Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Performance Audit

Transcription

1 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Performance Audit November 2011 Office of the Auditor Audit Services Division City and County of Denver Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor

2 The Auditor of the City and County of Denver is independently elected by the citizens of Denver. He is responsible for examining and evaluating the operations of City agencies for the purpose of ensuring the proper and efficient use of City resources and providing other audit services and information to City Council, the Mayor and the public to improve all aspects of Denver s government. He also chairs the City s Audit Committee. The Audit Committee is chaired by the Auditor and consists of seven members. The Audit Committee assists the Auditor in his oversight responsibilities of the integrity of the City s finances and operations, including the integrity of the City s financial statements. The Audit Committee is structured in a manner that ensures the independent oversight of City operations, thereby enhancing citizen confidence and avoiding any appearance of a conflict of interest. Audit Committee Dennis Gallagher, Chair Maurice Goodgaine Jeffrey Hart Timothy O Brien Robert Bishop Robert Haddock Bonney Lopez Audit Staff John Carlson, Deputy Director, CIA Sonia Montano, Internal Audit Supervisor, CGAP, CICA Rudy Lopez, Lead Internal Auditor Emily Gibson, Senior Auditor, M.S. You can obtain free copies of this report by contacting us at: Office of the Auditor 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 Denver CO, (720) Fax (720) Or download and view an electronic copy by visiting our website at:

3 City and County of Denver 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 Denver, Colorado FAX Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor Mr. Scott Field, Director Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security City and County of Denver Dear Mr. Field: November 17, 2011 Attached is the Auditor s Office Audit Services Division s performance audit report of the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the preparedness of the City and County of Denver for emergency situations. We evaluated current policies, procedures, and responses to functional exercises and incidents in We determined whether necessary internal controls are in place and functional under the circumstances. Being prepared for unforeseen situations and emergencies is a major responsibility of government. Recent events across the nation have highlighted what can happen when local communities do not have essential activities identified and when agencies do not communicate well in times of crisis. Our audit determined that the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security is committed to emergency preparedness and has built a strong centralized function in terms of developing an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for the City and building relationships with stakeholders. However, the ability to execute the EOP is at risk in a few areas. The finding and recommendations presented in this report have identified areas for improvement. If you have any questions, please call Kip Memmott, Director of Audit Services, at Sincerely, Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor DJG/sam cc: Honorable Michael Hancock, Mayor Honorable Members of City Council Members of Audit Committee Ms. Janice Sinden, Chief of Staff Ms. Stephanie O Malley, Deputy Chief of Staff Ms. Cary Kennedy, Chief Financial Officer Mr. Doug Friednash, City Attorney Mr. L. Michael Henry, Staff Director, Board of Ethics Ms. Beth Machann, Controller To promote open, accountable, efficient and effective government by performing impartial reviews and other audit services that provide objective and useful information to improve decision making by management and the people. We will monitor and report on recommendations and progress towards their implementation.

4 City and County of Denver Dennis J. Gallagher Auditor 201 West Colfax Avenue, Department 705 Denver, Colorado FAX AUDITOR S REPORT We have completed a performance audit of the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The purpose of the audit was to evaluate the preparedness of the City and County of Denver for emergency situations and to identify possible inefficiencies and opportunities for improvement. This performance audit is authorized pursuant to the City and County of Denver Charter, Article V, Part 2, Section 1, General Powers and Duties of Auditor, and was conducted in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Effective emergency preparedness, response, and recovery require coordinated planning and actions by various internal and external stakeholders including federal, state, and local government agencies. Understanding these responsibilities and ensuring that best practices are followed is critical for saving lives, protecting infrastructure and property, and minimizing costs from natural or man-made disasters. The audit revealed that the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) is committed to emergency preparedness and has built a strong centralized function in terms of developing an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for the City and building relationships with stakeholders. However, our audit determined that the ability to execute the EOP is at risk in the following three areas: how the City prioritizes and understands emergency responsibilities; uncertainty surrounding future OEMHS funding; and unclear structures for tracking resources during emergency situations. The finding and associated recommendations in this report should enhance the ability of OEMHS to execute the EOP and raise awareness of the important function of this agency. We extend our appreciation to the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security and other personnel involved in City emergency operations that assisted and cooperated with us during the audit. Audit Services Division Kip Memmott, MA, CGAP, CICA Director of Audit Services To promote open, accountable, efficient and effective government by performing impartial reviews and other audit services that provide objective and useful information to improve decision making by management and the people. We will monitor and report on recommendations and progress towards their implementation.

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 Although the City s Centralized Emergency Management Function is Strong, the Ability to Execute the Emergency Operations Plan is at Risk 1 Other Pertinent Information 2 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND 4 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organizational Structure 4 Emergency Management Governance 5 Man-made and Natural Disasters 8 Colorado Disaster Overview and History 8 Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Planning, Training, and Exercise Activities 10 Public Outreach and Involvement Initiatives 11 Emergency Management Accreditation Program 12 SCOPE 15 OBJECTIVE 15 METHODOLOGY 15 FINDING 19 Although the City s Centralized Emergency Management Function is Strong, the Ability to Execute the Emergency Operations Plan is at Risk 19 RECOMMENDATIONS 28 OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION 30 The City and County of Denver is not a Signatory of an Intergovernmental Agreement for Resource Sharing 30 To promote open, accountable, efficient and effective government by performing impartial reviews and other audit services that provide objective and useful information to improve decision making by management and the people. We will monitor and report on recommendations and progress towards their implementation.

6 TABLE OF CONTENTS (cont d) The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security has High-Quality Communication with City Agencies and External Stakeholders 31 Social Media is Becoming an Integral Part of Emergency Management 32 APPENDICES 35 Appendix A Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organizational Chart 35 Appendix B List of Colorado Declared Disasters 36 Appendix C U.S. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Supply List 37 Appendix D Colorado s Nine All-Hazard Regions 39 Appendix E 2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Expenditures 40 Appendix F 2011 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Expenditures 41 AGENCY RESPONSE 42

7 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) has the primary responsibility for ensuring the City and County of Denver (City) is prepared for any type of emergency or disaster. Specifically, OEMHS is responsible for ensuring that the City has a comprehensive Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and that its staff and City agency personnel are prepared to carry out the EOP. The Office also manages the City s Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which is activated during situations that require cooperation and immediate communication between City agencies as well as with other jurisdictions. The Office has activated the EOC in many instances, including severe floods and winter storms; an Xcel Energy transformer explosion; a plane crash and a sewage spill at Denver International Airport; and special events such as the Democratic National Convention and the USA Pro Cycling Challenge. OEMHS also provides resources and support to other Colorado jurisdictions during emergencies, such as was the case for the 2010 Four Mile Canyon fire in Boulder, CO. In addition, OEMHS provides a wealth of training and exercises on emergency management for City agencies as well as citizens. Although the City s Centralized Emergency Management Function is Strong, the Ability to Execute the Emergency Operations Plan is at Risk Although OEMHS is a small agency, it is a strong centralized function that has fostered good communication between all emergency management stakeholders. In fact, OEMHS is one of the first local governments in the nation to have received conditional accreditation for the Emergency Management Accreditation Program. However, audit work identified three significant risk factors that threaten the ability to execute the EOP. These factors include: how the City prioritizes and understands emergency responsibilities, uncertainty surrounding future OEMHS funding, and unclear structures for tracking resources during emergency situations. More specifically: Some City agencies lack key components to solidify internal emergency processes, and some agency personnel did not fully understand how to use emergency management systems. As a result, the ability of these agencies to effectively carry out their duties as outlined in the EOP is at risk. For example, some City agencies do not require their employees to respond to the EOC as part of their job duties. In addition, the election of a new administration in 2011 means an influx of new personnel and City leaders. It is crucial that new personnel immediately receive adequate training about OEMHS and the EOP and that these duties are prioritized accordingly. OEMHS only receives approximately 15 percent of its funding from the general fund, with the remainder coming from grant funds. The largest grant, the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), will decrease by 30 percent this year and could be eliminated entirely over the next few years due to federal funding cuts. The UASI grant primarily funds regional projects, not core operations for the City. While OEMHS will not see any immediate impact to their operations as a result of the decrease, a long-term, sustainable funding plan is needed to ensure that OEMHS P a g e 1 Office of the Auditor

8 has the resources required to carry out the EOP and related duties. There is also an opportunity to reduce grant costs in the next year by restructuring grant staffing agreements. OEMHS currently does not have detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) related to logistics, which causes confusion of roles and responsibilities related to acquiring resources during an emergency situation. The ability to acquire resources in a short time frame is a major component of emergency management and the EOP. It is also important that emergency resource costs are documented and comply with federal reimbursement requirements. Other Pertinent Information The City and County of Denver is not a Signatory of an Intergovernmental Agreement for Resource Sharing Intergovernmental Agreements (IGA), are commonly utilized to outline resource sharing roles and responsibilities between neighboring jurisdictions to ensure effective response to emergency incidents when response needs exceed the capability of the local jurisdiction. An IGA is in place between some jurisdictions in Colorado but, the City and County of Denver City Attorney s Office has advised against entering the IGA due to gaps and contradictions between the IGA, State of Colorado Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan, and the Colorado Procedures for Emergency Management Assistance Compact. Despite the fact that Denver is not a party to the IGA, if an emergency situation was to arise that required receiving or providing assistance to other jurisdictions, assistance would be provided in accordance to the State of Colorado Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan. In addition, if applicable, Denver could utilize one of the mutual agreements already in place. Further, OEMHS could send a request to the Colorado Department of Emergency Management if immediate assistance was needed in Denver. Understanding the importance of having an IGA in place, OEMHS has taken the initiative to provide suggested revisions to address gaps and contradictions between the IGA and other governing documents. However, OEMHS has no control as to how, if, or when the revisions will be made; it is up to the State of Colorado Division of Emergency Management to address the issue further. Nevertheless, by not having a mutual aid agreement in place, the associated risks with resource sharing increase. The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security has High- Quality Communication with City Agencies and External Stakeholders Audit work determined that OEMHS exhibits high-quality communication with internal and external stakeholders, which is central to any life saving operations, preparations, and recovery efforts that follow an emergency or disaster. More specifically, it was acknowledged by various internal and external stakeholders that OEMHS communication efforts have improved dramatically over the past several years, and that current efforts were outstanding. Moreover, 90 percent of respondents to our internal City and County of Denver P a g e 2

