This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-1076 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Federal Protective Service Could Better 
Measure the Performance of Its Control Centers' which was released on 
October 31, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Government Reform, House of 
Representatives: 

September 2006: 

Homeland Security: 

Federal Protective Service Could Better Measure the Performance of Its 
Control Centers: 

GAO-06-1076: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-1076, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Government Reform, House of Representatives 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

The Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) Federal Protective Service 
(FPS) through its control centers (MegaCenters) helps provide for the 
security and protection of federally owned and leased facilities. This 
report (1) identifies the services MegaCenters provide, (2) determines 
how FPS assesses MegaCenter performance and whether FPS links 
MegaCenter performance measures to FPS-wide measures, and (3) examines 
how MegaCenters and selected organizations compare in the services they 
provide. To address these issues, GAO reviewed FPS’s performance 
measures and past MegaCenter assessments, assessed the MegaCenters’ 
performance measures, and interviewed officials and collected relevant 
information at FPS, the four MegaCenters, and nine selected security 
organizations. 

What GAO Found: 

FPS MegaCenters provide three primary security services—alarm 
monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatching of FPS police officers 
and contract guards. These and other services are provided around the 
clock from four locations—Battle Creek, Michigan; Denver, Colorado; 
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. With a fiscal year 
2006 budget of $23.5 million, the MegaCenters monitor alarms at over 
8,300 federal facilities, covering almost 381 million square feet, and 
have available for dispatch over 7,800 FPS police officers and contract 
guards. 

Figure: The MegaCenter Emergency Response Process: 

[See PDF for Image] 

Source: GAO analysis of FPS data. 

[End of Figure] 

FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter operations through a variety 
of means, including reviewing data about volume and timeliness of 
operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls between 
operators and FPS police officers and contract guards, and receiving 
informal feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS managers have also 
developed performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. 
However, these measures are of limited use because they are not always 
clearly stated or measurable and do not address governmentwide 
priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and outcome—which are among 
the attributes that GAO has identified for successful performance 
measures. In addition, the MegaCenters do not measure a key 
activity—the time from alarm to officer dispatch—that would link 
MegaCenter performance to an FPS-wide performance measure of response 
time. Without a corresponding measure, FPS is limited in its ability to 
evaluate the MegaCenters’ contribution to the FPS-wide measure of 
response time. 

Nine selected security organizations—including federal and local police 
and private entities—offer some of the MegaCenters’ services as well as 
provide and assess these services in a manner that is generally similar 
to the MegaCenters. Like the MegaCenters, many of the selected 
organizations have centralized their operations. They also use regular 
call reviews and volume and time measures to assess the quality of the 
services they provide. A major difference between the MegaCenters and 
some selected organizations is the use of a computer-aided dispatch 
system, which enables these organizations to automate many functions. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct FPS to 
(1) establish MegaCenter performance measures that meet the attributes 
of successful performance measures, (2) develop a performance measure 
for the MegaCenters that corresponds to the FPS-wide performance 
measure of response time, and (3) routinely assess the extent to which 
MegaCenters meet established performance measures. DHS generally agreed 
with the findings and recommendations in this report. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-1076]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Mathew Scire at (202) 512-
2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

MegaCenters Provide Alarm and Radio Monitoring and Dispatch from Four 
Locations: 

MegaCenters' and FPS's Performance Measures Are Not Linked: 

Nine Selected Organizations Provide Some of the MegaCenters' Services 
in a Generally Comparable Manner: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendixes: 

Appendix I: Briefing for the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House 
of Representatives, August 14, 2006: 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Abbreviations: 

CAD: computer-aided dispatch: 

DHS: Department of Homeland Security: 

FPS: Federal Protective Service: 

GSA: General Services Administration: 

ICE: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement: 

IT: information technology: 

UL: Underwriters Laboratories: 

September 29, 2006: 

The Honorable Tom Davis: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Government Reform: 
House of Representatives: 

Dear Mr. Chairman: 

Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade 
Center and the Pentagon, terrorism has threatened the nation's 
security, including the physical security of federal facilities. The 
Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), a new federal department with the mission of preventing 
terrorist attacks within the United States, which includes safeguarding 
federal facilities.[Footnote 1] DHS, through its Federal Protective 
Service (FPS), provides law enforcement and security services to 
federal agencies that occupy facilities under the jurisdiction of the 
General Services Administration (GSA) and DHS, protecting millions of 
federal employees, contractors, and citizens.[Footnote 2]As part of its 
approach to facility protection, FPS provides support for its law 
enforcement and security services through four control centers known as 
MegaCenters that are located in Battle Creek, Michigan; Denver, 
Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. 

Because of the important role MegaCenters play in ensuring the safety 
of federal facilities and their occupants, our objectives were to (1) 
identify the services the MegaCenters provide and how they provide 
them, (2) determine how FPS assesses and measures the performance of 
MegaCenter operations and how FPS links MegaCenter performance measures 
to FPS-wide performance measures, and (3) examine how the MegaCenters 
compare to selected security organizations in the services they provide 
and in the methods they use to provide them. 

To determine the services offered by the MegaCenters and how the 
MegaCenters provide these services, we interviewed managers at the four 
MegaCenters and the MegaCenter branch chief, toured three MegaCenters-
-Denver, Philadelphia, and Suitland, collected information on services 
and workload data from MegaCenter management, and conducted document 
reviews. To determine how FPS assesses MegaCenter performance and how 
FPS links MegaCenter performance measures to FPS-wide performance 
measures, we reviewed documentation on FPS's performance measures and 
past MegaCenter assessments and interviewed MegaCenter management and 
FPS headquarters officials. We also assessed the MegaCenters' 11 
performance measures to determine whether they were consistent with 
selected attributes of successful performance measures we have 
identified, that is, that they were linked to agency mission and goals; 
clearly stated; contained measurable targets; sufficiently covered the 
program's core activities; and addressed governmentwide priorities of 
quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and outcome.[Footnote 
3] 

To determine how the MegaCenters compare to selected security 
organizations we (1) identified criteria for selecting comparable 
organizations and selected four public and five private organizations; 
(2) interviewed officials at the nine selected organizations; (3) 
toured four of the organizations' control centers--both public and 
private--to observe their security operations, procedures, and 
technology; (4) collected detailed service and workload information 
from the organizations; (5) used the information gathered to compare 
the MegaCenters and the selected organizations with respect to services 
offered, organizational structure, quality assessment practices, and 
technology utilization; and (6) interviewed officials from security 
industry standard-setting and accreditation associations (associations) 
because these associations were identified as having information on 
security industry organizations, operations, quality assessment 
practices, and technology utilization practices.[Footnote 4] We used 
two approaches for selecting the private and public organizations. We 
selected private organizations from industry lists of the top 20 
largest security service providers and system integrators in terms of 
2005 revenue that provided services such as alarm monitoring and access 
control.[Footnote 5] With the help of one of the associations we 
interviewed, we were able to make contact with the five security 
organizations that were selected as our comparison group.[Footnote 6] 
For public organization comparisons, we selected three federal 
organizations: U.S. Postal Inspection Service, U.S. Customs and Border 
Protection, and U.S. Park Police. We selected these federal 
organizations because each had a law enforcement branch; centralized 
control center(s) that offered, at a minimum, one of the MegaCenters' 
primary services; and nationwide operations, characteristics most 
similar to those of the MegaCenters. We also selected the Denver Police 
Department to serve as a nonfederal public organization that provided 
dispatch and radio monitoring services through a central control 
center. Because we judgmentally selected the organizations, the 
information we collected from them cannot be generalized. We conducted 
our work from October 2005 through September 2006 in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards. 

This report summarizes the information we provided to your office 
during our August 14, 2006, briefing and, in addition, contains 
recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve the 
MegaCenters' performance measures. The briefing slides are included in 
appendix I. 

Results in Brief: 

The primary services that FPS MegaCenters provide are remote monitoring 
of building alarm systems as well as radio monitoring and dispatch of 
FPS police officers and contract guards. These and other services are 
provided around the clock from four locations across the country: 
Battle Creek, Denver, Philadelphia, and Suitland. Each MegaCenter has a 
sister center with redundant capabilities that can serve as an 
emergency backup, and each is operated by full-time federal employees 
and private contractors. In fiscal year 2006, the MegaCenters had a 
budget of $23.5 million--accounting for about 5 percent of FPS's total 
budget--to protect and monitor over 8,300 federal facilities and 
dispatch over 7,800 FPS police officers and contract guards. To provide 
these services, the MegaCenters rely on a variety of information 
technology (IT) systems, communications systems, and other equipment. 

FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter activities through a variety 
of means, including reviewing reports on the timeliness and volume of 
operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls between 
operators and FPS police officers and contract guards, and receiving 
informal feedback about customer satisfaction. Also, FPS managers have 
developed performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. 
These performance measures reflect some of the attributes of successful 
performance measures we have identified, but also contain some 
weaknesses because they are not always clearly stated or measurable and 
do not address the governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of 
service, and outcome. In addition, the MegaCenters do not have a 
performance measure that corresponds to the FPS-wide performance 
measure that is applicable to the MegaCenters' operations--the patrol 
and response time measure, which tracks the elapsed time from the 
receipt of an alarm to a police officer's arrival on the 
scene.[Footnote 7] While the FPS-wide patrol and response time measure 
covers the MegaCenters' activities and reflects their performance, the 
MegaCenters do not have their own measure that covers only the 
activities for which they are responsible--from the receipt of the 
alarm to the officer's dispatch. Without clearly stated and measurable 
performance measures, including a measure that corresponds to FPS's 
agencywide patrol and response time measure, FPS cannot compare the 
MegaCenters' performance over time, assess their contribution to 
agencywide measures, and identify opportunities for their improvement. 
We are recommending that FPS (1) establish MegaCenter performance 
measures that meet the attributes of successful performance measures we 
have identified; (2) develop a performance measure for the MegaCenters 
that corresponds to the FPS-wide patrol and response time measure and 
covers the MegaCenters' operations, from alarm to dispatch; and (3) 
routinely assess the extent to which the MegaCenters meet established 
performance measures. In commenting on a draft of this report, DHS 
generally agreed with our findings and recommendations. 

The nine selected security organizations offer some of the same 
security services as the MegaCenters, and the services the 
organizations offer are delivered and assessed in a manner generally 
similar to that of the MegaCenters. For example, like the MegaCenters, 
many organizations have centralized their control center operations, 
have backup capability, allocate workload among centers based on 
geographic location, and use regular call reviews as well as volume and 
time measures to assess the quality of the services they provide. A few 
organizations offer services that the MegaCenters do not offer. One 
major difference between the MegaCenters and the organizations is that 
three organizations use a computer-aided dispatch (CAD) system. 
Selected organizations and associations referred to CAD systems as 
being beneficial for dispatching services by allowing for faster 
operator response, automatic recording of all operator actions enabling 
easier performance analysis, and automatic operator access to standard 
operating procedures and response prioritization. MegaCenters have 
identified a need and developed a plan for a CAD system, but FPS has 
not allocated funding for such a system. 

MegaCenters Provide Alarm and Radio Monitoring and Dispatch from Four 
Locations: 

FPS MegaCenters provide federal agencies with three primary security 
services--alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch--through 
four locations using a variety of IT systems. MegaCenters monitor 
intrusion, panic, fire/smoke, and other alarms. They also monitor FPS 
police officers' and contract guards' radio communication to ensure 
their safety and to provide information, such as criminal background or 
license plate histories, to officers upon request. In addition, they 
exercise command and control authority by dispatching FPS police 
officers or contract guards. MegaCenters also provide a variety of 
other services. For example, they notify federal agencies regarding 
national emergencies and facility problems and remotely diagnose 
problems with federal agency alarms. They also receive and transcribe 
FPS police officer incident reports. Individual MegaCenters may also 
provide unique services not provided by other MegaCenters, such as 
facility-specific access control and remote programming of alarms via 
the Internet. One MegaCenter also provides an after-hours telephone 
answering service for the Drug Enforcement Administration and for GSA 
building maintenance emergencies. 

The MegaCenters are located in Battle Creek, Denver, Philadelphia, and 
Suitland. Each MegaCenter has a sister center with redundant capability 
as backup in case of a failure at that MegaCenter. Suitland is paired 
with Battle Creek, and Philadelphia is paired with Denver. A force of 
1,014 FPS police officers and 6,842 contract guards is available for 
the MegaCenters to dispatch in response to alarms and other 
emergencies. In fiscal year 2006, the MegaCenters were supported by a 
budget of $23.5 million, which accounts for about 5 percent of FPS's 
total budget.[Footnote 8] The MegaCenters are operated by 23 full-time 
federal employees--some of whom manage the centers--and about 220 
private contractors to provide around the clock security services for 
over 8,300 federal facilities. 

The MegaCenters rely on a variety of IT systems, communications 
systems, and other equipment to provide their security services. The IT 
systems enable MegaCenter staff to, among other activities, monitor 
alarms and radio communications of FPS police officers and contract 
guards. For communications systems, MegaCenters have regional and 
national toll-free numbers for tenants and the public to contact the 
MegaCenters during emergencies. Other equipment includes dictation 
machines, which enable FPS police officers to dictate reports about 
incidents that occur at facilities. 

MegaCenters' and FPS's Performance Measures Are Not Linked: 

MegaCenters use various means to assess operations, but their 
performance measures have weaknesses and are not linked to FPS-wide 
performance measures. MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter operations 
through a variety of means, including reviewing data about volume and 
timeliness of operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls 
between operators and FPS police officers and contract guards, and 
receiving informal feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS managers 
also have developed 11 performance measures for assessing MegaCenter 
operations: 

* distribute emergency notification reports (also known as SPOT 
reports) within 30 minutes of notification; 

* review problem alarm reports daily; 

* obtain regular feedback about customer satisfaction from field 
operations; 

* continuously review all SPOT reports and other outgoing information 
to ensure 100 percent accuracy; 

* transcribe dictated offense and incident reports into the database 
management system within 8 hours of receipt of the report; 

* submit reviewed contractor billing reports and time sheets within 7 
business days after the last day of the month; 

* prepare and review contractor reports for quality assurance plan; 

* maintain completely accurate (nonduplicative) case control numbers; 

* meet Underwriters Laboratories (UL) guidelines and requirements 
continuously;[Footnote 9] 

* test failover of alarm, radio, and telephone systems weekly;[Footnote 
10] and: 

* monitor calls and review recorded call content for adherence to 
standard procedures at least monthly. 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal 
agencies to, among other things, measure agency performance in 
achieving outcome-oriented goals. Measuring performance allows 
organizations to track the progress they are making toward their goals 
and gives managers critical information on which to base decisions for 
improving their progress. We have previously reported on some of the 
most important attributes of successful performance measures. These 
attributes indicate that performance measures should (1) be linked to 
an agency's mission and goals; (2) be clearly stated; (3) have 
quantifiable targets or other measurable values; (4) be reasonably free 
of significant bias or manipulation that would distort the accurate 
assessment of performance; (5) provide a reliable way to assess 
progress; (6) sufficiently cover the program's core activities; (7) 
have limited overlap with other measures; (8) have balance or not 
emphasize one or two priorities at the expense of others; and (9) 
address governmentwide priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, 
cost of service, and outcome.[Footnote 11] 

We assessed the 11 FPS MegaCenter performance measures against selected 
attributes: linkage to mission and goals, clarity, and measurable 
targets. Ten of the 11 MegaCenter performance measures were aligned 
with FPS's mission to protect federal properties and personnel and with 
the MegaCenter program's mission to provide high-quality and 
standardized alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch. We found 
no link between timely review of contractor time sheets and billing 
statements and FPS's mission, however, primarily because this measure 
seems to be related to administrative activities. In addition, while 6 
of the 11 performance measures have measurable targets--a key component 
for measuring performance, none of the MegaCenter performance measures 
met the clarity attribute because FPS could not provide information 
about how managers calculate the measures--a key component in the 
clarity attribute. For example, the performance measure that the 
centers test the failover ability of alarm, radio, and telephone 
systems weekly is measurable because it has a quantifiable target but 
does not meet the clarity attribute because FPS could not describe its 
methodology for calculating it. 

We also assessed whether, collectively, the MegaCenters' 11 performance 
measures sufficiently cover their core program activities (i.e., alarm 
monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch) and address governmentwide 
priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and 
outcome. Most of the MegaCenter performance measures relate to the 
three core activities. For example, regular feedback on customer 
service and monthly review of operator calls cover aspects of the 
dispatch and radio-monitoring functions. Other performance measures, 
like distributing emergency notification reports in 30 minutes, help 
fulfill other critical support functions. However, two performance 
measures--reviewing contractor quality assurance plans and timely 
review of contractor time sheets and billing statements--relate to 
administrative activities that are not strictly related to MegaCenter 
core activities. Additionally, the MegaCenter performance measures do 
not collectively address all of the governmentwide priorities. The 
MegaCenter performance measures primarily address the governmentwide 
priorities of quality and timeliness. For example, the MegaCenter 
measures pertaining to transcribing reports within 8 hours and 
reviewing recorded calls to see if the operator followed standard 
operating procedures address aspects of service timeliness and quality, 
respectively. None of the measures relate to the governmentwide 
priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and outcome. 

Finally, FPS does not link MegaCenter performance measures to FPS-wide 
performance measures, specifically the patrol and response time 
measure. FPS established FPS-wide performance measures to assess its 
efforts to reduce or mitigate building security risks. The performance 
measures that FPS established were (1) timely deployment of 
countermeasures, (2) functionality of countermeasures, (3) patrol and 
response time, and (4) facility security index. The one measure that 
relates to the MegaCenters--patrol and response time--assesses FPS's 
ability to respond to calls for service and measures the average 
elapsed time from when a law enforcement request is received (e.g., 
alarm, telephonic request from a building tenant, FPS police officer- 
initiated call) to the time an officer arrives at the scene. FPS's goal 
is to reduce response times by 10 percent in fiscal year 2006. The 
MegaCenters are responsible for part of the patrol and response 
activity that is being measured because the MegaCenters receive alarms 
and emergency calls and dispatch FPS police officers or contract guards 
to the scene. However, although data pertaining to this activity exist 
in the MegaCenters' records management system, they do not measure the 
timeliness of this activity, and FPS has not developed a performance 
measure that would identify the MegaCenters' contribution toward 
meeting FPS's measure. 

