Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

More documents

Recommendations

Info

$J1L(lO~ \~ ~~ - Center for Investigative Reporting$

a risk assessment. Without a method to clean such assets from the inventory,time and money will be wasted to repeatedly filter out such assets for eachanalysis, and perhaps more importantly, their presence undercuts confidencein the inventory. Such out of place assets should be addressed.IP already eliminates assets of “extreme insignificance,” although criteria foridentifying such assets have not been determined. Based on follow-upconversations with IP, most removed assets were removed because they weredetermined to not exist, but in rare instances, some assets were removedbecause they were deemed to have negligible value. This suggests that IPrecognizes some value in eliminating out of place assets. We suggest that IPmore clearly define assets of “extreme insignificance.” This includes assetsthat are obviously out-of-place, as were many mentioned in this review.Recommendation #1: Unresolved - OpenRecommendation #2: Provide state homeland security advisors theopportunity to (a) review their previously submitted assets (with thetaxonomy if necessary) that they believe fall within the definition of“extremely insignificant” and (b) recommend to DHS whether to retainthem.Preparedness concurred with our recommendation. IP intends to provideassets maintained within the NADB to the respective states in the next datacall to reduce duplicate submissions. States will also have the opportunity toidentify assets that they believe not be included in the inventory.Because IP will consider revising state assets in light of state concerns, wemodified our recommendation to better reflect IP’s plans. We agree that thisinformation sharing may be productive in identifying assets that may not berelevant to the database, dependent on IP’s assessment of the assets. It isunclear whether IP will give the same discretion to the state in removingassets as in submitting them. As part of its action plan, Preparedness shouldestablish standards to guide the determination of assets.Recommendation #2: Resolved - OpenProgress in Developing the National Asset Database24
Recommendation #3: For ongoing and future data calls, clarify theguidance given to states that discusses what data states should considersubmitting, and how DHS intends to use that data.Preparedness did not have the opportunity to respond specifically to thisrecommendation, which we developed through subsequent dialogue withNADB program officials. Program officials are developing improvedguidance for the next data call.As part of its action plan, Preparedness should provide an example ofguidance for the next data call. This should include clarification of thepurpose of the NADB and the intended breadth of assets to be containedwithin the NADB, to increase the consistency and comparability of statereports.Recommendation #3: Resolved - OpenRecommendation #4: Identify and evaluate key milestones for the NADBand ensure that they are accurately captured in the NIPP.Preparedness agreed with this recommendation in part. Preparedness raisedan issue with the scope of our recommendation, as completion of acomprehensive risk analysis is not within the scope of the NADB. We agreethat such an assessment is an activity that the NADB supports, and not anactivity of the NADB program itself, and modified our recommendationaccordingly. Preparedness is skeptical that it can produce a completeassessment, as the inventory and risk environment will continually evolve.Preparedness did agree on the importance of developing and refining clearmilestones.We agree that the on-going process will continue to develop key milestones.As part of its action plan, Preparedness should provide documentation ofNADB milestones as they are incorporated into the NIPP. Preparednessshould indicate whether funding shortfalls would impact its ability to meetcertain milestones.Recommendation #4: Resolved - OpenProgress in Developing the National Asset Database25
Page 1 and 2: DRAFTDEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURIT
Page 3 and 4: ContentsExecutive Summary..........
Page 5 and 6: Executive SummaryOn December 17, 20
Page 7 and 8: such as prominent national, state,
Page 9 and 10: Chart 1: NADB Totals by SectorAgric
Page 11 and 12: Chart 2: NADB Totals by Stages of D
Page 13 and 14: IP officials view the new taxonomy
Page 15 and 16: assets (such as schools) should be
Page 17 and 18: all but Indiana) and identified sev
Page 19 and 20: mortuaries, 571 nursing homes, and
Page 21 and 22: capability to be queried in a varie
Page 23 and 24: eports and reluctance of the privat
Page 25 and 26: development in other sectors, and a
Page 27: that not only does the department n
Page 31 and 32: Appendix APurpose, Scope, and Metho
Page 33 and 34: Appendix BPreparedness Response to
Page 39 and 40: Appendix CRoles/Responsibilities wi
Page 45 and 46: Appendix DCritical Infrastructure a
Page 47 and 48: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 49 and 50: Appendix EGuidelines for Identifyin
Page 51 and 52: Appendix FCritical Infrastructure/K
Page 53 and 54: Appendix HReport DistributionDepart

Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?