http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-56 (http://www.gao.gov/products/GAO-13-56)
What GAO Found
The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) has performed certain homeland security missions for federal, state, and local customers, but devotes the majority of its flying hours to training and youth programs. Several of CAP's mission areas fit within the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) definition of homeland security, as found in the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review Report (QHSR)--a strategic framework for homeland security. For example, CAP disaster assistance and air defense activities relate to the QHSR mission areas of ensuring resilience to disasters and preventing terrorism and enhancing security, respectively. CAP has performed some of these activities in support of DHS components, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), and the Coast Guard, as well as state and local governments. For example, CAP has provided disaster imagery to FEMA, performed certain border reconnaissance for CBP, and assisted the Coast Guard in providing air support during the Deepwater Horizon oil spill. CAP has also performed homeland security-related activities for other customers, such as the U.S. Air Force. For example, 9 of the 10 CAP wings GAO spoke with had participated in military readiness exercises where CAP aircraft provided mock targets for military interceptor aircraft or ground-based radar. CAP's participation in homeland security activities accounted for approximately 9 percent of its fiscal year 2011 flying hours, but the majority of its flying hours (approximately 63 percent) were devoted to training and flying orientation, with the remaining devoted to other activities such as counterdrug and maintenance.
Several factors affect CAP's ability to support homeland security missions, and DHS and its components have not yet assessed how CAP could be used to perform certain homeland security missions. These factors--including legal parameters, mission funding, existing capabilities, and capacity--were issues cited by the DHS components and Air Force and CAP officials GAO contacted that could affect CAP's suitability for additional homeland security missions. For example, as an Air Force auxiliary, CAP is subject to laws and regulations governing the use of the military in support of law enforcement, which, among other things, allow CAP to conduct aerial surveillance in certain situations, but preclude its participation in the interdiction of vehicles, vessels, or aircraft. Similarly, while CAP's existing operational capabilities--aircraft and vehicles, personnel, and technology--position it well to support certain homeland security missions, they also limit its suitability for others. For example, FEMA officials cited the role of CAP imagery in providing useful situational awareness during the initial stages of some past natural disasters, while, in contrast, officials from CBP and the Coast Guard noted limitations such as inadequate imagery capabilities and insufficient detection technology. Although the components we contacted provided varying opinions regarding CAP's suitability for certain homeland security activities, DHS has not assessed CAP's capabilities and resources or determined the extent to which CAP could be used to support future homeland security activities. By assessing the ability of CAP to provide additional homeland security capabilities in a budget-constrained environment, DHS in coordination with the Air Force could position itself to better understand, and potentially utilize, another resource to accomplish its homeland security missions.
Why GAO Did Ths Study
Homeland security partnerships may grow increasingly important as fiscal constraints provide impetus for federal agencies to look to partners for mission support. One partner is CAP, a congressionally chartered, federally funded, nonprofit corporation with approximately 61,000 volunteer members that can function as the auxiliary of the U.S. Air Force. CAP conducts missions throughout the United States, including counterdrug, disaster relief, and search and rescue, using mostly single-engine aircraft. The conference report accompanying the fiscal year 2012 DHS appropriations act directed that GAO study the functions and capabilities of CAP to support homeland security missions. In response to the mandate, this report addresses (1) the extent to which CAP has been used to perform homeland security missions to date at the local, state, and federal levels, and (2) the factors that should be considered in determining CAP's ability to support additional homeland security missions and the extent to which DHS has assessed CAP's capabilities and resources to accomplish such missions. GAO reviewed laws and guidance; analyzed fiscal year 2011 CAP flight data; and interviewed officials from DHS, the Air Force, CAP, and a nongeneralizable sample of 10 of 52 state-level CAP wings.
What GAO Recommends
GAO recommends that DHS, in coordination with the Air Force, cost-effectively assess the extent to which CAP can further assist DHS with future homeland security missions. DHS concurred with the recommendation.
For more information, contact Carol R. Cha at (202) 512-4456 or chac@gao.gov, or Brian J. Lepore at (202) 512-4523 or leporeb@gao.gov.
So the study determined their should be more study.
Quote from: phirons on November 04, 2012, 09:51:26 PM
So the study determined their should be more study.
I got that too.
It is what happens when some Congressmand pushes through a vote with not ideal what they are taling about!
Quote from: lordmonar on November 04, 2012, 09:57:38 PM
Quote from: phirons on November 04, 2012, 09:51:26 PM
So the study determined their should be more study.
I got that too.
It is what happens when some Congressmand pushes through a vote with not ideal what they are taling about!
Pat you need to read before you hit send....
Actually what was more interesting was what was in the details. When GAO contacted our customers, they found that HLS and the AF were pretty happy with our imagery, but the CBP and USCG were not.