9 survey indicated that OEMHS provides proper oversight and follow-up regarding various internal issues or concerns. Social Media is Becoming an Integral Part of Emergency Management At the beginning of the audit, OEMHS stated that social media was minimally used in public outreach and other emergency management efforts but, during the course of the audit, OEMHS made progress towards developing its use of social media. Social media offers a new and innovative way to share information, both during an emergency and to enhance citizen preparedness activities and public awareness. Recent emergency incidents, such as the August 2011 Virginia earthquake, and various studies show that social media is growing as an information source during emergencies. Thus, in order for OEMHS to maintain and continue building a strong central function, the use of social media should be continually developed and incorporated into Denver s emergency management activities. P a g e 3 Office of the Auditor

10 INTRODUCTION & BACKGROUND Natural and man-made disasters affect thousands of lives each year. These disasters have significant financial repercussions that not only impact people, but private and public property and infrastructure as well. Additionally, the events of September 11, 2001 awoke our nation to the real threat of international terrorism and highlighted the importance and need for emergency management programs. Terrorism was no longer a crisis that happened across oceans, but a tragedy that unfolded on U.S. soil, clearly pointing out vulnerabilities at national, state and local levels. Federal, state, and local governments have a crucial role and responsibility in planning, preparing, and responding to such disasters. The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) plays a vital role in protecting the citizens of Denver and surrounding jurisdictions. OEMHS is responsible for ensuring that the City and County of Denver (City) is prepared by properly planning for emergencies, training essential personnel, and ensuring optimal communication between the various stakeholders in order to effectively address any type of emergency or disaster situation. Originally, OEMHS was known as the Office of Emergency Preparedness and was under the Department of Safety. OEMHS was formally established by City ordinance in July 1996 with a mission to protect and better prepare the City for emergency and disaster situations. OEMHS is responsible for various aspects related to natural and man-made disasters. In order to accomplish this mission, OEMHS plays a key role in developing and maintaining the City s Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) and managing the Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Additionally, OEMHS provides planning, training, exercises, and educational outreach programs that educate Denver residents on how to plan and prepare for emergency or disaster situations. OEMHS coordinates these activities with various City agencies and departments, as well as with local, state, and federal, and private and public sector stakeholders. Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organizational Structure OEMHS is a small agency comprising a Director, appointed by the Mayor, and thirteen full time employees who are either assigned to work for OEMHS from other City agencies or who are employed by OEMHS directly. OEMHS has two general functions, which include core emergency management operations funded by general fund dollars and various grant funded activities. 1 The amount of funding from grant sources greatly exceeds general fund contributions. Specifically, OEMHS was appropriated 1 See Appendix A, Office of Emergency Management & Homeland Security Organizational Chart. City and County of Denver P a g e 4

11 approximately $600,000 in general fund dollars for 2011 as compared to the $3.3 million in anticipated grant funded expenditures for Core Operations Core emergency management operations for the City are supported by five OEMHS employees, one Denver Police Department (DPD) liaison, and one Denver Fire Department (DFD) liaison. Responsibilities of these employees include writing and updating the EOP, conducting hazard identification and risk assessments, maintaining and activating tornado sirens, performing public awareness and preparedness activities, and conducting various preparedness exercises and training activities. Additional responsibilities include rotating on-call duties, gathering and maintaining situational information on emergency and disaster situations, receiving support requests and providing assistance when possible. Further, OEMHS employees are responsible for advising the Director of OEMHS on the need to activate the EOC and assist in managing it. Grant Activities OEMHS is currently the recipient of three grants. The largest grant is the federal Department of Homeland Security s Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant totaling approximately $2.6 million of the Office s anticipated total grant fund expenditures for There are five employees who support the management of the UASI grant and its related projects, one of whom is a DPD Captain assigned to perform duties for OEMHS grant projects. The UASI grant funds many projects throughout the Colorado North Central Region, a ten-county region including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, and Gilpin counties as defined by the Department of Homeland Security. Denver performs grant administration functions including fund distribution and reporting for the UASI grant. Emergency Management Governance In accordance with Executive Orders 85, 85A, and 85B, and the Denver Revised Municipal Code (D.R.M.C.), OEMHS is responsible for managing and coordinating efforts that help prepare for, respond to, and recover from various man-made and natural disasters within the City and County of Denver. 4 The mission of OEMHS is to create a safer city and region by effectively collaborating with our stakeholders to increase the city s and the region s all-hazard protection, preparedness, mitigation, response, and recovery capabilities. 5 These guiding policies and mission statement lay the foundation for OEMHS to be better prepared for a disaster or emergency situation, which in turn minimizes damages and saves lives. Executive Order 85 Defines the mission, organizational structure, and responsibilities of OEMHS. The Order provides that governments have responsibility for ensuring the public s health and safety, and indicates that the Director of OEMHS shall advise and 2 Source: City and County of Denver Mayor s 2011 Budget. Please note that the anticipated grant fund expenditures may differ from the actual grant amounts awarded to the City for 2011 since grants are awarded for multi-year periods. 3 Other grant awards include the Emergency Management Performance Grant and All-Hazards Incident Management Team Pilot Program. 4 D.R.M.C., (2011). 5 Mission of OEMHS, Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security, 2010 Recap Report, accessed October 11, 2011, P a g e 5 Office of the Auditor

12 assist the Mayor in determining City emergency preparedness, prevention, protection, mitigation, response, and recovery goals and policies for the performance of functions. Executive Order 85 also formally adopts the National Incident Management System (NIMS) and establishes the Critical Infrastructure Protection Program. 6 Executive Order 85A Establishes the EOP for the City and County of Denver. The EOP establishes Emergency Support Function (ESF) roles and responsibilities that require City agencies to prepare for, respond to, and recover from emergency and disaster incidents. The EOP contains fifteen ESF annexes, which detail all City departments that provide emergency support functions in the case of an emergency response. There are also six support annexes and four incident annexes in the EOP. 7 Within the EOP, the ESF annexes identify primary and support departments and agencies responsible for delivering critical resources during emergencies and disasters. The ESF annexes group common capabilities and resource functions, and describes the purpose, concept of operations and emergency planning, response, and recovery responsibilities. The annexes provide the administrative resources that are necessary to support emergency or disaster planning, response operations, and recovery activities. These support annexes address planning, logistics, operations, financial management, community relations, and health and safety. The incident annexes define situations, concepts of operations, and responsibilities that are pertinent to specific types of emergency or disaster incident response and recovery. Executive Order 85B Contains the City s portion of the Denver Regional Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. This is a five-year plan approved by Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in November The purpose of this plan is to: Identify natural hazards and the people and places at risk at a regional scale and then identify actions and measures to reduce or eliminate longterm risk. These mitigation measures are developed and implemented locally in order to protect people, structures and natural resources from natural hazards and their effects. The plan involves several cities and counties in the Denver region, and state and federal agencies. Thus, this plan identifies goals, background information, and measures for hazard mitigation and risk reduction in order to make communities more disaster resistant and sustainable. Some natural hazards identified within this plan include avalanche, drought, earthquakes, flood, hail, heat wave, and landslides. D.R.M.C. Chapter 16 Establishes the creation of OEMHS under the Mayor and explains the Director's powers and duties. Specifically, it states that OEMHS shall be responsible for 6 According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), NIMS provides a systematic, proactive approach to guide departments and agencies at all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector to work seamlessly to prevent, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate the effects of incidents, regardless of cause, size, location, or complexity, in order to reduce the loss of life and property and harm to the environment. 7 Within the EOP annexes provide additional information in the following Support categories: Policy, Planning, Operations, Logistics, Finance & Administration, and Safety & Health. The Incident annexes include: Denver International Airport, Natural Hazards, Terrorism, and Pandemic response. City and County of Denver P a g e 6

13 coordinating preparedness and management activities related to disasters and major emergencies within the City and must: Develop, revise, and exercise Denver's emergency plan and its annexes in coordination with other City agencies Manage the EOC to provide a coordinated response by the City to disasters and other emergencies Coordinate the activities of municipal and private agencies cooperating in the emergency management program Sponsor and carry out instruction and training of City personnel and privately owned or operated logistic support groups At the direction of the Mayor provide City and County of Denver resources to neighboring jurisdictions in time of crises for the prevention of injury or loss of life OEMHS manages the City s EOC during a major emergency or disaster and is responsible for maintaining the EOP. The EOC is the central location where the various internal and external stakeholders come together during an emergency or disaster to coordinate response and recovery activities, which includes sharing of information and resources. The EOC is designed to optimize communication and coordination between the various stakeholders. Two essential positions that help facilitate communication and coordination are the DPD and DFD liaisons. For example, the DPD liaison provides law enforcement input on various issues that assist OEMHS develop policies and strategic plans, and helps ensure DPD is compliant with the related Executive Orders. These liaison positions also provide the policy linkage to their departments in order to ensure that proper support and resources are available. During an emergency or disaster the DPD liaison communicates in various ways depending on the situation, including: Performing the role of Duty Officer on a rotational basis, which involves disseminating alerts, entering current situational information into a collaborative stakeholder database, WebEOC, and providing situational awareness and status reports to the OEMHS Director May act as the Police Emergency Support Function lead at the EOC Is available to support OEMHS on the operational side, if the EOC is activated, by assisting with planning and reaching out to other cities for law enforcement resources The primary program used to manage, communicate, and coordinate information among the various stakeholders is WebEOC. WebEOC is a web-based computer program designed to facilitate communication and other interaction across agencies in the event of an emergency. Information can be shared with individuals from various P a g e 7 Office of the Auditor

