Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities: A Summary and Issues for the 111th Congress

Congressional research reportApr 30, 2010

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

Department of Homeland Security Assistance

to States and Localities: A Summary and

Issues for the 111th Congress

-name redactedAnalyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy

April 30, 2010

Congressional Research Service

7-....

www.crs.gov

R40246

CRS Report for Congress

Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Summary

In light of lessons learned from the September 2001 terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such

as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the second session of the 111th Congress is expected to

consider questions and issues associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal

homeland security assistance, for the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of

Homeland Security programs that provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states,

localities, tribes, and other entities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and

natural disasters. Since the nation is still threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the

111th Congress may wish to consider questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal

homeland security assistance policy should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be

constrained by, existing law and regulations, and constitutional considerations.

Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $34 billion for homeland security assistance to

states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the

District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in

FY2010 there are 15 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance

programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions.

The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency,

administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program

has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2010, 60%

of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision that has been

criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others.

Congress appropriated $757 million less for state and local programs than was appropriated in

FY2009; however, some programs received increased funding in FY2010, such as the Urban Area

Security Initiative. This reduction is primarily the result of Congress not funding the Commercial

Equipment Direct Assistance Program, and the Trucking Security Grant program. According to

news reports, a Department of Homeland Security official announced that the overall FY2011

budget request for the department will decline from previous years’ levels, and in the FY2011

budget request, the Administration requested approximately $4 billion. The impact of a reduction

on grants assistance may be an issue.

This report summarizes these programs, and identifies and analyzes potential issues for the 111th

Congress. These issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) the

evaluation of the use of grant funding; (3) the determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) the

programs’ funding amounts; and (5) the programs’ funding distribution methodologies. Some of

these issues have been debated and legislation passed since FY2002.

This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Contents

Introduction ................................................................................................................................1

Historical Development of Federal Homeland Security Assistance ..............................................2

Summary of Grant Programs .......................................................................................................3

Terrorism Preparedness Grant Programs................................................................................4

State Homeland Security Grant Program .........................................................................4

Urban Area Security Initiative .........................................................................................4

Transportation Security Grant Program ...........................................................................5

Port Security Grant Program ...........................................................................................5

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program..............................................................................6

Buffer Zone Protection Program......................................................................................6

Driver’s License Security Grant Program ........................................................................6

All-Hazards Preparedness Grant Programs ............................................................................6

Metropolitan Medical Response System..........................................................................7

Assistance to Firefighters Program..................................................................................7

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program ........................................................8

Citizen Corps Programs ..................................................................................................8

Emergency Management Performance Grants .................................................................8

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program...........................................9

Emergency Operations Center Grant Program .................................................................9

Other DHS Assistance and Activities.....................................................................................9

Legal Citations.................................................................................................................... 10

Issues for the 111th Congress ..................................................................................................... 11

Purpose and Number of Assistance Programs ...................................................................... 11

Evaluation of Funding Use.................................................................................................. 15

Eligible Grant Recipients .................................................................................................... 18

Funding Amounts................................................................................................................ 19

Funding Distribution Methodologies ................................................................................... 21

Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 22

Tables

Table 1. Legal Citation to GPD Programs .................................................................................. 10

Table 2. FY2002-FY2009 Number and Types of DHS Assistance Programs .............................. 13

Table 3. Eligible Recipients of FY2010 Homeland Security Assistance, by Program.................. 18

Table 4. FY2002-FY2009 Appropriations for Homeland Security Assistance Programs ............. 19

Contacts

Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 22

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Introduction

Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds for homeland security assistance

programs1 since 1996, a policy initiated in large measure by the bombings of the World Trade

Center on February 26, 1993, and the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City on April 19,

1995. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress further increased its attention

on homeland security assistance programs by, among other things, establishing the Department of

Homeland Security (DHS).2 This report focuses on the department’s homeland security assistance

programs, but not the department as a whole.

The number and purpose of programs, their administration, and funding have evolved over the

past 12 years. These assistance programs are intended to enhance and maintain state, local, and

non-federal government entities’3 homeland security and emergency management capabilities.

Since FY2003, DHS has administered these assistance programs through four different offices or

agencies within the department due to both congressional and departmental actions.4

With the increase of terrorist threats and attacks against the United States following the end of the

Cold War and the termination of old civil defense programs, a number of policy questions have

arisen regarding homeland security assistance programs. The majority of these questions have not

been completely addressed, even though Congress has debated and enacted legislation that

provides homeland security assistance to states and localities since 1997. Some officials such as

Members of Congress, former President Bush’s administration personnel, and President Barack

Obama have questioned (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) the use of

preparedness funding; (3) the determination of eligibility; (4) the funding amounts for the

assistance programs; (5) the programs’ funding distribution methodology, and (6) the use of grant

funding for sustainment and maintenance costs associated with previous fiscal year homeland

security projects.

These policy questions may continue to be important during the second session of the 111th

Congress as Members continues to appropriate funding and conduct oversight of these assistance

programs. Specifically, the House Homeland Security Committee stated that oversight of DHS

grants is one of its priorities for 111th Congress.5 Discussion of these potential issues may enable

For the purpose of this report, homeland security assistance programs are defined as DHS grant programs, or

programs that were transferred to DHS, that provide funding to states, localities, tribes, and other entities; however,

public safety and National Guard funding is not included in this report. Additionally, the term “homeland security

program” was not used until 2002. Prior to this, the term “domestic preparedness” was used to describe programs and

activities that assisted states and localities to prepare for possible terrorist attacks.

The most recent legislation that focuses on these programs was P.L. 110-53, “Implementing Recommendations of the

9/11 Commission Act.” This law authorized the majority of these programs and altered the method in which the grant

programs are distributed.

Non-federal entities include grant recipients such as privately owned ports and transit systems.

The four offices include the Office for Domestic Preparedness (Border and Transportation Security Directorate),

Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (Office of the Secretary), Office for Grants and

Training (Preparedness Directorate), and the Office of Grant Programs (Federal Emergency Management Agency)

which is now reorganized and renamed the Grant Programs Directorate.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Committee of Homeland Security Oversight Plan, 111th

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Congress and the federal government to anticipate possible homeland security crises and establish

policies that are not strictly reactionary.

This report provides a brief summary of the development of the federal government’s role in

providing homeland security assistance, a summary of assistance programs DHS presently

provides to states and localities, and a discussion of the policy issues identified above.

