State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Selected Policy Issues

State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism: Selected Policy Issues

Order Code RL31266
Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism:
Selected Policy Issues
Updated December 19, 2002
Ben Canada, Coordinator
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism:
Selected Policy Issues
Summary
While the federal government has resources at hand for responding to terrorist
attacks, the proximity of state and local first responders insures they will almost
always be the first to arrive at the site of an attack. For this reason, the preparedness
of state and local governments has become a salient national issue.
The President’s National Strategy for Homeland Security, issued in June 2002,
proposes a number of measures to enhance state and local preparedness for terrorist
attacks, particularly those involving weapons of mass destruction. Most of these
measures, presently undertaken by FEMA and several other agencies, but will be
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), which Congress
authorized in the Homeland Security Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-296). As the 108th
Congress monitors the implementation of the new department, it might consider a
range of issues, which include the following:
Amount and Uses of Federal Assistance—Observers have urged Congress to increase
levels of financial and technical assistance available to states and localities. Some
observers have also asked for more flexibility with federal funds.
Use of risk analysis—The process of risk analysis is generally used by risk experts
to identify and evaluate options for reducing risks to human health and safety. The
usefulness of risk analysis and the appropriate methodology, however, are frequently
debated by emergency managers and analysts.
Federal training programs—State and local first responders generally rate federal
terrorism training as effective and helpful. Many observers, however, cite a number
of faults in federal training, such as lack of interagency coordination, insufficient
quantity of course offerings, and lack of course information for state and local
officials.
Mutual aid compacts—Mutual aid compacts are widely acknowledged to be an
effective and efficient means of sharing emergency management resources among
different jurisdictions. Federal support for mutual aid could better prepare states and
localities for all disasters, including terrorist attacks.
Joint training exercises—Exercises can potentially improve emergency preparedness
by allowing first responders from different agencies (e.g., law enforcement, fire and
rescue, and public health) and different levels of government to become familiar with
others’ capabilities and practices.
Readers interested in analysis of state and local preparedness functions of the
new Department of Homeland Security should see CRS Report RL31490,
Department of Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues.
This report will be updated as circumstances warrant.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Elements of Preparedness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Indicators of Preparedness for Terrorist Attacks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
State Capability Assessment for Readiness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Congressional Testimony . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
National Surveys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Selected Policy Issues and Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Amount and Uses of Federal Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Defining the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Amount of Funding Needed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Range of Eligible Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Use of Risk Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Defining the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Policy Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Federal Training Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Defining the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Current Training Programs and Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Modify Federal Training Programs? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Mutual Aid Compacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Defining the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Types of Compacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Promoting Compacts? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Joint Training Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Defining the Issue . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Observations on Exercises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Support for More Exercises? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26

Acronyms Used in this Report
CAR
Capability Assessment for Readiness
CEM
Comprehensive Emergency Management
COG
Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments
DHS
Department of Homeland Security
EMAC
Emergency Management Assistance Compact
EMAP
Emergency Management Accreditation Program
EMF
Emergency Management Function
EMS
Emergency Medical System
EMT
Emergency Medical Technician
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPR
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate
FDNY
New York City Fire Department
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agency
NACO
National Association of Counties
NEMA
National Emergency Management Association
NGA
National Governors Association
NLC
National League of Cities
ODP
Office for Domestic Preparedness
OHS
Office of Homeland Security
USAMRIID
U.S. Army Medical Research Institute of Infectious Disease
WMD
Weapons of Mass Destruction

State and Local Preparedness for Terrorism:
Selected Policy Issues
Introduction
While the federal government has resources at hand for responding to terrorist
attacks, the proximity of state and local first responders insures that they will almost
always be the first to arrive at the site of an attack.1 For this reason, the preparedness
of state and local governments has become a salient national issue.
The possibility of terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass destruction
(WMD) presents a number of institutional and financial challenges to state and local
officials. WMD may be defined as chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear
weapons, conventional explosives, or any device capable of causing mass casualties.2
Adequately coping with a WMD attack requires first responders to have special
equipment and extensive training. Such attacks would be more likely to overwhelm
state and local response capabilities than attacks not involving WMD. Existing
federal assistance programs focus on providing the necessary planning, equipment,
training, and exercises.
Congress has been addressing issues of state and local preparedness since the
September 2001 attacks, particularly in its debate over the new Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).3 Legislative debate over the new department’s role in
state and local preparedness focused on the organization and responsibilities of the
agencies transferred into the department—specifically the organization and
responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the
Justice Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), which arguably offer
the most preparedness assistance to states and localities. In its initial DHS proposal,
the Bush Administration would have transferred to the Emergency Preparedness and
Response directorate (EPR) nearly all federal agencies and offices with functions
relating to state and local preparedness.4 The Administration specifically requested
1For the purposes of this report, first responders include local, and sometimes state, law
enforcement, fire service, emergency medical service, and hazardous materials personnel.
Although there is arguably less consensus on whether public health personnel should be
considered first responders, this report includes public health in the definition.
2Also see definition of weapon of mass destruction at 50 U.S.C. 2302(1).
3For more information, see CRS Report RL31490, Department of Homeland Security: State
and Local Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
4Examples of federal agencies offering preparedness assistance to states and localities, but
(continued...)

CRS-2
the transfer and consolidation of FEMA and ODP in this directorate, as part of its
effort to consolidate first responder assistance programs.5
Congress, however, ultimately separated the functions of the ODP from FEMA
and the other agencies with preparedness functions. The enacted version of the
Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296) transferred ODP to the Border and
Transportation Security directorate. This separation of agencies and functions was
arguably the most debated issue related to state and local preparedness. It may also
frame future debate over the implementation of the new department.
Congress is considering the FY2003 budget, in which the Bush Administration
proposed a new $3.5 billion block grant for states and localities called the “First
Responder Initiative”and providing roughly $1.5 billion in grants for bioterrorism
preparedness.6 State and local officials have urged Congress to authorize the First
Responder Initiative, as well as other existing grant programs, citing that America’s
states and localities do not have the necessary resources to prepare for acts of
terrorism.7
Scope of This Report. This report provides general information and analysis
related to state and local emergency preparedness. It provides a brief overview of the
present condition of state and local preparedness, analyzes selected preparedness
issues, and presents some policy approaches for addressing those issues.
Specifically, this report addresses risk analysis, federal training programs, mutual aid,
and exercises. It does not, however, discuss related issues such as threat warning
systems and information sharing. It is primarily concerned with the preparedness
phase of emergency management. The other phases of response, recovery, and
mitigation are briefly discussed, but are not this report’s subject. This report will be
updated as circumstances warrant.
Elements of Preparedness
Preparedness is one of four phases of comprehensive emergency management
(CEM). The other three phases are response, recovery, and mitigation. CEM offers
emergency managers a framework for classifying and planning all emergency
management activities. Preparedness involves a wide range of activities such as
4(...continued)
not proposed for transfer to the DHS, include the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI),
which offers training to law enforcement officers, and the U.S. Army Medical Research
Institute of Infectious Disease (USAMRIID), which offers response training to public health
officials.
5H.R. 5005 (as introduced on behalf of the Administration), sec. 502. Also see Office of
Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, (Washington: June 2002), p. 16.
Available at:[http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/book.pdf], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
6For more information on the First Responder Initiative, see CRS Report RL31475, First
Responder Initiative: Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
7U.S. Conference of Mayors, “One Year Later, Cities Are Safer But Still Await Financial
Assistance from Washington,” press release, Sept. 9, 2002.

