ExpectMore.gov


Detailed Information on the
Corps of Engineers: Emergency Management Assessment

Program Code 10000004
Program Title Corps of Engineers: Emergency Management
Department Name Corps of Engineers-Civil Works
Agency/Bureau Name Corps of Engineers-Civil Works
Program Type(s) Direct Federal Program
Assessment Year 2004
Assessment Rating Moderately Effective
Assessment Section Scores
Section Score
Program Purpose & Design 80%
Strategic Planning 100%
Program Management 100%
Program Results/Accountability 60%
Program Funding Level
(in millions)
FY2007 $1,565
FY2008 $36
FY2009 $58

Ongoing Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2005

Exploring ways to improve decision-making on the restoration of flood and storm protection structures after an emergency.

Action taken, but not completed Actions are ongoing. Review of Interagency Performance Evaluation Task Force (IPET)and policy assessment reports in addition to review of current project inspection and maintenance standards have resulted in improvements to the engineering standards used to inspect/assess and repair flood and storm protection projects. Improvements in the inspection program will result is better understanding of the engineering condition of these projects. Improved engineering inspections will begin in FY09.
2005

Funding this program in the regular, annual budget at a robust level for planning, preparedness, response and recovery activities.

Action taken, but not completed Have consistently request funding levels in the President's budget equal to the average annual cost of this program for preparedness activities. Have communicated program justification and clarification to OMB & Committees and prepared and updated the program's 5 year development plan linking the programs annual preparedness requirements and objectives to the intended results. To date these improvement actions have not resulted in an annual appropriation for this program.

Completed Program Improvement Plans

Year Began Improvement Plan Status Comments
2005

Proposing funds for an inventory of the Corps flood and storm projects and development of an analytical tool for assessing project performance and risk of failure.

Completed $30 million for this action was appropriated in FY06 supplemental appropriation, P.L. 109-148. To date the national levee database model has been developed and approximately 33% of federal levee that provide 100 year level of protection and greater have been inventories. Additionally, a risk assessment methodology for assessing failure risk of levees is being developed and should be complete in FY09.

Program Performance Measures

Term Type  
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Percent of time that Planning Response Team is in Green state of readiness to repsond to Stafford Act emergencies under Emergency Support Function#3.


Explanation:This measure tracks the percent of the time that Planning Response Teams (PRT) for a given mission area are in the Green state of readiness (trained, fully staffed, ready to deploy).

Year Target Actual
2004 80% 93%
2005 82% 82%
2006 85% 92%
2007 90% 72%
2008 92%
2010 95%
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: PL84-99 Response Team Readiness


Explanation:This measure tracks the percent of the time that PL84-99 Response Teams are in the Green state of readiness at the beginning of flood/hurricane season (trained, fully staffed, ready to deploy).

Year Target Actual
2004 80% 96%
2005 82% 92%
2006 85% 92%
2007 88% 75%
2008 90%
2010 95%
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Flood Control Works (Levees, floodwalls, etc.) inspections performed.


Explanation:Percent of scheduled inspections performed for all non-Federal Flood Control Works in Rehabilitation and Inspection Program, as required by ER 500-1-1.

Year Target Actual
2004 84% 90%
2005 86% 96%
2006 90% 93%
2007 92% 97%
2008 94%
2010 95%
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Percent of time solutions are implemented prior to next flood season.


Explanation:Percent of time solutions are developed and implemented (either repaired to pre-flood conditions or possible non-structural alternative) prior to the next flood season. (May be impacted by circumstances beyond USACE control, such as obtaining cost-sharing agreements and right-of-ways, reoccurring floods etc.).

Year Target Actual
2005 82% 75%
2004 80% 92%
2006 85% 65%
2007 88% 29%
2008 90%
2010 92%
Long-term/Annual Output

Measure: Percentage of Federal and Non-Federal Flood Control Works in Rehabilitation and Inspection Program with a satisfactory conditional rating.


Explanation:This measure tracks the condition of Federal and non-Federal projects (approximately 3000) in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program as reported by inspection reports completed during fiscal year. Measurement shown reflects percent of projects with FCW with a satisfactory or higher rating.

Year Target Actual
2004 84% 93%
2005 86% 94%
2006 88% 95%
2007 90% 90%
2008 92%
2010 95%
Annual Outcome

Measure: Deployable Tactical Operations System readiness Index


Explanation:Measures the percentage of time that the national deployable support equipment and teams are in GREEN readiness status.

