in making the pertinent decisions involved and that he, therefore, did not believe we should have access to such material. We have pointed out to OCDM_that_the_documents requested were official reports prepared by OCDM employees in carrying out their assigned responsibilities for administering this program. Yet, such information has not been made available to us.

Information which was made available to us indicates that the documents which we have requested, and which have been denied us, could establish that OCDM knew that plans accepted as operational were actually incomplete and inoperable. OCDM's acceptance of inoperable plans has removed any effective stimulus to the States to complete the plans. As a result, now, after the completion of the program, some State survival plans are still incomplete and inoperable.

We recognize that the survival projects program constituted a new area of civil defense endeavor and that OCDM had many problems in obtaining agreements with States and political subdivisions. However, OCDM did not develop standards or criteria for use by operating employees in supervising and assisting the States in the preparation of survival plans and in effectively evaluating plans developed to determine if contract requirements were met and the plans were operational.

We hope this information is responsive to your request and will be of assistance to you.

Sincerely yours,

FRANK H. WEITZEL, Assistant Comptroller General of the United States.

APPENDIX 8B.-LETTER TO THE GENERAL ACCOUNTING OFFICE FROM FRANK B. ELLIS, DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION, DATED JULY 18, 1961, COMMENTING ON DRAFT REPORT OF FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS PROGRAM

Mr. FRED H. STUDT,

EXECUTIVE OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT,
OFFICE OF CIVIL AND DEFENSE MOBILIZATION,
Washington, D.C., July 18, 1961.

Assistant Director, Civil Accounting and Auditing Division,
General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C.

DEAR MR. STUDT: This is with reference to the draft report which you furnished us under date of May 19, 1961, in connection with your July 1960 review of the Federal contributions program administered by this agency under authority of the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950 as amended.

Within the limited opportunity I have had to review the material there are comments I will address to the program as a whole and the concept which I believe should support the activities as well as the exercise of judgment necessary to carry out the wishes of the Congress.

The basic philosophy of the program vests certain responsibilities in the several States and their political subdivisions. Not the least of these is the acceptance of need as adduced from the State certification as well as the underlying certification of the local applicant.

Additionally, the certifications presented by the States on behalf of themselves and their local jurisdictions carry with them subsequent responsibilities in order to insure compliance with the existing statutes, regulations, and ad

ministrative issuances. These compliance activities by the States have not been universally satisfactory and I shall work toward strengthening this important responsibility. Staff support at the State and local level is being expanded through Federal participation in the personnel and administrative expenses program. I except, and will insist, that a more vigorous approach to this compliance activity shall be initiated by the States.

Surveillance by the Federal Government will also be expanded and accelerated; in instances where corrective actions imposed upon the States are not forthcoming, I shall use the administrative authority vested in me to take such steps which, in my judgment, are required for the protection of the Federal Government.

While the program must of necessity be administered by the States, the re quirement for adequate standards and criteria to guide the States and their local jurisdictions is of course a responsibility of the Federal Government.

It should be noted historically, standards and criteria have been issued and adjusted from time to time to meet the changes in emergency concepts; however, these standards require a more sophisticated approach and I propose to explore them in further detail and take such action as I deem necessary to strengthen all elements of this program.

In the areas embracing administrative controls and funding operations I have already taken certain actions. These include close review of procurement documents to insure that obligations are properly incurred within the period of fund availability. Additionally, the control of Federal funds advanced to the States has been tightened through administrative action and it should be noted that whereas on June 30, 1959, there were Federal funds outstanding for the fiscal years 1951-59 in the amount of $10,482,965, there remains only $3,230,253 as of May 31, 1961; during the month of April 1961 there was liquidated $231,000.

As you already know, corrective action has been taken on many of the specific projects which were the subject of your review; in some instances our examination revealed that the States were in substantial compliance. My staff is continuing to examine the problem areas with the view toward a satisfactory resolution in each case.

I would like to take this opportunity to express my appreciation of the fine cooperation we have received from the members of your staff assigned to this review. The detailed analyses which have been presented to us from time to time will, I am confident, strengthen the administration of the program and benefit all levels of government in the important prepartaion of a nonmilitary defense capability.

1951

1952.

1953

1954.

1955

1956

1957

1958

1959

1960.

1961.

Sincerely,

FRANK B. ELLIS, Director.

APPENDIX 9A.-OCDM APPROPRIATION HISTORY1 (1951 THROUGH 1961)

APPENDIX 9B.-RECAPITULATION OF OCDM TOTAL FUNDING BY MAJOR CATEGORIES

1 Excludes $2,219,000 authorized from funds appropriated to the President. ? Includes funds requested for the construction of protective facilities on a matching basis in the amounts of $250,000,000 in 1951, 1952, and 1953 and $8,000,000 in 1954.

APPENDIX 9C.-OCDM EXPENDITURES BY MAJOR CATEGORIES AND YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961)