CRS-3
assessing a community’s vulnerabilities, developing flexible response plans, and
training and equipping responders.8
Even before the terrorist attacks of September 2001, emergency managers and
analysts were calling for a national strategy that emphasized preparedness of state
and local governments, and integration of resources from all levels of government.
The Gilmore Commission, a congressionally-authorized commission, reiterated this
argument in its first report, calling for a national strategy that respects the traditional
public safety role of states and localities and that clearly defines federal activities to
support state and local responders.9
State and local officials, as well as the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
advocate an “all-hazards approach” to emergency preparedness that stresses using
existing institutions and resources to respond to all disasters, including acts of
terrorism.10 Preparedness activities can incorporate the resources of local, regional,
state, and federal agencies, as well as the medical community, relief organizations,
and the private sector. Activities that comprise an effective preparedness strategy
include:
! risk analysis;
! response capability assessment, improvement, and maintenance;
! emergency response planning;
! training and exercises; and
! incorporation of local, regional, state, and federal resources.11
Inadequate preparation could lead to lack of a clear response structure,
inefficient use of intergovernmental resources, and, ultimately, increased loss of life
and property. Emergency planners typically assume that local resources would be
overwhelmed in the event of a major terrorist attack and would require additional
regional, state, and possibly, federal resources. Thus, the Gilmore Commission
emphasized the need for intergovernmental coordination:
Response to an attack must be layered and sequential: Local entities will respond
first, supplemented as necessary by State capabilities. When local capabilities
8William L. Waugh, Jr., Terrorism and Emergency Management (New York: Marcel
Dekker, Inc., 1990), pp. 15-17.
9Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction, First Annual Report to The President and The Congress,
Dec. 1999, pp. ix-x. The name “Gilmore Commission” comes from the name of the
Chairman, former Governor James Gilmore of Virginia. The commission was charged with
assessing the capabilities of federal, state, and local governments for responding to terrorist
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. Congress authorized the commission in
Section 1405 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L.
105-261). See the commission web site at [http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/], visited
Dec. 19, 2002.
10U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Guide for All-Hazard Emergency
Operations Planning, SLG-101, Sept. 1996, p. iii.
11Waugh, Terrorism and Emergency Management, pp. 29-31.

CRS-4
are exceeded, the response shifts to the State (perhaps multi-state) level. The
Federal response should come only after local and State capabilities are
exceeded.12
Observers generally encourage states and localities to incorporate private
businesses in emergency planning. They argue that private sector participation can
enhance preparedness by identifying potential hazards at business sites (such as
hazardous materials) and clarifying the role and responsibilities of private entities
during an emergency. State and local emergency managers can also be helpful to
private businesses in developing and exercising evacuation plans.13
Indicators of Preparedness for Terrorist Attacks
Since the attacks of September 2001, government studies, witnesses at
congressional hearings, and national surveys have suggested that states and localities
are generally prepared to respond to emergencies, but need to modify existing
response plans and develop resources to prepare for terrorist attacks involving WMD.
This section provides an overview of the conclusions of some of these sources.
State Capability Assessment for Readiness. In 2001, FEMA published
the results of its Capability Assessment for Readiness process (CAR) conducted in
2000. The CAR is a self-assessment conducted by states and territories, that
evaluates capabilities in 13 emergency management functions (EMFs).14 FEMA
concluded that, in general, states were effectively prepared to respond to disasters,
although all states had certain functions in which they needed to improve.15 The
results of the CAR indicate that states generally have adequate laws, administrative
structures, financial structures, and communications to handle emergencies. The
CAR also suggests, however, that states are generally less prepared in such functional
areas as hazard identification and risk assessment, resource management, and
logistics and facilities.
The CAR was intended to measure states’ general capabilities to respond to
disasters, but some of the attributes measured in the CAR process can be used to
assess their capabilities to respond to terrorist attacks involving WMD. Four specific
WMD-defense attributes reported by states are their capabilities to: 1) acquire
appropriate equipment for WMD response; 2) address WMD attacks in emergency
operations plans; 3) develop procedures for responding to WMD attacks; and 4)
regularly exercise their WMD response plan. In all but the fourth attribute, the
12Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction, Second Annual Report to The President and The Congress,
Dec. 2000, pp. 3-4, 23.
13William A. Anderson and Shirley Mattingly, “Future Directions,” in Thomas E. Drabek
and Gerard J. Hoetmer, eds., Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local
Government (Washington: International City Management Association, 1991), p. 323.
14For more information, see: [http://www.fema.gov/rrr/carnew.shtm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
15U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, State Capability Assessment for Readiness,
Report to Senate Committee on Appropriations (Washington: Sept. 2001), p. vi.

CRS-5
national average was “marginally capable,” meaning that states generally had limited
capacity and acknowledged they needed to make significant improvements. The
national average for state capability to regularly exercise their WMD response plan,
however, was “generally capable,” meaning that states generally maintained a
baseline proficiency, but still needed to improve. Although the CAR reports a
national average for all states, there were significant differences in capabilities among
states in each measured attribute.16
Congressional Testimony. Congress held a number of hearings on state
and local preparedness in the months following the September 2001 attacks. Amy
E. Smithson of the Stimson Center asserted that states and localities across the nation
already had many of the necessary resources to provide effective response to terrorist
attacks involving WMD. “The bedrocks of chemical and biological disaster
preparedness already exist at the local and state levels,” said Smithson, referring to
the approximately 650 hazardous materials teams nationwide with specialists trained
to respond to some WMD incidents. Smithson argued, however, that better
intergovernmental coordination was needed, and that state and local capabilities need
to be further enhanced.17
Other witnesses have testified about weaknesses they found in state and local
preparedness. A primary concern has been the ability of state and local governments
to respond to WMD incidents. Janet Heinrich of the U.S. General Accounting
Office, for example, said, “[W]e found emerging concerns about the preparedness of
state and local jurisdictions, including insufficient state and local planning for
response to terrorist events....”18 A number of witnesses have expressed similar
views and presented other concerns, including the lack of joint federal-state-local
training exercises, the lack of standardized communications equipment, and the lack
of private-sector involvement in emergency planning.19
National Surveys. Surveys of states and localities conducted shortly after the
September 2001 attacks supported the belief that states and localities are generally
prepared for emergencies, but may need to modify existing emergency management
institutions and activities to prepare for acts of terrorism involving WMD. The
National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) conducted surveys of state-
16Ibid., pp. 129-130.
17Statement of Amy E. Smithson, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Government
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and
Intergovernmental Relations, A Silent War: Are Federal, State, and Local Governments
Prepared for Biological and Chemical Attacks?, hearings, 107th Cong., 1st sess., Oct. 5,
2001.
18Statement of Janet Heinrich, U.S. General Accounting Office, in Ibid.
19For examples, see statements in following hearings: House Committee on Government
Reform, Subcommittee on Government Efficiency, Financial Management, and International
Relations, How Effectively are Federal, State and Local Governments Working Together to
Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Attack?, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 1, 2002; Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment, First Responder
Initiative, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 2002; Senate Committee on
Appropriations, Homeland Security, hearings, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., April 10, 2002.

CRS-6
level preparedness following the September 2001 attacks. NEMA found that every
state had a response plan and an emergency preparedness coordinating body in place
before the attacks.20 Many states, however, have since created new preparedness
offices or coordinator positions, and others have created advisory panels to address
terrorism preparedness.21
Surveys by the National League of Cities (NLC) and National Association of
Counties (NACO) showed similar results at the local level. Before September 2001,
the vast majority of cities and counties had disaster response plans in place. The
surveys, however, revealed a disparity in preparedness between larger urban localities
and smaller rural localities. Whereas approximately 80% of urban cities and urban
counties addressed WMD attacks in their response plans, less than half of small cities
and rural counties did so. This disparity also applied to terrorism training. Whereas
approximately 57% of large cities had received terrorism training in the past year,
approximately half as many small cities had received terrorism training.22
In July 2002, The Office of Homeland Security (OHS) released its own survey
of state and local actions for homeland security. The survey did not seek to evaluate
preparedness, but to describe the activities states and localities are undertaking to
enhance their preparedness. OHS reported that states have taken significant steps to
update response plans and mutual aid compacts, improve information sharing, protect
critical infrastructure, and prepare for biological terrorism. The office also
recognized local governments for improvements in these areas, as well as increasing
first responder capabilities, establishing relationships with the private sector, and
fostering volunteerism.23
Selected Policy Issues and Alternatives
Members of Congress, the Bush Administration, and observers have offered
many proposals for improving state and local terrorism preparedness, which have
raised a number of policy issues. This report considers the following selected issues:
20Some states and localities have adapted response plans that were required in the
Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986 (P.L. 99-499, Title III)
to meet current needs. For more information on this requirement, see CRS Report RL30798,
Environmental Laws: Summaries of Statutes Administered by the Environmental Protection
Agency, coordinated by Martin R. Lee, p. 80.
21National Emergency Management Association, “Trends in State Terrorism Preparedness,”
Executive Summary, Dec. 2001, available at NEMA web site: [http://www.nemaweb.org/
Trends_in_Terrorism_Preparedness/index.htm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
22National League of Cities, “Terrorism Preparedness Survey,” Sept. 21, 2001; and National
Association of Counties, “Counties Secure America: A Survey of Emergency Preparedness
of the Nation’s Counties,” Dec. 2001.
23White House Office of Homeland Security, State and Local Actions for Homeland Security
(Washington: July 2002), pp. 1-2, 113-114, and 149-150. Available at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/homeland/stateandlocal/], visited Dec. 19, 2002.