Historical Development of Federal Homeland

Security Assistance

The federal government began providing counter-terrorism assistance to states and localities

following the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993 and the Alfred P. Murrah federal

building in 1995. This assistance was separate from any federal disaster assistance these cities

may have received due to these terrorist attacks. Federal homeland security assistance evolved

and expanded after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, and the establishment of DHS in

2002 with P.L. 107-296, “Homeland Security Act of 2002.” A brief discussion on this evolution

and expansion follows.

In 1996, Congress enacted The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (also known

as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act). This law, among other things, established the Nunn-LugarDomenici Program (NLD) that provided financial assistance to over 150 major U.S. cities. This

assistance, with the Oklahoma City bombing being the primary catalyst, was focused on helping

first responders prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass

destruction.6 Two years later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Office for

Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to administer assistance programs that enhanced state and local

emergency response capabilities, including terrorist attack response. 7 At first, NLD provided

assistance to 120 cities; it was later expanded to include 157 cities and counties. At the end of

1998, 40 of the original 120 cities had received funding and training. In addition to training,

approximately $300,000 was provided by DOD to each city for personal protection,

decontamination, and detection equipment. Following the transfer of NLD to DOJ, all cities

completed the training initiated by DOD, and DOJ based the training and exercises on state

assessments. The program ended in 2001 upon completion of the training.8

ODP was transferred to DHS with enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.9 Initially,

ODP and its terrorism preparedness programs were administered by the Border and

Transportation Security Directorate, and all-hazard preparedness programs were in the Federal

(...continued)

Cong., 1st sess., February 4, 2009, pp. 3-4.

P.L. 104-201, Title XIV, Subtitle A, Sec. 1412, 110 Stat. 2718.

U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Emergency Responder Guidelines, Washington, DC,

August 2002, p. 1, http://www.homelandone.com/docs/em-guidelines.pdf.

James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness and WMD Civil

Support Teams, Monterey, CA, October 2001, http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/120city.htm.

P.L. 107-296, Title IV, Sec. 403, 116 Stat. 2178.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ODP and all assistance programs were transferred to

the Office of the Secretary in 2004 due to state and local criticism of DHS not having a “onestop-shop”10 for grant programs assistance. After investigations into the problematic response to

Hurricane Katrina, the programs were transferred to the National Preparedness Directorate.

Currently all programs and activities are administered by the Grants Program Directorate (GPD),

within FEMA. GPD is now the primary DHS and FEMA entity responsible for managing the

majority of DHS assistance to states and localities.

Since the establishment of DHS, the department has not only been responsible for preparing for

and responding to terrorist attacks, it is also the lead agency for preparing for, responding to, and

recovering from any accidental man-made or natural disasters. The most recent legislative action

affecting DHS grants was P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission

Act of 2007, which authorized a number of the DHS grants and mandated some of their allocation

methodologies.11 This legislation was a result of numerous years of debate on how DHS should

allocate homeland security assistance funding to states, the District of Columbia (DC), and U.S.

insular areas.12

Summary of Grant Programs

In FY2003, DHS administered eight assistance programs, and expanded the total to 15 programs

in FY2010. In the FY2011 budget request, the Administration requests funding for only eight

programs. 13 The following section summarizes 14 of the 15 programs and activities that are

currently administered by DHS. The department has yet to issue information or guidance on the

Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime Program so there is no summary of this program.

This report uses DHS documents, and congressional reports to summarize the programs. This

report is not intended to provide in-depth information on these grants. For detailed information on

individual grant programs, see the cited sources. 14

DHS does not identify grant programs as either terrorism preparedness or all-hazards

preparedness. As a result, CRS has based its characterization of programs falling primarily into

one category or another on an examination of DHS grant guidance documents. The criteria for

placing a grant program in either the terrorism preparedness or all-hazards preparedness

categories is based on a review of the program’s eligible activities or the DHS’s stated goal for

the program. Other analysts might categorize the programs differently.

A “one-stop-shop” is a single entity within DHS that provides all information concerning grants to states and

localities.

For a discussion on P.L. 110-53 affected grant distribution methodologies, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of

Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,

by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

U.S. insular areas include Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.

Office of Management and Budget, Appendix: Budget of the U.S. Government, Fiscal Year 2011, Washington, DC,

February 1, 2010, p. 557.

For an overview of GPD’s grant programs, see http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Terrorism Preparedness Grant Programs

Seven of the 15 programs administered by GPD could arguably be categorized as terrorism

preparedness. These programs specifically address terrorism preparedness activities, terrorist

incident response, or focus on law enforcement activities.

State Homeland Security Grant Program

The State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) provides states, tribal governments, DC,

and U.S. insular areas assistance in preparing for terrorist attacks.15 Grant recipients must have a

DHS approved homeland security strategy to be eligible for SHSGP funding. The program is

intended to implement state homeland security strategies and initiatives outlined in State

Preparedness Reports. The program’s eligible activities include the purchase of specialized

equipment, training, and exercises. It also provides funds for the protection of critical

infrastructure of national importance. 16

All states, DC, and Puerto Rico are guaranteed a minimum allocation of 0.36% of total

appropriations for SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). U.S. insular areas are

guaranteed a minimum allocation of 0.08% of total appropriations for SHSGP and UASI.

However, prior to the distribution of minimum allocations, DHS conducts a risk assessment to

determine grant recipient allocations and then ensures that the allocation amount meets or

exceeds the guaranteed amount in statute.17

Urban Area Security Initiative

UASI is a discretionary grant program that provides funding to metropolitan areas (including

counties and mutual aid partners). Designated urban areas may use UASI funds to purchase

specialized homeland security equipment, plan and execute exercises, pay first responder

overtime costs associated with heightened alert threat levels, and train first responders.

Additionally, funds from this program can be used for port and mass transit security, radiological

defense systems, pilot projects, and technical assistance.18

DHS conducts vulnerability and threat assessments that consider the location of critical

infrastructure and the population density of all major metropolitan areas. Based on these

assessments, and at the DHS Secretary’s discretion, selected metropolitan areas are grouped into

two categories, Tier I and Tier II. The seven highest risk urban areas are designated as Tier I and

To a lesser extent, some SHSGP authorized expenditures can be dual-use such as the development of evacuation

plans.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 3, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Ibid.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 3 - 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

receive a larger portion of funding; the remaining areas designated as Tier II receive less funding.

