National and Regional
Partnerships

homeland security is a shared responsibility. In addition, the national
strategy has several initiatives designed to improve partnerships and
coordination. Table 1 provides several examples of areas with key
intergovernmental roles and coordination. For example, there are
initiatives to improve intergovernmental law enforcement coordination
and enabling effective partnerships with state and local governments and
the private sector in critical infrastructure protection. States are asked to
take several legal initiatives, such as coordinating suggested minimum
standards for state driver's licenses and reviewing quarantine authorities.
Many initiatives are intended to develop or enhance first responder
capabilities, such as initiatives to improve the technical capabilities of first
responders or enable seamless communication among all responders. In
many cases, these initiatives will rely on federal, state, and local
cooperation, some standardization, and the sharing of costs.

Achieving national preparedness and response goals hinges on the federal
government's ability to form effective partnerships with nonfederal
entities. Therefore, federal initiatives should be conceived as national, not
federal in nature. Decision makers have to balance the national interest of
prevention and preparedness with the unique needs and interests of local
communities. A "one-size-fits-all" federal approach will not serve to
leverage the assets and capabilities that reside within state and local
governments and the private sector. By working collectively with state and
local governments, the federal government gains the resources and
expertise of the people closest to the challenge. For example, protecting
infrastructure such as water and transit systems lays first and most often
with nonfederal levels of government.

Just as partnerships offer opportunities, they also pose risks based upon
the different interests reflected by each partner. From the federal
perspective, there is the concern that state and local governments may not
share the same priorities for use of federal funds. This divergence of
priorities can result in state and local governments simply replacing
("supplanting") their own previous levels of commitment in these areas
with the new federal resources. From the state and local perspective,
engagement in federal programs opens them up to potential federal
preemption and mandates. From the public's perspective, partnerships if
not clearly defined, risk blurring responsibility for the outcome of public
programs.

between federal, state, and local governments with far reaching consequences for homeland security and accountability to the public. The challenges posed by the new threats are prompting officials at all levels of government to rethink long-standing divisions of responsibilities for such areas as fire services, local infrastructure protection, and airport security. Current homeland security proposals recognize that the unique scale and complexity of these threats call for a response that taps the resources and capacities of all levels of government as well as the private sector.

In many areas, these proposals would impose a stronger federal presence in the form of new national standards or assistance. For instance, the Congress is considering proposals to mandate new vulnerability assessments and protective measures on local communities for drinking water facilities. Similarly, new federal rules have mandated local airport authorities to provide new levels of protection for security around airport perimeters. The block grant proposal for first responders would mark a dramatic upturn in the magnitude and role of the federal government in providing assistance and standards for fire service training and equipment.

Additionally, the national strategy suggests initiatives for an expanded state role in several areas. For example, there are no national or agreed upon state standards for driver's license content, format, or acquisition procedures. The strategy states that the federal government should support state-led efforts to develop suggested minimum standards for drivers' licenses. In another example, in order to suppress money laundering, the strategy recommends that states assess the current status of their regulation regarding providers of financial services and work to adopt uniform laws as necessary.

Governments at the local level are also moving to rethink roles and responsibilities to address the unique scale and scope of the contemporary threats from terrorism. Numerous local general-purpose governments and special districts co-exist within metropolitan regions and rural areas alike. Many regions are starting to assess how to restructure relationships among contiguous local entities to take advantage of economies of scale, promote resource sharing, and improve coordination of preparedness and response on a regional basis. In our case studies of five metropolitan areas, we have identified several common forms of regional cooperation and coordination including special task forces or working groups, improved collaboration among public health entities, increased countywide planning, mutual aid agreements, and communications. These partnerships are at varying stages of development and are continuing to evolve. Table 2 summarizes these initiatives.

Table 2: Case Study Examples of Metropolitan Cooperation and Coordination

Task Forces and Working Groups: To facilitate emergency planning and coordination among cities in a metropolitan area, officials have joined together to create task forces, such as terrorism working groups, advisory committees, and Mayors' caucuses. For example, the Metropolitan Safety, Security, and Anti-terrorism Task Force in New Orleans includes officials from the city and four surrounding parishes.

Collaboration with Public Health Entities: Public health departments, emergency medical services, and hospitals are participating in planning efforts to coordinate use of limited resources such as emergency room capacity, hospital beds, and medical supplies. For example, in Denver, the Front Range Emergency Medical Service and Trauma Advisory Council involves all hospitals and rescue squads in a six-county metropolitan area.

Countywide Planning: In some states, counties serve as the primary coordinating agent and work with cities within their jurisdiction, other counties, and the state to ensure that they develop and update emergency and disaster plans, provide training, conduct assessments and exercises, and have adequate emergency resources. For example, King County, Washington has coordinated development of a Regional Disaster Plan, which includes Seattle and 15 other cities within the county as well as 15 fire districts, 15 hospitals, 21 water and sewer districts, 12 school districts, and the private sector.