CRS-7
! amount and uses of federal assistance;
! risk analysis;
! federal training programs;
! mutual aid compacts; and,
! joint training exercises;
This is not a comprehensive list of policy issues relating to terrorism
preparedness; rather, it is a discussion of state and local preparedness issues relevant
to congressional oversight of the implementation of the Department of Homeland
Security. These issues may also arise if the 108th Congress considers modifying or
creating federal terrorism preparedness programs. For each selected policy issue
there is a discussion below of policy alternatives that Congress could consider.
These issues and options do not depend on each other, and Congress can factor in
issues of budget, federalism, and other policy concerns in choosing the direction of
federal policy. Each policy alternative is followed by a discussion of consequences
that could result from its adoption.
Amount and Uses of Federal Assistance
Defining the Issue. Since the attacks of September 11, 2001, emergency
managers and analysts have urged Congress to increase levels of financial and
technical assistance to states and localities to enhance their preparedness for terrorist
attacks. Although public safety is traditionally a state and local function, Congress
may consider increasing assistance if it determines that the desired preparedness
improvements could overwhelm state and local resources, interfering with their
ability to provide basic services. It also may reconsider the range of eligible grant
activities and examine the potential for state and local over-dependence on federal
funds.
Amount of Funding Needed. In FY2001, Congress appropriated
approximately $367.5 million related to state and local preparedness for terrorism.24
In FY2002, Congress provided roughly $2 billion in assistance, most of which was
appropriated in emergency supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117 and P.L. 107-
206).25
Some emergency managers and analysts contend that federal assistance should
be significantly increased to help states and localities enhance their capability to
respond to future terrorist attacks. Public health agencies, for example, have been
consistently cited as needing more financial resources to adequately prepare for
chemical and biological attacks. According to some emergency managers and
24Figure based on CRS total of selected items listed in the U.S. Office of Management and
Budget’s Annual Report to Congress on Combating Terrorism, 2001 (Washington: April
2001), pp. 21-24.
25Figure based on CRS total of selected items in FY2002 enacted budget and emergency
supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-117, P.L. 107-206).

CRS-8
analysts, it is likely that existing funding levels in preparedness programs will not be
enough to match demand by state and local responders.26
In the months following the September 2001 terrorist attacks, state and local
officials began requesting increases in federal funds. The National Governors
Association (NGA) requested $4 billion from Congress for states alone, arguing the
funds were needed to improve bioterrorism preparedness, emergency
communications, and security of critical infrastructure.27 Representing the local
level, the U.S. Conference of Mayors and National League of Cities have requested
additional funding for cities and towns. They argue that committing more local
resources to preparedness could interfere with cities’ abilities to provide basic
services.28
The President’s FY2002 budget proposed approximately $5 billion for terrorism
preparedness programs. Of these funds, $3.5 billion were proposed for a new
program called the First Responder Initiative.29 States would have discretion in using
the first 25% of funds, but would be required to pass on 75% of the funds to local
governments or regional organizations. Recipients could use the funds for activities
in four basic categories: emergency planning, training, equipment, and exercises.
The 107th Congress did not authorize this program, but the Senate did consider S.
2664 (Jeffords), which closely paralleled the Administration’s proposed grant
program. Other similar proposals introduced in the 107th Congress include S.
2038/H.R.4059 (Clinton, McNulty) and S. 2077 (Collins).
The Administration’s FY2003 budget request also included roughly $1.5 billion
to help public health agencies and hospitals better prepare for bioterrorist attacks.30
Range of Eligible Activities. Whether or not Congress increases funding,
it could re-evaluate the range of eligible activities for which states and localities can
use federal funds. At present, all federal preparedness grants are categorical,
meaning that recipient governments may only use the funds for specific activities.
Although this affords recipients little flexibility, it allows Congress to target funds
to selected needs. At present, Congress authorizes several categorical grant programs
for such activities as emergency planning, training, equipment, and exercises.31
26Greg Seigle, “‘First Responders’ to Terrorism Seek Federal Strategy, Equipment,”
Government Executive, Daily Briefing, March 6, 2002.
27National Governors Association, “NGA Releases State Homeland Security Survey
Results,” press release, Dec. 2001.
28See U.S. Conference of Mayors, A National Action Plan for Safety and Security in
America’s Cities, Dec. 2001, p. 8; and National League of Cities, “City Leaders Demand a
Full Partnership in Homeland Security,” press release, Dec. 6, 2001.
29For more information on the proposed First Responder Initiative, see CRS Report
RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
30U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget of the United States Government, Fiscal
Year 2003, Feb. 2002, pp. 17-20, 138-139, 315-317.
31For a listing of existing programs, see CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness: A
(continued...)

CRS-9
If Congress determined that states and localities needed greater flexibility in the
use of funds, an alternative would be to consolidate the existing categorical programs
into a block grant.32 The Administration’s proposal for the First Responder Initiative
is consistent with this policy option, since it would provide states and localities
federal funds for a wide range of activities. An emergency preparedness block grant
could give states and localities considerable discretion in committing federal
resources to self-identified needs and to improve their unique preparedness plans.
On the other hand, providing recipients with more flexibility could result in a smaller
percentage of federal funds used specifically for terrorism preparedness.
Potential Consequences. One potential consequence of increasing federal
assistance is that states and localities could become overly dependent on federal
funds. Emergency management is traditionally a state and local activity
supplemented by federal resources. Were Congress to increase funding for state and
local preparedness, recipient governments might begin to regard federal grants as an
enduring and predictable source of funding. If, in the future, Congress decided to
decrease financial assistance for preparedness, states and localities could then have
difficulty compensating for decreasing federal grants.
To address this concern, Congress could include a matching requirement or
maintenance-of-effort provision in federal programs. Among other purposes, these
provisions are intended to ensure that recipient governments do not become overly
dependent on federal funds.33 Alternatively, Congress could limit the use of funds
to only short-term activities, such as training exercises and capital purchases, and
prohibit the use of funds for salaries, maintenance, and other recurring expenses.
Were Congress to give states and localities more flexibility in their use of
federal funds, it might impede its ability to oversee the efficiency and effectiveness
of federal programs. Grant programs that give recipients a high degree of flexibility,
such as block grants, are often hard to evaluate and can make congressional oversight
difficult. On the other hand, categorical grant programs with a narrow range of
eligible activities and specific objectives offer recipients little flexibility, but are
easier to evaluate.34
31(...continued)
Catalog of Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
32For more information on block grants, see CRS Report RL30818, Block Grants: An
Overview, by Eugene Boyd and Ben Canada.
33For more information on matching requirements and maintenance-of-efforts provisions,
see CRS Report RL30778, Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: Concepts for
Legislative Design and Oversight, pp. 6-8.
34Ibid., pp. 14-17.