Nine Selected Organizations Provide Some of the MegaCenters' Services 
in a Generally Comparable Manner: 

The nine selected security organizations generally do not provide all 
three of the MegaCenters' primary services. However, the services these 
organizations offer are provided similarly by the MegaCenters with the 
exception of a CAD system, which three organizations use and the 
MegaCenters do not. The MegaCenters provide three primary services 
(i.e., alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch), and the 
selected organizations provide all or some of these three main 
services. For example, the Park Police provide all three services, 
while the private organizations focus on providing alarm monitoring and 
offer some services the MegaCenters do not. Like the MegaCenters, all 
of the private organizations reviewed have centralized operations: the 
number of their national control centers ranges from two to five. Work 
allocation (i.e., how incoming alarms and calls are assigned) among 
centers varies by organization but overall is similar to the MegaCenter 
structure. For example, most of the organizations assign calls and 
alarms to a specific center based on the geographic location of the 
call or signal. However, the Postal Inspection Service and one private 
organization are unique because they are able to allocate workload to 
centers based on demand and operator availability. The organizations 
use a variety of methods to measure the quality of their services, many 
similar to methods used by the MegaCenters. For example, like the 
MegaCenters, most review a sample of operator calls on a regular basis. 
Two entities have established measurable performance goals for their 
centers. While there are similarities in the services offered, number 
of centers, work allocation, and service quality appraisals between the 
organizations reviewed and the MegaCenters, three organizations use a 
CAD system, which the MegaCenters do not. A CAD system is a tool used 
by the Denver Police Department for dispatching and officer tracking 
and by the Postal Inspection Service for officer tracking. The Park 
Police also uses a CAD system with limited capabilities at its San 
Francisco center and plans to purchase and upgrade the system for all 
three of its centers. Selected organizations and associations referred 
to CAD systems as being beneficial for dispatching services by allowing 
for faster operator response, automatic operator access to standard 
operating procedures and response prioritization, and automatic 
recording of operator actions enabling easier performance analysis. 
Since 2003, FPS and DHS both have assessed MegaCenter technology and 
have identified needs for technology upgrades, including the 
installation of a CAD system for the MegaCenters. Our guide on IT 
investment decision making--based on best practices in the public and 
private sector--stresses that part of achieving maximum benefits from 
an IT project requires that decisions be made on a regular basis about 
the status of the project.[Footnote 12] To make these decisions, senior 
managers need assessments of the project's impact on mission 
performance and future prospects for the project. While the MegaCenters 
have assessed their technology on many occasions and have determined 
that some refreshment is needed, FPS has not yet allocated the funding 
for such upgrades. 

Conclusions: 

FPS MegaCenters play a key role in protecting federal facilities, those 
who enter these facilities, and the FPS police officers and contract 
guards whose calls the MegaCenters respond to and monitor. How well the 
MegaCenters are fulfilling their role and carrying out their 
responsibilities is uncertain because they do not generate much of the 
information that would be useful for assessing their performance. 

To their credit, the MegaCenters have established performance measures 
for a number of their activities and operations, and these measures are 
aligned with the MegaCenters' mission. However, the measures have 
weaknesses, both individually and collectively, compared with the 
selected attributes of successful performance measures that we have 
identified. Many of the individual measures are neither quantifiable 
nor clearly stated, and collectively the measures do not address the 
governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and outcome. 
As a result, FPS cannot compare performance across the MegaCenters or 
over time, and without such information, FPS is limited in its ability 
to identify shortfalls and target improvements. 

Although FPS has established an FPS-wide performance measure for 
response time--from the alarm to the FPS police officer's arrival on 
the scene--that incorporates the MegaCenters' operations, the 
MegaCenters have not established a comparable measure for their 
operations alone. Without such a measure, FPS cannot evaluate the 
MegaCenters' contribution--from the alarm to the FPS police officer's 
dispatch--to the FPS-wide measure for response time and identify 
opportunities for improvement. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

We recommend that the Secretary of Homeland Security direct the 
Director of the Federal Protective Service to take the following three 
actions: 

* establish MegaCenter performance measures that meet the attributes of 
successful performance measures we have identified; 

* develop a performance measure for the MegaCenters that is directly 
linked to the FPS-wide response time measure and covers the scope of 
the MegaCenters' operations, from alarm to dispatch; and: 

* routinely assess the extent to which the MegaCenters meet established 
performance measures. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DHS, the Department of the 
Interior, and the U.S. Postal Service for their review and comment. DHS 
provided comments in a letter dated September 6, 2006, which are 
summarized below and reprinted in appendix II. DHS also provided 
technical comments, which we incorporated into the report where 
appropriate. The Postal Service informed us that it had no comments on 
this report. The Department of the Interior did not provide comments on 
this report. 

DHS generally agreed with the report's findings and recommendations. 
DHS stated that FPS and the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement 
(ICE) have undertaken a comprehensive review of the MegaCenters to 
identify, among other things, ways in which performance can be better 
measured. DHS noted that through this broad approach, FPS personnel 
will be able to generate and track the kind of information necessary to 
assess the MegaCenters' performance. This one-time review may help FPS 
identify information needed to assess the MegaCenters' performance and, 
therefore, develop appropriate performance measures. In order to 
reliably assess performance over time, FPS should not only establish 
appropriate performance measures, but also routinely assess performance 
using these measures. We therefore clarified our recommendation to 
include the routine use of established performance measures to assess 
the MegaCenters' performance. With regard to the report's discussion of 
CAD system capabilities, DHS said that ICE's Chief Information Officer 
is currently assessing the MegaCenters' technology requirements and 
recognizes that previous studies have identified the need for 
technology upgrades. DHS indicated that the current assessment will 
have a meaningful impact on FPS's technology capabilities. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents 
of this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days 
from the report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to other interested congressional committees and the Secretary of 
Homeland Security, and DHS's Assistant Secretary for Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement. We will also make copies available to others upon 
request. In addition, the report will be available at no charge on the 
GAO Web site at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please contact me at 
(202) 512-2834 or sciremj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of 
Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 
page of this report. GAO staff who made major contributions to this 
report are listed in appendix III. 

Sincerely yours, 

Signed by: 

Mathew J. Scire: 
Acting Director, Physical Infrastructure Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Briefing for the Committee on Government Reform, U.S. House 
of Representatives, August 14, 2006: 

Review of the Federal Protective Service's MegaCenters: 

Briefing for the Committee on Government Reform: 

U.S. House of Representatives: 

August 14, 2006: 

* Introduction and Objectives: 
* Scope and Methodology: 
* Results in Brief: 
* Background: 
* Results of GAO Work: 

Introduction: 

Since the 1995 bombing of the Alfred P. Murrah Federal Building in 
Oklahoma City and the September 11, 2001, attacks on the World Trade 
Center and Pentagon, terrorism has threatened the nation's security, 
including the physical security of federal facilities. 

The Homeland Security Act of 2002 created the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS), a new federal department with the mission of preventing 
terrorist attacks within the United States, which includes safeguarding 
federal facilities.[Footnote 13] 

DHS, through its Federal Protective Service (FPS), provides law 
enforcement and security services to federal agencies that occupy 
almost 9,000 facilities under the jurisdiction of the General Services 
Administration (GSA) and DHS, protecting millions of federal employees, 
contractors, and citizens. Under agreement, FPS authority can be 
extended to provide its law enforcement and security services to any 
property with a significant federal interest. 

As part of its approach to facility protection, FPS provides support 
for its law enforcement and security services through four control 
centers (known as MegaCenters) located in Battle Creek, Michigan; 
Denver, Colorado; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; and Suitland, Maryland. 

Objectives: 

Because of the important role MegaCenters play in assuring the safety 
of federal facilities and their occupants, our objectives were to: 

(1) Identify the services the MegaCenters provide and how they provide 
them. 

(2) Determine how FPS assesses and measures the performance of 
MegaCenter operations and how FPS links MegaCenter performance measures 
to FPS-wide performance measures. 

(3) Examine how the MegaCenters compare to selected security 
organizations in the services they provide and in the methods they use 
to provide them. 

Scope and Methodology: 

Document review: Reviewed the Memorandum of Agreement between GSA and 
FPS and other documentation related to MegaCenter services as well as 
documentation related to (1) FPS's request for a computer aided 
dispatch (CAD) system for the MegaCenters; (2) past FPS assessments of 
MegaCenter operations; (3) FPS's performance measures; and (4) FPS's 
budget for the MegaCenters. 

Interviews: Interviewed FPS officials, including MegaCenter branch 
chief and managers, and staff from the Program Review Office, Financial 
Management Division, and other offices; Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement's (ICE) Budget Enforcement Office; and officials from 
selected public and private organizations; officials from security 
industry standard setting and accreditation associations 
(associations). 

Selected organizations: 

* U.S. Customs and Border Protection: 

* U.S. Park Police: 

* U.S. Postal Inspection Service: 

* Denver Police Department: 

* 5 private security companies: 

We conducted our review in accordance with generally accepted 
government auditing standards. 

Results in Brief: 

Remote monitoring of building alarm systems, radio monitoring, and 
dispatching of FPS police officers and contract guards are the primary 
services FPS MegaCenters provide. These and other services are provided 
around the clock from four locations across the country. Each 
MegaCenter has a sister center with redundant capabilities that can 
serve as an emergency backup and each is operated by full-time federal 
employees and private contractors. In addition, the MegaCenters have a 
fiscal year 2006 budget of $23.5 million and use a variety of 
information technology (IT) systems and other equipment to provide 
their services. 