All funding allocations are based on risk analysis and anticipated effectiveness of funding. 19

Transportation Security Grant Program

The Transportation Security Grant Program (TSGP) provides funding to high-threat and high-risk

urban areas to enhance their security for bus, rail, and ferry systems. 20 States are eligible to apply

for funding, and grant awards must be obligated to the state’s appropriate transit systems.21 DHS

determines eligible transit agencies by using a comprehensive risk assessment. The risk

assessment methodology is linked to the methodology that DHS uses for other state and local

grant programs. UASI eligibility determines TSGP eligibility.22 This grant program includes

funding for the Freight Rail Security Grant Program (FRSGP), and the Intercity Passenger Rail

Program (IPR).

Port Security Grant Program

The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) provides funding for the protection of ports and port

infrastructure from terrorism. It is intended to enhance risk management capabilities, maritime

domain awareness, training and exercises, and counter-terrorism capabilities. Eligible applicants

include owners and operators of federally regulated terminals, facilities, or U.S. inspected

passenger vessels; port authorities or state and local agencies that provide security to federally

regulated port facilities; and any group (such as port and terminal associations) that provides

security for federally regulated ports, terminals, U.S. passenger vessels, or ferries. 23

DHS conducts risk and vulnerability assessments to determine what ports are eligible to apply for

funding. Based on these risk and vulnerability assessments, ports are categorized into Tier I, Tier

II, Tier III, or “All Other Port Areas.” Tier I and Tier II ports are provided a designated amount of

funding; identified Tier III ports and “All Other Port Areas” apply and compete for remaining

funding.24

Ibid.

Additionally Amtrak is eligible to receive funding to continue security enhancements for its intercity rail services

between high-risk urban areas.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transit Security Grant Program:

Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsgp/index.shtm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 10, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Port Security Grant Program:

Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/index.shtm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 11, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program

The Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) funds security activities for intercity bus

systems. Some of the eligible activities include planning, security enhancements, and vehicle and

driver protection. Eligible applicants include private operators of over-the-road (mainly interstate)

bus companies servicing UASI jurisdictions.25 DHS groups bus companies into tiers. Tier I

comprises companies with 250 or more buses that provide the highest volume of services to highrisk urban areas. All other applicants are placed in Tier II. Bus companies apply and compete for

funding within their tier.26

Buffer Zone Protection Program

The Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) provides funding and assistance to build security

and risk management capabilities of critical infrastructure, such as chemical facilities, financial

institutions, power utility facilities, dams, and stadiums. Eligible applicants include states with a

pre-designated BZPP site. 27 DHS determines all BZPP sites prior to the annual allocation of

program funding based on a risk assessment of each BZPP site.28

Driver’s License Security Grant Program

The Driver’s License Security Grant Program (DLSGP) provides funding to prevent

terrorism, reduce fraud and improve the reliability and accuracy of personal identification

documents that states and territories issue. DLSGP is intended to address a key

recommendation of the 9/11 Commission to improve the integrity and security of state-issued

driver’s licenses (DL) and identification cards (ID).29

All-Hazards Preparedness Grant Programs

Eight of the 15 programs administered by GPD could be categorized as all-hazards preparedness.

Specifically, these programs are focused on preparing for any emergency, regardless of cause.

One program, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program, could also be categorized

as terrorism preparedness since grant recipients are identified through DHS’s UASI program risk

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Intercity Bus Security Grant

Program: Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/ibsgp/index.shtm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 11 - 12, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-programoverview-fy2010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Buffer Zone Protection

Program: Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm. DHS

determines what facilities and critical infrastructure is to receive funding from this program.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 9 - 10, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Ibid., p. 9.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

assessment process. However, the program guidance does not specifically identify terrorism

incidents as the only type of preparation eligible for funding.

Metropolitan Medical Response System

The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) facilitates the coordination of law

enforcement agencies, firefighters, emergency medical services, hospital, public health, and other

personnel’s all-hazard response capabilities. Funding and federal assistance is provided to 124

highly populated jurisdictions and MMRS authorizes planning, training, exercises, and the

acquisition of pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment. FEMA states that the increased

capability to respond to a WMD mass casualty event increases the capability to respond to other

causes of mass casualty events, such as epidemic disease outbreaks and natural disasters.30 The

DHS Secretary determines the 124 jurisdictions based on population and divides the annual

MMRS appropriation evenly among the jurisdictions. 31

Assistance to Firefighters Program

The Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) awards one-year grants directly to fire

departments to enhance their abilities to respond to fires and fire-related hazards. FIRE seeks to

support fire departments that lack tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of

the public and firefighting personnel. FIRE provides funds to support firefighter safety, fire

prevention, emergency medical services, and firefighting vehicle acquisition. Individual

(professional and volunteer) fire departments are eligible to apply for grants under this program. 32

There is no set formula for the distribution of FIRE grants; fire departments and nonaffiliated

emergency medical service entities throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made

through a multi-level review process that includes evaluation by a peer review panel. Award

decisions are based primarily on the merits of the application and the needs of the community the

fire department serves. Every year, a criteria development panel composed of fire service

representatives makes recommendations to DHS regarding funding priorities and criteria for

awarding grants.33

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA: Metropolitan Medical

Response System, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/mmrs/.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 4, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, , Fiscal Year 2010 Assistance to Firefighters Program Guidance and

Application Kit, Washington, DC, April 2010, p. 2, http://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/2010_AFGguidance.pdf.

For detailed information on the FIRE grant application, evaluation, and distribution process, see U.S. Department of

Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2008 Assistance to Firefighters Grants

Program and Application Guidance, Washington, DC, February 2008, http://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/

2008AFGguidance.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program

The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) provides funding to enhance

catastrophic incident preparedness in designated high-risk, high-threat urban areas which also

receive UASI funding. The program supports coordination of regional all-hazard planning for

catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans,

protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event.34

The DHS Secretary determines what high-risk, high-consequence urban areas will receive

funding based on UASI allocations. In FY2010, 11 urban areas have been designated to receive

funding. The funds are allocated based on the assessed risk of a catastrophic incident occurring in

the region, as well as the anticipated effectiveness of the funding. 35

Citizen Corps Programs

The Citizen Corps Program (CCP) was established to coordinate volunteer organizations with the

mission to make local communities safe and prepared to respond to emergency situations. CCP

includes Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Enhanced Neighborhood Watch,

Volunteers in Police Service, and Medical Reserve Service. States, DC, and Puerto Rico are

guaranteed a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for CCP, and the U.S. insular areas are

guaranteed a minimum of 0.25%.36 The remainder of CCP appropriations are distributed based on

a recipient’s percentage of the national population. 37

Emergency Management Performance Grants

The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) is designed to assist the

development, maintenance, and improvement of state and local emergency management

capabilities. It provides support to state and local governments to achieve measurable results in

key emergency management functional areas. EMPG funding can be used for activities such as

personnel costs, travel, training, supplies, and other routine expenditures for emergency

management activities.