CRS-10
Use of Risk Analysis35
Defining the Issue. The Homeland Security Act and the President’s National
Strategy for Homeland Security indicate that risk assessment and analysis tools will
be used in decision making. For example, the Act assigns risk analysis activities to
the Homeland Security Institute, a new entity administered by the Secretary. The Act
also appears to assign risk analysis, risk assessment, and risk management activities
to other entities within the department.36 The National Strategy gives risk assessment
a prominent role in defending critical infrastructure, understanding and relaying
intelligence reports, and setting priorities for resource allocation, all of which may
have some effect on state and local preparedness efforts.37 Finally, as indicated
below, a number of existing federal programs encourage risk assessment and analysis
by state and local governments for preventing and reacting to terrorism.
The policy questions addressed here are: Should Congress attempt to increase
the use of risk assessment and analysis by state and local emergency officials and
planners? If so, what is the best way for Congress to ensure that risk assessments and
analyses help communities prepare for, and respond to, acts of terrorism?
Assessing, Managing, and Communicating Risks. Risk analysis is an
umbrella term for the fields of risk assessment, risk management, and risk
communication. Risk assessment seeks to define the probability an adverse event
might occur and the consequences that might result from that event. The other two
fields, risk management and risk communication, may include such activities as
measuring the costs and benefits of risk reduction options; considering the moral,
economic, political, psychological, and other implications of those options; and
engaging in a dialogue with affected groups to better understand and inform others
about the potential impacts of risk reduction decisions. Risk analysis generates
controversy, both in the methods it uses and the decisions that result from those
methods. Homeland security documents and discussions refer to risk assessment in
particular, so it will be addressed here more extensively than risk management or risk
communication.
Risk assessment methodology varies in government agencies and in private
industry. Two common terms, threat assessment and vulnerability assessment,
generally refer to specialized processes within risk assessment. While the specific
35This section was written by Robert Buschmann, CRS Analyst in American National
Government (7-8849). For more information on risk analysis, see CRS Report RS21348,
Risk Assessment in the National Strategy for Homeland Security.
36P.L. 107-296, sec. 312(c)(1); see sec. 312 (c) for general risk analysis and assessment
duties of the Homeland Security Institute. The use of risk analysis and assessment is
suggested, but not explicitly mentioned, in multiple places throughout the Act, including
sections 201, 302, 507, 1001, and 1402.
37Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, (Washington: July
2002), p. 29-35 (critical infrastructure), 55-58 (information sharing), and 63-66 (budget
priorities). Some parts of the Strategy also suggest state and local grants may be based on
risk-oriented assessments or evaluations. Available at [http://www.whitehouse.gov/
homeland/book/nat_strat_hls.pdf], visited Oct. 17, 2002.

CRS-11
meaning of the two terms may vary depending on context, threat assessments tend
to focus on the causes of adverse events, while vulnerability assessments measure
how those events will affect specific populations, physical structures, or other
entities. Risk assessment is generally used to describe a process that may include
threat and vulnerability assessments and results in a characterization and description
of risks.38 In some areas, such as chemical safety, risk assessment is advanced, using
time-tested models and calling upon volumes of information to address well-defined
risks. In other areas, like terrorism preparedness, data are lacking and the models
used to understand the risks have only recently been developed.
Despite its limits and variations, risk assessment can play a significant role in
decision making and resource allocation in many organizations. Its advocates regard
it as the rational use of science to better define problems, suggest answers to those
problems, and save lives. Risk assessment’s detractors counter that a lack of data,
implicit value judgments, and fundamental uncertainties may render it “misleading
at best and fraudulent at worst.”39
Policy Options. Congress has at least four options with regard to the use of
risk analysis tools by state and local governments: do nothing; establish guidelines
for performing risk assessments and analyses; condition grants for emergency
responders upon state and local completion of risk assessments and analyses; and
require state and local emergency responders to perform risk assessments and
analyses.
Do Nothing. The issue may not require any action by Congress. The federal
government does not currently monitor or regulate many state and local government
uses of risk assessment and analysis. This option would allow state and local
governments to develop and fine-tune their own methods of understanding and
managing risks from terrorism. It also would require no additional work or spending
by state and local governments, if they judge their current risk assessments and
analyses adequate. This option may, however, result in dramatically different
priorities among the states for handling different types of terrorism. Risk assessment
and analysis methodology will also likely vary considerably, making comparisons of
risk assessments and management strategies from different emergency preparedness
entities difficult.
Guidelines Only. Congress could instruct one or more agencies to provide
guidelines for risk assessment and analysis, either by regulation or by writing part or
all of such guidance directly into law. Many guidance documents for risk assessment
and analysis exist, including the Department of Justice’s guidelines for chemical
plant security40 and the Environmental Protection Agency’s website list of training
38See CRS electronic terrorism briefing book page, “Assessing Risks,”
[http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter225.html].
39Peter Montague, quoted in Sheldon Rampton and John Stauber, Trust Us, We’re Experts!
(New York: Tarcher/Putnam, 2001), p. 109.
40U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, National Institute of Justice,
Chemical Facility Vulnerability Assessment Methodology (Washington: June 2002),
(continued...)

CRS-12
materials for water infrastructure vulnerability assessments.41 This option would
allow the federal government to establish guidelines for risk assessment and analysis
while respecting state and local governments’ control over the process. The agencies
responsible for providing the guidelines could also share best practices by updating
the guidelines periodically. In addition, a common methodology could help the
federal government develop a better idea of what risks face different parts of the
nation because results from one area could be more easily compared with one
another. On the other hand, if the states and localities do not use the guidelines, the
nation may still lack consistency among regional levels of preparedness and response
to terrorism. Without an oversight tool, Congress would have no certain way to
ensure state and local governments will follow its guidelines. Moreover, this option
might lead to confusion about which plan to follow, if national advice does not match
best practices in private industry or in other parts of the federal government. Many
risk assessment and analysis methods exist, and the federal government might add
to the confusion if principles and methods are not clear in its guidelines.
Requirements for Grants. Congress could require risk assessments and
analyses from local and state governments as a requirement of emergency
preparedness grants. This policy choice has been part of the federal preparedness
grant process before: in 1999, the Department of Justice (DOJ) published an
Assessment and Strategy Development Tool Kit which set requirements state and
local governments had to satisfy if they were to receive aid for purchasing emergency
preparedness equipment.42 Bills in the 107th Congress also used this approach: H.R.
5169, passed in the House on September 5, 2002, would have given the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) the authority to grant money to wastewater
treatment facilities to perform vulnerability assessments, provided the assessment
met certain requirements.43 Conditioning grants on risk assessments or analyses
would increase the federal government’s ability to compare risks across the nation
and would allow the federal government to set clear priorities for state and local
governments regardless of regional variations. It would also assure a minimum
standard of risk awareness among those choosing to accept the grants. On the other
hand, depending on the structure of the condition, this option could “freeze” risk
assessment in legal or regulatory language—preventing states and localities from
innovating, as all they would have to do is meet the requirements of the law or
regulation to receive the grant. In addition, consensus on a single assessment and
analysis method may prove to be a difficult achievement. Risk assessment and
analysis methods are easiest to use when adverse events are fairly common and the
consequences of such events are simple to predict. Terrorist attacks have had neither
of these characteristics to date.
40(...continued)
available at [http://www.ncjrs.org/pdffiles1/nij/195171.pdf], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
41Available at [http://www.epa.gov/safewater/security/index.html#vulnerability], visited
Dec. 19, 2002.
42Available online at [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/assessment.pdf], visited Dec. 19,
2002.
43H.R. 5169 (as passed by the House), sec. 222.