FPS MegaCenter managers assess MegaCenter operations through a variety 
of means, including reviewing information on the timeliness and volume 
of operations, listening to and evaluating a sample of calls between 
operators and FPS police officers and contract guards, and receiving 
informal feedback about customer satisfaction. FPS managers have also 
developed performance measures for assessing MegaCenter operations. 
Although these MegaCenter measures reflect some attributes of 
successful performance measures, they also contain some weaknesses 
because they are not always clearly stated or measurable, and do not 
address governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and 
outcome. In addition, they do not directly measure key operations that 
would link to FPS-wide performance measures, which are (1) the timely 
deployment of countermeasures, (2) functionality of countermeasures, 
(3) patrol and response time, and (4) facility security index. 

The nine selected organizations offer some of the MegaCenters' primary 
services, and they deliver and assess the services they offer in a 
generally similar manner to the MegaCenters. For example, like the 
MegaCenters, many of these organizations have centralized their control 
center operations, have backup capability, allocate workload among 
control centers based on geographic location, and use regular call 
reviews as well as volume and time measures to assess the quality of 
the services they provide. A few organizations offer services the 
MegaCenters do not offer. One difference between the MegaCenters and 
the selected organizations is that three of these organizations use a 
CAD system, which the MegaCenters do not have. The MegaCenters have 
assessed their technology and have identified the need for a CAD; 
however FPS has not allocated funds for such a purchase. 

Background: FPS's funding structure: 

FPS operations are solely funded through security fees and 
reimbursements collected from federal agencies for FPS security 
services. 

* These security fees consist of basic and building-specific security 
charges. 

- The basic security charges cover the security services that FPS 
provides to all federal tenants in FPS-protected buildings, which 
include such services as patrol, monitoring of building perimeter 
alarms and dispatching of law enforcement response (MegaCenter 
operations), criminal investigations, and security surveys. 

- The building-specific security charges are for FPS security measures 
that are designed for a particular building and are based on the FPS 
Building Security Assessment and its designated security level. Such 
measures include contract guards, X-ray machines, magnetometers, 
cameras, and intrusion detection alarms. Also, the tenant agencies may 
request additional security services such as more guards, access 
control systems, and perimeter barriers. 

- The above two charges are billed monthly to the tenant agencies. The 
basic security charge is the same for all tenants regardless of the 
type of space occupied and is a square footage rate. The building- 
specific security charge reflects FPS cost recovery for security 
measures specific to a particular building and the billing is handled 
differently for single-and multi-tenant buildings. Single tenant 
buildings-the tenant agency is billed for the total cost of the 
security measures. Multi-tenant buildings-the tenant agencies are 
billed based on their pro rata share of the square feet occupied within 
the respective building. 

* FPS uses a reimbursable program to charge individual agencies for 
additional security services and equipment that they request above the 
level determined for their building. 

FPS bills the tenant agencies for FPS security fees they have incurred. 

* The agencies pay the fees into an FPS account in the Department of 
the Treasury, which is administered by FPS. Congress exercises control 
over the account through the annual appropriations process that sets an 
annual limit-called obligation authority-on how much of the account FPS 
can expend for various activities. 

* FPS uses the security fees to finance its various activities within 
the limits that Congress sets. The Department of Homeland Security 
Appropriations Act for fiscal year 2006 authorized $487 million in 
obligation authority for FPS expenses and operations. Through FPS's 
security fees, funds are to be collected and credited to FPS's account 
as an offsetting collection from tenant agencies. 

Under the FPS reimbursable program, agencies request additional 
security services and equipment using a funded Security Work 
Authorization. Once the services are provided and the costs are 
expensed, FPS bills the agency for the costs, and the funds are 
transferred to the FPS account to offset the expenses FPS incurred. 

The DHS Inspector General reported in 2006 that when FPS was part of 
GSA it budgeted and paid for FPS's annual administrative support costs 
such as financial management, human capital, and IT using funds beyond 
those generated by security fees. GSA estimated these FY 2003 support 
services to cost about $28 million. According to the report, beginning 
in FY 2004, neither DHS's annual budget request nor DHS's 
appropriations set aside funding for FPS's support services. In FY 
2004, as a component of DHS, FPS paid almost $24 million for support 
services using funds from security fees only; a year earlier these 
services had been funded by GSA using funds not derived from fees. 

Background: Evolution of the MegaCenters: 

Before GSA established the MegaCenters, FPS used regional and satellite 
control centers to monitor alarm systems, dispatch FPS police officers 
and contract guards, and perform criminal background checks. In total, 
there were 22 regional control centers and 12 satellite control 
centers, which were located throughout FPS's 11 regions. Most regions 
had more than 1 control center. 

In 1991, GSA conducted an internal review of the control centers. The 
review found that because of significant budgetary and personnel 
constraints over more than a decade, the control centers no longer 
performed well enough to ensure safe, effective, and efficient FPS 
actions to preserve life and property. GSA contracted with Sandia 
National Laboratories-the lead laboratory for U.S. Department of Energy 
security systems-to conduct an in-depth study of the control centers' 
operation and make recommendations. 

In 1993, Sandia issued its study entitled GSA Control Center Upgrade 
Program. The Sandia study identified serious shortfalls and problems 
that would require a more radical upgrade of the control centers at a 
much higher cost than originally believed. After validating the study's 
findings, GSA determined that a multimillion dollar upgrade of all 
control centers would be prohibitively expensive. The study noted that 
the control centers could be consolidated to almost any level to 
achieve economies of scale. However, the study recommended against a 
single national-level control center because a second center would be 
needed to continue operations under catastrophe or failover conditions. 

GSA concluded that the control center problems that the study 
identified were material weaknesses and reported them to Congress. FPS 
conducted an operational and technical review of the Sandia study's 
findings, which provided a critical assessment of the control centers, 
a high-level concept of operations for the centers, and functional 
specifications for upgrading the centers. GSA decided to upgrade 11 
control centers-one in each region-and address the weaknesses that the 
study had identified. 

Within GSA, concerns were raised about the cost of upgrading 11 control 
centers, how many control centers were really needed, and whether the 
centers' operations could be outsourced. GSA established a project team 
to investigate these concerns. The team contacted several public and 
private sector organizations that operate control centers. The team 
found that the organizations were consolidating their control centers 
but were unable to assume the operations of FPS control centers. A 
decision was made to consolidate additional centers and the multi- 
regional control center or "MegaCenter" concept was developed. GSA 
endorsed the MegaCenter concept. GSA assembled a core project team and 
hired contractors to design, plan, and supervise the construction of 
the centers. 

In 1994, GSA issued a bid for MegaCenter technical and performance 
specifications and awarded the contract. 

In 1996, FPS reaffirmed that the MegaCenter concept was the best 
approach for addressing the control center weaknesses. GSA selected the 
MegaCenters sites: Denver, CO; Battle Creek, M I; New York, NY and 
Suitland, MD.[Footnote 14] 

In 1996, construction began on the Denver MegaCenter and design was 
initiated on the Battle Creek MegaCenter. 

In 1997, the Denver MegaCenter was opened, followed by Battle Creek in 
1999, Suitland in 2000, and Philadelphia in 2001. 

Objective 1: MegaCenters' primary services: 

The MegaCenters' mission is to provide the highest quality, nationally 
standardized dispatch, alarm monitoring, and federal law enforcement 
emergency response services. Based on this mission statement, we chose 
to focus on alarm monitoring, radio monitoring, and dispatch as the 
primary services the FPS MegaCenters provide. 

Primary services: 

* Alarm monitoring: monitoring intrusion, panic, fire/smoke, elevator, 
and/or environmental alarms. 

* Radio monitoring: monitoring FPS police officers' and contract 
guards' radio communication for safety and providing information upon 
request. 

* Dispatch: exercising command and control authority by dispatching FPS 
police officers and/or contract guards. 

Objective 1: MegaCenters provide other services: 

Other services: 

* Notifying federal agencies regarding national emergencies and 
facility problems (also known as SPOT reports): 

* Checking criminal background histories (including inquiries to the 
National Crime Information Center database, which the Federal Bureau of 
Investigation (FBI) maintains) for FPS police officers responding to a 
call or an alarm or FPS regions and other DHS agencies requesting this 
assistance: 

* Receiving and transcribing FPS police officer reports: 

* Providing a toll-free help desk line for agency support, including 
remote diagnosis and service of alarms: 

* Updating quarterly building and emergency contact information from 
customer agencies to ensure accurate notifications and alerts: 

Unique services (provided by individual MegaCenter): 

* Monitoring and controlling access to buildings: 

* Using the Internet to program, monitor, and test alarms: 

* Providing after-hours telephone answering service for Drug 
Enforcement Administration and for GSA maintenance: 

Objective 1: MegaCenters' responses to building alarms: 

Figure 1: MegaCenters' Operations for Responding to Alarms and 
Emergency Calls: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[End of figure] 

Objective 1: MegaCenters provide services to a variety of clients: 

Table 1: Services Provided to MegaCenter Clients: 

Services: Monitor remote building alarms; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: X; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

Services: Dispatch FPS police officers, contract guards, and other 
response services; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: X; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

Services: Monitor FPS police officers' and contract guards' radio 
communications for their safety; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: [Empty]; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

Services: Keep track of FPS police officers and contract guards 
locations; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: [Empty]; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

Services: Provide warrant and other information from the National Crime 
Information Center; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: X; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

Services: Help maintain lists of buildings and other contacts for 
emergency notifications; 
GSA, DHS, and federal agency clients: X; 
FPS regions, police officers, and contract guards:  X. 

