Progress in Developing the National Asset Database

Appendix APurpose, Scope, and MethodologyWe reviewed the ongoing development of the NADB as a result ofconclusions noted in our February 2004 survey report of what was formerlyknown within DHS as the IAIP directorate. 45 Our initial objective was toevaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of the processes used by IP todevelop a prioritized list of the nation’s critical infrastructure and assets. IPdid not have a comprehensive, prioritized list but was actively collecting datafrom states to help create one. During 2005, we followed IP’s progresstoward completing the database. We also determined to what extent thedatabase is supporting the NIPP and progressing toward a comprehensive,national risk assessment capability.We assessed the methodology and results of DHS’ 2004 data call to states forCI/KR information, as well as data DHS collected from states as part of theOffice of Domestic Preparedness’ State Self-Assessment Program. 46 Wereviewed aggregate NADB data across multiple sectors and reviewed assetssubmitted by several states. We examined the NADB in July 2005 and againin January 2006. We reviewed documentation in support of the identificationand selection process describing the business process. We became acquaintedwith IP’s RAMCAP tool, as well as other agency-specific vulnerability andrisk assessment activity.We met with IP officials, including those managing the NADB program, andofficials in other DHS components including the Transportation SecurityAdministration and the United States Coast Guard. We visited homelandsecurity officials in Florida, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan,New Jersey, South Carolina, Texas, and Virginia. We interviewedrepresentatives from the National Infrastructure Simulation and AnalysisCenter and the National Geospatial-Intelligence Agency. We also heldmeetings with representatives of the contractor that played a key role inprocessing the data submitted by states as part of the July 2004 data call.We conducted our review between January 2005 and January 2006 under theauthority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, and according to45 “Survey of the Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate,” OIG-04-13, February 2004, p.24.46 In 2003, states and urban areas participated in an assessment process that reflected post-9/11 threats andvulnerabilities. This second process enabled states and urban areas to refine and further develop their Homeland SecurityStrategies.Progress in Developing the National Asset Database26