CRS-13
Require Risk Assessments and Analyses. Congress could also require
emergency preparedness risk assessments from state and local governments. Current
homeland security legislation employs this method, providing federal funding for risk
assessments. The Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act of 2002 (P.L. 107-188), for example, requires all community water
systems that serve more than 3,300 people to perform a vulnerability assessment, the
requirements of which are mandated by legislation, with some discretion granted to
the EPA Administrator.44 S. 3730, the Senate counterpart to H.R. 5169, would have
required vulnerability assessments of wastewater treatment plants in much the same
way as P.L. 107-188. This requirement option would have the same advantages as
requiring risk assessment and analysis as a condition of grants; it would also likely
increase the possibility that state and local governments will comply (since risk
assessment and analysis would be required under law, rather than be a condition of
grants.) Similarly, this option has the same disadvantages as conditioning grants,
with the additional drawback that it may draw resources away from other emergency
preparedness activities that might have greater benefits than the assessment itself.
Some experts have recommended that terrorism be included in an “all-hazards”
approach at least partially based on risk assessment and analysis.45 This approach
would ideally integrate terrorism with natural disasters currently addressed by
emergency management organizations such as the Federal Emergency Management
Agency. If Congress chooses to require risk assessment and analysis outright or as
a condition of grants, it may be advantageous to consider whether the methodology
is consistent with existing state and local emergency management plans. Terrorism
risks may require their own separate assessments, but they might also be best
understood and analyzed as variations of a natural disaster.
Potential Consequences. If Congress chooses not to require risk assessments
and analyses as part of state and local emergency preparedness, it will leave state and
local agencies considerable freedom to adapt to constantly evolving threats and
vulnerabilities. And, responses across the country to terrorism emergencies will
continue to be variable, rather than standardized. If Congress chooses to require risk
assessment and analyses from state and local governments, either directly or as a
condition of grants, it may help organize and coordinate state and local responses to
terrorism while allowing the federal government to measure outcomes and outline
best practices. On the other hand, mandatory risk assessments and analyses may
burden state and local governments with unnecessary requirements that might
discourage creativity and innovation in combating terrorism.
44P.L. 107-188, sec. 401. See also CRS Report RL31294, Safeguarding the Nation’s
Drinking Water: EPA and Congressional Actions, by Mary Tiemann, and CRS Report
RS21026, Terrorism and Security Issues Facing the Water Infrastructure Sector, by Claudia
Copeland and Betsy Cody.
45See William Lee Waugh, Jr., “Managing Terrorism as an Environmental Hazard,” in
Handbook of Crisis and Emergency Management, Ali Farazmand, ed. (New York: Marcel
Dekker, 2001), pp. 659-675.

CRS-14
Federal Training Programs46
Defining the Issue. The federal government presently offers a wide array of
emergency management training, including preparedness for acts of terrorism to first
responders and other public officials. Currently, FEMA and the Justice Department
provide most terrorism-oriented training, and five other departments offer courses.
Most courses address planning for, and responding to, WMD attacks.
Although state and local first responders generally rate federal training as
effective and helpful, a number of observers argue that the current array of federal
terrorism training needs to be improved to better prepare states and localities for
possible terrorist attacks. Faults cited in federal training include lack of interagency
coordination, insufficient quantity of course offerings, and lack of information for
state and local officials.47 The National Strategy proposed the development of a
national training and evaluation system to be administered by the Department of
Homeland Security. The Administration would build upon existing training
resources, develop national standards for training, and evaluate regularly the
effectiveness of federal training programs.48 The Homeland Security Act
consolidated into the new DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate
several agencies and offices that presently administer terrorism-oriented training,
including FEMA. The Justice Department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness will
be transferred to the new DHS Border and Transportation Security directorate.49 As
Congress monitors the development of the DHS, it might examine the array of
federal training programs and the current needs of first responders.
Current Training Programs and Observations. Training for terrorism
preparedness is presently offered by seven federal departments and
agencies—Defense, Energy, Health and Human Services, Justice, Transportation, the
Environmental Protection Agency, and FEMA (see Table 1). FEMA and Justice
(ODP) offer the most, and the widest array of, courses. FEMA generally conducts
its training at the Emergency Management Institute and National Fire Academy, both
located in Emmitsburg, MD.50 The ODP offers training at its Center for Domestic
Preparedness, located in Anniston, Alabama, as well as the Nevada Test Site
(operated by the Department of Energy), and three state universities.51
46Research assistance for this section was provided by Rita Henry, temporary detail to CRS
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency through the 2003 Executive Potential
Program.
47U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Assessment of Federal Terrorism
Preparedness Training for State and Local Audiences (Washington: April, 2002), pp. 11-13.
48Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, p. 45.
49P.L. 107-296, sec. 430 and sec. 502.
50For more information, see the Emergency Management Institute web site:
[http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/] and National Fire Academy web site:
[http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/fire-service/nfa.cfm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
51Universities offering ODP-sponsored training include Louisiana State University, New
(continued...)

CRS-15
Terrorism-oriented training is generally available to a wide range of state and
local officials, including fire service, emergency medical service, law enforcement,
public health, public works, and elected officials. Some departments, however, target
their training to selected audiences (e.g., Department of Health and Human Services
trains state and local public health officials). Some departments also offer training
to private sector employees, such as hospital staff. Training is offered at varying
levels of competency, ranging from “awareness level” to “operational level” to
“incident command level.”
Table 1. Federal Training Programs for Terrorism Preparedness
Primary Target
Primary Training
Federal Department
Audience
Focus
Department of Defense
• military and civilian first
• WMD response
responders
• incident command
Department of Energy
• state and local first
• radiological incident
responders
response
• industry professionals
• waste site personnel
Department of Health
• state and local public
• biological and chemical
and Human Services
health officials
incident response
(selected programs to be
• hospital personnel
transferred to DHS)
• state and local first
responders
Department of Justice
• state and local first
• WMD response
(to be transferred to
responders
• law enforcement
DHS)
techniques associated
with terrorist attacks
• bomb response
Department of
• hazardous materials
• hazardous materials
Transportation
response teams
incident response
• transit system security
• transit system security
officers
and preparedness
Environmental
• environmental response
• radiological incident
Protection Agency
personnel
response
• hazardous materials
• hazardous materials
response teams
incident response
• waste site personnel
• air monitoring for
• state and local first
hazardous materials
responders
51(...continued)
Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology, and Texas A&M University. See the ODP web
site for descriptions: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ta/training.htm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.

CRS-16
Primary Target
Primary Training
Federal Department
Audience
Focus
Federal Emergency
• state and local first
• professional development
Management Agency (to
responders
for emergency managers
be transferred to DHS)
• emergency managers
• WMD response
• elected officials
• incident command
• fire service training
• emergency medical
service training
• community emergency
response
Source: U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, Assessment of Federal
Terrorism Preparedness Training for State and Local Audiences: Appendix A,
Updated Compendium of Federal Terrorism Training (Washington: April 10,
2002).
Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, federal officials and other
observers have examined the current federal system of terrorism-oriented training.
At the request of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees, FEMA
conducted an assessment of federal terrorism preparedness training.52 According to
the report, released in April 2002, federal officials and training participants concurred
that federal terrorism preparedness training is, on the whole, effective. Officials from
all levels of government, however, identified several shortcomings, such as:
! lack of information on course content, registration, and other factors;
! overlaps in training curricula of different agencies;
! insufficient quantity of courses;
! lack of consistent operational standards and competencies;
! not all training needs addressed (such as training to use response equipment
and crisis counseling for disaster victims); and
! costly travel requirements.53
Studies by the U.S. General Accounting Office and the Gilmore Commission came
to similar conclusions.54 Regarding the quantity of courses, a December 2002 report
on training opportunities also concluded that demand by first responders for training
far exceeds the available course offerings.55
52U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2002, Making Appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002 and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.R. 3338, H. Rept. 107-350, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 459.
53FEMA, Assessment of Federal Terrorism Preparedness Training, pp. 11-13, 42-47.
54U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: Selected Challenges and
Recommendations, Report GAO-01-822 (Washington: GPO, Sept. 2001), pp. 5, 90-93;
Gilmore Commission, Third Annual Report, p. 15.
55Patrick O’Driscoll, “U.S. Anti-terror Training Camps Booked Solid,” USA Today, Dec. 2,
2002.