Mutual Ald Agreements: Cities and counties have used mutual aid agreements to share emergency resources in their metropolitan areas. These agreements may include fire, police, emergency medical services, and hospitals and may be formal or informal. For example, Los Angeles has mutual aid agreements between police and fire departments in surrounding jurisdictions and a range of private sector entities. The state has a Mutual Aid Regional Advisory Commission that facilitates agreements, and the Standardized Emergency Management System (SEMS) law requires mutual aid agreements for state reimbursement. Communications: Cities and counties currently use a variety of methods for communicating among first responders, such as command centers, using radio, cell phones, and pagers; amateur radio operators; and community alert systems. Some are considering 800 MHz radio systems to permit interoperability and mobile incident command centers to direct communications among first responders. King County, Washington has a countywide 800 MHz system and uses amateur radio operators to provide a redundant emergency communications system.

Although promising greater levels of protection than before, these shifts in roles and responsibilities have been developed on an ad hoc piecemeal basis without the benefit of common criteria. An ad hoc process may not capture the real potential each actor in our system offers. Moreover, a piecemeal redefinition of roles risks the further fragmentation of the responsibility for homeland security within local communities, blurring lines of responsibility and accountability for results. While federal, state, and local governments all have roles to play, care must be taken to clarify who is responsible for what so that the public knows whom to contact to address their problems and concerns. Current homeland security initiatives provide an opportunity to more systematically identify the unique resources and capacities of each level of government and better match these capabilities to the particular tasks at hand. If implemented in a partnerial fashion, the national strategy can also promote the

participation, input, and buy in of state and local partners whose
cooperation is essential for success.

Performance Goals and Measures Needed in Homeland Security Programs

The proposed department, in fulfilling its broad mandate, has the challenge of developing a national performance focus. The national strategy is a good start in defining strategic objectives and related mission areas, plus foundations that cut across the mission areas. The national strategy's initiatives to implement the objectives under the related mission and foundation areas extend from building capabilities to achieving specific outcomes.

According to the national strategy, each department and agency is to be held accountable for its performance on homeland security efforts. However, the initiatives often do not provide a baseline set of goals and measures upon which to assess and improve many of its initiatives to prevent attacks, reduce the nation's vulnerability to attacks, or minimize the damage and recovering from attacks that do occur. For example, the initiative of creating "smart borders" requires a clear specification of what is expected of a smart border, including consideration of security and economic aspects of moving people and goods.

Specific performance goals and measures for many initiatives will occur at a later date. The strategy states that each department or agency will create benchmarks and other performance measures to evaluate progress and allocate future resources. Performance measures will be used to evaluate the effectiveness of each homeland security program, allowing agencies to measure their progress, make resource allocation decisions, and adjust priorities. As the national strategy and related implementation plans evolve, we would expect clearer performance expectations to emerge. Given the need for a highly integrated approach to the homeland security challenge, national performance goals and measures may best be developed in a collaborative way involving all levels of government and the private sector.

establishment of national standards for emergency response training and preparedness. These standards would require certain coursework for individuals to receive and maintain certification as first responders and for state and local governments to receive federal grants. Under the strategy, the proposed department would establish a national exercise program designed to educate and evaluate civilian response personnel at all levels of government. It would require individuals and government bodies to complete successfully at least one exercise every year. The department would use these exercises to measure performance and allocate future

resources.

Standards are being developed in other areas associated with homeland security, yet formidable challenges remain. For example, national standards that would apply to all ports and all public and private facilities are well under way. In preparing to assess security conditions at 55 U.S. ports, the Coast Guard's contractor has been developing a set of standards since May 2002. These standards cover such things as preventing unauthorized persons from accessing sensitive areas, detecting and intercepting intrusions, and checking backgrounds of those whose jobs require access to port facilities. However, challenges remain in finalizing a complete set of standards for the level of security needed in the nation's ports, resolving issues between key stakeholders that have conflicting or competing interests, and establishing mechanisms for enforcement. Moreover, because security at ports is a concern shared among federal, state, and local governments, as well as among private commercial interests, the issue of who should pay to finance antiterrorism activities may be difficult to resolve.

Communications is an example of an area for which standards have not yet been developed, but various emergency managers and other first responders have continuously highlighted that standards are needed. State and local governments often report that there are deficiencies in their communications capabilities, including the lack of interoperable systems. The national strategy recognizes that it is crucial for response personnel to have and use equipment, systems, and procedures that allow them to communicate. Therefore, the strategy calls for the proposed Department of Homeland Security to develop a national communication plan to establish protocols (who needs to talk to whom), processes, and national standards for technology acquisition. According to the national strategy, this is a priority for fiscal year 2003 funding which ties all federal grant programs that support state and local purchase of terrorism-related communications equipment to this communication plan.