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, Assistant Director, Civil Accounting and Auditing Division, 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. 2 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) APPENDIX 9D.-OCDM SALARIES AND EXPENSES BY YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961) APPENDIX 9E.-OCDM FUNDING FOR FEDERAL CONTRIBUTIONS PROGRAM BY YEARS 1 $10,400,000 of this amount was later transferred to the "Emergency supplies and equipment" appropriation. APPENDIX 9F.-OCDM FUNDING FOR EMERGENCY SUPPLIES AND EQUIPMENT PROGRAM BY YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961) APPENDIX 9G.-OCDM FUNDING FOR RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS BY YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961) APPENDIX 9H.-OCDM FUNDING FOR FUNCTIONS ASSIGNED TO OTHER FEDERAL AGENCIES BY YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961) APPENDIX 91.-OCDM FUNDING FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROTECTIVE FACILITIES BY YEARS (1951 THROUGH 1961) APPENDIX 9J.-FUNDING FOR CIVIL DEFENSE PROCUREMENT FUND BY YEARS (1951 1 $3,500,000 of the corpus of this fund was returned to the Treasury in 1958. |