CRS-17
In addition to these cited concerns, there has been considerable debate among
policymakers about the focus of federal terrorism preparedness training. Some argue
that terrorist attacks must be treated as criminal acts, and thus, first responders should
be taught selected law enforcement techniques. The Justice Department’s ODP
provides such a training focus. On the other hand, the Bush Administration and some
observers counter that training for terrorist attacks should not involve law
enforcement techniques, which could detract from the rescue mission of some first
responders. FEMA Director Joe Allbaugh has stated that as FEMA seeks to enhance
its training programs, it will not incorporate law enforcement techniques.56
Modify Federal Training Programs? Federal terrorism preparedness
training could be modified through several policy approaches. The 107th Congress
addressed concerns about the lack of interagency coordination in training programs
by consolidating several agencies offering training into the DHS. Specifically, the
Homeland Security Act instructed the Office for Domestic Preparedness to
coordinate and supervise federal terrorism preparedness programs, including
training.57 The Act also transfers into the new department FEMA, in its entirety, and
selected HHS preparedness programs.58 Congress also addressed concerns about the
lack of information about training programs. The Homeland Security Act created an
Office for State and Local Government Coordination that will be responsible for
providing state and local officials with training information.59 A related action, the
authorization of a National Clearinghouse on Emergency Preparedness was proposed
in S. 2452.60 The bill proposed a clearinghouse for preparedness information,
including information on federal training.
Another approach would be to instruct the DHS to increase the quantity of
training courses offered. FEMA’s training study indicated that more training
opportunities were needed due to the highly technical aspects of WMD response
training and the high turnover rates of public safety personnel. Increasing the
quantity of training could be done by providing federal departments additional
resources for hiring more trainers and expanding facilities. Congress seemingly
indicated a willingness to boost the capacity of federal training facilities when it
appropriated an additional $63 million to the ODP’s five training facilities in FY2002
emergency supplemental appropriations.61
Another approach would be to boost the capacity of state-level training
programs. Every state has an emergency management division that provides or
56Joe M. Allbaugh, Director, U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, letter to Hon.
F. James Sensenbrenner Jr., March 13, 2002. For more information on this issue, see “Focus
of First Responder Training Programs” in CRS Report RL31590, The Department of
Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
57P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
58P.L. 107-296, sec. 502.
59P.L. 107-296, sec. 801.
60S. 2452, sec. 152.
61U.S. Congress, H. Rept. 107-350, p. 459.

CRS-18
coordinates training programs. This option would take advantage of existing training
institutions and resources and could address state and local concerns about the cost
of traveling to federal training facilities.
Potential Consequences. Enhancing training programs at the federal or state
level could result in an uncoordinated approach to terrorism preparedness training.
This consequence could be addressed by instructing the DHS to develop training
standards that would be applicable to all federal training programs and federally-
funded state programs. The development and institutionalization of training
standards could lead to a specified level of proficiency in terrorism response
nationwide. Such an initiative could also address the question of whether to offer
terrorism preparedness training in a law enforcement context. Implementing training
standards, however, could place a financial burden on state training programs, since
they might have to develop new training programs and facilities, or purchase new
equipment.
Enhancing federal terrorism preparedness training could divert federal resources
from training for natural disasters. Some observers, including a former FEMA
Director, have cautioned that enhancing terrorism preparedness should not come at
the cost of natural disaster preparedness.62 Some House Committees also expressed
this concern in their markups of the Homeland Security Act (H.R. 5005). The House
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, which oversees FEMA’s operations,
emphasized that FEMA should maintain its emphasis on preparing for, and
responding to, natural disasters.63
Another possible consequence is that enhancing federal training programs could
prove prohibitively costly. The DHS and other agencies might require additional
personnel, facilities, and other resources to improve the quantity and expand the
range of training courses. Should Congress wish to expand federal training
programs, it might examine the costs that would be required to reach the desired
level.
Mutual Aid Compacts
Defining the Issue. Mutual aid compacts are agreements between different
units of government to provide assistance in the event that an emergency overwhelms
one government’s response capability. They can enhance preparedness by pooling
the resources of several governments and overcoming legal and administrative
problems created by multi-jurisdictional boundaries.64 Since state and local
governments commonly participate in compacts, public officials have not identified
62James Lee Witt and Associates, Department of Homeland Security and FEMA
(Washington: 2002), unpublished.
63U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, “Explanation of
Manager’s Amendment to H.R. 5005,” 107th Cong., 2nd sess., July 11, 2002. Available
at:[http://www.house.gov/transportation/homelandsecurity/amendmentexplanation.html],
visited Dec. 19, 2002.
64Waugh, Terrorism and Emergency Management, pp. 22-23.

CRS-19
mutual aid as a significant gap in federal policy, but some observers have urged
Congress to support compacts and encourage states and localities to better utilize
their compacts, and test them in training exercises. The National Strategy for
Homeland Security suggests every locality can benefit from mutual aid:
Today, many geographic areas have little or no capability to respond to a terrorist
attack using weapons of mass destruction. Even the best prepared states and
localities do not possess adequate resources to respond to the full range of
terrorist threats we face. Many do not yet have in place mutual aid agreements
to facilitate cooperation with their neighbors in time of emergency.65
The Homeland Security Act does not specifically address the concept of mutual
aid. It does, however, instruct the new department to coordinate the preparedness
activities of states and localities and ensure that they an maintain adequate level of
preparedness.66
Types of Compacts. There are two main types of compacts: regional (or
intrastate) and interstate compacts.
Regional Compacts. Emergency managers and analysts have suggested that
regional compacts, in particular, can enhance preparedness. One specific benefit is
that hazardous materials response teams, which are expensive to train and equip, can
be shared by multiple localities. Another cited benefit is close proximity of
resources. One analyst conducted an extensive series of interviews with state and
local emergency managers and reported that, since proximity of resources is a crucial
element in response, those interviewed generally relied on local and regional
resources during a response. Some of the interviewees had “major reservations about
the ability of federal and even state assets to arrive in sufficient time to impact the
outcome of a chemical terrorist attack response.”67 One state-level emergency
manager summarized some of the benefits in his testimony before Congress: “In
short, the regional approach gives us a flexible response capability, both regionally
and nationally, which can adapt to catastrophic events as they occur and most
effectively use the limited resources we share.”68
Some state legislatures have created statewide mutual aid agreements, allowing
all localities within the state to participate. California, for example, has had a
statewide mutual aid system since 1950. All of the state’s 58 counties and most of
the cities are signatories.69 Other states have more recently created statewide systems
in response to catastrophic natural disasters. In response to the devastation caused
by Hurricane Fran in 1996, North Carolina’s state legislature created a state-wide
65Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy, p. 42.
66P.L. 107-296, sec. 102(c) and 502(1).
67Smithson and Levy, Ataxia, p. 227.
68Woodbury Fogg, Director, Office of Emergency Management, State of New Hampshire
(on behalf of NEMA) in House Committee on Government Reform hearings, Oct. 5, 2001.
69For more information, see California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services:
[http://www.oes.ca.gov/], visited Dec. 19, 2002.