14 internal and external agencies including state representatives. In general, WebEOC is an information-sharing, resource-requesting, and tracking program that is utilized by all Colorado counties, the State of Colorado, and FEMA. Man-made and Natural Disasters There are various types of man-made and natural disasters that occur daily throughout the world and that result in significant physical damage and loss of life. Disasters can strike anywhere and anytime without warning. Man-made disasters are disasters resulting from human intent, negligence, or error. Some examples of man-made disasters include hazardous material spills, nuclear power plant melt-downs, and acts of terrorism. Conversely, natural disasters occur without human involvement. Some examples are earthquakes, wildfires, hurricanes, tornados, winter storms, and floods. Both can lead to severe financial and environmental impacts, which include loss of lives. Federal, state, and local government agencies work together to help prepare, respond, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. According to FEMA, the Congressional Act of 1803 was the earliest effort to provide disaster relief on a federal level after a fire devastated a New Hampshire town. In 1979, FEMA was established by an executive order, which merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into a single agency. 8 FEMA is headquartered in Washington, DC and has ten regional offices located throughout the U.S. including Denver (Region VIII). These regional offices work with federal agencies, strategic partners, and tribal, state, and local government officials to support and assist emergency management efforts. FEMA s mission is to support our citizens and first responders to ensure that as a nation we work together to build, sustain, and improve our capability to prepare for, protect against, respond to, recover from, and mitigate all hazards. 9 Colorado Disaster Overview and History Since 1955, Colorado has declared sixteen Major Disaster Declarations and four Emergency Declarations. 10 Also, from 2003 to present Colorado has declared Fire Management Assistance on twenty occasions. 11 Only through the Governor s request to the applicable FEMA Regional Office can a disaster declaration be made. Federal, state, and local government officials conduct a Preliminary Damage Assessment to determine the extent of the disaster and its impact on individuals and public facilities. This assessment is submitted to the Regional Office in order to show that the severity and 8 FEMA B-653, FEMA (July 2008), accessed August 31, 2011, 9 FEMA Mission, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, 10 Colorado Disaster History, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, 11 Ibid. City and County of Denver P a g e 8

15 damage is beyond the capabilities of the state and local government. 12 However, not all disasters rise to the level of a declaration if local and state governments are able to manage the situation. There are two types of disaster declarations that can be provided according to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which includes the Major Disaster Declaration and Emergency Declaration. 13 FEMA explains the declarations as follows: Major Declaration: If the President of the United States believes damages from any natural event which includes tornados, snowstorms, earthquakes, etc. is beyond the capabilities of state and local governments a major declaration may be declared, which allows for various federal assistance for individuals and public infrastructure. 14 Emergency Declaration: The President of the United States can declare an emergency declaration for any occasion or instance where federal assistance is needed to help protect lives, property, public health, etc. The total amount of assistance for a single emergency may not exceed $5 million dollars. If this amount is exceeded, the President shall report to Congress. 15 Furthermore, the Fire Management Assistance Grant Program requires the Governor of the State to submit a request to the Regional Director requesting fire management assistance while the fire is uncontrolled. The approval is based on the current condition at the time of the request and whether or not the fire would amount to a major disaster. 16 Fire Management Assistance Grant Program: Provides a 75 percent federal cost share to assist state, local, and tribal governments for mitigation, management, and control of fires on public or privately owned forest or grasslands in order to prevent such damages that would amount to a major disaster. 17 Examples of how OEMHS has interacted with various stakeholders to address a disaster include the 2010 Four Mile Canyon fire and the 2010 Xcel Energy transformer explosion. On September 6, 2010 FEMA authorized funds to fight the Four Mile Canyon Fire in Boulder County. According to FEMA at the time of the request, the fire burned more than 2,500 acres and threatened more than 250 homes, forcing approximately 1,000 residents to evacuate. The funding did not provide assistance to individual homes or business owners and did not cover other infrastructure damage 12 See Appendix B, List of Colorado Declared Disasters. 13 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C (2007). 14 Disaster Declarations, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, 15 Ibid. 16 Declaration Process, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, 17 Fire Management Assistance Grant Program, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, P a g e 9 Office of the Auditor

16 caused by the fire, rather funding was used to help reimburse the state for their firefighting costs. 18 Denver s OEMHS sent staff members to assist at the Boulder s EOC. Additionally, on June 7, 2010 an Xcel Energy transformer explosion and power outage affected approximately 30,000 residents in central and east Denver including National Jewish Health and Rose Medical Center. During the incident Rose Medical Center backup generators were not working. The EOC was activated by OEMHS and within one hour the EOC was staffed by representatives from OEMHS, DFD, DPD, the Department of Public Works, the Department of Environmental Health, Emergency Medical Services, and the Red Cross. 19 As a result, the EOC was able to successfully coordinate resources and share information with various agencies including Denver International Airport (DIA), which supplied a generator that restored power to Rose Medical Center. Also, air and water samples were taken for analysis to ensure there was no oil leakage in the storm sewers or air. The Red Cross opened a shelter for those who were impacted by the power outage and coordinated clean-up activities. In all, no lives were lost and the incident was stabilized within a few hours. These two examples demonstrate how crucial the roles and responsibilities of OEMHS are. In both examples OEMHS assisted in minimizing damage and helped to save lives. Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Planning, Training, and Exercise Activities In order to respond in emergency situations OEMHS personnel need to be properly prepared and trained. FEMA defines preparedness as a continuous cycle of planning, organizing training, equipping, exercising, evaluating, and taking corrective action in an effort to ensure effective coordination during an incident response. 20 In fact, OEMHS makes great efforts through various planning, training, and exercise activities with various internal and external stakeholders to help ensure that the City and County of Denver is well prepared for an emergency situation. Initially, OEMHS conducts a risk assessment analysis that identifies the various natural and man-made disasters relevant to Colorado and the City and County of Denver. Identifying risks include conducting research of historical hazards, pulling census data, utilizing committees and volunteer groups. The information obtained is used to help plan, prepare, and reduce potential threats and disasters. Furthermore, the risk assessment provides a statistical summary of risks based on the probability and severity of potential disasters that 18 FEMA Authorizes Funds to Help Fight Four Mile Canyon Fire in Boulder County. FEMA (September 2010), accessed August 31, 2011, 19 The Emergency Medical Services function is comprised of Denver Health Paramedics. 20 Preparedness, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, City and County of Denver P a g e 10

17 could impact the City and County of Denver. Once all potential disasters have been identified, they are ranked based on their probability of occurrence and an assessment of their impact on vulnerable populations, critical infrastructure, life and property. Once OEMHS identifies and ranks potential risks, OEMHS will develop specific training and exercise activities that assist the various internal and external stakeholders plan, prepare, and respond to various disasters. Depending on the type of training activity, which includes drills, tabletop exercises, functional exercises, and full-scale exercises, it may take anywhere from six months to a year to develop. Additionally, there are many training opportunities offered at the national, state, and regional levels that must be coordinated by OEMHS for targeted groups of participants. OEMHS is also responsible for designing and managing exercises, which includes developing an After Action Report (AAR). Following each exercise, an AAR is completed by evaluators and facilitators. The report is completed in order to ensure the objectives of the exercise were met and to identify strengths and weaknesses of the exercise so that OEMHS can make improvements to the centralized emergency management function. As a result of the AAR, OEMHS creates a plan to address the issues by developing a corrective action matrix. The matrix includes the responsible party, the root cause, and next steps. The City conducted a recent functional exercise on May 17, The purpose of the exercise was to simulate post-disaster response and the transition of EOC staff between shifts. The exercise simulated a tornado disaster that caused major structural damage and mass casualties within the City and County of Denver. Details of the scenario included a seven-thousand-gallon spill of diesel fuel, missing jail inmates, damage to I-70 and Peoria, and damage to the south-east terminal windows at DIA. Participants included, but were not limited to, various stakeholders from 311, CenturyLink (formally Qwest Communications), Denver Water, Red Cross, State of Colorado, DIA, Denver Health Paramedics, Department of Environmental Health, DFD, DPD, Department of Parks and Recreation, Denver Public Health Inspections Division, the City s Purchasing Division, and media relations within the EOC. Overall, OEMHS was able to identify several strengths and areas for improvement. Public Outreach and Involvement Initiatives A core function of OEMHS is performing public outreach to help the general public prepare for emergency situations. OEMHS utilizes many methods in their public outreach efforts, such as through their website, the use of flyers and brochures, and citizen preparedness trainings, most of which are organized by the OEMHS Community Relations Coordinator. More recently, OEMHS has begun to explore utilizing social media in outreach efforts, which is quickly becoming a necessity in the field of emergency management. The most significant of these activities is the Denver Citizen Emergency Response Training (CERT) program also referred to as the Community Emergency Response Team. These free training courses aim to educate citizens about disaster preparedness and basic disaster response skills. The courses cover a wide range of topics from fire safety and P a g e 11 Office of the Auditor