EMPG funds are allocated in the same manner as CCP. States, DC, and Puerto Rico are

guaranteed a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for EMPG and the U.S. insular areas are

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 8, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Ibid.

P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, 115 Stat. 399.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 5, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

guaranteed a minimum of 0.25%.38 The remainder of EMPG appropriations are distributed based

on a recipients percentage of the national population.39

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program

The Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program (PSIC) provides assistance,

planning, training, exercise, and equipment funding to states and localities to improve

interoperable communications, including communications for responding to natural disasters, acts

of terrorism and other man-made emergencies. All proposed activities must be integral to

interoperable communications and aligned with the goals, objectives, and initiatives identified in

the recipient’s Communication Interoperability Plan. DHS allocates funding based on risk and

guarantees each state, DC, and Puerto Rico a minimum of 0.50% of total appropriations; each

U.S. insular area is guaranteed a minimum of 0.08% of total appropriations.40

Emergency Operations Center Grant Program

The Emergency Operations Center Grant Program (EOC) provides funding and assistance to

states and localities for developing and enhancing their emergency operations centers and

improving their unified command capabilities. Funding may be used for equipping, upgrading,

and constructing EOCs.41 Annually, EOC sites are designated in statute with a specified

appropriation.42

Other DHS Assistance and Activities

The Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), within FEMA, conducts research and development

through its Equipment Acquisition and Support Program within SHSGP. The Equipment

Acquisition and Support Program provides assistance to federal, state, and local entities on

equipment related issues such as testing, standards, and the identification of new equipment

needs. Technical assistance is generally targeted to state and local agencies to enhance their

ability to develop, plan, and implement programs for terrorism and disaster preparedness.

Additionally, GDP provides specific assistance in such areas as the development of response

plans, exercise scenarios, conduct of risk and vulnerability assessments, and the development of

homeland security strategies.

Specifically, GPD administers and funds seven activity and assistance programs that include:

P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, 115 Stat. 399.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 7, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Ibid., p.7.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Operations Center

Grant Program, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/eoc/index.shtm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness Grants

Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, p. 8, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2010.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

•

National Domestic Preparedness Consortium;

•

Counterterrorism and Cyber Security Training;

•

Center for Domestic Preparedness and Noble Training Center;

•

National Exercise Program;

•

Technical Assistance Programs;

•

Evaluation and Assessment Program; and

•

Rural Domestic Preparedness Consortium.

Legal Citations

The following table provides legal citations to the authorization statutes for the grant programs

summarized in this report. Where noted, public law is provided when there is no authorization

language but appropriations language is available.

Table 1. Legal Citation to GPD Programs

Programs

Citation

State Homeland Security Grant Program

6 U.S.C. 605

Urban Area Security Initiative

6 U.S.C. 604

Transit Security Grant Program

6 U.S.C. 1135, 1163

Port Security Grant Program

46 U.S.C. 70107

Freight Rail Security Grant Program

6 U.S.C. 1163

Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Amtrak)

6 U.S.C. 1163

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program

6 U.S.C. 1182

Buffer Zone Protection Program

P.L. 111-83, Title III. 123 Stat. 2159.

Metropolitan Medical Response System

6 U.S.C. 723

Assistance to Firefighters Program

15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.

Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program

P.L. 111-83, Title III, 123 Stat. 2158.

Citizen Corps Programs

P.L. 111-83, Title III. 123 Stat. 2158.

Emergency Management Performance Grants

42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq, 42 U.SC. 5121 et seq, 42 U.S.C. 7701

et seq

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant

Program

6 U.S.C. 579

Emergency Operations Center Grant Program

42 U.S.C. 5196c

Source: United States Code or public law.

Notes: Public law numbers and statutes at large citations are used if the program is authorized only in an

appropriation act.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Issues for the 111th Congress

More than eight years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and seven years since the

establishment of DHS, debate continues on policy questions related to homeland security

assistance for states and localities. Some of these questions arguably have been addressed in

legislation, such as the statute that modified the distribution of funding to states and localities

(P.L. 110-53). Additionally, congressional committees have conducted hearings related to state

and local homeland security assistance and preparedness. Some may contend there is a need for

the 111th Congress to conduct further oversight hearings (which the House Homeland Security

stated it intends to do)43 and legislate on policy issues related to DHS assistance to states and

localities. These potential issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2)

the use of preparedness funding; (3) the determination of eligible recipients of assistance; (4) the

funding for the assistance programs; and (5) the programs’ distribution methodology. The

following analysis of these policy issues provides background for this policy discussion.

Purpose and Number of Assistance Programs

Some may argue the purpose and number of DHS programs have not been sufficiently addressed.

Specifically, should DHS provide more all-hazards assistance versus terrorism focused

assistance? Do the number of programs result in coordination challenges and deficient

preparedness at the state and local level? Would program consolidation improve domestic

security?

An all-hazards assistance program allows recipients to obligate and fund activities to prepare for,

respond to, and recover from almost any emergency regardless of type or reason, which includes

man-made (accidental or intentional) and natural disasters. EMPG is an example of an all-hazards

assistance program. The National Governors Association (NGA), in a policy position paper, states

that an all-hazards approach to preparedness should be preserved. 44 Terrorism preparedness

focused programs allows recipients to obligate and fund activities to prepare for, respond to, and

recover from terrorist incidents. SHSGP is an example of a terrorism preparedness focused

program.

The majority of disasters and emergencies that have occurred since September 11, 2001, have

been natural disasters such as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav. However, the majority of homeland

security assistance funding to states and localities has been appropriated to programs dedicated to

preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks. A DHS fact sheet regarding Homeland Security

Presidential Directive 845 states that federal preparedness assistance is intended primarily to

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Committee of Homeland Security Oversight Plan, 111th

Cong., 1st sess., February 4, 2009, pp. 3-4. The House Committee on Homeland Security states that, in the 111th

Congress, it intends to continue oversight of DHS’s assistance programs for states and localities.

National Governors Association, Executive Committee, Homeland Security Policy, Policy Position Paper,

Washington, DC, http://www.nga.org.