Year Target Actual
2006 88% 92%
2007 90% 93%
2008 92%
Long-term Output

Measure: Develop/maintain/exercise preparedness plans


Explanation:Measures development/maintenance/exercising of contingency plans, SOPs, Guides, etc. IAW 1yr/5yr. MSC/District workplans (Flood/Hurricane/FRP (natural disasters), etc.)

Year Target Actual
2007 75% 73%
Long-term Efficiency

Measure: Execution of the National Training Program


Explanation:Demonstrates the effective execution of the national training program through the measurement of costs reduction for training/individual in reference to the FY03 baseline.

Year Target Actual
2004 90% 92%
2005 90% 94%
2006 90% 74%
2007 90% 83%
2008 90%
Annual Outcome

Measure: Planning Response Team Performance Index


Explanation:Measures the percentage of time that the performance of the Planning Response Teams are rated at or above "Highly Successful" in support of FEMA under the Federal Response Plan.

Year Target Actual
2004 90% 93%
2005 90% 86%
2006 90% 95%
2007 90% 100%
Long-term/Annual Outcome

Measure: Emergency Support Function #3 Cadre Performance


Explanation:Measures the performance of ESF #3 TL/ATL during response in support of FEMA under the Federal Response Plan.

Year Target Actual
2006 88% 0%
2007 90% 100%
2008 92%

Questions/Answers (Detailed Assessment)

Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design
Number Question Answer Score
1.1

Is the program purpose clear?

Explanation: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is authorized to undertake activities including disaster preparedness (all natural hazards), advance measures, emergency operations (disaster response and post-flood response), rehabilitation of flood control works, and provision of emergency water due to drought or contaminated source. These activities are funded in the Flood Control and Coastal Emergencies (FCCE) account.

Evidence: Public Law (PL) 84-99 (33 U.S.C. 701n) authorizes USACE to provide emergency response/disaster assistance. USACE plans for all natural disasters. Response and recovery under its own authority (FCCE) include flood fights (direct and technical assistance), provision of emergency water, advance measures, and restoration of federal/non-federal flood control works. Other response and recoveery activities are funded by external authorities (i.e. Stafford Act) and guided by Emergency Support Function #3.

YES 20%
1.2

Does the program address a specific and existing problem, interest or need?

Explanation: USACE focuses on the flood preparedness, response and recovery assistance to state and local customers that is beyond their capabilities, as well as preparedness activities under the Federal Response Plan (Stafford Act), Emergency Support Function (ESF) #3 - Public Works and Engineering.

Evidence:  

YES 20%
1.3

Is the program designed so that it is not redundant or duplicative of any other Federal, state, local or private effort?

Explanation: All activities under PL 84-99 and those funded by FEMA under the Stafford Act provide assistance beyond state and local government capabilities. USACE has unique capabilities (emergency contracting, subject matter experts, teams, Quality Assurance/Quality Control (QA/QC), etc.) to plan for and execute Federal Response Plan (FRP) missions (the provision of potable water, ice and emergency power, debris removal and disposal, temporary housing, temporary roofing, structural safety inspections and support to urban search and rescue). USACE is the lead federal agency for design, construction and maintenance of primary flood control works (Flood Control Works). USACE supplemental assistance under these authorities that does not duplicate any other federal or non-federal agency.

Evidence: PL 84-99 (ER5001-1, Civil Emergency Management Program), USACE is designated as the lead federal agency for the Interagency Levee Task Force (OMB and Council on Environmental Quality memo dated 18 Feb 1997). USACE is also designated as the lead Federal agency for Public Works and Engineering under the Federal Response Plan (Stafford Act). An MOA exists with Natural Resources Conservation Service that delineates watershed responsibilities, preventing overlap of Flood Control Works activities

YES 20%
1.4

Is the program design free of major flaws that would limit the program's effectiveness or efficiency?

Explanation: An annually funded program that addresses not only preparedness, but also a "baseline" or average annual funding level for emergency operations, FCW rehabilitation, emergency water supply, and advance measures would be more effective than relying on supplementals to fund such responses. Such funding would better meet anticipated needs and avoid disrupting other USACE programs by borrowing their funds while awaiting supplementals. A post flood ,USACE led interagency process exists for reviewing rehabilitation and or non-stuructural meaures, but a pre-flood process would improve program design. Also, post-flood rehabilitation cost-sharing should be reviewed to determine if it provides the proper incentives for local plannning.

Evidence: The 04 and 05 budgets proposed funding the program at a level that would address anticipated emergency operations, but these proposals were rejected. Funds were provided in supplementals.