18 disaster medical operations to disaster psychology and terrorism. Auditors had the opportunity to attend one of these trainings and found it to be very informative with good participation from the citizenry and private sector. During the course of 2010, OEMHS hosted 15 CERT classes, educating over 330 people. 21 The Office conducts another type of outreach through publicly held meetings, such as Local Emergency Planning Committee (LEPC) meetings. The LEPC is required by the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act, enacted by the United States Congress in The LEPC provides community stakeholders, such as business representatives, with the opportunity to receive information regarding local hazards and provide input on emergency plans. Auditors attended a recent LEPC meeting, which had strong representation from the private sector, City agencies, and other emergency response personnel. Emergency Management Accreditation Program The Emergency Management Accreditation Program (EMAP) is the voluntary national accreditation process for state, territorial, tribal, and local emergency management programs. Using collaboratively developed, recognized standards and independent assessment, EMAP provides a means for strategic improvement of emergency management programs, culminating in accreditation. An emergency management program is defined as a jurisdiction s (state, territory, county, or city) system for management and coordination of prevention, mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery activities for all hazards. In addition to the emergency management department or agency, the program encompasses all organizations, agencies, and individuals responsible for emergency management functions. There are multiple steps to attaining emergency management accreditation, which include: Self-assessment and documentation On-site assessment by an EMAP assessor team Assessment report Committee review and recommendation Accreditation decision by the EMAP Commission Annual Compliance Reports Reaccreditation (every five years) 21 See Appendix C, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Supply List. 22 The Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act (EPCRA), U.S.C. Title 42, Chapter 116 (1986). City and County of Denver P a g e 12

19 In order to obtain EMAP accreditation, applicants must meet certain criteria. The EMAP Emergency Management Standard defines a quality emergency management program. The program also can be a tool for strategic planning and improvement efforts. EMAP began as a concept presented at the 1997 Annual Conference of the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA). 23 Numerous organizations were involved in the creation of EMAP, including NEMA, FEMA, the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM), the Council of State Governments, the National Governors Association (NGA), the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Justice Programs, and the U.S. Department of Transportation. EMAP is a non-profit organization and is governed by an independent ten-member governing board, known as the EMAP Commission. Appointments to the Commission are made by NEMA and IAEM, based on criteria to ensure broad stakeholder input into the accreditation program. The Emergency Management Standard established by EMAP is designed as a tool for continuous improvement as part of a voluntary accreditation process for local and state emergency management programs. EMAP makes no representation or guarantee as to the efficacy of any program as a result of use of or compliance with the standards. The Emergency Management Standard is subject to review every three years. 24 Additionally, EMAP has identified best practices related to emergency management, which have been utilized by other emergency managers. 25 EMAP's Best Practices program was created to allow emergency management programs involved in the EMAP assessment and accreditation program the ability to share, promote, and utilize those practices and documents found to be outstanding and of benefit to the field of public safety and emergency preparedness. Two of these best practices include working with all departments to develop a standardized template and guidance for continuity of operations planning by an emergency management office. City and County of Denver s Involvement with EMAP In 2010 OEMHS initiated the process to become accredited by EMAP. OEMHS noted that receiving national certification from EMAP as a strategic initiative, serving to assess the office's performance standards against national standards. At the conclusion of an onsite assessment, the assessor team provides its findings to the Program Review Committee in an assessment report that includes summaries of compliance issues for the program for each of the 63 EMAP standards. The report outlines key documentation that supported the assessors findings of compliance or non-compliance. 23 NEMA is a nonpartisan, nonprofit association dedicated to enhancing public safety by improving the nation s ability to prepare for, respond to, and recover from all emergencies, disasters, and threats to our nation s security. See for more information. 24 Emergency Management Standard, Emergency Management Accreditation Program (September 2010), accessed August 31, 2011, 25 Best Practices, Emergency Management Accreditation Program (April 2011), accessed August 31, 2011, P a g e 13 Office of the Auditor

20 As a result of the on-site assessment, EMAP noted 32 compliance issues and OEMHS received conditional accreditation. OEMHS prepared an action plan to focus on the issues that need to be addressed in order to obtain accreditation status and has until January 15, 2012 to do so. If successful, OEMHS will join a group of 32 programs in the United States that are accredited by EMAP which includes the State of Colorado. The City would join a group of only five other cities or counties that have been accredited nationally Other cities and counties with EMAP accreditation include: Orange County, FL, Pierce County, WA, County of San Diego, CA, Consolidated City/County of Jacksonville/Duval, FL, and City of Providence, RI. City and County of Denver P a g e 14

21 SCOPE This audit evaluated the preparedness of the City and County of Denver for emergency or disaster situations. We examined various aspects of the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) and also considered the roles and responsibilities of other Denver City departments as well as those of federal and state agencies. 27 OBJECTIVE The objectives for this audit included: Determining if the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) structure, governance, and oversight capacity is effective and efficient Determining if OEMHS has properly planned for various emergencies and disasters Evaluating if the various OEMHS information systems provide the necessary support for emergency and disaster situations Determining if resources are immediately available during emergency and disaster situations Establishing if public awareness activities are reaching the majority of the pubic, especially in high-risk areas Verifying if training and exercise activities are conducted on a regular basis and involve all stakeholders Determining if communication between OEMHS and other stakeholders is adequate to ensure preparedness for emergencies and disasters METHODOLOGY We utilized several methodologies to achieve the audit objectives. These evidence gathering techniques included, but were not limited to: Interviews with: o Director and Deputy Director of the Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) 27 Grant program effectiveness was not included in the scope of the audit as grant funds are routinely subject to several audits. P a g e 15 Office of the Auditor

22 o OEMHS Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Administrator, Community Relations Coordinator, Planning Section Coordinator, and Exercise and Training Coordinator o Various City agency representatives responsible for emergency management efforts including Denver International Airport, the Budget and Management Office, the Division of Real Estate, the Denver Police Department, and the Denver Fire Department o State representatives responsible for emergency management coordination and assistance Reviewing and analyzing: o o o o o o o o o o o o o Federal and state regulations related to emergency management City and County of Denver Executive Orders Denver Revised Municipal Code The City and County of Denver Budget Book Internal and external audit reports OEMHS grant funding and support details Denver s Emergency Operations Plan Emergency Management Accreditations Program requirements and results of the on-site assessment 28 Internal agency emergency policy and procedure manuals After Action Plans Social media and public awareness activities Current Emergency Operations Center location and alternatives OEMHS staffing and funding levels Attending and observing: o o o Functional tornado exercise at the Emergency Operations Center Citizens Emergency Response Training activity Local Emergency Planning Committee meeting Conducting benchmarking analysis activities: Effective emergency preparedness, response, and recovery require coordinated planning and actions by various internal and external stakeholders including federal, state, and local government agencies. Understanding these responsibilities and ensuring that best practices are followed is critical for saving 28 Auditors considered compliance issues identified from the EMAP on-site assessment during the planning phase of the audit to avoid duplicate efforts. City and County of Denver P a g e 16

23 lives, protecting infrastructure and property, and minimizing costs from natural or man-made disasters. In order to meet the various audit objectives and to gain a better understanding of how the City and County of Denver s OEMHS compares to other cities, the audit team conducted benchmarking analysis activities. Auditors developed a benchmark survey in order to identify the following: How other city emergency management departments are structured How emergency operation manuals are structured What levels of grant and budget funding other emergency management programs receive How various risks and vulnerabilities are identified and ranked The primary locations of emergency operations centers Number and types of training and exercise activities conducted Types of public awareness and outreach programs developed The audit team selected ten total jurisdictions (of which five responded) to include in the benchmarking survey. First, we selected four cities based on the UASI grant ranking: two urban areas that fell above and two that fell below Denver s ranking. UASI grant funds were available to thirty-one high-risk urban areas. The eleven urban areas with the highest risk are designated as Tier I Urban Areas and the remaining twenty urban areas are designated as Tier II Urban Areas. The City and County of Denver is designated as a Tier II Urban Area. Second, the team selected two cities based on input from OEMHS. These cities have a similar OEMHS structure to that of Denver s OEMHS. Third, the team selected one county based on the fact that it was accredited by EMAP. As mentioned earlier there were thirty-two programs in the United States that were accredited by EMAP during the course of our audit. Fourth, we selected two cities based on a review of the top-ten most populated cities in Colorado. Finally, the audit team selected one major city based on past disasters and emergency situations. As a result of benchmarking analysis activities, the team determined that OEMHS operations are similar in many respects to other emergency management programs across the nation. In fact, OEMHS is located in a similarly situated government building, employs a comparable number of full-time staff to manage the City s emergency function, and has an annual budget that is consistent with other emergency management programs. Furthermore, the number of annual training activities conducted by OEMHS is consistent in comparison to the annual budgets identified by the benchmark cities. See table 1 on page 18 for additional benchmarking results Of the ten jurisdictions surveyed, five responded. See Table 1 on page 18 for benchmarking results. P a g e 17 Office of the Auditor