Executive Office of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8:

National Preparedness,” press release, December 17, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/

20031217-6.html.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

support State and local efforts to build capacity to address major (or catastrophic) events,

especially terrorism.46

In FY2010, Congress appropriated approximately $4.16 billion for state and local programs, and

of this amount $2.55 billion (60%) is targeted for terrorism focused programs.47 Following

Hurricane Katrina, a congressional committee reported that some state officials “voiced a concern

that in the post-9/11 environment undue emphasis is placed on terrorism-based hazards.”48

However, DHS (FEMA specifically) does provide natural disaster assistance that is separate from

the programs summarized in this report, such as FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant

Program,49 and the acquisition of flooded property.50

In July 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that emergency response

capabilities for terrorism, and man-made and natural disasters, are similar for response and

recovery activities, but differ for preparedness.51 The similarity is associated with first responder

actions following a disaster that are focused on immediately saving lives and mitigating the

effects of the disaster. Preparing for a hurricane, or any natural disaster, by comparison is

markedly different than preparing for a terrorist attack. Preparing for or preventing a terrorist

attack includes such activities as installing security barriers and conducting counter-intelligence,

whereas preparing for a natural disaster involves a different set of functions such as planning for

evacuations or stockpiling equipment, food, and water.

GAO stated that legislation and presidential directives related to emergencies and disasters

following the September 2001, terrorist attacks emphasize terrorism preparedness.52 In the

FY2009 homeland security assistance guidance to states and localities, DHS listed terrorism

preparedness as the priority in distributing funding. DHS used terrorism risk as the primary factor

in its FY2009 state and local assessments and listed terrorism preparedness as one of the

programs’ “core missions.”53

Another aspect of this issue that the 111th Congress may wish to address is the number of state

and local assistance programs DHS administers. In FY2002, and prior to the establishment of

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Frequently Asked Questions: HSPD 8, Fact Sheet, Washington, DC, 2008,

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/HSPD8_FAQ.pdf.

P.L. 111-83, Title III, 123 Stat. 2158.

U.S. Congress, Joint Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane

Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 2006, H.Rept. 109-377 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 152.

Information on the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program is available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/

pdm/index.shtm. Additionally, for further information see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation

Program: Overview and Issues, by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

For more information on hazard mitigation assistance, see CRS Report R40471, FEMA’s Hazard Mitigation Grant

Program: Overview and Issues, by (name redacted).

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS’ Efforts to Enhance First Responders’ All-Hazard

Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652, July 11, 2005, p. 1.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS’ Efforts to Enhance First Responders’ AllHazard Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652, July 11, 2005, p. 1.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application

Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 1, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overviewfy2009.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

DHS, federal assistance programs for states and localities numbered eight. In FY2010 the

programs numbered 15. Total funding for all homeland security assistance programs has averaged

$3.8 billion each year for the past seven years. The funding was lowest in FY2002 when

Congress appropriated $1.43 billion for eight programs. The largest funding amount was in

FY2009 when 17 programs shared $4.92 billion. For the present fiscal year (FY2010), Congress

appropriated $4.16 billion for 15 assistance programs (see Table 2 for funding by year per

program). This increase in the number of grant programs from FY2002 might be the result of

Congress and the administration targeting funds in anticipation of future homeland security

threats to specific facilities, locations, entities, and jurisdictions.

Table 2. FY2002-FY2009 Number and Types of DHS Assistance Programs

Type of

Programa

FY2002

FY2003

FY2004

FY2005

FY2006

FY2007

FY2008

FY2009

FY2010

Terrorism

Preparednessb

All-Hazards

Preparednessc

Total

Source: FY2002-FY2009 DHS grant guidance documents.

Notes:

DHS does not identify grant programs as either terrorism preparedness or all-hazards preparedness, these

categories reflect CRS’ examination of DHS grant guidance documents.

Terrorism preparedness programs focus on preparing states and localities for terrorist attacks, but do not

preclude the use of funding on activities and equipment that can be used for other emergencies, such as a

natural disaster.

All-hazards preparedness programs do not strictly restrict the use of grant funding. States and localities are

authorized to use funding on preparing for any type of disaster, man-made or natural.

In September 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that DHS’s grant system

was fragmented, and therefore complicated coordination and integration of services and planning

at state and local levels.54 This fragmentation may be seen in the development of targeted

infrastructure security grant programs, such as bus and trucking security programs in FY2004; a

grouping of transit security programs in FY2005; the Buffer Zone Protection in FY2006; and the

Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program in FY2008. One can assume this

expansion of terrorism preparedness programs reflects the federal government’s terrorism

preparedness priority, whereas states and localities may place a priority on natural and accidental

man-made disasters. Additionally, the DHS Inspector General, in a 2010 report, determined that

FEMA grants to states and localities are redundant and inefficiently coordinated.55

U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs,

GAO-03-1146T, September 3, 2003, p. 1.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs, Washington,

DC, March 2010, p. 1.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

This expansion of programs, largely at the discretion of the administration, may be the result of

DHS intending to focus homeland security efforts and funding on specific national homeland

security needs. However, the majority of programs that have been added are terrorism

preparedness programs and, as noted earlier in this report, states and localities have criticized

DHS’s terrorism preparedness focus. It should also be noted that DHS and the administration did

not request the development of all these new grant programs, such as the bus security program.

Congress appropriated funding, for the first time, in FY2005 for the bus security program even

though the Administration had not requested an appropriation for this program.56 Additionally,

Administration officials have requested the consolidation of grant programs, such as in FY2007

when the Administration requested an appropriation for a Targeted Infrastructure Protection

Program (TIPP).57 TIPP was to be a consolidation of six infrastructure security grant programs;

however, Congress did not appropriate the infrastructure security programs through TIPP.

Congress might wish to continue providing a share of funding to the present number of terrorism

preparedness programs. Specific and targeted programs, such as the Buffer Zone Protection

Program, could provide a funding source for a specific homeland security need. However, this

would not address the criticism of some state and local officials who believe more funding should

be provided for all-hazard emergencies and disasters, that the programs are fragmented, and

federal, state, and local disaster response is uncoordinated.

Congress might also consider increasing funding to all-hazards programs, such as the Emergency

Management Performance Grant program and the Metropolitan Medical Response System. This

could be achieved by increasing overall funding to state and local programs or decreasing the

funding for terrorism preparedness programs. This option would address state and local criticism;

however, if terrorism preparedness program funding were decreased states and localities may not

be able to meet their terrorism preparedness needs.

Should Congress determine there is a need to address the types and number of grants DHS

provides to states and localities, it could consider allowing terrorism preparedness programs such

as the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative, to be used

for all-hazards preparedness, response, and recovery. Presently, these programs require states and

localities to focus their funding on terrorism preparedness. This use of terrorism preparedness

programs to address all-hazards might result in states and localities having more flexibility in

prioritizing their homeland security needs, whether they are targeted to natural disasters or

terrorism needs.