NO 0%
1.5

Is the program effectively targeted, so that resources will reach intended beneficiaries and/or otherwise address the program's purpose directly?

Explanation: Program is carefully managed and targeted to augment and/or assist state and local governments efforts to prepare for, respond to and recover from disasters and other emergencies. For example, Disaster Preparedness provides for the necessary planning and coordination required to effectively respond to the needs of all 50 states and U.S. Territories. Emergency Operations provides a mechanism to provide direct and/or technical supplemental assistance to states to protect lives and prevent major property damage. The non-Federal FCW that are a part of the USACE Rehabilitation Inspection Program (RIP) must meet prescribed standards to be a part of the program, must be properly maintained and rehabilitation assistance is only provided to the targeted structures that are active in the RIP. Other elements of the program, such as Emergency Water and Advance Measures are only provided to target beneficiaries to meet prescribed program purposes and requirements when local/state capabilities have been exceeded.

Evidence: Since 199, 7USACE has expended emergency management funds under FCCE to provide direct and/or technical assistance to protect lives and prevent major property damage in approximately 40 states and U.S. territories. ER 500-1-1 outlines policy and guidance and EP 500-1-1 outlines procedures that ensure that program funds are consistently targeted to the proper beneficiaries to effectively meet program purposes.

YES 20%
Section 1 - Program Purpose & Design Score 80%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning
Number Question Answer Score
2.1

Does the program have a limited number of specific long-term performance measures that focus on outcomes and meaningfully reflect the purpose of the program?

Explanation: Measures have been developed in coordination with OMB. The goal is to improve the Emergency Management program through the sustaining of current capabilities (teams, cadres and utilization of current technology/equipment) and development/implementation of strategic initiatives that address the needs of the entire Public Works and Engineering/Emergency Management community (Federal, state and local). The long-term goals emphasize readiness in terms of having resources in place, and have quantitative, outcome measures associated with them.

Evidence: USACE has established preliminary long-term performance measures (contained in this document) that will help determine the condition of the FCW in the Rehabilitation and Inspection Program by tracking the execution of inspections and rehabilitations In addition, measures will track the readiness status of the Depolyable Tactical Operations Systems, Planning and Response Teams, Crisis Action Teams, Crisis Management Teams and PL84-99 field response teams.

YES 12%
2.2

Does the program have ambitious targets and timeframes for its long-term measures?

Explanation: Initial targets and timeframes have been developed for longterm measures.

Evidence: Contained in Measures tab.

YES 12%
2.3

Does the program have a limited number of specific annual performance measures that can demonstrate progress toward achieving the program's long-term goals?

Explanation: Measures are under development in coordination with OMB. Long-term goals focus on establishing plans and readiness. Short-term, outcome oriented goals relate to actual responses to an emergency.

Evidence: Selecting, credentialing and training of Planning and Response Teams and Emergency Support Function #3 Cadre. Intensive inspection program in the Rehab. and Inspection Program ensures FCW integrity. Performance measures for PRTs and ESF #3 Cadre members have been developed.

YES 12%
2.4

Does the program have baselines and ambitious targets for its annual measures?

Explanation: Initial targets have been developed in coordination with OMB.

Evidence: Contained in Measures tab.

YES 12%
2.5

Do all partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) commit to and work toward the annual and/or long-term goals of the program?

Explanation: USACE coordinates with stakeholders on a national, regional, local and private basis to discuss and establish goals for planning and response capability improvements.

Evidence: Public sponsors participate in the FCW Rehab and Inspection Program and support the program objectives/goals. Advance Contract Initiative (ACI) contractors have been involved in training, exercises and meeting to enhance our response capabilities. FEMA/USACE critiques occur annually to discuss issues surfaced in previous years response. Regional Response Workshops for floods, hurricanes and earthquakes engaged all partners and stakeholders in the identification of long term goals and critical issues.

YES 12%
2.6

Are independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality conducted on a regular basis or as needed to support program improvements and evaluate effectiveness and relevance to the problem, interest, or need?

Explanation: The Emergency Management life cycle is the standard business practice for USACE. The life cycle includes planning/preparedness, response/recovery, evaluation and corrective actions. Evaluations of responses have been conducted by USACE personnel, external partners and contractors. This is an ongoing requirement within Emergency Management.