24 City Annual Budget* Table 1 External Benchmarking Results Number of full time employees* Emergency operations center staff** Denver, CO 600K-900K 5-10 Volunteer/Job Responsibility Thornton, CO <300K <5 Job Responsibility Seattle, WA >900K Job Responsibility San Diego, CA >900K 5-10 Job Responsibility Fort Worth, TX 300K-600K 5-10 Volunteer/Job Responsibility Atlanta, GA <300K 5-10 Job Responsibility Annual training activities Emergency operations center location Centrally located government building 1-9 Centrally located government building >50 Centrally located government building >50 Centrally located government building 1-9 Surrounding area government building 1-9 Centrally located government building Source: Auditor s Office benchmarking survey results. *Excluding grant funding. **Individuals who manage the emergency operations center during an emergency or disaster are not limited to City personnel. 30 Additionally, survey results indicated that Denver s EOP is organized and updated similar to other cities and is based on FEMA guidance. Our survey results indicated that OEMHS identifies and ranks various threats and vulnerabilities comparable to other emergency management programs across the nation. To gain a better understanding and perspective from the lead ESF agencies of OEMHS, our audit team also developed an internal survey. Overall, the audit team was able to gain valuable information from other cities and internal stakeholders that indicated areas for improvement and highlighted areas that are functioning well. 30 Some agency representatives responsible for managing an emergency operation center do so as an ancillary duty. City and County of Denver P a g e 18

25 FINDING Although the City s Centralized Emergency Management Function is Strong, the Ability to Execute the Emergency Operations Plan is at Risk The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) is committed to emergency preparedness and has established a strong centralized function in terms of developing an Emergency Operations Plan (EOP) for the City and building relationships with stakeholders. However, audit work identified three significant risk factors that threaten the ability to execute the EOP. These factors include: how the City prioritizes and understands emergency responsibilities, uncertainty surrounding future OEMHS funding, and unclear structures for tracking resources during emergency situations. The City is at Risk in Emergency Situations if City Agencies Fail to Recognize the Importance of OEMHS and Prioritize Emergency Responsibilities While OEMHS is responsible for developing the EOP and ensuring that City agencies are aware of their responsibilities, execution of the EOP requires cooperation and coordination from many City agencies. OEMHS communicates with City agencies very well about their emergency responsibilities and provides a variety of training and exercises to help agencies become familiar with the EOP and how to operate during an emergency. However, some City agencies lack key components to solidify internal emergency processes, and some agency personnel did not fully understand how to use emergency management systems. As a result, the ability of these agencies to effectively carry out their duties as outlined in the EOP is at risk. In addition, many key positions with emergency management responsibilities in the City are changing with the recent election of a new administration, which further emphasizes the need to prioritize formalizing City agency emergency processes and ensuring that all personnel have a good understanding of those processes, including how to use emergency management systems. Insufficient Formal Requirements for Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Staffing In the event that the EOC is activated, it is imperative that all designated agency personnel respond to staff the EOC. The agencies and number of staff that need to report to the EOC depends on the level of activation and type of emergency. For example, a flood may require different agency representation in the EOC than during a terrorist attack. The audit team interviewed personnel representing the four agencies that have the majority of lead agency responsibilities under the EOP s Emergency Support Functions (ESF): Denver Department of Public Works (PW), Denver Fire Department (DFD), Denver Police Department (DPD), and Emergency Medical Services (EMS). All four of these agencies are required by the EOP to report to the EOC in the event of activation. Any DFD, DPD, and EMS employees who are assigned EOC P a g e 19 Office of the Auditor

26 responsibilities are required, as a part of their job duties, to report to the EOC in the event of activation. Alternatively, personnel from PW volunteer to staff the EOC and do so for a one year time period. As a result, these activities are a secondary function, rather than a part of their required job duties. While PW employees designated as EOC staff appear to be committed to their EOC responsibilities, critical EOC functions could go unstaffed during an emergency if PW employees are not required to respond. This lack of a formal requirement for designated PW personnel to staff the EOC presents a risk to the City for executing certain portions of the EOP, especially since PW is the lead agency for three ESFs in the EOP: Transportation, Infrastructure, and Energy. These crucial areas would likely be incorporated into the response to a wide variety of emergency scenarios. Therefore, it is critical to formalize EOC staffing requirements, both within PW and throughout the City, to ensure that all portions of the EOP can be carried out in an emergency. In addition to PW s lack of formal EOC staffing requirements, neither PW nor EMS include EOC participation in personnel Performance Enhancement Programs (PEPs). 31 Employees with designated EOC duties are generally committed to performing those duties and managers may use performance evaluations as an opportunity to informally acknowledge EOC participation. However, employees may not perceive these activities as a priority if they are not formally required to perform them. Formalizing these responsibilities in employees PEPs will not only help ensure that employees perform these duties, but also provide an opportunity to receive formal recognition for their efforts. Inadequate Agency-Level Policies and Procedures for EOC Response Executive Order 85 requires that all ESF lead agencies have internal procedures for emergency management. While all ESF lead agencies have policies and procedures specific to their operational responsibilities as outlined in the EOP, some agencies have separate procedures outlining a command and control structure within their agency for responding to the EOC. These additional procedures can be thought of as a bridge document between the EOP and operational responsibilities. For example, the Denver Fire Department (DFD) has internal procedures for their emergency operational responsibilities, such as responding to a hazardous material spill, but do not have internal procedures related to how DFD personnel will respond to the EOC, if necessary. On the contrary, some City agencies, like the Denver Police Department, have procedures that cover both operational responsibilities and command and control for EOC response. Procedures for responding to the EOC are not required, but the lack of these additional procedures in some key City agencies results in informal, undefined processes for responding to the EOC. This represents a risk to the City that EOC activation could take longer than necessary if agency personnel do not know the internal procedure for responding. Formalizing and documenting these roles and responsibilities through additional internal policies and procedures specific to each agency will help to ensure that all necessary agencies are represented at the EOC during an emergency, in a prompt manner. Although OEMHS does not have the authority to direct the emergency 31 DPD and DFD personnel are evaluated according to the terms of the collective bargaining agreements, as opposed to the City s PEP system. City and County of Denver P a g e 20

27 preparedness activities of department and agency managers throughout the City, they are responsible for ensuring the coordinated effort of all departments and agencies in response to disasters and emergencies. Lack of Ability to Utilize WebEOC WebEOC is the main information system used for communication both intra-city and across the State during emergencies, and therefore is a vital part of operating the EOC during an emergency. The system allows EOC staff to receive real-time status updates about the emergency and helps to facilitate information sharing including resource requests. During a recent EOC activation simulation exercise conducted by OEMHS, auditors observed that many participants were not comfortable or familiar with the WebEOC program. Interviews with City agencies, internal benchmarking activities, and a review of feedback forms completed by simulation participants resulted in similar conclusions that employees with EOC response duties are not comfortable with using WebEOC. In addition, OEMHS also noted this as an area for improvement in the After Action Report of the simulation exercise. 32 A lack of familiarity with WebEOC could hinder the ability for EOC staff to carry out the EOP and respond to emergencies efficiently and effectively. OEMHS offers monthly trainings on the functionality of WebEOC, and most agency EOC staff we interviewed indicated that they had attended WebEOC training in the past. However, they do not use the system often outside of OEMHS-sponsored exercises, even though the system is available 24 hours a day, seven days a week. Further, OEMHS has not developed requirements detailing who must take WebEOC training or how often, nor has OEMHS developed a quick-reference user guide, all of which could aid in helping EOC staff become more proficient in using WebEOC. If participants do not immediately put into practice information learned in training, and do not practice regularly, their chances of retaining the knowledge on how to operate WebEOC are diminished, especially under times of duress. Further, there is no certainty that every person designated to respond to the EOC has had the training. A lack of familiarity with WebEOC could hinder the ability for EOC staff to carry out the EOP and respond to emergencies efficiently and effectively. It is critical for every person with designated EOC response duties to be proficient in using WebEOC. Furthermore, certain WebEOC users observed an excessive amount of non-critical information displayed on the WebEOC message boards. The WebEOC message boards allow users to transmit and display real-time information so that all authorized users can simultaneously be updated on critical information and changing circumstances. 32 After Action Reports are prepared by OEMHS after the completion of each exercise in order to identify what went well, what could be improved upon, and next steps. P a g e 21 Office of the Auditor

28 Currently, the hierarchy of information allows users to display non-critical information which can create confusion and potentially cause relevant information to be lost or overlooked. For example, Denver Department of Public Works may post critical information that is related to their specific operation, but has no relevance to Denver Paramedics or the Red Cross. When information is posted that can benefit other departments, it may be lost or overlooked due to the prior number of non-critical or irrelevant postings from various agencies and departments. The likelihood of missing critical information may be further enhanced when multiple departments and agencies are posting non-critical information at the same time. Thus, OEMHS should evaluate information from WebEOC message boards during emergency situations and develop a specific hierarchy of information allowing users to enter and see only critical information. Change in City Administration Increases Short Term Risks The Mayor s Office and many department heads play important roles during emergency or disaster situations. Under any new Mayoral administration, personnel with key emergency response responsibilities enter City service. Some of these new City personnel may have high-level responsibilities in an emergency and some may have more detailed responsibilities, including staffing the EOC as part of the Mayor s Office Policy Group. The Policy Group focuses on the overall strategy for the City s response to and recovery from an incident or disaster. 33 Regardless of the level of responsibility, emergencies and disasters are unpredictable in nature and thus, new personnel with key roles in emergency management need to become familiar with their roles and OEMHS as soon as possible. One key position subject to change with a new Mayor is the Director of OEMHS. During the course of our audit a new Director of OEMHS was appointed by the new administration. Stakeholders emphasized during audit interviews the importance of selecting a Director with emergency management experience because it is distinctly different than the experience one would gain as an employee of a police or fire department. The new administration has appointed a new Director who has extensive experience in emergency management, including with the OEMHS and, who appears to be well equipped to assist in educating and preparing the new administration regarding emergency response responsibilities. 34 Overall, the influx of new personnel in key positions will lead to the loss of some institutional knowledge, including details about emergency management roles and specific responsibilities. This knowledge gap further highlights the need to formalize EOC response processes and to ensure WebEOC training is prioritized so that new personnel, whenever they may enter the City workforce, have the structure and guidance necessary to ensure they can carry out their duties according to the EOP. 33 In accordance to the Policy Group Standard Operating Procedures, main responsibilities include citywide coordination, information and guidance, resource management, and liaison between the City and State. The Policy Group establishes goals, makes strategic decisions and sets citywide priorities while considering the economic legal, political and social implications of the incident and maintaining the public trust. 34 During the course of our audit, OEMHS reported that the Mayor had expressed interest in attending trainings and exercises to better understand emergency management. City and County of Denver P a g e 22