Finally, Congress may wish to establish one or more block grant programs to reduce the number

of programs administered by GPD. This option might include the development of both an allhazards and a terrorism preparedness block grant program. This option could encourage grant

recipients to further prioritize their homeland security needs and apply federal funding to both allhazards and terrorism priorities. Additionally, this would increase greater flexibility in use of

grant funding. This might address the issue of grant coordination and allow recipients to focus

funding on specific needs instead of targeted programs established by Congress and the

Conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations).

Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget for the United States Government, Washington, DC,

February 2006, pp. 507-509.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Administration. However, DHS would need to ensure its distribution methodology included

aspects of all the disparate grant programs currently administered by GPD.

Evaluation of Funding Use

Another issue Congress may wish to address is how effectively DHS’s assistance to states and

localities is being spent. One way to review the use of program funding is to evaluate state and

local jurisdictions’ use of DHS’s assistance. However, DHS has yet to complete an evaluation of

how states and localities have spent past homeland security program allocations. It can be argued

that prior to establishing preparedness benchmarks for future program funding allocations, DHS,

or another federal entity, would need to complete an evaluation of present homeland security

funding and its uses to determine a baseline for any future evaluation of states and localities

meeting federal preparedness benchmarks.

When DHS announces annual state and locality homeland security grant allocations, grant

recipients submit implementation plans that identify how these allocations are to be obligated.

However, the question remains whether or not the grant funding has been used in an effective

way to enhance the nation’s homeland security. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano directed FEMA

to provide reports on national planning and state and local integration; however, the directives do

not address state and local use of grant funding.58

In early 2009, GPD conducted an evaluation called Cost-to-Capability (C2C). This evaluation

was intended to measure a grant recipient’s ability to prevent and respond to various types of

disasters. C2C uses DHS’s National Planning Scenarios59 to organize the evaluation. The intent of

this evaluation was to enable GPD to effectively administer DHS grant programs and help states

and localities use their grant allocations.60 Prior to GPD beginning the C2C, state and local

capability assessments were self-assessments.

GAO, in a congressionally mandated report,61 stated that the input data for C2C was to be based

on capability self-assessments from state preparedness plans, estimates of baseline capabilities,

and other factors. However, GAO stated that the validity of the input data was uncertain since the

data was based on state and local self-assessments. Additionally, GAO criticized the C2C as a

limited national capability assessment tool because of the limited analytical skill levels, due to the

level of training and experience of analysts, across state and local users of C2C.62 Also, in a

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Secretary Napolitano Issues Action Directives on FEMA State and

Local Integration and National Planning,” press release, January 27, 2009, http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/

pr_1233073331655.shtm.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Strengthening National Preparedness: Capabilities Based Planning, Fact

Sheet, Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/CBP_041305.pdf. National Planning Scenarios depict

emergencies and disasters that grant recipients are required to prepare for, and ensure they have the appropriate

response capability.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Congressional Affairs, The Cost-to-Capability Initiative (C2C):

Connecting local investment strategies to the Nation’s Homeland Security priorities, Fact Sheet, Washington, DC,

2008, p. 1.

P.L. 110-329, Title III, 122 Stat. 3673.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security Grant Program Risk-Based Distribution Methods:

Presentation to Congressional Committees - November 14, 2008 and December 15, 2008, GAO-09-168R, December

(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

summary of testimony from March 2008, GAO concluded that even though DHS has taken some

steps in establishing goals, gathering information, and measuring progress, the monitoring of

homeland security grant spending did not provide a method to measure the achievement of

desired program outcomes. 63 In a prepared hearing statement before a subcommittee of the House

Homeland Security Committee, FEMA’s National Preparedness Deputy Administrator Timothy

Manning stated that C2C data provided FEMA with limited information on federal, state, and

local investment in preparedness activities. 64

In 2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conducted a Program Assessment Rating

Tool (PART) for some of DHS’s grants to states and localities. OMB assessed the program

effectiveness of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative,

and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. Overall, OMB rated the programs

as adequate. However, the programs were rated as “small extent” for the question: “Do

independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and

achieving results?”65

The PART analysis and GAO’s research might lead an observer to assume that GPD’s grant

programs are not enhancing state and locality homeland security capabilities. But one could argue

that even though these assessments have not shown that GPD’s grant programs can achieve

certain benchmarks, states and localities have increased, at a minimum, the amount and types of

homeland security equipment, planning, and training needed in case of a natural disaster or

terrorist attack. Arguably, states, localities, and the nation as a whole are better prepared than on

September 11, 2001. However, critics have seen the PART as overly political and a tool to shift

power from Congress to the President, as well as failing to provide for adequate stakeholder

consultation and public participation. Some observers have commented that PART has provided a

needed stimulus to agency program evaluation efforts, but they do not agree on whether the PART

tool validly assesses program effectiveness. 66

In January 2009, DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an annual report on state and

urban area management of homeland security grant programs.67 Individual audit reports for states

(...continued)

2008, pp. 16-17.

U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS Improved its Risk-Based Grant Programs’

Allocation and Management Methods, But Measuring Programs’ Impact on National Capabilities Remains a

Challenge, GAO-08-488T, March 11, 2008, p. 1.

U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications,

Preparedness, and Response, Preparedness: What Has $29 Billion in Homeland Security Grants Bought and How Do

We Know?, Statement of Timothy W. Manning, Deputy Administrator, National Preparedness, Federal Emergency

Management Agency, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 111th Cong., 1st sess., October 27, 2009.

Office of Management and Budget, ExpectMore.gov: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Homeland Security

Grants, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003626.2008.html.

For more information on PART, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration's Program Assessment Rating

Tool (PART), by (name redacted) and CRS Report RL33301, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of

Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Related Issues, by (name redacted), (name redacted), and (name redac

ted).

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Annual Report to Congress on States' and

Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs, Audit, Washington, DC, January 17, 2009.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

and urban areas resulted in identified areas for improvement that included questioned costs,

monitoring and oversight, measurable program goals and objectives, and needs assessment. 68 The

report, however, did not address overall issues for DHS, states, or urban areas. Instead it only

identified areas for improvement for individual states and urban areas. Additionally, in March

2009, DHS OIG reported that FEMA does not consistently and comprehensively execute its two

oversight activities, which are financial and program monitoring.69 In March 2010, DHS OIG

identified legislative “barriers” to FEMA grant coordination. These “barriers” included:

•

multiple grant programs have similar legislated goals;

•

grant objectives are disparate due to legislation; and

•

congressional earmarks for specific grants.70

If Congress determines that the present C2C process is not adequate, it could require DHS to

refine the C2C assessment with a reduction in weight given to state and local self-assessments.