[End of table] 

Objective 1: MegaCenters' organization for service delivery: 

MegaCenters are located in four cities and are responsible for 
providing various services in their respective FPS Regions: 

* Philadelphia, PA (FPS Regions 1, 2, 3) 
* Battle Creek, MI (FPS Regions 4, 5, 6) 
* Denver, CO (FPS Regions 7, 8, 9, 10): 
* Suitland, MD (FPS Region 11-National Capital Region): 

Each MegaCenter is paired with a sister center: 

* Suitland is paired with Battle Creek: 

* Philadelphia is paired with Denver: 

Sister center pairings provide for redundant capability in case of a 
catastrophic failure at any MegaCenter. 

Objective 1: MegaCenter workloads: 

As of June 2006, MegaCenters had available to them a dispatchable force 
of 1,014 FPS police officers and 6,842 contract guards to help protect 
and monitor 8,328 federal facilities covering almost 381 million square 
feet, which are mostly under the jurisdiction of GSA and DHS.[Footnote 
15] 

Figure 2: MegaCenters'' National Workload: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO. 

[A] The Suitland MegaCenter typically does not dispatch its 4,500 
contract guards. Due to the geographical area of the region and close 
proximity of GSA owned or leased facilities, only FPS police officers 
are dispatched. 

[B] The number of facilities monitored is a monthly average. 

[End of Figure] 

Objective 1: FY 2006 federal and contractor staffing levels at each 
MegaCenter: 

MegaCenters rely upon contractor staff to carry out dispatch and 
technical support services. 

Each MegaCenter also has FPS officials located on site to oversee the 
center's overall operations. 

MegaCenters operate around the clock. 

Table 2: FY 2006 Actual Federal and Contractor Staffing Levels at Each 
MegaCenter: 

MegaCenter: Battle Creek; 
Federal staff: 9;
Primary Contractor: Wackenhut Services, Inc[A]; 
Contractor staff: 74. 

MegaCenter: Denver; 
Federal staff: 4; 
Primary Contractor: Gonzales Consulting Services[A]; 
Contractor staff: 56. 

MegaCenter: Philadelphia; 
Federal staff: 6; 
Primary Contractor: Gonzales Consulting Services; 
Contractor staff: 49. 

MegaCenter: Suitland; 
Federal staff: 4; 
Primary Contractor: Gonzales Consulting Services; 
Contractor staff: 38. 

MegaCenter: Total; 
Federal staff: 23; 
Primary Contractor: [Empty]; 
Contractor staff: 217. 

[A] The Battle Creek and Denver MegaCenters have other contracts for 
personnel to provide services, such as technical support, however, 
these contracts are small in terms of the number of personnel provided- 
three in Denver and five in Battle Creek. 

[End of table] 

Objective 1: Historical budget and MegaCenter allocations: 

Recent FPS MegaCenter budgets: 

* Fiscal year 2004 $20.0 million: 

* Fiscal year 2005 $21.5 million: 

* Fiscal year 2006 $23.5 million, which accounts for less than 5 
percent of FPS's total budget.[Footnote 16] 

Estimated fiscal year 2006 budget for each MegaCenter: 

* Suitland; $6.0 million. 

* Philadelphia; $5.0 million. 

* Battle Creek; $6.5 million. 

* Denver; $6.0 million. 

MegaCenter cost information for FY 2004 and prior years is not 
available since FPS transitioned from GSA's accounting system. FY 2005 
and FY 2006 cost information is also not available because the ICE 
accounting system was not modified to capture costs solely for the 
MegaCenters. According to FPS, it is working with ICE to establish the 
capability in the accounting system to capture MegaCenter costs in the 
future. 

Objective 1: MegaCenters rely on IT systems to deliver services: 

MegaCenters depend on a variety of IT systems and equipment to deliver 
their primary services. 

Table 3: Information Technology Systems That Support MegaCenters' 
Primary Services: 

Information technology systems: Security Information System and 
software (alarm receivers and signal receivers); 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: Facility and building client enterprise 
information systems; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: MegaCenter-owned telephone exchange 
system and regional and national toll-free emergency numbers; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: Remote programming software; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: [Empty]; 
Dispatch: [Empty]. 

Information technology systems: Radio systems; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: Patrol and dispatch operations logs; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: Voice audio recorders; 
Alarm monitoring: X; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Information technology systems: Software that allows MegaCenters to 
access federal and statelaw enforcement databases; 
Alarm monitoring: [Empty]; 
Radio monitoring: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Source: GAO analysis of FPS data: 

[End of table] 

MegaCenters also depend on additional information technology systems, 
such as failover equipment and servers that facilitate sharing files 
with sister centers. 

Figure 3: MegaCenter Operator at Consoles Used for Alarm Monitoring, 
Radio Monitoring, and Dispatch.  

[See PDF for image] 

Source: FPS Philadelphia MegaCenter. 

[End of figure] 

Objective 2: MegaCenters use various means to assess operations: 

Reports on operator activities-FPS MegaCenter supervisors-staff who are 
responsible for overseeing operators-review information about the 
timeliness and volume of operators 7activities. For example, they 
review reports that describe how long it took operators to send out 
emergency notifications and transcribe dictated reports and the number 
of problem alarms, among other things. 

Assessments of operator communications-Supervisors and designated 
quality assurance staff listen to live conversations between operators 
and FPS police officers and contract guards as well as regularly listen 
to a sample of taped conversations to identify whether operators are 
following standard operating procedures. According to MegaCenter 
managers, staff sample taped calls on a monthly basis. 

Comprehensive reviews of MegaCenter operations-In 2003 and 2004, the 
MegaCenter managers completed a manager review of each MegaCenter. 
These reviews were replaced by more comprehensive program reviews in 
which FPS regional staff with subject area expertise were to review 
each MegaCenter and report on concerns and best practices related to 
MegaCenter management, administration, technology, and equipment. In 
2005, the Philadelphia MegaCenter was the first and only MegaCenter to 
undergo a program review. Program reviews were to be conducted annually 
at each MegaCenter, however, the MegaCenter managers suspended these 
reviews due to budgetary constraints. 

Feedback on customer satisfaction-MegaCenter managers and supervisors 
use informal means for gathering information about the level of 
customer satisfaction. For example, they receive information from 
conversations with FPS region program staff and FPS police officers 
who, according to MegaCenter managers, do not hesitate to inform them 
of performance concerns. Managers also obtain feedback from federal 
building tenants and agencies during routine activities, such as when 
they update their emergency contact database, and from regional staff 
by attending regional staff meetings. 

Underwriters Laboratories (UL) control center certification-Although 
not an assessment by the MegaCenter staff themselves, the UL 
certification process involves feedback from UL inspectors about 
whether the MegaCenter meets technical and performance standards. UL 
inspectors complete initial inspections to certify the MegaCenters and 
conduct regular inspections once a center is certified. The Denver 
MegaCenter was UL certified in 2003 and has since had a subsequent 
inspection. The Philadelphia MegaCenter's initial UL inspection is 
scheduled to be completed in August 2006. Initial UL inspections at the 
remaining two MegaCenters have not been scheduled. 

Performance measurement-FPS has established performance measures for 
the MegaCenters. 

Figure 4: MegaCenter Supervisors Monitoring Center Operations: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: FPS Denver MegaCenter. 

[End of figure]  

Objective 2: MegaCenter performance measures: 

FPS has identified 11 performance measures for MegaCenter operations. 

* Distribute emergency notification reports (SPOT reports) within 30 
minutes of notification. 

* Review problem alarm reports daily. 

* Obtain regular feedback about customer satisfaction from field 
operations. 

* Continuously review all SPOT reports and other outgoing information 
to ensure 100 percent accuracy. 

* Transcribe dictated offense and incident reports into database 
management system within 8 hours of receipt of the report. 

* Submit reviewed contractor billing reports and time sheets within 7 
business days after the last day of the month. 

* Prepare and review contractor reports for quality assurance plan. 

* Maintain completely accurate (non-duplicative) case control numbers. 

* Meet UL guidelines and requirements continuously.[Footnote 17] 

* Test failover of alarm, radio, and telephone systems weekly.[Footnote 
18] 

* Monitor calls and review recorded call content for adherence to 
standard procedures at least monthly. 

Objective 2: Attributes of successful performance measures: 

The Government Performance and Results Act of 1993 requires federal 
agencies to develop strategic plans, link them with outcome-oriented 
goals, and measure agency performance in achieving these goals. 
Measuring performance allows organizations to track the progress they 
are making toward their goals and gives managers critical information 
on which to base decisions for improving their progress. 

Organizations need to have performance measures that (1) demonstrate 
results, (2) are limited to the vital few, (3) cover multiple program 
priorities, and (4) provide useful information for decision making in 
order to track how their programs and activities can contribute to 
attaining the organization's goals and mission. 