29 Future OEMHS Funding Sources are Uncertain; Require Active Management and a Long-Term Plan OEMHS is heavily reliant upon grants from the federal government to fund operations. As such, the City does not control the amount of grant funding received each year, and grant dollars are highly subject to fluctuation over time. This fluctuation could put the City s ability to execute the EOP at risk if grant dollars are diminished beyond a certain level. Currently, three grants supplement the OEMHS budget each year: the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) grant, the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG), and the Incident Management Team (IMT) Pilot grant. The largest of the three is the UASI grant, but the EMPG funds are the most critical to the City s emergency management operations. The UASI grant funds mostly regional projects, while the EMPG funds core OEMHS operations. Award amounts for all grants have fluctuated over the last few years, but continue to make up a large portion of the OEMHS budget. See table 2 below for a breakdown of OEMHS grant awards for the past few City fiscal years. 35 Table 2 Grant Awards FY Grant Name Denver FY 2010 Denver FY 2011 Denver FY 2012 UASI $5,642,440 $5,561,296 $3,975,163 IMT Pilot $250,000 $750,000 unknown EMPG $142,000 $146,000 unknown * Source: OEMHS 2010 Annual Recap Report and OEMHS UASI allocation information. General fund dollars actually account for 15 percent of the 2011 OEMHS budget, which only funds personnel costs for those employees not involved with grant administration. All other costs such as operations, third-party contracts, equipment, and other activities are funded through the grants. OEMHS is expecting the UASI grant dollars to decrease by 30 percent for 2012 and possibly be eliminated altogether by It is important to note that since the UASI grant is a regional grant award administered by the City, it primarily funds regional projects for the Colorado North Central Region. 36 Therefore, the actual impact to the City s core emergency operations from the decrease will be minimal, but could negatively impact the City s ability to obtain the most cutting edge technology and training for emergency management activities and could hamper regional cooperation efforts The federal government s fiscal year differs from the City s, and as a result, the UASI grant awarded in 2011 will be for the federal government fiscal year 2011, but will be expended during the City s 2012 fiscal year. The actual grant expenditures may vary from the awarded amounts because some grants are awarded for a multi-year period, and thus, the monies are not necessarily exhausted within the first year of the award. 36 The Colorado North Central Region is a ten-county region including Adams, Arapahoe, Boulder, Broomfield, Clear Creek, Denver, Douglas, Elbert, Jefferson, and Gilpin counties as defined by the Department of Homeland Security. The Denver UASI grant funds projects for the Colorado North Central Region, one of the nine Colorado All-Hazards Regions. See Appendix D, Colorado s Nine All-Hazard Regions. 37 The UASI program is intended to enhance regional preparedness efforts. Urban Areas must use these funds to employ regional approaches to overall preparedness and are encouraged to adopt regional response structures whenever appropriate. P a g e 23 Office of the Auditor

30 For example, the decrease in 2012 funding will result in less funding for special projects, which, in the past year have included the purchase of radios and electronics for enhanced regional communication, the purchase of bomb suits and providing mass fatality incident regional training. Project proposals are submitted by various jurisdictions within the North Central Region each year and a grant committee then ranks the projects on specific criteria, including benefit to the whole region. Projects are then funded in order of ranking until the grant dollars are exhausted. Thus, the types of projects funded and amount each jurisdiction receives varies from year to year, and what will not be funded due to the grant allocation decrease in 2012 is unknown at this point. The graph below depicts Denver UASI project expenditures compared with other jurisdictions in the North Central Region of Colorado for * Source: The Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. The graph depicts the North Central Region of Colorado UASI expenditures YTD September If the funding is eliminated altogether, the City will be forced to cut grant administration staff (five full time employees) and find alternative funds for several subscriptions. The City currently uses UASI funding to pay for a subscription to the Network First system, which allows Denver s radio system to interoperate with the State s digital radio system. In the event of UASI funding elimination, the City would need to find an additional $75,000 annually to maintain this subscription. Assuming that all current subscriptions are maintained, in the event that all UASI funding is eliminated, the City would need an additional $83,000 to $85,000 per year from the General Fund or elsewhere. Furthermore, as discussed above, projects funded by this grant vary from year to year, and as a result, the total impact to Denver s emergency management operations is not fully quantifiable. In the future, it means that the City will have to provide funding or sacrifice some new emergency equipment and technology purchases, trainings, or other 38 See Appendices E and F for detailed UASI grant expenditure information for 2010 and Expenditure information does not include grant administration costs. City and County of Denver P a g e 24

31 special projects that help to enhance the City s emergency management program. In addition, although most project dollars do not go to Denver directly, many of these projects benefit Denver in other, indirect ways. Not only that, but OEMHS personnel reported that the grant funding has helped to increase regional cooperation and communication, which is essential for effective emergency response. The EMPG funds, those most crucial to the City s emergency management core operations, are expected to be fully funded for the immediate future. However, since exact funding amounts are uncertain and are not determined by the City, but rather are determined by the federal government and State of Colorado, the need for a long-term, sustainable funding plan is paramount to ensure OEMHS has adequate resources to carry out the EOP for the future. Opportunities Exist to Reduce Grant Expenses The OEMHS has opportunities to reduce some UASI grant administration costs in order to help fill the gap in project funding anticipated in Currently, the Denver Police Department (DPD) has assigned a Captain to perform UASI grant administration duties which are similar to those performed by the Program Coordinator position. 39 A DPD Captain appears to be overqualified to perform these duties, and, as a result, is being paid approximately twice the amount of a traditional Program Coordinator. The DPD Captain position is described as a management position and in order to qualify, a person must have ten or more years of service with DPD. On the contrary, the program coordinator position is described as administrative and paraprofessional; a person must have three years of technical or administrative experience to qualify. Last year, personnel costs expensed to the grant for the Captain were $126,000, while the salary range for a program coordinator is $42,917 to $68,454. Further, a distinguishing characteristic of the DPD Captain position is supervisory duties and the Captain assigned to the UASI grant does not have any direct reports. In order to qualify as an allowable grant expense according to the federal Office of Management and Budget circular A-87, a cost must be reasonable if, in its nature and amount, does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. 40 It is questionable whether the expense associated with staffing a DPD Captain to perform grant administration is a reasonable cost. OEMHS reported to auditors that initially when the Captain was assigned, the duties of the position were much more extensive, necessitating someone with more experience. The duties have morphed over the years to the current position and the Captain rank does not appear to be the best match to perform the duties. There are plans to reassign the Captain at the end of 2012, but the DPD should make an effort to move up the reassignment in light of the grant reductions. Given that OEMHS has a separate Police liaison, adequate support and resources would still be provided. 39 A Program Coordinator is a job classification defined by the City s Career Service Authority. 40 The federal Office of Management and Budget circular A-87 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for Federal awards carried out through grants for state and local governments. P a g e 25 Office of the Auditor

32 Lack of Clear Structure for Tracking of Resources During Emergency Situations While OEMHS has a well-developed EOP in place, OEMHS currently does not have detailed standard operating procedures (SOP) related to logistics, which causes confusion regarding roles and responsibilities for those involved. Additionally, SOP should include enhanced policies and procedures for tracking resources during emergency situations. Without these, the City may not be capable of obtaining the necessary resources during an emergency situation due to unclear roles and responsibilities. In addition, if resources are not tracked properly, the City is at risk of losing emergency funding and may not be reimbursed for expenditures incurred. The EOP contains an ESF to provide logistical and resource support to City and County of Denver entities involved in emergency response and recovery efforts. The EOP also contains a logistics support annex that provides guidance for logistical support to assist response agencies to secure necessary personnel, equipment, supplies and materials, and facilities during an emergency or disaster incident. Currently, OEMHS is in the process of developing an enhanced SOP related to logistics. Some overlap of roles and responsibilities exist between the ESF and the logistics support annex policies based on observations from a recent functional exercise of the EOC. Prior to the exercise, the ESF defined how purchases are made in an emergency situation. However, the ESF is now responsible for monitoring and assigning all resources, missions, and tasks. This procedural change was not communicated prior to the exercise, causing confusion. OEMHS should provide additional training for personnel who would be assigned the duty of requesting resources in the event of a major emergency. In addition, the After Action Report and Improvement Plan from the functional exercise included the following observations: EOC resource management process and assignment of duties were unclear to logistics personnel Confusion over how the WebEOC mission/task/request component should be used for requesting resources, particularly those resources being filled by the requestor Procedures are needed for the Finance and Administration Section that address cost estimates and the interface between existing City and County of Denver systems D.R.M.C. Section specifies that the Manager of General Services has the authority to provide approval for purchases. Therefore, OEMHS should clarify the purchasing process to ensure that the roles and responsibilities of the Logistics Section Chief and the Manager of General Services are clear and in compliance with policies and procedures and the D.R.MC. City and County of Denver P a g e 26