Evidence: These evaluations include: 1) Independent Assessment and Assistance Teams (composed of USACE personnel not immediately involved in the response, contractors and other agency representives) review responses and provide results to the responding MSC and HQUSACE. 2) After Action Reports identify Lessons Learned. 3) Federal Emergency Management Agency/USACE Critiques address key issues that require resolution. 4) Audit Response Teams, that include other DoD personnel outside USACE, deploy to evaluate USACE performance. 5) The Engineer Inspector General inspection of USACE disaster response operations, dated Feb 2001, determined that overall it was a well managed process.

YES 12%
2.7

Are Budget requests explicitly tied to accomplishment of the annual and long-term performance goals, and are the resource needs presented in a complete and transparent manner in the program's budget?

Explanation: For FY 06, budget requests are tied directly to the accomplishment of established performance goals/measures.

Evidence: While every FCCE activity with the exception of preparedness is dependent on the frequency and magnitude of the occurrence of disasters, all major activities under this authority have performance goals and measures.

YES 12%
2.8

Has the program taken meaningful steps to correct its strategic planning deficiencies?

Explanation: The Life Cycle business process for USACE FCCE program includes a Corrective Action process to help insure that USACE is a "Learning Organization" with regards to Emergency Management. The Readiness 2000 (R2K) Initiative is an example of a strategic initiative that was implemented in 1999 to correct deficiencies in the emergency management program. Current reexamination of R2K is addressing any improvement or changes that are required to meet changing demands.

Evidence: Readiness 2000 decision memo, dated April 1998, signed by the Director of Civil Works. Homeland Security Strategic Planning Initiative. Senior Leadership Seminars with FEMA and other federal and state stakeholders. Remedial Action Program and After Action Reports from interagency workshops and exercises.

YES 12%
Section 2 - Strategic Planning Score 100%
Section 3 - Program Management
Number Question Answer Score
3.1

Does the agency regularly collect timely and credible performance information, including information from key program partners, and use it to manage the program and improve performance?

Explanation: The evaluation of current responses through the Independent Assistance and Assessment Team (IAAT) and the post-disaster After Action process have revealed critical issues that require corrective action measures to be conducted. The IAAT deploys during emergency response operations to assist and identify lessons learned from the perspective of USACE, partners and customers.

Evidence: Past corrective actions established a trained Emergency Support Function #3 Cadre, Mission/Functional Planning and Response Teams, and changes in Advance Contract Initiative contracts that provide life saving measures to disaster victims. ENGLink ECA and mission tracking modules provide critical performance and assessment data. ESF #3 Team Leader disaster performance evaluations by FEMA (DHS).

YES 14%
3.2

Are Federal managers and program partners (including grantees, sub-grantees, contractors, cost-sharing partners, and other government partners) held accountable for cost, schedule and performance results?

Explanation: USACE has developed extensive policy, procedures, guides, checklists and agreements that ensure the regulation of costs, schedule and performance results during both response and recovery operations. This addresses the requirements for both the USACE program managers and external partners.

Evidence: EP500-1-1 contains checklists for all FCCE activities. Project Cooperation Agreements are required from public sponsors for all rehab and advance measures projects. Timelines for all Corps roles in the FRP are defined in the USACE ESF #3 Field Guide. USACE Audit Teams assess the execution of contracts and missions.

YES 14%
3.3

Are funds (Federal and partners') obligated in a timely manner and spent for the intended purpose?

Explanation: Funds for preparedness are issued at the beginning of each FY and obligated and expended in accordance with an approved schedule. Funds for rehab of Flood Control Works, emergency operations, advance measures are allocated, obligated and expended, as emergency conditions dictate.

Evidence: Corps Engineers Financial Management System track funding obligations and expenditures. Project Cooperation Agreements outline financial requirements of public sponsor. ER 11-1 320 and ER 500-1-1 outlines financial and schedule requirements, respectively.

YES 14%
3.4

Does the program have procedures (e.g. competitive sourcing/cost comparisons, IT improvements, appropriate incentives) to measure and achieve efficiencies and cost effectiveness in program execution?

Explanation: Numerous products/procedures have been developed to improve time and cost efficiency in mission execution. Advance Contract Initiative contracts which provide emergency supplies are competitive, "Best Value Source Selection" contracts. Criteria include ability to perform and reach full production under emergency conditions.

Evidence: ESF 3 Field Guide, Mission Guides, Advance Contract Initiative Contracts, EP 500-1-1. Contracts are awarded in advance, but there is no payment until contractor is asked to perform. Contractors hire and subcontract in the disaster area, to the maximum extent possible.

YES 14%
3.5

Does the program collaborate and coordinate effectively with related programs?