We have previously reported on some of the most important attributes of 
successful performance measures. These attributes indicate that 
performance measures should: 

(1) Be linked to an agency's mission and goals; 

(2) Be clearly stated: a measure's name and definition are consistent 
with the methodology used to calculate it; 

(3) Have quantifiable targets or other measurable values; 

(4) Be reasonably free of significant bias or manipulation that would 
distort the accurate assessment of performance; 

(5) Provide a reliable way to assess progress; 

(6) Sufficiently cover the program's core activities; 

(7) Have limited overlap with other measures; 

(8) Have balance or not emphasize one or two priorities at the expense 
of others; and: 

(9) Address governmentwide priorities of quality, timeliness, 
efficiency, cost of service, and outcome. 

Objective 2: Assessing MegaCenter performance measures: 

We assessed the 11 FPS MegaCenter performance measures against selected 
attributes of successful performance measures: linkage to performance 
goals and mission, clarity, and measurable targets. We also assessed 
whether collectively the 11 performance measures sufficiently cover the 
MegaCenters' core program activities and address governmentwide 
priorities of quality, timeliness, efficiency, cost of service, and 
outcome. 

Ten of the eleven MegaCenter performance measures were aligned with 
FPS's mission to protect and secure federally owned and leased 
properties and personnel and with the MegaCenter program's mission to 
provide high quality and standardized alarm monitoring, radio 
monitoring, and dispatch. For example, distributing emergency 
notification reports (SPOT reports) to federal agencies within 30 
minutes helps protect federal personnel and properties by alerting 
federal managers of suspicious activities near their locations. We 
could find no link between timely review of contractor time sheets and 
billing statements and FPS's mission primarily because this measure 
seems to be related to administrative activities. 

MegaCenter performance measures lacked clarity and measurable targets. 
Although some of the measures seemed clearly stated, FPS could not 
provide information about how managers calculate any of the measures-a 
key component in the clarity attribute. Six of eleven performance 
measures have measurable targets-a key component for measuring 
performance. For example, the MegaCenter measure for testing the 
failover ability of alarm, radio, and telephone systems on a weekly 
basis is measurable because it has a quantifiable target but does not 
meet the clarity attribute because FPS could not describe the 
methodology for calculating this measure. 

Seven of the eleven MegaCenter performance measures relate to the 
MegaCenters' core activities. For example, daily review of problem 
alarm reports and weekly failover of alarm systems relate to the 
MegaCenters' alarm monitoring operation. Regular feedback on customer 
service and monthly review of operator calls cover aspects of the radio 
monitoring and dispatch functions. Other performance measures, like 
distributing emergency notification reports in 30 minutes, help fulfill 
other critical support functions. However, two of the performance 
measures-the timely review of contractor time sheets and preparing and 
reviewing contractor quality assurance plans-seem to relate to 
administrative activities and are not strictly related to MegaCenter 
core activities. 

The MegaCenter performance measures primarily address the 
governmentwide priorities of quality and timeliness. For example, 
transcribing reports within 8 hours and reviewing recorded calls to see 
if the operator followed standard procedures address aspects of service 
timeliness and quality, respectively. None of the measures relate to 
the other governmentwide priorities of efficiency, cost of service, and 
outcome. 

Objective 2: FPS has established building security performance 
measures: 

FPS has identified four performance measures to assess its efforts to 
reduce or mitigate building security risks. 

One of these measures-patrol and response time-assesses FPS's ability 
to respond to calls for service within certain time limit goals. It 
measures the average elapsed time from when a MegaCenter receives a law 
enforcement request (e.g., an alarm, telephone request from a building 
tenant, FPS officer initiated call) to the time an FPS officer arrives 
at the scene. In fiscal year 2005, FPS reported a national average 
response time of 47 minutes. Its goal is to reduce response time by 10 
percent in fiscal year 2006. 

Table 4: FPS-wide Performance Measures for Facility Protection: 

Performance measure: Timely deployment of countermeasures; 
Purpose: To compare actual deployment dates with planned deployment 
dates. 

Performance measure: Countermeasure functionality (e.g., surveillance 
cameras, X-ray machines); 
Purpose: To gauge whether those security countermeasures for which FPS 
is responsible are working as intended, once deployed. 

Performance measure: Patrol and response time; 
Purpose: To assess FPS's ability to respond to calls for service within 
certain time limit goals. 

Performance measure: Facility security index; 
Purpose: To calculate FPS's average success rate for the above three 
performance measures. 

Source: GAO, Homeland Security. Guidance and Standards Are Needed for 
Measuring the Effectiveness of Agencies' Facility Protection Efforts, 
GAO-06-612 (Washington, D.C.: May 2006). 

[End of table] 

Objective 2: FPS response measure not linked to MegaCenters: 

FPS does not link the MegaCenter performance measures to the FPS-wide 
performance measures, specifically, the FPS-wide patrol and response 
time measure. 

The MegaCenters are responsible for part of the patrol and response 
activity that is being measured because MegaCenter operators are in 
control of the alarm and call response and dispatch operations. 
However, although some time-related data is recorded in their records 
management system, the MegaCenters do not measure the timeliness of 
this activity and FPS has not developed a performance measure that 
would identify the MegaCenters' contribution toward meeting the FPS- 
wide measure. 

Objective 3: Selected organizations' provision of MegaCenters' primary 
services: 

The Park Police was the only selected organization that provides all 
three primary services offered by the MegaCenters. The remaining 
selected organizations provide one or two of these MegaCenter primary 
services. 

Table 5: MegaCenters' Primary Services Offered by Selected 
Organizations: 

Organization: Federal Protective Services; 
Alarm Monitoring: X; 
Radio: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Organization: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Alarm Monitoring: [Empty]; 
Radio: X; 
Dispatch: [Empty]. 

Organization: U.S. park Police; 
Alarm Monitoring: X; 
Radio: X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Organization: U.S. Postal Inspection Service; 
Alarm Monitoring: X; 
Radio: X; 
Dispatch: [Empty]. 

Organization: Denver Police Department; 
Alarm Monitoring: [Empty]; 
Radio: [X; 
Dispatch: X. 

Organization: Private organizations; 
Alarm Monitoring: X; 
Radio: [Empty]; 
Dispatch: [Empty]. 

[End of table] 

Objective 3: Selected organizations' provision of other services: 

Selected organizations also offer other services the MegaCenters offer. 

* Many organizations record telephone and radio communications in case 
these communications need to be reviewed; officials from the 
associations stated that reviewing calls to ensure procedures are 
followed correctly is an important control center practice. 

* All public organizations provide information to officers based on 
inquires to the FBI's National Crime Information Center among other 
databases.[Footnote 19] 

* All private organizations provide access control services that allow 
them to track and restrict facility access. 

* One private organization monitors system conditions separately to 
distinguish between an intrusion, door propped open, tamper, or long 
access, which assists in determining the appropriate action to take. 

A few organizations offer services the MegaCenters do not. 

* Three private organizations provide audio and/or video monitoring 
services which allow operators to remotely listen and/or view live 
audio and/or video transmission from the secured site. Officials from 
two organizations reported that this type of surveillance technology 
minimizes the number of on-site guards required for their clients. In 
addition, this surveillance technology provides operators with 
additional intelligence information to help them decide what further 
actions to take. 

Objective 3: Workload and staffing of public organizations compared to 
MegaCenters: 

Workloads and staffing vary by public organization. While Postal 
Inspection Service monitors more facilities than the MegaCenters, it 
does not dispatch officers. Park Police, an organization that does 
dispatch officers, has far fewer officers available to dispatch than 
the MegaCenters and, because the Park Police has a different purpose, 
it monitors far fewer facilities than the MegaCenters. 

Table 6: Workload Statistics of Selected Public Organizations' Centers: 

Public organization: Federal Protective Service; 
Center Purpose: Monitor alarm systems of federal facilities and 
dispatch FPS officers and contract guards to these facilities, if 
necessary. Monitor the radios of officers and guards to ensure their 
safety and to provide information to officers. 
Number of centers: 4; 
Facilities monitored: 8,328;  
Dispatchable personnel: 7,856; 
Center staffing[A]: 240. 

Public organization: U.S. Customs and Border Protection; 
Center Purpose: Monitor radios nationwide for all customs 
investigations at ports to ensure officer safety and coordinate 
response, if necessary; 
Number of centers: 1; 
Facilities monitored: Not applicable; 
Dispatchable personnel: Not applicable; 
Center staffing[A]:  71. 

Public organization: U.S. Park Police; 
Center Purpose: Monitor alarms and dispatch Park police officers and 
law enforcement rangers to protect national monuments and parks. 
Monitor officer radios to ensure officer safety and provide information 
to officers; 
Number of centers: 3; 
Facilities monitored: 875[B]; 
Dispatchable personnel: 717; 
Center staffing[A]:  36. 

Public organization: U.S. Postal Inspection Service; 
Center Purpose: Monitor postal facilities' alarm systems and radio 
communication of Postal Inspection police and federal agents to ensure 
officer safety and to provide information to officers; 
Number of centers: 2; 
Facilities monitored: 11,448;
Dispatchable personnel: Not applicable; 
Center staffing[A]:  67. 

Public organization: Denver Police Department; 
Center Purpose: Provide emergency services to the city and county of 
Denver; 
Number of centers: 1; 
Facilities monitored: Not applicable; 
Dispatchable personnel: 1,452; 
Center staffing[A]:  129[C].

[A] This includes both full-time federal employees and contract staff, 
where applicable. 