33 Furthermore, the OEMHS should enhance policies and procedures surrounding the tracking of resources during emergency situations. Audit work did not identify any problems in obtaining resources, but tracking the resources has proven to be a challenge. The EOP support annex specifically references that the Logistics Section will maintain an electronic database that captures all of the necessary data related to resources. However, such a database does not exist. OEMHS is considering utilizing WebEOC message boards to track resources since requests are made through WebEOC during emergency response situations. Message boards can track details regarding when a resource is ordered, received, and then placed in the City. If resources are not tracked properly, the City is at risk of losing current funding or future eligibility. Therefore, it is imperative that the OEMHS implement detailed tracking procedures to ensure that reimbursements are received. FEMA requires detailed tracking and provides some basic guidance on resource management. 41 OEMHS noted that their problem with tracking resources is not unique; all emergency management offices experience the same challenge, and they will continue to address this issue. A few areas of improvement related to resource management and logistics were identified during the OEMHS review for EMAP accreditation. Therefore, according to their timeline to address the issue, steps have been initiated and will continue until January More information regarding FEMA s Resource Management can be found at: P a g e 27 Office of the Auditor

34 RECOMMENDATIONS We offer the following fourteen recommendations to assist Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (OEMHS) and the Mayor with improving the emergency management function. 1.1 Emergency Operations Plan Update - OEMHS should update the Emergency Operations Plan to include specific staffing requirements for designated lead agencies with Emergency Support Functions. 1.2 WebEOC User Guide - OEMHS should develop and implement a WebEOC user guide into the Emergency Operations Plan. This guide should provide specific guidance that will allow users to become familiar with all functions and aspects of WebEOC. 1.3 WebEOC Training - OEMHS should develop and implement new training activities specific to WebEOC that go beyond the monthly training sessions aimed at increasing usage, familiarity, and understanding of the software. For example, OEMHS could implement random disaster exercises that can be simulated from the ESF work stations on a routine basis. 1.4 WebEOC Message Boards - OEMHS should evaluate information from WebEOC message boards during emergency situations and develop a specific hierarchy of information allowing users to see only critical information. 1.5 OEMHS Funding - OEMHS should identify and prioritize all activities that will require funding in the event the Urban Area Security Initiative grant is eliminated. OEMHS should work with the Budget and Management Office to ensure that all critical operations continue to receive funding in the absence of grant funding. 1.6 Logistics Standard Operating Procedure - OEMHS should develop a detailed standard operating procedure related to logistics to avoid confusion of roles and responsibilities for those involved in the process. 1.7 Resource Support and Logistics Policies - OEMHS should enhance the Emergency Support Function for resource support and logistics support annex policies to reflect effective and efficient tracking of resources. 1.8 Tracking Resources - OEMHS should research the possibility of using WebEOC message boards to track resources. The process would provide an audit trail of resources and the information would be readily accessible if necessary. 1.9 Emergency Operations Center Job Duties - The Mayor should require that personnel with Emergency Operations Center response duties have those duties included in their Performance Enhancement Programs Emergency Operations Center Response - The Mayor should ensure all Emergency Support Function lead agencies have formalized procedures for responding to the Emergency Operations Center. City and County of Denver P a g e 28

35 1.11 Emergency Roles and Responsibilities - The Mayor should ensure that his cabinet and all new department appointees are well aware of emergency roles, responsibilities, and procedures through attending trainings and exercises conducted by OEMHS Emergency Training - The Mayor and OEMHS should conduct training similar to FEMA's Integrated Emergency Management Course. The training should emphasize collaboration between City policy makers. Increased emergency awareness exposes stakeholders to new ideas and increases their attentiveness to necessary coordination among agencies and organizations that must occur during an emergency Funding for Critical Operations - The Mayor should ensure OEMHS receives general funds necessary to support critical operations Reassignment of Grant Administration Position - The Mayor should work with OEMHS and the Denver Police Department (DPD) to reassign the DPD grant funded Police Captain position to a lower-ranking officer or civilian to ensure that personnel costs are reasonable. P a g e 29 Office of the Auditor

36 OTHER PERTINENT INFORMATION The City and County of Denver is not a Signatory of an Intergovernmental Agreement for Resource Sharing In some instances when emergency situations arise, the incident requires resources beyond local capabilities. In those cases, mutual aid agreements are implemented to provide for rapid assistance from neighboring jurisdictions to meet the immediate needs of an incident requiring resources beyond those available from the local jurisdiction. Currently, an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) is in place between some jurisdictions in Colorado to specify terms of resource sharing, including staffing. However, the City and County of Denver City Attorney s Office has some reservations about the IGA, which have prevented Denver from becoming a signatory to the IGA. With the release of the State of Colorado Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan and the Colorado Procedures for Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) some gaps and contradictions in the three documents have become apparent. 42 A few examples include: The phrase mutual aid period is not defined in either the IGA or Resource Mobilization Plan The Resource Mobilization Plan does not address liability issues as outlined in C.R.S (2) The EMAC covers liability for officers or employees of a party state but does not address local government employees Although not being a signatory of the IGA is a concern, OEMHS has never experienced problems with receiving or providing assistance to other jurisdictions. In addition, if a situation was to arise, OEMHS would be provided assistance in accordance to the State of Colorado Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan (ERMP). 43 If assistance is needed from a jurisdiction but a mutual aid agreement is not in place, OEMHS could send a request to the Colorado Department of Emergency Management (CDEM). The CDEM could approve the request and assistance from another jurisdiction would be provided. This process would be in accordance with the State s ERMP. Procedures in declaring a local disaster are outlined in the OEMHS Emergency Operations Plan, along with activation levels of the State s Emergency Operations Center. While the City and County of Denver has not signed the IGA, other measures are in place to address assistance and resources in emergency situations. Various mutual aid agreements are in place and OEMHS also has good working relationships and 42 EMAC is a national Governors interstate mutual aid compact that facilitates the sharing of resources, personnel and equipment across state lines during times of disaster and emergency. 43 The purpose of the Emergency Resource Mobilization Plan is to provide guidelines to quickly identify, allocate, mobilize and deploy all-risk resources to any Colorado jurisdiction, in the event an incident requires resources beyond those available under any existing inter-jurisdictional or mutual aid agreement. City and County of Denver P a g e 30

37 communication with other jurisdictions throughout the State. A few of the mutual aid agreements in place include: The Denver Fire Department has various mutual aid agreements in place. The current IGA was created from the Metro Fire Division s mutual aid agreements Dispatchers have a regional mutual aid agreement in place OEMHS has a Memorandum of Understanding with the American Red Cross Adventist Disaster Services has a mutual aid agreement with the State of Colorado so assistance to OEMHS may be provided under that agreement Of course there are risks associated with not having mutual aid agreements in place. For example, if an emergency responder were to sustain an injury, issues surrounding which jurisdiction would be responsible for a workers compensation claim could arise. In the case with Police personnel, it would be their own jurisdiction s responsibility but other emergency response personnel may not fall in the same category. In addition, if Denver were to lend equipment to other jurisdictions and the equipment sustained damage, the City and County of Denver would be responsible for the costs of repair or replacement. OEMHS agrees that the IGA needs to be in place to ensure there are no controversies, and OEMHS has taken the initiative to provide suggested revisions to the IGA to address gaps and contradictions between the IGA and other governing documents. However, OEMHS has no control as to how, if, or when the revisions will be made; it is up to the State of Colorado Division of Emergency Management to address the issue further. The Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security has High-Quality Communication with City Agencies and External Stakeholders In an emergency or disaster situation, communication between federal, state, local governments, City agencies and departments, and private stakeholders is crucial. Strong communication is central to any life saving operations, preparations, and recovery efforts that follow an emergency or disaster. In fact, over the past several years communication between Denver International Airport emergency staff and OEMHS has improved dramatically. This same sentiment was expressed by the various internal and external stakeholders. As expressed within the report, communication occurs between the various internal and external stakeholders through a variety of means, which include but are not limited to: Various training and exercise activities, including Citizen Emergency Response Training activities Various committee participations including Local Emergency Planning Committee Internal meetings and strategic planning sessions Completion of risk assessments Internal and external stakeholder feedback P a g e 31 Office of the Auditor

38 After Action Reports Website and social media channels Annual review of each Emergency Support Function (ESF) annex with lead agencies WebEOC alerts and warning information To gain a better understanding and perspective from the lead ESF agencies of OEMHS, our audit team developed an internal survey. The results indicated that 60 percent of the lead ESF agencies are extremely satisfied with the EOP, while the remaining 40 percent are very satisfied. Similarly, 90 percent of the respondents believe that the training and exercise functions conducted by OEMHS meet the needs of their agency or department, and all respondents believe that OEMHS provides proper oversight and follow-up regarding various internal issues and concerns. Based on the various interviews with city agencies and departments and external stakeholders, all acknowledged that the communication efforts by OEMHS were outstanding. Communication is without a doubt a critical function of any emergency operation and an obvious strength of OEMHS. Social Media is Becoming an Integral Part of Emergency Management At the start of the audit OEMHS reported that social media was minimally used in public outreach and other emergency management efforts. OEMHS has expressed a commitment to expanding the use of social media. Research regarding social media and emergency management shows that more people are increasingly turning to social media as an information source. As a result, OEMHS should continue to explore utilizing social media in emergency management activities. Below are a few social media tools that have been used in emergency management, along with some examples of how each has been used to enhance emergency management activities. Twitter Twitter is a real-time information sharing network, allowing account holders the ability to publish small bursts of information, similar to a newspaper headline. 44 Police in Queensland, Australia utilized Twitter during a January 2011 flood to send out messages directly targeted at specific neighborhoods with evacuation instructions and to provide real-time updates to citizens. The police in this scenario stated that it was a great way to provide direct, unfiltered information to citizens, while in the past they had to rely on media outlets to pick up on press releases and determine what information to share. They were better able to control rumors and 44 More information regarding Twitter can be found at: City and County of Denver P a g e 32