I'm guessing that's part of what's behind the push for the D90 cameras, the enforcement of no member-owned cameras, exploring GIIEP and Son-of-GIIEP, and so forth.
What situations are there where we are providing imagery to CG or CBP? Have a hard time seeing how they would be able to evaluate us on that.
Holy moly, the CG was not kind to CAP.
Okay, in the details, CG did hit us for not being able to fly low enough to be of use in some Deepwater Horizon missions.
It would have been interesting to see the CG's assessment of the capabilities of the CG Aux aviation program in comparison to CAP -- CAP so far outpaces them its not even funny (with the one exception of not having multi-engine planes able to go further offshore than us).
After reading the report it was nice to see that FEMA is pretty happy with us, as was DEA.
Coast Guard doesn't seem to like us much at all, although some CG officials were complimentary of our work in Deepwater Horizon. Ultimately they have their own volunteers and don't really see much need for us, even if we can deliver.
CBP has expectations we will likely never meet, although night vision, radar, and real time video would be really cool. Their shopping list has drones written all over it.
All in all it sounds like FEMA is our most likely partner for increased missions.
Other observations:
- Our support for secure communications is lacking.
- Bolstering our "surge" capabilities is important. Tough call for volunteers, but not impossible.
- It's all about imagery (well almost). We need to get progressively better at it. Clearly, some guy or gal in a light plane with a DSLR isn't impressing most folks.
- There was almost no mention of CAP ground capabilities.
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 10:43:46 PMAll in all it sounds like FEMA is our most likely partner for increased missions.
And I'd say that's where they should be. ES is our mission, not law enforcement.
FEMA does ES in its most pure and hands-on form, the other organizations are all involved in a derivative of law enforcement.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 04, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 10:43:46 PMAll in all it sounds like FEMA is our most likely partner for increased missions.
And I'd say that's where they should be. ES is our mission, not law enforcement.
FEMA does ES in its most pure and hands-on form, the other organizations are all involved in a derivative law enforcement.
Agreed.
Quote from: Eclipse on November 04, 2012, 10:55:22 PM
Quote from: wuzafuzz on November 04, 2012, 10:43:46 PMAll in all it sounds like FEMA is our most likely partner for increased missions.
And I'd say that's where they should be. ES is our mission, not law enforcement.
FEMA does ES in its most pure and hands-on form, the other organizations are all involved in a derivative of law enforcement.
Except that FEMA doesn't "do" anything. They just bring along their rich Uncle Sam's chequebook and stand around looking important while the state and county EMAs do their work.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 04, 2012, 11:34:52 PM
Except that FEMA doesn't "do" anything. They just bring along their rich Uncle Sam's chequebook and stand around looking important while the state and county EMAs do their work.
I wouldn't say that to the 28 FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Teams. Some of whom are right now working 12 hour shifts on and off busting their tails. Or the FEMA Community Relations Teams that are working their butts off either right now.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 04, 2012, 11:34:52 PMExcept that FEMA doesn't "do" anything. They just bring along their rich Uncle Sam's chequebook and stand around looking important while the state and county EMAs do their work.
True, but the checks are really what's needed here - my wing does a fair amount of DR, but rarely is it funded, despite the
fact that we're standing next to professional responders on Uncle S' dime.
A few bucks, some equipment, and actually being called once in a while would go a long way.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 04, 2012, 11:34:52 PM
Except that FEMA doesn't "do" anything. They just bring along their rich Uncle Sam's chequebook and stand around looking important while the state and county EMAs do their work.
I wouldn't say that to the 28 FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Teams. Some of whom are right now working 12 hour shifts on and off busting their tails. Or the FEMA Community Relations Teams that are working their butts off either right now.
Point taken.
That said, the primary job of FEMA is to write cheques. They're not really an operational entity in the same manner as the state and county folks are.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 04, 2012, 11:50:17 PM
That said, the primary job of FEMA is to write cheques. They're not really an operational entity in the same manner as the state and county folks are.
All Disasters are Local. It is the ultimate responsibility of the Local Jurisdiction to provide for their community, most scenarios are easily handled. When resources exceed the ability of that jurisdiction that is when they request assistance from the local government and so on until help is requested from the Federal Government. Coordination of Federal Resources including the military is done through FEMA. FEMA also provides advice, tactics as well as federal money in certain situations.
Watching the news you'd think most people thinks FEMA is like an invading Military that can move into the communities, take over and fix everything and that is just not the case. However, Yes. They do bring money to the situation which in this time is essential.
If you know people collecting cans for disaster relief, that's great and well meaning...donate that to your local food bank. Donate money to the Red Cross.
mehhhh, there's a difference between a 'study' and an 'assessment'
they did a study
they found that they need to do an assessment.
baby steps.