[B] This is the approximate number of alarms monitored by Park Police's 
two centers in the District of Columbia and San Francisco. The New York 
control center does not monitor alarms. 

[C] One hundred and twenty-nine is an approximation. Denver Police 
Department reported 131 personnel, 4 are part time. 

[End of table] 

Objective 3: Selected organizations' general organizational structure: 

The selected organizations have organizational structures similar to 
the MegaCenters. 

* Like the MegaCenters, all five private organizations monitor alarms 
through centralized control centers. 

- Each of the five private organizations have between 2 to 5 national 
central control centers. 

- One private organization official stated that centralizing and 
consolidating monitoring services allows for easier staffing, better 
customer service, and higher quality technology. 

* Like the MegaCenters, all public and private organizations have 
backup ability, with the exception of Customs and Border 
Protection.[Footnote 20] 

- Officials from the organizations and associations we interviewed 
cited the importance of center redundancy in the event of catastrophic 
failure at any one control center. 
 
Objective 3: Selected organizations' work assignment structure: 

Similar to the MegaCenters, most of selected organizations assign calls 
and alarms to a specific control center based on the geographic 
location of the call or alarm signal. 

* Some organizations reported that this type of work allocation is 
beneficial because it reduces stress for the operator and provides 
better customer service. For example, one private organization reported 
that its operators become familiar with both the people who call the 
control centers and their locations which allows them to provide better 
directions to responders. 

Postal Inspection Service and one private organization are able to 
allocate workload to their control centers based on demand and operator 
availability. For example, when an alarm signal or telephone call comes 
into Postal Inspection Service, its software decides which center 
should receive the signal or call based on center workload. 

* Both organizations reported efficiencies from this type of work 
allocation. 

- Postal Inspection Service reported a reduction in required center 
staff. 

- The private organization reported the ability to close some of its 
control centers during non-peak hours, reducing costs. 

* Both organizations attribute the ability to allocate work in this 
manner to more advanced technology.[Footnote 21] 

Objective 3: Selected organizations' methods to assess service quality: 

The selected organizations use a variety of methods to ensure centers 
are meeting their goals and providing quality services, many similar to 
the MegaCenters. 

Table 7: Selected Organizations' Methods to Ensure Quality Service: 

Organization: Federal Protective Service; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: X; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: [Empty]; 
Volume and/or time measures: X; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: [Empty]. 

Organization: U.S. Customs and Border Protection[A]; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: X; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: [Empty]; 
Volume and/or time measures: X; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: [Empty]. 

Organization: U.S. park Police; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: [Empty]; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: [Empty]; 
Volume and/or time measures: [Empty]; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: [Empty]. 

Organization: U.S. Postal Inspection Service; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: X; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: [Empty]; 
Volume and/or time measures: X; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: [Empty]. 

Organization: Denver Police Department; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: X; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: X; 
Volume and/or time measures: [Empty]; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: [Empty]. 

Organization: Private security organizations; 
Regular review of a sample of operators calls: X[B]; 
Operator pay incentives based on performance: X; 
Volume and/or time measures: X[B]; 
Regular and formal process for soliciting customer feedback: X. 

[A] Customs and Border Protection officials reported that they are in 
the process of developing a formal customer survey tool. 

[B] Indicates that at least one of the selected private security 
organizations used these methods. 

[End of table] 

Regular review of calls: 

* Most officials from the associations we interviewed agreed that 
competent control centers have a quality assurance process that 
includes regular review of a random sample of calls to ensure that the 
operators asked the correct questions and provided the correct 
information when dispatching and to check the timelines and timing of 
responses. FPS MegaCenter supervisors monitor each of their operators 
calls on a monthly basis to ensure correct procedures are followed. 

Pay incentives: 

* One private organization not only conducts call reviews but also ties 
pay incentives to its quality assessment program by linking employee 
call review evaluations to spot awards and bonuses. None of the federal 
agencies reviewed, including the MegaCenters, used these types of pay 
incentives. 

Volume and time measurements: 

* Examples of measurements are the amount of time it takes to answer a 
call, time taken to act on a call, and number of complaints from 
responding officers. Although the MegaCenters have volume and time 
measurements, they do not report the time it takes from receipt of 
alarm signal to officer dispatch. Some of the measures the MegaCenters 
use include the time elapsed between an officer calling in an incident 
and its entry into the records management system and the time it takes 
to send emergency notification reports to higher management. They also 
report volume statistics to their regions, such as the number of cases 
they have opened in a month. 

* Officials from Customs and Border Protection and the Commission on 
Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies stated that many volume and 
time measurements cannot be used in law enforcement because timing can 
depend on circumstances. For example, the time it takes a Customs and 
Border Protection operator to clear a radio call would not be an 
appropriate measure because some of their functions are more tactical 
in nature-for example providing radio support in an undercover 
investigation-and cannot accurately be measured with time and volume 
statistics only. 

Customer satisfaction: 

* Two private organizations regularly and formally survey their 
customers to find out if operators were pleasant, delivered timely 
service, and seemed to be well trained and informed. 

* Other organizations, like MegaCenters, use a more informal process to 
gauge customer satisfaction. To formalize its customer feedback, the 
Suitland MegaCenter developed a survey to gauge officer satisfaction, 
however, it is waiting for approval to use it. 

- Customs and Border Protection has hired a private consultant to help 
them develop a customer satisfaction survey and believe its use, in 
conjunction with volume statistics, will provide a more meaningful 
measure of their service quality. 

Performance measures: 

* One private organization and the Postal Inspection Service not only 
perform assessment activities but also have established measurable 
performance goals for their control centers. Examples of the private 
organization's goals are: resolution of 90 percent of high priority 
events within 60 seconds and resolution of 85 percent of inbound and 
technical assistance specialist calls within 18 seconds. 

* Postal Inspection Service has begun to establish volume and time 
measurement goals, such as a 25 percent reduction in the number of 
complaints in which standard operating procedures were not followed and 
a 10 percent reduction in the time it takes to answer radio calls. They 
intend to revise their goals in fiscal year 2007 once they have actual 
experience against which to set a benchmark. 

* The MegaCenters have created performance measures, however, they lack 
some attributes of successful performance measures, such as measurable 
targets. 

Objective 3: Selected organizations use of a CAD system: 

The MegaCenters perform dispatch and incident management functions 
manually while Denver Police Department uses a CAD system to perform 
these functions and the Postal Inspection Service uses a CAD system to 
track officer locations and perform incident management functions. The 
Park Police's San Francisco center also uses a CAD system with limited 
capabilities, and Park Police has a plan in place to purchase and 
upgrade a system for its three centers. 

MegaCenter operators keep track of officers on duty and their locations 
by hand or by using an Excel spreadsheet, and when they dispatch an 
officer to a federal building they must enter the address location into 
the database. In comparison when a Postal Inspection Service operator 
tracks an officer to a building, the CAD system automatically populates 
the address field and the system shows all contact information for that 
building. Without a CAD system, the operators spend more time 
retrieving information from different sources and entering data, such 
as client contact information. 

CAD systems automate dispatch and incident management functions and 
allow for more efficient handling of incidents. Typical CAD system 
functions include management of call routing and prioritization, 
dispatching, and response procedures. For example, a CAD system can 
decide which control center a call should o to based on workload, 
prioritize the call for the operator, and automatically display to the 
operator the actions to take. CAD systems record times of incidents, 
locations, and corresponding actions by dispatchers and officers which 
allows for analysis to be conducted to determine, for example, response 
times, workload, the types of incidents requiring response, and 
resource allocation needs. 

Figure 5: Left: Postal Inspection Service Operators Using a CAD System 
to Track Officer Locations, Right: Postal Inspection Service's Network 
Server Room: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: U.S. Postal Inspection Service's National law Enforcement 
Control Center, Dulles, VA. 

[End of figure] 

Selected organizations and associations stated that CAD systems are 
beneficial for dispatching services by allowing for faster operator 
response, automatic recording of operator actions enabling easier 
performance analysis, and automatic operator access to standard 
operating procedures and response prioritization. For example, when a 
signal comes into a Postal Inspection Service control center, the CAD 
system automatically retrieves and displays the response actions for 
the operator to follow. 

FPS has repeatedly recognized the need for a CAD system. In 1993, the 
Sandia study of FPS's former control centers recommended that the 
centers have a CAD system for the most effective and time efficient 
dispatch operations while using a minimum center personnel structure. A 
2003 DHS MegaCenter review also stated that the MegaCenters needed a 
CAD system. In January 2006, FPS issued a request for information for a 
CAD system. No funding has been allocated in fiscal year 2006 for the 
MegaCenters to purchase a CAD system. 

Objective 3: Best practices: technology planning: 

Our guide on IT investment decision-making-based on best practices in 
the public and private sectors-stresses that part of achieving maximum 
benefits from an IT project requires that decisions be made on a 
regular basis about the status of the project. To make these decisions, 
senior managers need assessments of the project's impact on mission 
performance and future prospects for the project. 

Senior managers should regularly question whether (1) the current 
system meets organizational needs, (2) the system should be modified to 
better meet these needs, (3) a new system is needed to best meet these 
needs, or (4) the needs could best be met by outsourcing the work. 
Included in the regular review should be costs for operation and 
maintenance of the project, such as hardware upgrades, system software 
changes, and ongoing user training. Successful IT management requires 
that a plan be developed for the continued support and operation of 
every IT project.[Footnote 22] 

Objective 3: FPS technology planning: 

While the MegaCenters have assessed their technology on several 
occasions and have determined that some refreshment is needed, no 
funding has been allocated by FPS for this use. 