This might result in a baseline capability assessment, which DHS could use to determine annual

preparedness benchmarks associated with homeland security grant funding. One could argue that

these benchmarks would need to be established for individual grant recipients (state or local)

instead of serving as national benchmarks. Each state does not possess the same homeland

security capabilities; thus, benchmarks would need to reflect each state’s need for capability

enhancement.

Finally, if Congress finds the C2C inadequate in evaluating grant funding use, it could mandate

that DHS develop an assessment tool other than C2C to measure the nation’s preparedness. This

new assessment tool could rely less on state and locality self-assessments, and more on DHS

developing and implementing a new assessment tool that might require DHS to collaborate with

individual grant recipients. This might result in an assessment tool that more accurately reflects

individual state and locality preparedness baselines. However, this may extend the time that a

national preparedness baseline is established and further lengthen the time until preparedness

benchmarks can be established. One possible preparedness assessment tool could incorporate a

risk assessment of all states, DC, and U.S. insular areas that also assess vulnerability (since C2C

does not directly measure vulnerability). This risk assessment would, arguably, need to not only

assess terrorism risk, but natural and accidental man-made disaster risk. In conjunction with the

risk assessments, the preparedness assessment tool could also measure each grant recipient’s

ability to meet the Target Capabilities List (TCL).71 Such an assessment tool that incorporates risk

and an evaluation of the TCL is not the only option, just one that Congress might wish to consider

if it determines the C2C inadequately measures state and local preparedness.

Ibid., p. 1.

Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Improvements Needed in Federal Emergency

Management Agency Monitoring of Grantees, Washington, DC, March 2009, p. 1.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs, Washington,

DC, March 2010, pp. 5-7.

U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Target Capabilities List: A

Companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines, Washington, DC, September 2007, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/

government/training/tcl.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Eligible Grant Recipients

Another policy issue associated with homeland grant programs is the question of who or what

entities and jurisdictions are eligible to receive federal homeland security assistance. There are

two specific questions: (1) are the appropriate eligible recipients identified for each grant

program, and (2) does the DHS use an appropriate grant recipient determination process? There

are 11 grant programs in FY2010 that specifically identify recipients, and this results in 11

different groups of eligible grant recipients and numerous grant recipient determination processes,

as shown below.

Table 3. Eligible Recipients of FY2010 Homeland Security Assistance, by Program

Program

Eligible Recipients

Determination Process

State Homeland Security Grant

Program

states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.

insular areas

mandated by Congress

high-threat, high-risk urban areas

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

individual ports

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

mass transit and passenger rail

systems and operators

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

mass transit and over-the-road bus

systems and operators

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

Emergency Operations Centers

states and identified localities

mandated by Congress

Buffer Zone Protection Program

private and public critical

infrastructure facilities

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

Assistance to Firefighters

professional and volunteer fire

departments

determined through a peer review of

individual grant applications

Emergency Management

Performance Grant Program

states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.

insular areas

mandated by Congress

Citizen Corps Program

states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.

insular areas

mandated by Congress

Metropolitan Medical Response

System

124 jurisdictions

determined by DHS

Public Safety Interoperable

Communications Grant Program

states, DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. insular

areas, and localities

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

Regional Catastrophic

Preparedness Grant Program

high-threat, high-risk urban areas

determined by DHS through a risk

assessment

Urban Area Security Initiative

Port Security Program

Transit Security Programs

(including Freight Rail Security and

Intercity Passenger Rail Security

Programs)

Bus Security Program

Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FY2010 Preparedness

Grants Overview, Washington, DC, December 8, 2009, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-programoverview-fy2010.pdf.

Of these grants, seven explicitly use risk assessment as a determination of recipient eligibility,

and some sort of risk assessment may be used to determine recipients for other programs such as

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

the Metropolitan Medical Response System. What cannot be determined is if DHS uses the same

risk assessment process for each individual grant program. This may cause confusion or

duplication of effort if a jurisdiction is eligible to apply for numerous grants. This multitude of

grants with different eligible recipients may also lead to confusion in grant funding opportunities

or redundancy in funding. It would appear that each program is narrowly defined and involves

DHS using different methods for identifying grant recipients.

Some jurisdictions with genuine homeland security needs may not be eligible for funding because

different methods are used to identify grant recipients through various risk assessments that,

according to critics, do not adequately assess risk, vulnerability, and consequences. Because of

this, Congress might wish to address the issue of how DHS determines grant recipients. Also,

Congress might wish to require DHS to use one risk assessment process for identifying grant

recipients, or at a minimum, require DHS to refine the process to ensure grant recipients are not

requesting funding for a single homeland security need through multiple grant programs.

Congress may also decide to specifically identify (by type or name) grant recipients through

legislation, or at least mandate that DHS report on the process to make it more transparent.

Presently, the determination of grant recipients is arguably to be labor intensive and confusing.

Funding Amounts

Annual federal support, through the appropriation process, for these homeland security programs

is another issue Congress may want to examine considering the present economic situation and

the limited financial resources available to the federal government. Specifically, is there a need

for continuity of federal support for these programs, or should Congress reduce or eliminate

funding? In the past eight years, Congress has appropriated a total of $34 billion for state and

local homeland security assistance with an average annual appropriation of $3.8 billion. In

FY2009 Congress appropriated a high total of funding of $4.9 billion, and the lowest appropriated

amount was $1.43 billion in FY2002. Congress, in the FY2010 DHS appropriations, provided

$757 million less for these programs than was appropriated in FY2009; however, some programs

received increased funding in FY2010.72 These data are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. FY2002-FY2009 Appropriations for Homeland Security Assistance

Programs

Amounts in millions

Program

SHSGP

316

1,870

1,700

1,100

550

525

950

950a

950b

UASI

800

725

885

765

770

820

838c

887d

LETPP

500

400

375

CIPP

200

PSP

198

170

125

150

175

210

400

550e

300

P.L. 111-83, Title III, 123 Stat. 2158.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Program

TSP

150

175

400

550f

300

BSP

TRSP

EOC

BZPP

810

FIRE

360

750

715

655

662

750

985g

EMPG

168

170

180

185

200

300

315

340

CCP

MMRS

266

TTAE&E

333

330

292

341

296

298

299

429h

CEDAP

PSIC

Real ID

RCPG

Total

1,428

4,370

4,394

3,981

3,341

3,387

4,228

4,921

4,164

Source: Annual DHS appropriations.