CRS-20
emergency management agreement. The agreement, “provides efficient and effective
assistance among governments, faster reimbursement from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency and covers liability and insurance concerns.”70
Regional compacts can also be used in interstate regions. Localities in the
Washington, D.C. metropolitan area, for example, have sought to strengthen their
mutual aid agreements. This region faces a number of administrative obstacles to
mutual aid due to the high number of federal, state, and local jurisdictions located in
the region. In September 2002, the Metropolitan Washington Council of
Governments (COG) proposed a new Regional Emergency Coordination Plan that
outlines communication and coordination mechanisms that will be used in the event
of a regional disaster. The COG’s plan seeks to incorporate the resources of its 17
member localities that lay in Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia.71
Interstate Compacts. Interstate mutual aid compacts also have potential
benefits. Although out-of-state resources might not have the close proximity of local
resources, a state would require assistance if an emergency were to overwhelm its
resources. The largest interstate mutual aid compact is the Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC), which was developed in response to the devastation
of Hurricane Andrew in Florida in 1992.72 Congress approved the compact in a joint
resolution in 1996.73 At the time of this writing, 47 states and two territories
participate in EMAC.74 The compact facilitates interstate assistance by establishing
a clear procedure for requesting assistance, removing legal obstacles, providing for
reimbursement of services, and providing a framework for flexible response.75
EMAC on 9/11. The State of New York implemented EMAC after joining the
compact on September 17, 2001. Even before officially joining the compact,
however, the state had decided to use EMAC procedures and documentation to
accept assistance from other states. According to one state emergency management
official, New York placed 32 requests for personnel from other states to assist with
response operations, donations management and recovery planning. All interstate
70For more information, see North Carolina Division of Emergency Management:
[http://www.dem.dcc.state.nc.us/MUTAID/aidweb.htm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
71The Metropolitan Washington Council of Government’s Regional Emergency
Coordination Plan is available at: [http://www.mwcog.org/homeland_plan/plan.htm], visited
Dec. 19, 2002.
72For more information on EMAC, see CRS Report RS21227, Emergency Management
Assistance Compact (EMAC): An Overview, by Ben Canada.
73P.L. 104-321; 110 Stat. 3877. Congress first supported interstate compacts for emergency
response efforts in the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950, in which it encouraged states to
enter into “interstate civil defense compacts” (see P.L. 81-920; 64 Stat. 1249). This
provision has been incorporated into the standing authority for the FEMA Director to aid
federal and nonfederal emergency preparedness efforts (see 42 U.S.C. 5196(h) and 5196a).
74Alabama, Alaska, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Ohio, and Oregon have joined
EMAC since September 11, 2001.
75National Emergency Management Association, Emergency Management Assistance
Compact: Guidebook and Operating Procedures (Lexington, KY: Aug. 2000), pp. 7-11.

CRS-21
assistance officially accepted by New York State was facilitated through EMAC or
special arrangements with particular states using EMAC protocols.76
EMAC was not formally implemented in the September 11 response to the
Pentagon attacks. Arlington County, Virginia, responded to the disaster, however,
with support from other Virginia jurisdictions that were activated through that state’s
intrastate mutual aid agreement. Arlington County also received support from nearby
jurisdictions in Maryland and the District of Columbia.77
Promoting Compacts? State governments could be required, as a condition
of receiving federal grants, to organize and enhance regional mutual aid compacts to
cover every locality in their state. While many localities throughout the United States
are already signatories of regional compacts, some observers believe that localities
too often rely on informal agreements and should formalize their compacts.78 Some
advocates assert that by formalizing compacts in a written contract, state and local
governments can better prepare for response by eliminating potential legal and
administrative obstacles. A written agreement can also help emergency managers by
providing a menu of resources available for response.79 Congress could promote
such compacts, if it concurred in this view, by conditioning federal funds on a state’s
progress toward this goal.
Another option would be to provide funding directly to regional councils for the
purpose of developing, improving, and exercising mutual aid compacts.80 Such an
approach was offered in H.R. 5461, the “Regional Comprehensive Emergency
Preparedness, Coordination, and Recovery Act of 2002.” The bill supported the use
of regional councils of governments, arguing that they “... have the accountability and
experience necessary to coordinate regional plans.”81 Some proponents of mutual aid
argue that the federal government distributes the vast majority of preparedness funds
to states and localities, and very little to regional councils. These proponents
maintain that councils could effectively use federal funds to develop mutual aid
compacts, an activity some councils already undertake.82
76New York State Office of Emergency Management, telephone conversation, April 19,
2002.
77Michael Cline, Virginia State Coordinator of Emergency Management, telephone
conversation, April 19, 2002.
78National Association of Counties, Counties Secure America: A Survey of Emergency
Preparedness of the Nation’s Counties (Washington: Dec. 2001), p. ii.
79Howard D. Swanson, “The Delicate Art of Practicing Municipal Law Under Conditions
of Hell and High Water,” North Dakota Law Review, vol. 76 (2000), pp. 496-502.
80The role of regional councils in emergency management and other public service areas is
further discussed in RL31366, The Role of Regional Councils in the Federal System: Policy
Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
81H.R. 5461, sec. 2(4).
82Alliance for Regional Stewardship, Regional Emergency Preparedness Compacts:
Safeguarding the Nation’s Communities, prepared by William R. Dodge, March 2002, p. 6.
Available at: [http://www.regionalstewardship.org/Documents/REPCSReport.pdf], visited
(continued...)

CRS-22
Congress could provide funds to member states for EMAC exercises and
simulations. It might also support research on ways of further incorporating the
compact into federal response activities. Some proponents argue that increased use
of interstate resources could relieve the strain on federal resources not only during
response to terrorist attacks but all disasters. Congress might also consider requiring
the three non-member states to join EMAC as a condition of receiving federal grants.
Congress and federal agencies have already shown some support for mutual aid.
In FY2002 supplemental appropriations (P.L. 107-206), Congress authorized $5
million for FEMA to develop mutual aid agreements.83 Also, during the months of
April and May 2002, FEMA sought input from first responders on possible
requirements for the First Responder Initiative, including requiring states to join
EMAC and requiring localities to participate in regional compacts.84
Potential Consequences. In general, state and local officials have not
suggested that there are adverse consequences to developing mutual aid compacts.
Some officials, however, have expressed concern about issues of liability and
reimbursement. Supporting the formalization and enhancement of mutual aid
compacts, however, might impose an administrative and financial burden on states
and localities. To address this situation, Congress might consider allowing grants to
be used for compacts, or instruct federal agencies to increase the availability of
technical and legal assistance in developing compacts. Opponents might argue,
however, that such an instruction would divert federal resources from other state and
local needs.
It is possible that distributing preparedness funds directly to regional councils
for the purposes of developing compacts could be controversial. The role and
responsibilities of regional councils vary considerably. In areas where regional
councils are limited to a strictly advisory role, state and local officials might consider
the development of mutual aid more appropriate for state and local governments. It
is also possible that not all regional councils have the technical expertise to develop
mutual aid compacts.
Joint Training Exercises
Defining the Issue. Joint training exercises are simulated response exercises
that involve federal, state, and local responders. Joint training can improve
emergency preparedness by allowing responders from different agencies (e.g., law
enforcement, fire and rescue, and public health) and different levels of government
82(...continued)
Dec. 19, 2002.
83U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2002, Making Supplemental Appropriations for
Further Recovery From and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States for the
Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes, conference report to
accompany H.R. 4775, H.Rept. 107-593, 107th Cong., 2nd sess. (Washington: GPO, 2002),
p. 183.
84U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency, “First Responder Initiative Grant Process,”
Federal Register, vol. 67, no. 73, April 9, 2002, p. 18621.

CRS-23
to become familiar with others’ capabilities and practices. It can also give emergency
managers and elected officials an opportunity to rehearse response scenarios using
a range of intergovernmental resources. The National Strategy for Homeland
Security supports exercises, proposing that the Homeland Security Department—
... 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.85
The Homeland Security Act directs the new Office for Domestic Preparedness
to coordinate terrorism preparedness activities with states and localities, including
exercises.86 As Congress considers the Administration’s National Strategy, as well
as the functions of the DHS, it might consider the effectiveness of joint training
exercises and whether additional federal resources should be dedicated to them.
Observations on Exercises. The New York City Fire Department (FYDY)
commissioned a study of its response to the World Trade Center attacks on
September 11, 2001. The report, completed by the McKinsey Company, offers some
evidence of the importance of joint training. It noted that the challenges in the
Department’s response that day included:
! command and control of department personnel;
! informal mechanisms for requesting mutual aid; and,
! lack of coordination with the New York Police Department;
The McKinsey report ultimately recommended that the FDNY work with other city,
state, and federal agencies to “Plan and execute joint training exercises and evaluate
these exercises together to ensure that agencies can and will cooperate effectively
during incidents, e.g., by operating under a unified command and control structure.”87
Some advocates contend that joint training exercises can help overcome cultural
barriers to coordination among different public safety communities (e.g., law
enforcement, fire and rescue, public health) to coordinating emergency services. The
Public Entity Risk Institute observed, in a report on the structure of emergency
management organizations, that emergency managers from all public safety
disciplines need to develop good interpersonal relationships and that joint training
exercises were one means of developing such relationships.88 Another Emergency
85Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy, p. 45.
86P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c)(1).
87McKinsey and Company, Increasing FDNY’s Preparedness (New York, 2002), p. 104.
Available at: [http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/html/mck_report/toc.html], visited Dec. 19,
2002.
88Public Entity Risk Institute, Characteristics of Effective Emergency Management
Organizational Structures (Fairfax, VA: PERI, 2002), pp. 55, 83. Available at: [http://www.
riskinstitute.org], visited August 8, 2002.

