Appendix A 

Scope and Methodology 

These officials, as well as representatives of the following organizations, 

helped us accomplish our objective of determining how effectively IT systems   

supported EP&R's response and recovery mission. 

National Processing Service Centers 

Hyattsville, Maryland  

Pasadena, California 

Disaster Field Offices 

Burlington, New Jersey 

Albany, New York 

Orlando, Florida 

Disaster Recovery Center 

Orlando, Florida 

Mobile Emergency Response Service 

Thomasville, Georgia 

These stakeholders told us about both existing and proposed EP&R systems as 

well as ad hoc systems they created to meet their needs.  Lastly, we met with 

officials from the 

eMerge

2

 program to discuss EP&R's participation in this effort 

and to gain a better understanding of what the program will do for DHS.   

We limited our audit to EP&R's unclassified systems and processes related to the 

response and recovery mission, and did not focus on sensitive systems or 

information.  In addition, we did not test the data in the systems reviewed for 

accuracy and completeness.  Throughout the course of this audit, we provided 

monthly updates to the EP&R CIO on progress and discussed key issues 

identified by the stakeholders.   

We performed our work according to generally accepted government auditing 

standards.  The principal OIG points of contact for this audit are Frank Deffer, 

Assistant Inspector General, Information Technology Audits and Sondra 

McCauley, Director, Information Management Division.  Other major 

contributors are listed in Appendix C.  

Emergency Preparedness and Response Could Better Integrate Information Technology  

with Incident Response and Recovery 

Page 45