Explanation: Extensive coordination has occurred with the FEMA concerning the USACE role in the Federal Response Program (FRP). USACE has also partnered with support agencies listed in the ESF #3 annex to the FRP. Additional coordination concerning flood plain management and mitigation issues is also underway to ensure that no conflicts exist with the implementation of respective programs.

Evidence: USACE has liaison at FEMA HQ to collaborate and coordinate programs, including the FCW inspection program. USACE coordinates with the National Association of Flood Plain Managers. USACE participates with 26 other Ferderal agencies (e.g. DOT, USDA, EPA, DHS, etc.) in Emergency Support Function Leader Group/Catastrophic Disaster Response Group/Regional Interagency Steering Committee help establish common goals and objectives. USACE MOA with Natural Resources Conservation Service on watershed delineation.

YES 14%
3.6

Does the program use strong financial management practices?

Explanation: Funds for preparedness are allocated by HQUSACE at the beginning of each FY and obligated and expended in accordance with an approved schedule. Funds for rehab of FCW, emergency operations, advance measures are allocated, obligated and expended, as emergency conditions dictate. All funds are issued via work allowance. Obligations and expenditures are tracked via CEFMS.

Evidence: HQUSACE distributes funds under the appropriate class/category for a given activity as outlined in ER 11-1-320. HQUSACE monitors status of distributed FCCE funds and recalls any unobligated balances on a periodic basis. Funds for the repair of damaged FCW are distributed by phases, as outlined in all Project Information Reports (i.e. investigation, engineering and design, construction). ER500-1-1 requires: repairs to FCW have correct local/federal cost share, positive benefit/cost ratio and assistance provided during emergency operations are supplemental to state/local efforts. Funds for inspections of FCW in this program are budgeted and distributed every other year based on inspection schedules.

YES 14%
3.7

Has the program taken meaningful steps to address its management deficiencies?

Explanation: In 2001, the Engineer Inspector General evaluated management practices within the EM program. Several were identified as needing improvement or change to include proper alignment with Program Management Business Process and Emergency Management Training Program. Several areas were identified where management practices were exemplary.

Evidence: Subsequent steps have been taken to correct the deficiencies to the point that the program is used as an examplar. Command inspections are also conducted for EM mission areas. Critiques identified significant improvements and USACE has taken steps to implement recommendations.

YES 14%
Section 3 - Program Management Score 100%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability
Number Question Answer Score
4.1

Has the program demonstrated adequate progress in achieving its long-term performance goals?

Explanation: Goals were put in place in FY04 establish benchmark.

Evidence: Data collected in FY 04 and 05 and prior years demonstrate progress in achieving long term goals

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.2

Does the program (including program partners) achieve its annual performance goals?

Explanation: Goals were put in place in FY04 establish benchmark.

Evidence: Data collected in FY 04 and 05 and prior years demonstrate progress in achieving annual goals

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.3

Does the program demonstrate improved efficiencies or cost effectiveness in achieving program goals each year?

Explanation: USACE strives to improve coordination with federal, state and local stakeholders through the conduct of exercises, training and workshops. These efforts help better educate all parties in the FCCE program and helps to better define and implement program goals. Advanced Contract Initiative has help save money during disaster response.

Evidence: Advanced Contract Initiative saved 22% on ice and 17% on water costs. Leveraging national teams saves training costs. Cost per students for training has been reduced by approximately 15% since FY02.

SMALL EXTENT 7%
4.4

Does the performance of this program compare favorably to other programs, including government, private, etc., with similar purpose and goals?

Explanation: The FCCE program is similar to other emergency programs in providing supplemental assistance to state/local interests. However, assistance provided, advance measures, emergency water supply and rehabilitation of FCW as well as Public Works and Engineering is unique. USACE has worked closely with FEMA, other federal agencies, and state and local interests to ensure our program effectively augments and supplements other programs.

Evidence: USACE role in support of the FRP. USACE authorities outlined in ER500-1-1 and EP 500-1-1.

YES 20%
4.5

Do independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and achieving results?

Explanation: USACE is assessed externally by President's FEMA and internally through multi-level assessments on the effectiveness of the FCCE Program during response, recovery and after action phases of a disaster.

Evidence: 1) After Action reports/meetings identify lessons learned to improve future responses 2) IAAT reviews disaster responses and immediately provides corrective actions to USACE. 3) Audit response teams review USACE execution and insures that laws/regs are followed. 4) USACE Engineer Inspector General assessed disaster response operations, Feb 2001, determined that overall it was a well managed process.

YES 20%
Section 4 - Program Results/Accountability Score 60%


Last updated: 09062008.2004SPR