The lack of a linkage between a terrorist threat, a national strategy and agency resources is one of the major deficiencies to combat terrorism. The strategy has been based on vulnerabilities, such as "worst case scenarios," instead of an analysis of credible threats to plan and develop programs. That strategy does not state a clear, desired outcome to be achieved. Although resources to combat terrorism have increased 45 percent from 1998 to 2001 (the President requested $11 billion for fiscal year 2001), they have not been linked to a threat analysis. Some agency initiatives appear at odds with the judgments of the intelligence community, which can result in a lack of coordination between programs, leaving the potential for gaps and duplication. Coordination has improved with the creation of the National Domestic Preparedness Office at the Department of Justice. The office has developed an action plan whose focus includes identifying existing needs assessment tools and cataloging all Federal domestic preparedness training. Efforts to prioritize programs have only just begun. The executive branch has agreed to conduct threat and risk assessments to improve efforts to combat terrorism. Progress is being made to prevent confusion between the roles of the Federal versus local governments. Of the 201 Federal counter-terrorist exercises held from 1995 to 1998, 69 (34 percent) were intergovernmental. A panel chaired by Virginia Governor James Gilmore, called the Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving Weapons of Mass Destruction, found many of the same problems, such as the need for more rigorous analyses of the threat, improvements in coordination with State and local officials, and better management of Federal programs. It also concluded there is ambiguity on the definition of terrorism and that the most likely terrorist attack will involve large explosives.