39 reach people with information that did not have power in their homes. 45 Twitter has also been referenced as a way to serve as a reverse 911 system for people who don t have a landline phone connection, as Twitter can send text messages to mobile phones. Facebook Facebook is a website that allows registered users to create their own page where information such as videos and articles can be shared with other users. 46 The Department of Emergency Management and Homeland Security for Johnson County, KS, has developed two Facebook pages, each with a distinctive purpose. One page is used to inform citizens about emergency management topics such as tornado drills, snow alerts, and H1N1 Virus vaccinations. The second page is geared towards citizen preparedness and is used as an integral part of the Department s public preparedness activities. 47 YouTube YouTube is a video sharing website that allows anyone to view videos posted to the website. People can even create their own channel if they have several videos to post on the site. Both the National Weather Service and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have posted educational videos on YouTube. 48 Social media offers a new and innovative way to share information, both during an emergency and to enhance preparedness activities and public awareness. According to a recent study conducted by the American Red Cross, more and more people turn to social media for information and that among web users, social media sites are fourth most popular source for emergency information. 49 Many times during an emergency, typical information sources, like television, cannot be accessed due to power outages or other scenarios. For example, FEMA highlights the earthquake that struck Haiti in 2010 as an example of how social media became a main mode of two-way communication with citizens, when other forms of communication were not possible. The same scenario played out more recently during the Virginia earthquake in August 2011; people turned to social media to receive safety instructions, identify safe havens, and avoid evacuation-related traffic. 50 In addition, most social media is free of cost, which makes it a great option for government entities facing budgetary constraints. The International City/County Management Association (ICMA) has suggested some best practices to consider when using social media. 51 First, any government considering 45 Riordan, K. Police Tweet on the Beat During Flood Crisis. ABC News (January 2011), accessed June 28, 2011, 46 More information regarding Facebook can be found at: 47 Chavez, C., Repas, M., & Stefaniak, T. A New Way to Communicate with Residents: Local Government Use of Social Media to Prepare for Emergencies. International City/County Management Association (2010), accessed June 28, 2011, 48 Ibid. 49 Web Users Increasingly Rely Upon Social Media to Seek Help in a Disaster, American Red Cross, accessed June 28, 2011, 50 Battle, C. After Earthquake, DC Government Needs Lesson in Social Media The George Washington University Homeland Security Policy Institute (August 2011), accessed August 30, 2011, 51 Chavez, C., Repas, M., & Stefaniak, T. A New Way to Communicate with Residents: Local Government Use of Social Media to Prepare for Emergencies. International City/County Management Association (2010), accessed June 28, 2011, P a g e 33 Office of the Auditor

40 using social media should develop relevant policies and procedures, including defining roles and allowable site contents. Second, managing social media can be time consuming when employing multiple tools. Citizens come to expect near-immediate response from governments to social media inquiries. In addition, it takes time to update each social media site with information. Thus, ICMA suggests using a third-party content management system that allows all social media sites to be updated simultaneously. 52 During the course of our audit, OEMHS has made progress towards developing its use of social media. Overall, social media is a growing part of emergency management and is increasingly being used as a source of information both for citizens and governments to obtain situational awareness during emergencies. In order for OEMHS to maintain building a strong emergency management function, social media tools should continue to be developed. 52 There are free sources of third party content management systems, like TweetDeck. See for more information. City and County of Denver P a g e 34

41 APPENDICES Appendix A Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Organizational Chart Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security Director Police Liaison Fire Liaison Office Administrator Deputy Director (Vacant) UASI Administrator Planning Logistics Planning Training Community Relations Exercises & Training Accounting Administration Source: Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security (August 2011). P a g e 35 Office of the Auditor

42 Appendix B List of Colorado Declared Disasters Date State Description Major Disaster Declarations (16) 05/26/2008 Colorado Severe Storms and Tornadoes 06/19/2002 Colorado Wildfires 05/17/2001 Colorado Severe Storms 05/17/1999 Colorado Severe Storms, Flooding, Mudslides, and Landslides 08/01/1997 Colorado Flooding 07/27/1984 Colorado Severe Storms, Mudslides, Landslides, Flooding 07/22/1982 Colorado Flash Flood due to Dam Failure 08/02/1976 Colorado Severe Storms, Flash Flooding 07/06/1973 Colorado Flooding, Landslides 05/23/1973 Colorado Heavy Rains, Snowmelt, Flooding 05/08/1973 Colorado Dam Failure 09/22/1970 Colorado Heavy Rains, Flooding 05/19/1969 Colorado Severe Storms, Flooding 06/19/1965 Colorado Tornadoes, Severe Storms, Flooding 06/12/1956 Colorado Flooding 05/25/1955 Colorado Flooding Emergency Disaster Declarations (4) 01/07/2007 Colorado Snow 01/07/2007 Colorado Snow 09/05/2005 Colorado Hurricane Katrina Evacuation (Evacuee location) 04/09/2003 Colorado Snowstorm Fire Management Assistance Declarations (20) 06/16/2011 Colorado Duckett Fire 04/03/2011 Colorado Crystal Fire 03/21/2011 Colorado Indian Gulch Fire 09/12/2010 Colorado Reservoir Fire 09/06/2010 Colorado Four Mile Canyon Fire 01/07/2009 Colorado Olde Stage Fire 06/27/2008 Colorado Nash Ranch Fire 04/15/2008 Colorado Ordway Fire 06/19/2007 Colorado Newcastle Fire 09/01/2006 Colorado Red Apple Fire 06/19/2006 Colorado Malo Vega Fire 01/08/2006 Colorado Mauricio Canyon Fire 07/10/2005 Colorado Mason Fire 07/03/2004 Colorado McGruder Fire 04/01/2004 Colorado Picnic Rock Fire 11/12/2003 Colorado Buckhorn Creek Fire 10/29/2003 Colorado Cherokee Ranch Fire 10/29/2003 Colorado Overland Fire 08/20/2003 Colorado Lincoln Fire Complex 07/25/2003 Colorado Cloudy Pass Fire Source: Disaster Search Results, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, City and County of Denver P a g e 36

43 Appendix C U.S. Department of Homeland Security Emergency Supply List Source: Ready Campaign, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, P a g e 37 Office of the Auditor

44 Source: Ready Campaign, FEMA, accessed August 31, 2011, City and County of Denver P a g e 38

45 Appendix D Colorado s Nine All-Hazard Regions Source: All-Hazard Regions, State of Colorado, The Governor s Office of Homeland Security website, accessed September 27, 2011, P a g e 39 Office of the Auditor

46 Appendix E 2010 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Expenditures UASI 2010 Expenditures Jurisdiction Name Expenditure Amount Adams County $20,807 Arapahoe County Sheriff $20,807 Boulder County Sheriff $47,472 Boulder Police Department $20,807 Castle Rock Fire Department $360,285 Castle Rock Police Department $71,436 City of Brighton $35,746 Commerce City $138,797 Cunningham Fire Protection $356,872 District Denver (Arapahoe Bomb Squad County) $100,000 Denver County Sheriff $72,384 Denver Police Department $113,366 Douglas County Sheriff $47,472 Elbert County $331,442 City of Englewood $223,116 Glendale Police Department $26,664 Jackson 105 Fire Protection $24,630 District Town (Douglas of Larkspur County) $32,752 City of Lone Tree $31,450 Longmont Fire Department $403,378 North Washington Fire Protection $338,570 Parker District Police (Adams Department County) $91,224 ReadyCO Program $272,313 Regional Training $349,157 Sheridan Fire Department $89,868 Sheridan Police Department $76,000 Sheridan Zone $46,513 South Metro / Parker $815,386 Thornton Fire Department $325,953 Thornton Police Department $40,100 UASI Areas $137,530 West Douglas $29,342 Source: The Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. These expenditures do not include grant administration costs. City and County of Denver P a g e 40

47 Appendix F 2011 Urban Area Security Initiative Grant Expenditures UASI 2011 Expenditures Jurisdiction Name Expenditure Amount Adams County $24,852 Arapahoe County Sheriff $270,340 Aurora Fire Department $72,745 Bonfils Blood Center $92,075 Boulder County Sheriff $87,914 Boulder Police Department $24,225 City of Broomfield $195,671 Commerce City $258,359 Denver County Sheriff $16,056 Denver Fire Department $72,745 Denver Office of Medical Examiner $26,761 Denver Police Department $127,225 Douglas County Sheriff $24,225 Jefferson County Sheriff $24,852 City of Lakewood $554,927 Longmont Fire Department $6,825 Longmont Parks & Recreation $34,166 Longmont Police Department $229,101 ReadyCO Program $139,173 Regional Training $76,823 South Metro / Parker $21,232 Town of Erie $53,284 UASI Areas $209,326 Source: The Denver Office of Emergency Management and Homeland Security. These expenditures do not include grant administration costs. P a g e 41 Office of the Auditor

48 AGENCY RESPONSE City and County of Denver P a g e 42

49 P a g e 43 Office of the Auditor

50 City and County of Denver P a g e 44

51 P a g e 45 Office of the Auditor

52 City and County of Denver P a g e 46

53 P a g e 47 Office of the Auditor

54 City and County of Denver P a g e 48

55 P a g e 49 Office of the Auditor

56 City and County of Denver P a g e 50

57 P a g e 51 Office of the Auditor