Notes:

Of this $950 million for SHSGP, 25% must be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities and

$60 million for Operation Stone Garden, which provides funding to border states for homeland security

issues associated with illegal immigration.

This amount includes $60 million for Operation Stone Garden

Of the $838 million for UASI, 25% must be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities and

$15 million for non-profit organization security.

This amount includes $19 million for nonprofit organization security.

Of this $550 million, $150 million was a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.

Of the $550 million for transit security, $25 million must be used for Amtrak security, and $150 million was

a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.

Of the $985 million for FIRE grants, $210 million was a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.

Of the $429 million for training, technical assistance, exercises, and evaluations, $165 million must be used

for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium institutions.

Some might argue that since over $34 billion has been appropriated and allocated for state and

local homeland security, jurisdictions should have met their homeland security needs. This point

of view would lead one to assume that Congress should reduce funding to a level that ensures

states and localities are able to maintain their homeland security capabilities, but doesn’t fund

new homeland security projects. However, if DHS is unable to report on the extent of state and

local homeland security capabilities (as discussed earlier in the report), reducing funding amounts

prior to confirming state and local capabilities may result in unmet homeland security needs.

Additionally, some may argue that states and localities should assume more responsibility in

funding their homeland security projects and the federal government should reduce overall

funding. This, however, may be difficult due to the present state and local financial situations.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Another argument for maintaining present funding levels is the ever changing terrorism threat and

the constant threat of natural and accidental man-made disasters. As one homeland security threat

(natural or man-made) is identified and met, other threats develop and require new homeland

security capabilities or processes. Some may even argue that funding amounts should be

increased due to what appears to be an increase in natural disasters and their costs.

Funding Distribution Methodologies73

Another issue that may be explored concerns how grant program funding is distributed to states

and localities. Specifically, Congress may want to continue to address the funding distribution

methodologies to ensure state and local homeland security. This issue has garnered Congress’s

attention the most over the past seven years, with the issue addressed in P.L. 110-53 in January

2007. Specifically P.L. 110-53 required that SHSGP and UASI allocations to be based on 100%

risk; however, SHSGP recipients were guaranteed a minimum amount annually through 2012.74

This funding debate has been primarily focused on SHSGP and UASI; the majority of GPD

programs have not been discussed during this debate.

This guaranteed minimum allocation for SHSGP, and the continued use of population as a key

factor for other grant program distribution methodologies (such as for grant programs like EMPG

and CCP) have been the focus of many critics. One of these critics was the National Commission

on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission), which recommended that all

homeland security assistance be allocated based only on risk. Since P.L. 110-53 required DHS to

guarantee a minimum amount of SHSGP funding to states, it could be argued that the law did not

meet the 9/11 Commission recommendation. Others might contend that the statue is consistent

with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation because of the 100% risk allocation of SHSGP and

UASI. While the 9/11 Commission criticized the allocation of federal homeland security

assistance and recommended that the distribution not “remain a program for general revenue

sharing,”75 commissioners acknowledged that “every state and city needs to have some minimum

infrastructure for emergency response.”76 The 9/11 Commission also recommended that state and

local homeland security assistance should “supplement state and local resources based on the

risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support.”77 In a policy document published prior to

his inauguration, President Obama stated, in what appears to be in agreement with the 9/11

Commission, that homeland security assistance should be based solely on risk. 78

Due to this criticism, Congress may wish to consider further refining how DHS allocates

homeland security funding to jurisdictions. Instead of guaranteed minimums, Congress could

For an in-depth discussion on DHS grant distribution methodologies, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of

Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,

by (name redacted) and (name redacted).

P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’, 121 Stat. 282.

National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC,

July 2004, p. 396.

Ibid.

The Office of the President-elect, Agenda: Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008, http://change.gov/agenda/

homeland_security_agenda/.

Congressional Research Service

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

require that DHS allocate funding based on risk. This option, however, might result in some

jurisdictions receiving no or limited allocations. Arguably, a risk assessment process used to

allocate homeland security assistance would determine that every state and locality has some risk,

whether terrorism or natural disaster related, and needs some amount of funding. This, however,

would require DHS to evaluate state and local capabilities, vulnerability, and risk in a manner that

accurately reflects the nation’s current homeland security environment.

Conclusion

As the 111th Congress begins its second session, Members may wish to consider the policy issues

identified in this report or other related issues. The potential issues included in this report are (1)

the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) evaluation of grant funding use; (3)

determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) funding amounts; and (5) funding distribution

methodologies. All of these policy issues identify a potential need for Congress to continue its

debate and consider legislation related to federal homeland security assistance for states and

localities and the nation’s overall emergency preparedness.

Additionally, if homeland security continues to be of national interest, how homeland security

assistance is funded, administered, and allocated will be of importance to the 111th Congress.

Since Congress will continue to conduct oversight and legislate on homeland security assistance

to states and localities, as the House Homeland Security Committee has stated it intends to do,

Members may elect to consider options that anticipate, as well as react to, future catastrophes.

The potential issues identified in this report are not presumed to be the only issues, however,

these issues may be of enough significance to merit Congress’s attention.

Author Contact Information

(name redacted)

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland

Security Policy

/redacted/@crs.loc.gov, 7-....

Congressional Research Service

EveryCRSReport.com

The Congressional Research Service (CRS) is a federal legislative branch agency, housed inside the

Library of Congress, charged with providing the United States Congress non-partisan advice on

issues that may come before Congress.

EveryCRSReport.com republishes CRS reports that are available to all Congressional staff. The

reports are not classified, and Members of Congress routinely make individual reports available to

the public.

Prior to our republication, we redacted names, phone numbers and email addresses of analysts

who produced the reports. We also added this page to the report. We have not intentionally made

any other changes to any report published on EveryCRSReport.com.

CRS reports, as a work of the United States government, are not subject to copyright protection in

the United States. Any CRS report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without

permission from CRS. However, as a CRS report may include copyrighted images or material from a

third party, you may need to obtain permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or

otherwise use copyrighted material.

Information in a CRS report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public

understanding of information that has been provided by CRS to members of Congress in

connection with CRS' institutional role.

EveryCRSReport.com is not a government website and is not affiliated with CRS. We do not claim

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.