That said, yes CAP needs to find a way to get with the times for imagery (and transmission). CAP needs to be thinking more like SP and less like D90 or GIEEP.
We also need full time legal staff working to get us permission (somehow) to do the missions that we "can't do".
Anybody got multiple millions to fund technology and legal? :)
Drones are cool and stuff, but they are expensive, and you can't have infinity of them.
Quote from: SARDOC on November 04, 2012, 11:46:43 PM
I wouldn't say that to the 28 FEMA Urban Search and Rescue Teams. Some of whom are right now working 12 hour shifts on and off busting their tails. Or the FEMA Community Relations Teams that are working their butts off either right now.
I think the point he was trying to make was FEMA doesn't own the USAR teams etc. They provide funding and reimburse the depts that furnish the USAR teams.
No one is suggesting they aren't working hard.
The third letter in the FEMA acronym accurately describes their main role. That's their bailiwick.
Quote from: denverpilot on November 06, 2012, 08:47:57 AM
The third letter in the FEMA acronym accurately describes their main role. That's their bailiwick.
Very true, but not understood by the masses who expect the Feds to sprinkle FEMA dust over disaster areas to make everything better in no time.
Besides, FEMA can't prepare to subjugate free thinkers in FEMA camps AND respond to disasters at the same time >:D
More study?
Don't forget that the coastal patrol mission was an experiment and look how successful it was.
Study means more opportunity for CAP to shine and prove it's worth to DHS and the Air Force.
As far as the Coast Guard, what do you expect. That's been a tug of war that's been going on for years. The USCG won't agree to anything that impacts on their Auxiliary.
However, I sure would like the see the CAP ramped up to doing a lot of what the CG Auxiliary does.
CG Aux has very limited aviation role; from what I've read recently, they are better prepared and positioned to augment regular USCG personnel. CG uses us when/where they need additional air support for SAR...or when their folks (regulars or Aux!) can't find an EPRB.
CBP missions would probably raise Posse Comitatus issues anyway.
Any government study requires 4 more studies of the original study to make sure that study was correct and then 4 studies of the 4 new studies to ensure accuracy in those studies.
Quote from: docbiochem33 on November 28, 2012, 04:08:30 AM
Any government study requires 4 more studies of the original study to make sure that study was correct and then 4 studies of the 4 new studies to ensure accuracy in those studies.
How long have you studied this?
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 28, 2012, 03:37:14 AM
CBP missions would probably raise Posse Comitatus issues anyway.
And I've never really understood that...(Note, I'm talking history here, not law or referring to the specifics of how the US Posse Comitatus Act came into being or has been interpreted over time)
Security of a nation-state's borders has traditionally been the sine qua non of a nation's military. When did border control become something that it was inappropriate for the military to participate in?
Agreed, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but border access is viewed strictly as a law enforcement issue.
Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2012, 12:46:49 PMSecurity of a nation-state's borders has traditionally been the sine qua non of a nation's military. When did border control become something that it was inappropriate for the military to participate in?
The US and its main border allies Canada and Mexico pride themselves on their demilitarized borders. Demilitarzied means no military. The US-Canada border was demilitarized as a result of the Rush-Bagot Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty), which dates to the late 1800s. The US/Canada border is the world's longest demilitarized border. I am not aware of any such treaty vis-a-vie Mexico. That border remains largely demilitarized by tradition.
Quote from: ZigZag911 on November 28, 2012, 02:38:03 PM
Agreed, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense, but border access is viewed strictly as a law enforcement issue.
My guess is because with the exception of trying to prevent the entry of "terrorists" we are not at "war" to the extent that military involvement is the solution. In essence those who gain entry without proper procedure are basically more like tresspassers rather than invaders. Thse who bring "things" in illegally are trying to subvert the tax's we generate on goods and services not "subvert" our defenses. So all "criminal" acts. Some are no doubt citizens of the US (ie those doing/recieving the smuggled items...including people) and that I think is the real major part if the issue of PC, use of military forces against our own citizens.
mk
Quote from: RRLE on November 29, 2012, 08:39:00 PM
Quote from: JeffDG on November 28, 2012, 12:46:49 PMSecurity of a nation-state's borders has traditionally been the sine qua non of a nation's military. When did border control become something that it was inappropriate for the military to participate in?
The US and its main border allies Canada and Mexico pride themselves on their demilitarized borders. Demilitarzied means no military. The US-Canada border was demilitarized as a result of the Rush-Bagot Treaty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rush%E2%80%93Bagot_Treaty), which dates to the late 1800s. The US/Canada border is the world's longest demilitarized border. I am not aware of any such treaty vis-a-vie vis-à-vis Mexico. That border remains largely demilitarized by tradition.
FTFY.