Eight Federal agencies have 24 teams that can respond to a chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear terrorist attack to assist local governments. The size, equipment, geographical coverage, and response time of these teams vary. Their expertise and functions are unique. For example, the Department of Energy's teams specialize in responding to radiological agents, while the Department of Health and Human Services can provide medical assistance. Because each agency is responsible for its own expertise and budget, there is no coherent framework to develop and evaluate budget requirements for their response teams. In December 1998, the Department of Justice issued the Attorney General's 5-year Interagency Counter-terrorism and Technology Crime Plan, which most resembled a national strategy. But it did not establish or define clearly desired outcomes that the government was trying to achieve. In 1999, the National Security Council and the Office of Management and Budget began a process for evaluating Federal agencies' antiterrorist programs. The evaluation gives decision-makers a better picture of the resources the government is devoting to response capabilities. But it does not serve as an effective mechanism for allocating funding to priority areas because they have not been defined. Recent interagency activities could improve the operational coordination among Federal response teams. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is identifying teams that could respond to different terrorist scenarios. But the agency's steering group has not consulted with experts to assess the realism of the scenarios. In May 2000, a national-level combating terrorism field exercise represented progress from past interagency exercises because it coordinated consequence as well as crisis management teams in a realistic field setting. The Attorney General should modify counter-terrorism plans to cite desired outcomes that could develop budget requirements for agencies and their response teams. FEMA also should develop realistic terrorist scenarios and sponsor more field exercises. 16 appendices, 3 tables, and 4 figures