CRS-24
Medical System (EMS) training manual suggests that each first responder group can
benefit from joint training exercises:
The exercise plan is a series of objectives that each agency wants to test. Law
enforcement may want to test perimeter security; fire/rescue may want to test
mutual aid procedures. EMS objectives are triage, transportation,
communications, or logistics ... [Exercises should] concentrate on testing
management skills, communications, patient flow, unit coordination, inter-agency
coordination, mutual aid, planning, or logistics.89
In 2000, FEMA participated in over 200 state-level terrorism preparedness
exercises each year. According to GAO in 2001, that number was up from
approximately 25 in FY1996 and continued to rise. Many of the exercises are
“tabletop exercises,” in which participants discuss how their agency would respond
to a particular type of incident. Some exercises are more demanding “full-scale
exercises,” which require responders to be deployed in the field and involve
extensive evaluations.90
In addition to these exercises, there have been a limited number of nationwide
exercises in recent years involving emergency managers and elected officials from
around the nation. In May 2000, for example, FEMA and the Office for Domestic
Preparedness conducted the TOPOFF (top officials) exercise, the largest joint
training exercise of its kind ever conducted. TOPOFF simulated WMD attacks in
three locations across the nation. The Justice Department rated the exercise as a
success, claiming to draw useful lessons from it.91 In congressional testimony, a
spokesman for the National Emergency Management Association concurred with the
Justice Department that the exercise was useful, but that similar exercises were
necessary “to ensure that valuable federal, state, and local relationships and trust are
built before a disaster.” The Justice Department is currently planning for TOPOFF
II, which is scheduled to be conducted in FY2003.92
While FEMA officials believe exercises are an essential component of
preparedness, they argue that response to natural disasters can be just as valuable as
WMD training exercises. Floods, hurricanes, and wildfires test the capabilities of
federal, state, and local responders and may lead to improved response to terrorist
attacks.
89Hank Christen and Paul M. Maniscalco, The EMS Management System: EMS Operations
for Mass Casualty and High Impact Incidents (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall,
1998), p. 137.
90U.S. General Accounting Office, Combating Terrorism: FEMA Continues to Make
Progress in Coordinating Preparedness and Response, GAO Report GAO-01-15, Mar.
2001, pp. 17-19.
91U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness web site, at
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/exercises/state.htm], visited Dec. 19, 2002.
92Statement of Woodbury Fogg, Director, Office of Emergency Management, State of New
Hampshire, House Committee on Government Reform hearings, Oct. 5, 2001.

CRS-25
Despite these activities, some emergency managers and analysts believe that the
federal government does not coordinate or fund enough joint training exercises,
leaving a gap in federal policy. In a 2001 survey by the Gilmore Commission, which
was fielded before September 11, 80% of responding localities stated they had not
participated in an exercise with federal agencies. Additionally, a majority of
localities reported that they had never held a WMD response exercise. The Gilmore
Commission and other observers have encouraged Congress to instruct FEMA to
coordinate more joint exercises and to provide more funding to states and localities
to fund the exercises.93
Support for More Exercises? Should Congress determine that more joint
training exercises are needed, it could instruct the Department of Homeland Security
to increase the number of exercises involving first responders and officials from all
related fields, such as law enforcement, fire and rescue, and public health, and from
all levels of government. Exercises could be structured to test and evaluate existing
state and local response plans as well as mutual aid compacts. In the new
department, such activities will most likely either be conducted by FEMA or ODP.
The Homeland Security Act presently gives ODP (in the Border and Transportation
Security directorate) responsibility for federal terrorism preparedness assistance
programs. However, it also instructs the Emergency Preparedness and Response
directorate, which contains FEMA, to ensure the preparedness of all state and local
first responders.
The Bush Administration has emphasized exercises as a core component of its
proposed First Responder Initiative. Developing and conducting exercises is listed
as one of four basic activities for which recipients may use federal funds. The Office
of Homeland Security states that the new program, if enacted, would “... supplement
a coordinated, regular exercise program to improve response capabilities, practice
mutual aid, and assess operations improvement and deficiencies.”94 During the 107th
Congress, the Senate considered S. 2664, the First Responder Terrorism
Preparedness Act of 2002. This bill paralleled the Administration proposal for a new
grant program and would have authorized exercises as an eligible activity.95
In the Emergency Response to Terrorism supplemental appropriation (P.L. 107-
38; P.L. 107-117), Congress demonstrated support for more exercises, allocating
roughly $291 million to the Office for Domestic Preparedness (DOJ) for exercises.
Congress authorized an additional $14 million for exercises in the FY2002
supplemental appropriation (P.L. 107-206).96
93Gilmore Commission, Third Annual Report, pp. 18-21.
94White House Office of Homeland Security, Securing the Homeland, p. 11.
95S. 2664, sec. 630(c)(1)(G). For more information, see CRS Report RL31475, First
Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options, by Ben Canada.
96U.S. Congress, Conference Committees, 2002, Making Appropriations for the Department
of Defense for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2002, and for Other Purposes,
conference report to accompany H.R. 3338, H. Rept. 107-350, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.
(Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 417; And U.S. Congress, conference report to accompany
(continued...)

CRS-26
Potential Consequences. Federal requirements for joint training exercises
raise at least two concerns. First, holding exercises, particularly full-scale exercises,
can be prohibitively costly for state and local governments. Second, some state and
local officials might disapprove of requirements for terrorism-related exercises,
arguing that such requirements would divert resources from preparing for more likely
natural disasters to preparing for less likely terrorist attacks. This may be more likely
in rural communities, or communities that consider themselves low risk. Should
Congress decide to promote exercises, it might instruct FEMA to conduct exercises
in such communities less frequently than in urban or high risk communities.
Conclusion
The unprecedented terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 prompted
policymakers at all levels of government to consider how to prepare for possible
future attacks. In monitoring the creation of the Department of Homeland Security,
as well as in considering any related proposals to modify federal preparedness
programs, Congress might address any, or all, of these policy issues as it seeks ways
to enhance state and local preparedness for terrorism. Should the 108th Congress
consider legislation on state and local preparedness, it would have a wide range of
options to consider.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
CRS Report RL31490, Department of Homeland Security: State and Local
Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RS21227, Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC): An
Overview, by Ben Canada
CRS Report RL31475, First Responder Initiative: Issues and Options, by Ben
Canada.
CRS Report RL31375, Meeting Public Safety Spectrum Needs, by Linda K. Moore.
CRS Report RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security:
Issues for Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.
CRS Report RL31465, Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Terrorist Attack: A
Catalog of Selected Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by John Moteff.
96(...continued)
H.R. 4775, H. Rpt. 107-593, p. 183.

CRS-27
CRS Report RL31263, Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and
Response Act (P.L. 107-188): Provisions and Changes to Preexisting Law, by C.
Stephen Redhead, Donna U. Vogt, and Mary E. Tiemann.
CRS Report RL31125, Recovery from Terrorist Attacks: A Catalog of Selected
Federal Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RS21348, Risk Assessment in the President’s National Strategy for
Homeland Security, by Rob Buschmann.
CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Federal Assistance
Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RS20071, United States Fire Administration: An Overview, by Len
Kruger.
CRS Report RS21073, Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces: Fact Sheet, by Ben
Canada.
CRS Terrorism Briefing Book: [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/ebter1.shtml].