* When the MegaCenters were established, FPS intended scheduled 
replacement of their technical systems after 5 years, but this timeline 
has passed. In addition, a 2003 DHS MegaCenter review found that there 
were various states of technologies in systems across centers and 
proposed planning for life cycle equipment replacement. However, 
according to FPS officials, no technology replacement program has been 
established, and equipment is replaced on a per MegaCenter, as-needed 
basis. 

* A 2005 program review of the Philadelphia MegaCenter found that no 
strategic plan had been established to guide and lead the MegaCenters 
into the future in terms of technology and equipment. The review 
suggested that a national team be assembled to focus on the 
MegaCenters' communications and technology needs. Loss of IT positions 
at the MegaCenters has prevented the MegaCenter branch chief from 
creating this national team. However, FPS's IT program manager conducts 
weekly teleconferences to discuss IT issues in the MegaCenters, which 
MegaCenter IT staff attend. In addition, the MegaCenter branch chief 
has developed a radio coverage plan-his main technology priority for 
the MegaCenters-which outlines plans to acquire technology systems that 
will ensure the MegaCenters can receive radio signals for all areas in 
the regions.[Footnote 23] There has been no funding to implement this 
plan. 

As part of the budget justification process, FPS has submitted the 
required analysis and requested funding for a technology upgrade 
project for each budget year from 2003 through 2006.[Footnote 24] FPS's 
proposed project is to maintain, consolidate, 

standardize, and enhance current and future FPS systems and integrate 
it with DHS systems. Included in the request for each year is an 
Operations Reporting and Information Network (ORION) system to be used 
at the MegaCenters that would provide enhanced incident capture and 
tracking, officer tracking, and officer safety features and includes a 
CAD system. 

Although FPS has developed this investment plan, no funds have been 
allocated for ORION or any other MegaCenter technology improvements. An 
FPS official stated that because of limited funding, the MegaCenters 
are not investing in technology, and the only money being spent on 
MegaCenter technology is for maintenance so they can maintain current 
operations. Another official reported that under GSA, FPS was given 
funds for technology investment but since moving to DHS, FPS has not 
received these extra funds and must take money from its operating 
budget to fund technology purchases.  

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security: 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528: 

September 6, 2006: 

Mr. Mathew J. Scire: 
Acting Director: 
Physical Infrastructure Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office: 
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

Dear Mr. Scire: 

RE: Draft Report GAO-07-18, Homeland Security: Federal Protective 
Service Could Better Measure the Performance of Its Control Centers 
(GAO Job Code 543151): 

The Department of Homeland Security appreciates the opportunity to 
review and comment on the draft report referenced above. The Government 
Accountability Office (GAO) recommends that the Director of the Federal 
Protective Service (1) establish Mega Center performance measures that 
meet the attributes of successful performance measures that GAO has 
identified, and (2) develop a performance measure for the Mega Centers 
that is directly linked to the Federal Protective Service-wide response 
time measure and covers the scope of Mega Center operations. The report 
also suggests that Mega Centers would benefit from computer-aided 
dispatch system capabilities. The findings are specific to program 
operations. 

We agree in principle that it is important that Federal Protective 
Service (FPS) officials identify and develop performance measures to 
quantify and gauge the success of Mega Center operations. Towards that 
end, FPS officials, working within U.S. Immigration and Customs 
Enforcement (ICE), have undertaken a comprehensive review of the Mega 
Centers to identify not only ways in which performance can be better 
measured, but also methods by which efficiencies can be achieved, 
processes can be improved, and capabilities can be leveraged. FPS 
personnel can generate and track the kind of information necessary to 
assess performance through this broad approach. 

The draft report also suggests that Mega Centers would benefit from 
computer-aided dispatch system capabilities. The U.S. Immigration and 
Customs Enforcement's Chief Information Officer (CIO) currently is 
assessing Mega Center technology requirements. We recognize that there 
have been several studies and evaluations of Mega Center technology 
that have identified the need for technology upgrades; however, ICE 
officials anticipate that the current assessment will have a meaningful 
impact on FPS technology capabilities. The CIO, reporting directly to 
the ICE Assistant Secretary on the progress and findings of the study, 
is reviewing radio infrastructure, voice and data circuit 
infrastructure, Mega Centers as an ICE asset, and the FPS information 
technology portfolio. 

Technical comments have been provided under separate cover. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Steven J. Pecinovsky: 
Director: 
Departmental GAO/OIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Mathew J. Scire (202) 512-2834 or s [Hyperlink, sciremj@gao.gov] 
ciremj@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

Other key contributors to this report were Gerald P. Barnes, Assistant 
Director; Deirdre Brown; Bess Eisenstadt; Colin Fallon; Brandon Haller; 
Richard Hung; Alex Lawrence; Gail Marnik; and Josh Ormand. 

(543151): 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] Federal facilities include government-owned and -leased space. 

[2] Under agreement, FPS authority can be extended to provide its law 
enforcement and security services to any property with a significant 
federal interest. 

[3] We did not assess whether the performance measures were objective, 
reliable, overlapping, or balanced. 

[4] We interviewed officials from the following associations: 
Association of Public Safety Communications Officials, the Commission 
on Accreditation for Law Enforcement Agencies, the National Burglar and 
Fire Alarm Association, the National Fire Protection Association, 
Priority Dispatch, the Security Industry Association, and Underwriters 
Laboratories. 

[5] We looked at two lists: one was in terms of gross revenue, the 
other was in terms of revenue. 

[6] In specific situations, two of the private security organizations 
dispatched either contract guards or their own guards. However, because 
these were situational circumstances, we did not include them as being 
similar to the MegaCenters' dispatching service. For example, one 
organization only uses contract guards when local jurisdictions will 
not dispatch their own police officers without actual verification of 
the nature of the alarm. In these cases, the organization will have a 
guard check whether there is a burglary in progress, and if so, the 
organization will contact the police. 

[7] In addition to patrol and response time, FPS has three other 
agencywide performance measures (1) timely deployment of 
countermeasures, (2) functionality of countermeasures, and (3) facility 
security index (an average success rate for the other measures). 

[8] As of August 2006, MegaCenter officials reported a revised 
MegaCenter budget of approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006. 

[9] UL certifies control centers that provide all elements of service 
required by UL's standards, including appropriate operator response to 
fire alarm signals and proper equipment inspection, testing, and 
maintenance. 

[10] "Failover" is the capability to switch over automatically to a 
redundant or standby system in the event of a system failure. Each 
MegaCenter tests its ability to run its sister-center's operations in 
case that center has system failure. 

[11] See GAO, Tax Administration: IRS Needs to Further Refine Its Tax 
Filing Season Performance Measures, GAO-03-143 (Washington, D.C.: Nov. 
22, 2002), pp.2-3, 46-53. 

[12] GAO, Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal 
Agencies' IT Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13 (Washington, 
D.C.: February 1997). 

[13] Facilities include government owned and lease space. 

[14] Site selection for New York, NY was never finalized and eventually 
was switched to a site in Philadelphia, PA. 

[15] Under agreement, other federal agencies may obtain MegaCenter 
alarm services for a fee. For example, the Denver MegaCenter provides 
alarm monitoring for some National Guard Armory and Air Force units. 
These units dispatch their own response teams when the MegaCenter 
receives an alarm and notifies the units. At the tenant agencies' 
request, private security firms also provide this service to some 
facilities under the jurisdiction of GSA and DHS. 

[16] As of August 2006, MegaCenter officials reported a revised 
MegaCenter budget of approximately $19 million for fiscal year 2006. 

[17] UL certifies centers that provide all elements of service required 
by UL's standards, including appropriate operator response to fire 
alarm signals and proper equipment inspection, testing, and 
maintenance. 

[18] Failover is the capability to switch over automatically to [A] 
redundant or standby system in the event of [A] system failure. Each 
MegaCenter tests its ability to run its sister-center's operation in 
case that center has system failure. 

[19] Like the MegaCenters, Customs and Border Protection, Postal 
Inspection Service, and Park Police also retrieve information for 
officers from the National Law Enforcement Telecommunication System and 
the Denver Police Department retrieves information for officers from 
the Colorado 33 Crime Information Center database. 

[20] Park Police's control center in the District of Columbia has 
backup capabilities for all three primary services. The centers in San 
Francisco and New York are able to backup their radio and call taking 
functions, however, the San Francisco center is not able to backup its 
alarm monitoring function. 

[21] Postal Inspection Service can only allocate work in this manner 
for its alarm monitoring and call taking service. Radio signals must be 
assigned to a specific center because the technology at the time Postal 
Inspection Service built its control centers was not yet developed to 
allow radio signals to be assigned to first available center. 

[22] GA0, Assessing Risks and Returns: A Guide for Evaluating Federal 
Agencies' IT Investment Decision-making, GAO/AIMD-10.1.13 (Washington, 
D.C.: February 1997). 45: 

[23] Currently there are some areas where FPS police officers' and 
contract guards' radios cannot transmit signals to the MegaCenters 
preventing the MegaCenter operators from being able to monitor the 
radios. 

[24] Each year agencies submit to the Office of Management and Budget a 
Capital Asset Plan and Business Case to justify each request for a 
major IT investment. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: