Order Code RL32634
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
First Responder Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions
in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress
Updated October 21, 2004
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

First Responder Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions in
S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress
Summary
On July 22, 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the
United States (9/11 Commission) issued The 9/11 Commission Report. On page 396
of the report, the 9/11 Commission recommends that federal homeland security
assistance be distributed to state and local governments based on risk and
vulnerability. According to the report, the risk and vulnerability assessments should
consider population, population density, vulnerability, and the presence of critical
infrastructure within each state.
Currently, the majority of state and local homeland security assistance programs
distribute funds based on Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and
guarantee each state a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriated amounts. The Urban
Area Security Initiative is the only federal homeland security assistance program that
distributes funding to states and localities based on risk and threat.
S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (passed by the Senate on
October 6, 2004), and H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act
(passed by the House on October 8, 2004), propose to change the current formula
used in distributing first responder grant funding to states and localities. They would
also include threat and risk criteria in the distribution of funds. Neither H.R. 10 nor
S. 2845 proposes to fund state and local homeland security assistance strictly
according to threat and risk; both bills propose a guaranteed amount to each state.
Title V, Subtitle A of H.R. 10, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First
Responders,” was originally a separate bill, H.R. 3266, introduced by Representative
Christopher Cox and reported by four House committees. Title IV of S. 2845,
“Homeland Security Grants,” was also a separate bill, S. 1245, introduced by Senator
Susan Collins and reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee.
Table 1 compares first responder grant formula provisions of S. 2845 and H.R.
10. Table 2 compares guaranteed state amounts and population shares of S. 2845
and H.R. 10 first responder grant formulas. The Appendix at the end of this report
provides a detailed explanation (including a Table A) of the S. 2845 first responder
grant formula.
This report will be updated as congressional actions warrant.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
H.R. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
H.R. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
List of Tables
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 First Responder
Grant Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Table 2. S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Guaranteed State Minimums or Population Share
Amounts Assuming an Appropriation of $3 Billion for First Responder
Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table A. Funding for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program
Provided for in S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

---

First Responder Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions in
S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress
Introduction
Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has recognized the
importance of state and local homeland security assistance. In FY2003 and FY2004,
Congress appropriated roughly $7.4 billion for first responder grant programs.1
Conference report H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying H.R. 4567 (FY2005 Department
of Homeland Security appropriations), appropriates roughly $3.6 billion for these
homeland security assistance programs.
These assistance programs include:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP);
! Citizen Corps Programs (CCP);
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE); and
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).
SHSGP, LETPP, CCP, and EMPG grants are distributed to states as authorized
by Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56), which guarantees each
state a minimum grant of 0.75% of funds appropriated for these programs. The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been allocating the remainder of the
appropriations to states based on their percentage of the nation’s population.2
FIRE grants are distributed based on individual fire department applications for
funding. UASI grants are the only DHS assistance that is distributed based on threat
and risk factors. On May 3, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and stated that DHS uses risk and threat
assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population as factors in
determining which metropolitan areas receive funding from UASI.
1 The appropriations acts were P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11, and P.L. 108-90; these assistance
programs include the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security
Initiative, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Assistance to Firefighters,
Citizen Corps Programs, and Emergency Management Performance Grant Program.
2 The USA PATRIOT Act is silent on how the remaining appropriations are to be allocated,
thus leaving the matter to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security.

---

CRS-2
In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (9/11 Commission) expressed dissatisfaction with the way first
responder grants are allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance
should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”3 While acknowledging
that “every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency
response,” the commission recommended that state and local homeland security
assistance should “supplement state and local resources based on the risks or
vulnerabilities that merit additional support.” The commission offered two
examples: “Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York City are certainly at the
top of any such list.”4
Two bills now under consideration in Congress would alter the formulas for
allocating first responder grants to states and localities: S. 2845 (Title IV, “Homeland
Security Grants”) and H.R. 10 (Title V, Subtitle A, “Faster and Smarter Funding for
First Responders). Both chambers have acted on the bills; and, at this writing, the
matter awaits consideration by conference committee. Among the differences
between the two bills are:
! formulas for distributing first responder grants;
! state guaranteed amounts and population shares of total
appropriations; and
! threat and risk criteria.
Both the Bush Administration and the 9/11 Commission have expressed
concerns regarding the two bills’ homeland security assistance provisions. The
Administration, in a letter to the conference committee, commended H.R. 10’s
flexibility in allowing the DHS Secretary to distribute homeland security assistance
funds. The Administration, however, was concerned that H.R. 10’s proposal of
0.25% and 0.45% guaranteed amounts to states would limit the DHS Secretary’s
ability to allocate funding to high-risk areas.5 The 9/11 Commission reiterated its
recommendation, in a letter to the conference committee, that state homeland security
assistance should be distributed based on risk and threat. The commission, however,
stated that H.R. 10’s provision for distribution of assistance funding was preferable
to S. 2845’s provision. Additionally, the commission recommended the conference
committee alter Section 5003 of H.R. 10 to reflect the 9/11 Commission’s
recommendation on threat and risk.6
This CRS report summarizes and compares the pertinent parts of the two bills.
Specifically, this report compares the first responder distribution formulas in S. 2845
3 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), p. 396.
4 Ibid.
5 Joshua B. Bolten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Condoleeza Rice,
Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, letter to Rep. Peter Hoekstra and
Senator Susan Collins, Oct. 18, 2004.
6 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Chair and Vice Chair of the National Commission
on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, letter to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Oct. 20, 2004.

---

CRS-3
and H.R. 10 (Table 1) and presents the estimated guaranteed amounts each state
would receive under the House and Senate formulas (Table 2).
S. 2845
S. 2845 would combine SHSGP, LETTP, and UASI into a single grant program
(Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program) and would direct that 25% of
funding be allocated to UASI, with the remainder of funding allocated to SHSGP and
LETPP. Each state would be guaranteed a minimum or a population share for a
homeland security baseline.7
Additionally, the bill proposes to establish an interagency committee to
coordinate and streamline homeland security grant programs. The interagency
committee would:
! consult with state and local governments and emergency responders
regarding their homeland security needs and capabilities;
! advise the DHS Secretary on the development of homeland security
performance measures;
! compile a list of homeland security assistance programs; and
! develop a proposal to coordinate the planning, reporting, application,
and other guidance for federal homeland security assistance.8
The bill would also establish an information clearinghouse to assist states,
localities, and first responders with homeland security grant information, technical
assistance, best practices, and use of federal funds.9
Section 1048 of the bill would authorize the ODP Director to allow a state (with
an approved request) to reallocate homeland security assistance funds within the four
categories of equipment, training, exercises, and planning.10 Finally, the bill would
authorize the DHS Secretary to deny entry (into the United States) of any commercial
vehicle carrying solid waste unless the DHS Secretary certified that the waste had
been screened for chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons.11
H.R. 10
H.R. 10 would allocate total appropriations based on the DHS Secretary’s
discretion (based on threat and risk) and the First Responder Grants Board’s
evaluation and prioritization of homeland security assistance applications.12
7 S. 2845, sec. 1056. See Table 1 for specific information on the grant formula.
8 S. 2845, Sec. 1054.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., Sec. 1058.
11 Ibid., Sec. 1059.
12 H.R. 10, Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003. See Table 1 for specific information on the grant
(continued...)

---

CRS-4
Additionally, H.R. 10 would guarantee states at least 0.25% or 0.45% of total
appropriations for the covered grants. States with an international border or
adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line extends
would be deemed high-risk and receive at least 0.45% of total appropriations. The
states without these high-risk criteria would receive at least 0.25% of total
appropriations.13
Additionally, the bill would require the DHS Secretary to establish first
responder capabilities essential to terrorism preparedness. In determining essential
capabilities, the DHS Secretary would be required to consider overall threat,
vulnerability, consequences to the nation’s population, and threats to critical
infrastructure. The bill proposes to establish a state and local first responder task
force that would assist the DHS Secretary in establishing these capabilities.14
The bill would establish regional, state, and tribal homeland security assistance
application standards. Additionally, the bill would establish accountability
requirements and criteria for the use of homeland security assistance funds.15 States,
two years after enactment of H.R. 10, would be required to provide a 25% match of
federal assistance funding. The DHS Secretary would also be required to support the
development and update of national voluntary standards for first responder
equipment.16
Additionally, the bill would require the DHS Secretary to coordinate industry
efforts to identify private sector resources and capabilities that could assist federal,
state, and local government terrorism preparedness efforts.17 It would also require
the DHS Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility of a nationwide telephonic
alert notification system.18
Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas
Neither H.R. 10 nor S. 2845 proposes to fund state and local homeland security
assistance strictly according to threat and risk. Both bills propose a guaranteed
amount to each state.
The following tables compare the provisions of these bills that would alter the
formula used in allocating funding to states and localities for homeland security
assistance, and depict the estimated guaranteed amount each state would be allocated
under these bills. CRS is unable to determine individual states’ risk and threat
variables; thus Table 2 depicts guaranteed amounts or per capita amounts.
12 (...continued)
formula.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., Sec. 5005.
18 Ibid., Sec. 5009.

---

CRS-5
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 First Responder Grant Provisions
Topic
S. 2845
H.R. 10
Grant Programs Not Covered
Would exclude the following grant programs from this
Would exclude the following grant programs from this title:
by New Formula
title: Assistance to Firefighters Program; Emergency
any federal grant program not administered by DHS;
Management Performance Grants; Urban Search and
Assistance to Firefighters; Emergency Management
Rescue; Byrne Memorial Formula Grants; Community-
Performance Grants; and the Urban Search and Rescue
Oriented Policing Service Grants; and Department of
Grant program. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
Heath and Human Services’ public health and
bioterrorism grants. [Sec. 1053]
Grant Programs Covered
Would include the following grant programs in this
Would include the following grant programs in this title:
by New Formula
title: SHSGP; UASI; and LETTP. [Sec. 1056]
SHSGP; UASI; LETPP; and CCP.
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
Would establish a single grant program — Threat-
Based Homeland Security Grant Program (TBHSGP)
— that would include the grant programs listed above.
[Sec. 1056]
Funding Allocation Method
Would allocate funding to states and localities in the
Would allocate funding to states and localities in the
[for more detailed discussion see
following manner:
following manner:
Appendix]
Would authorize 25% of total appropriated funding for
Would establish a state and local first responder task force
TBHSGP to be allocated for UASI grants, and 75% of
to assist the DHS Secretary in determining first responder
total appropriated funding for TBHSGP to be allocated
essential capabilities. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
for SHSGP. [Sec. 1056]
Would establish a First Responder Grants Board that would
Would authorize the DHS Secretary to allocate up to
evaluate and prioritize state and regional applications for
25% of SHSGP funding to LETPP program activities.
grant funding based on: the degree to which the applications
[Sec. 1056(e)]
achieve, maintain, or enhance essential first responder
capabilities; and threat to persons and critical infrastructure.
Would allocate 38.6% of SHSGP funding (75% of total
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
TBHSGP funding) to be distributed based on the greater
of a state guaranteed minimum of 0.75% or a state’s per
Would allocate total appropriations based on the DHS
capita share (as defined by the 2002 Census Bureau
Secretary’s discretion (based on threat and risk) and the
population estimate). [Sec. 1056(e)]
First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and

---

CRS-6
Topic
S. 2845
H.R. 10
Would authorize the Large High-Threat State Fund
prioritization of homeland security assistance applications.
(LHTSF), which could be appropriated 10.8% of the
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
amount appropriated for TBHSGP to provide additional
funding to states that were to choose the per capita
Would guarantee states at least 0.25% of total appropriated
funding, if 38.6% of SHSGP were not sufficient. [Sec.
funding for the covered grant program. [Title V, Subtitle A,
1056(j)]
Sec. 5003]
If Congress chose not to fund the LHTSF, DHS would
Would guarantee states at least 0.45% of total appropriated
reduce (proportionally) all states’ guaranteed minimums
funding for the covered grant programs to states that have
or population shares. [Sec. 1056(e)]
an international border or adjoining a body of water which
an international boundary line extends. [Title V, Subtitle A,
Sec. 5003]
UASI Threat Criteria
Would allocate UASI funds to major metropolitan areas
No threat criteria identified.
with the following criteria: large population or high
population density; high threat and risk related to
critical infrastructure; international border or coastline;
and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS
Secretary. [Sec. 1056(e)]
SHSGP Threat Criteria
Would allocate 61.4% of SHSGP funding to states
Would direct DHS Secretary, in establishing essential
according to the following criteria: substantial
capabilities of first responders, to consider “the variables of
percentage of state’s population residing in
threat, vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the
“Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Office
Nation’s population (including transient commuting and
of Management and Budget”; high threat and risk to
tourist populations) and critical infrastructure.” The
critical infrastructure; international border or coastline;
Secretary would be required to base this consideration upon
and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS
“the most current risk assessment available by the
Secretary. [Sec. 1056(e)]
directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure
Protection of the threats of terrorism against the United
States.” The Secretary would be required to consider
threats of terrorism in critical infrastructure sectors and
types of threat set forth in the bill. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec.
5003]
Sources: H.R. 10 and S. 2845.

---

CRS-7
Table 2. S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Guaranteed State Minimums or Population Share Amounts Assuming an Appropriation
of $3 Billion for First Responder Grant Programs
(Amounts in millions of dollars)
S. 2845A
(States choose the greater of)
H.R. 10B
2002 Population
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
State
Estimate
per capita
Population
per capita
At least
per capita
At least
per capita
0.75%
Share
0.25%
0.45%
Alabama
4,486,508
$16.9
$4.12
$13.3
$2.96
$7.5
$1.67
—
—
Alaska
643,786
$16.9
$28.17
$1.9
$3.17
—
—
$13.5
$22.50
Arizona
5,456,453
$16.9
$3.07
$16.2
$2.95
—
—
$13.5
$2.45
Arkansas
2,710,079
$16.9
$6.26
$8.0
$2.96
$7.5
$2.78
—
—
California
35,116,033
$16.9
$0.48
$104.3
$2.97
—
—
$13.5
$0.38
Colorado
4,506,542
$16.9
$3.76
$13.4
$2.98
$7.5
$1.67
—
—
Connecticut
3,460,503
$16.9
$4.83
$10.3
$2.94
$7.5
$2.14
—
—
District of Columbia
570,898
$16.9
$28.17
$1.7
$2.83
$7.5
$12.50
—
—
Delaware
807,385
$16.9
$21.13
$2.4
$3.00
$7.5
$9.38
—
—
Florida
16,713,149
$16.9
$1.01
$49.6
$2.97
$7.5
$0.45
—
—
Georgia
8,560,310
$16.9
$1.97
$25.4
$2.95
$7.5
$0.87
—
—
Hawaii
1,244,898
$16.9
$14.08
$3.7
$3.08
$7.5
$6.25
—
—
Idaho
1,341,131
$16.9
$13.00
$4.0
$3.08
—
—
$13.5
$10.38
Illinois
12,600,620
$16.9
$1.34
$37.4
$2.97
$7.5
$0.60
—
—
Indiana
6,159,068
$16.9
$2.73
$18.3
$2.95
$7.5
$1.21
—
—
Iowa
2,936,760
$16.9
$5.83
$8.7
$3.00
$7.5
$2.59
—
—

---

CRS-8
S. 2845A
(States choose the greater of)
H.R. 10B
2002 Population
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
State
Estimate
per capita
Population
per capita
At least
per capita
At least
per capita
0.75%
Share
0.25%
0.45%
Kansas
2,715,884
$16.9
$6.26
$8.1
$3.00
$7.5
$2.78
—
—
Kentucky
4,092,891
$16.9
$4.12
$12.2
$2.98
$7.5
$1.83
—
—
Louisiana
4,482,646
$16.9
$3.76
$13.3
$2.96
$7.5
$1.67
—
—
Maine
1,294,464
$16.9
$13.00
$3.8
$2.92
—
—
$13.5
$10.38
Maryland
5,458,137
$16.9
$3.07
$16.2
$2.95
$7.5
$1.36
—
—
Massachusetts
6,427,801
$16.9
$2.64
$19.1
$2.98
$7.5
$1.17
—
—
Michigan
10,050,446
$16.9
$1.67
$29.8
$2.95
—
—
$13.5
$1.34
Minnesota
5,019,720
$16.9
$3.38
$14.9
$2.98
—
—
$13.5
$2.70
Mississippi
2,871,782
$16.9
$5.83
$8.5
$2.93
$7.5
$2.59
—
—
Missouri
5,672,579
$16.9
$2.96
$16.8
$2.95
$7.5
$1.32
—
—
Montana
909,453
$16.9
$18.78
$2.7
$3.00
—
—
$13.5
$15.00
Nebraska
1,729,180
$16.9
$9.94
$5.1
$3.00
$7.5
$4.41
—
—
Nevada
2,173,491
$16.9
$7.68
$6.5
$2.95
$7.5
$3.41
—
—
New Hampshire
1,275,056
$16.9
$13.00
$3.8
$2.92
—
—
$13.5
$10.38
New Jersey
8,590,300
$16.9
$1.97
$25.5
$2.97
$7.5
$0.87
—
—
New Mexico
1,855,059
$16.9
$8.89
$5.5
$2.89
—
—
$13.5
$7.11
New York
19,157,532
$16.9
$0.88
$56.9
$2.96
—
—
$13.5
$0.70
North Carolina
8,320,146
$16.9
$2.04
$24.7
$2.98
$7.5
$0.90
—
—
North Dakota
634,110
$16.9
$28.17
$1.9
$3.17
—
—
$13.5
$22.50

---

CRS-9
S. 2845A
(States choose the greater of)
H.R. 10B
2002 Population
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
Dollars
State
Estimate
per capita
Population
per capita
At least
per capita
At least
per capita
0.75%
Share
0.25%
0.45%
Ohio
11,421,267
$16.9
$1.48
$33.9
$2.97
—
—
$13.5
$1.18
Oklahoma
3,493,714
$16.9
$4.83
$10.4
$2.97
$7.5
$2.14
—
—
Oregon
3,521,515
$16.9
$4.83
$10.5
$3.00
—
—
$13.5
$3.86
Pennsylvania
12,335,091
$16.9
$1.37
$36.6
$2.98
—
—
$13.5
$1.10
Rhode Island
1,069,725
$16.9
$15.36
$3.2
$2.91
$7.5
$6.82
—
—
South Carolina
4,107,183
$16.9
$4.12
$12.2
$2.98
$7.5
$1.83
—
—
South Dakota
761,063
$16.9
$21.13
$2.3
$2.88
$7.5
$9.38
—
—
Tennessee
5,797,289
$16.9
$2.91
$17.2
$2.97
$7.5
$1.29
—
—
Texas
21,779,893
$16.9
$0.78
$64.7
$2.97
—
—
$13.5
$0.62
Utah
2,316,256
$16.9
$7.34
$6.9
$3.00
$7.5
$3.26
—
—
Vermont
616,592
$16.9
$28.17
$1.8
$3.00
—
—
$13.5
$22.50
Virginia
7,293,542
$16.9
$2.32
$21.7
$2.97
$7.5
$1.03
—
—
Washington
6,068,996
$16.9
$2.77
$18.0
$2.95
—
—
$13.5
$2.21
West Virginia
1,801,873
$16.9
$9.39
$5.4
$3.00
$7.5
$4.17
—
—
Wisconsin
5,441,196
$16.9
$3.13
$16.2
$3.00
—
—
$13.5
$2.50
Wyoming
498,703
$16.9
$33.80
$1.5
$3.00
$7.5
$15.00
—
—
Sources: S. 2845 and H.R. 10, and CRS calculations based on 2002 census population estimates by the Bureau of the Census.
A See Appendix for a step-by-step explanation (including table) of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 first responder grant allocation methods.
B H.R. 10 would guarantee at least 0.25% or 0.45% of total appropriations for covered grants to states. States with international border or coastline adjoining a body of water through
which an international boundary line extends would receive at least 0.45%.

---

CRS-10
Appendix: Grant Allocation Methods
in S. 2845 and H.R. 10
S. 2845
The following discussion19 demonstrates how the formula in S. 2845 would
allocate first responder grants to states. The calculations are performed in stepwise
fashion, and the results of each step are presented in Table A of this appendix. The
final allocations resulting from the formula are presented in Table 2 of this report.
The columns in Table A following these steps assume a “tentative allocation”
of $3 billion, which would become $3.323 billion if the 10.8% of total Large High-
Threat State Fund were fully funded.
First, DHS allocates funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI)
Program (summing to $750 million). (See column A, which assumes that each state
would get the same share of the total that it received in 2004.)
Second, column B calculates how much would be allocated to the jurisdictions
if they received only their base percentage shares. States (and DC) would receive
0.75% of the total, and territories would get one-tenth of the state minimum
(0.075%). This step allocates 38.625% of the total appropriation, summing to
approximately $869 million.
Third, column C calculates how much the jurisdictions would receive based on
population. In this example, the amount would be the jurisdictions’ proportional
share of the total population multiplied by the same 38.625% of the total allocated
in the second step (summing to $869 million). (The salient point here is that the
percentage calculations in the “choice” step are based on $869 million, not the entire
$3 billion.)
Fourth, column D allocates to the states the greater amount in either the second
step or the third step. This step allocates a total of $1.192 billion, $323 million more
than in second or third steps. The $323 million is just under 10.8% of $3 billion the
table assumes to be allocated by the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant
Program. The table assumes the 10.8% figure was chosen for the Large High-Threat
State Fund because it is big enough to make up for the fact that without the fund, not
enough money would be authorized to all states for the “choice step” encompassed
by columns B, C, and D.
Fifth, column E allocates the “risk portion,” using population as a surrogate for
risk. The funding sources for the risk portion include the remainder of the $1.058
billion of the $2.25 billion to be allocated under the State Homeland Security Grant
Program which is not allocated by the fourth step, plus $323 million from the Threat-
Based Homeland Security Grant Program. (As noted in the fourth step, $323 million
19 Based on an analysis prepared by David Huckabee, Specialist in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service.

---

CRS-11
would be needed cover the shortfall generated by the “choice step.” This separately
authorized account actually authorizes $324 million, but the jurisdictions would need
only $323 million of the funds authorized to make up for the shortfall. The extra $1
million in the authorization would serve as an “insurance policy” to make sure
enough funds were authorized so all states would be fully funded. Thus, the fifth step
allocates a total of $1.381 billion.
Sixth, column F adds the “choice step” figure (column D) to the “risk portion”
(column E). This step allocates a total of $2.573 billion for the State Homeland
Security Grant Program.
Seventh, the State Homeland Security Grant Program total (see column F) is
added to the Urban Area Security Initiative funds from the first step (see column A).
This step allocates a total of $3.323 billion (see Grand Total, fully funded column).
Eighth, if the Large High-Threat State Fund were not adequately funded so that
all jurisdictions could be fully funded, each jurisdiction’s total would be reduced
proportionally until no more than the appropriated amount would be allocated.
A cautionary note about the funding figures in Table A is that the table
consistently uses population as a surrogate for “risk.” By so doing, it may be
significantly overstating possible funding levels for states. For example, the risk-
based UASI program provided no funding in FY2004 to 28 of the jurisdictions
covered in section 1056 of S. 2845. The “risk” column in the table (column E)
shows funds being allocated to all the jurisdictions because population is used as a
surrogate for risk. The Department of Homeland Security, however, might not
choose population as a surrogate for risk, so the only funds that would be
“guaranteed” to jurisdictions in S. 2845 would be those distributed in the “choice
step.”
The purpose of the Large High-Threat Grant Program would be to supplement
the funds allocated under the State Homeland Security Grant Program because the
“choice” option for jurisdictions would reduce the total funds that could be
distributed through the risk-based, secondary distribution portion of the latter
program. Allowing the larger states to be guaranteed $323 million more than they
would be entitled to, were they limited to 0.75% of the $2.25 billion in this example,
would reduce funding to all jurisdictions having the risk factors described in section
1056. The Large High-Threat Grant Program would make available an additional
$323 million over the $3 billion (assumed to be appropriated) to all jurisdictions
qualifying for risk-based funding.

---

CRS-12
Table A. Funding for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program Provided for in S. 2845
State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Grand Total:
Prevention Program)
“Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater
amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of
the full appropriation, see column A) or their
E. Risk
population-based proportional share of $869
A. UASI
portion:
Law
million (the total amount that would be allocated in
Allocation
(remaining
Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of
With proportional
column A if there were no population option).
F. Total: (sum of
$750 million
$1.381 billion,
(Maximum
columns A and F with
reduction: (reducing
columns D and E,
divided among
not accounted
amount that the
no proportional
funding to sum to $3
D. “Hold
totaling $2.573 billion)
2002
the states based
for in col.D,
Secretary of
reduction)
billion)
Harmless” base
State
population
on their shares
plus the funds
DHS may
amount: States
estimate
of the 2004
from the Large
designate for
get the greater of
Urban Area
C. Population
High-Threat
the Law
0.75% of $2.25
Security
option: States’
Grant Program
Enforcement
billion (col. B), or
Initiative
B. Base
population-
Population has
Terrorism
their population-
funding
amount: (first
based
been used as a
Prevention
based
$869 million)
proportional
surrogate for
Program
proportional share
share of $869
risk in this
(25%))
of $869 million
million
calculation.)
Per
Per
Per
(col.C). This step
Total
Total
Total
capita
capita
capita
allocates $1.192
billion of the
total.
Alabama
4,486,508
$0
$16,875,000
$13,324,756
$16,875,000
$21,172,994
$38,047,994
$8.48
$9,511,998
$38,047,994 $8.48
$34,349,181
$7.66
Alaska
643,786
$0
$16,875,000
$1,912,020
$16,875,000
$3,038,193
$19,913,193 $30.93
$4,978,298
$19,913,193 $30.93
$17,977,344 $27.92
Arizona
5,456,453
$13,561,181
$16,875,000
$16,205,455
$16,875,000
$25,750,416
$42,625,416
$7.81 $10,656,354
$56,186,597 $10.30
$50,724,450
$9.30
Arkansas
2,710,079
$0
$16,875,000
$8,048,830
$16,875,000
$12,789,565
$29,664,565 $10.95
$7,416,141
$29,664,565 $10.95
$26,780,742
$9.88
California
35,116,033 $150,818,117
$16,875,000 $104,293,265
$104,293,265 $165,721,660 $270,014,925
$7.69 $67,503,731 $420,833,042 $11.98
$379,922,009 $10.82
Colorado
4,506,542
$9,615,100
$16,875,000
$13,384,256
$16,875,000
$21,267,540
$38,142,540
$8.46
$9,535,635
$47,757,640 $10.60
$43,114,909
$9.57
Connecticut
3,460,503
$10,704,440
$16,875,000
$10,277,561
$16,875,000
$16,331,010
$33,206,010
$9.60
$8,301,503
$43,910,450 $12.69
$39,641,722 $11.46
DC
570,898
$32,569,066
$16,875,000
$1,695,545
$16,875,000
$2,694,216
$19,569,216 $34.28
$4,892,304
$52,138,282 $91.33
$47,069,690 $82.45
Delaware
807,385
$0
$16,875,000
$2,397,902
$16,875,000
$3,810,259
$20,685,259 $25.62
$5,171,315
$20,685,259 $25.62
$18,674,354 $23.13
Florida
16,713,149
$41,350,486
$16,875,000
$49,637,408
$49,637,408
$78,873,681 $128,511,090
$7.69 $32,127,772 $169,861,576 $10.16
$153,348,584
$9.18
Georgia
8,560,310
$11,938,286
$16,875,000
$25,423,791
$25,423,791
$40,398,321
$65,822,112
$7.69 $16,455,528
$77,760,398 $9.08
$70,200,967
$8.20
Hawaii
1,244,898
$0
$16,875,000
$3,697,299
$16,875,000
$5,874,996
$22,749,996 $18.27
$5,687,499
$22,749,996 $18.27
$20,538,369 $16.50
Idaho
1,341,131
$0
$16,875,000
$3,983,107
$16,875,000
$6,329,145
$23,204,145 $17.30
$5,801,036
$23,204,145 $17.30
$20,948,368 $15.62
Illinois
12,600,620
$37,949,075
$16,875,000
$37,423,356
$37,423,356
$59,465,591
$96,888,947
$7.69 $24,222,237 $134,838,022 $10.70
$121,729,824
$9.66
Indiana
6,159,068
$11,282,458
$16,875,000
$18,292,195
$18,292,195
$29,066,238
$47,358,433
$7.69 $11,839,608
$58,640,891 $9.52
$52,940,151
$8.60
Iowa
2,936,760
$0
$16,875,000
$8,722,064
$16,875,000
$13,859,332
$30,734,332 $10.47
$7,683,583
$30,734,332 $10.47
$27,746,512
$9.45
Kansas
2,715,884
$0
$16,875,000
$8,066,071
$16,875,000
$12,816,960
$29,691,960 $10.93
$7,422,990
$29,691,960 $10.93
$26,805,474
$9.87
Kentucky
4,092,891
$9,993,034
$16,875,000
$12,155,729
$16,875,000
$19,315,413
$36,190,413
$8.84
$9,047,603
$46,183,447 $11.28
$41,693,751 $10.19

---

CRS-13
State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Grand Total:
Prevention Program)
“Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater
amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of
the full appropriation, see column A) or their
E. Risk
population-based proportional share of $869
A. UASI
portion:
Law
million (the total amount that would be allocated in
Allocation
(remaining
Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of
With proportional
column A if there were no population option).
F. Total: (sum of
$750 million
$1.381 billion,
(Maximum
columns A and F with
reduction: (reducing
columns D and E,
divided among
not accounted
amount that the
no proportional
funding to sum to $3
D. “Hold
totaling $2.573 billion)
2002
the states based
for in col.D,
Secretary of
reduction)
billion)
Harmless” base
State
population
on their shares
plus the funds
DHS may
amount: States
estimate
of the 2004
from the Large
designate for
get the greater of
Urban Area
C. Population
High-Threat
the Law
0.75% of $2.25
Security
option: States’
Grant Program
Enforcement
billion (col. B), or
Initiative
B. Base
population-
Population has
Terrorism
their population-
funding
amount: (first
based
been used as a
Prevention
based
$869 million)
proportional
surrogate for
Program
proportional share
share of $869
risk in this
(25%))
of $869 million
million
calculation.)
Per
Per
Per
(col.C). This step
Total
Total
Total
capita
capita
capita
allocates $1.192
billion of the
total.
Louisiana
4,482,646
$15,939,945
$16,875,000
$13,313,286
$16,875,000
$21,154,768
$38,029,768
$8.48
$9,507,442
$53,969,713 $12.04
$48,723,080 $10.87
Maine
1,294,464
$0
$16,875,000
$3,844,508
$16,875,000
$6,108,911
$22,983,911 $17.76
$5,745,978
$22,983,911 $17.76
$20,749,544 $16.03
Maryland
5,458,137
$17,696,230
$16,875,000
$16,210,457
$16,875,000
$25,758,363
$42,633,363
$7.81 $10,658,341
$60,329,593 $11.05
$54,464,688
$9.98
Massachusetts
6,427,801
$21,264,376
$16,875,000
$19,090,321
$19,090,321
$30,334,459
$49,424,780
$7.69 $12,356,195
$70,689,156 $11.00
$63,817,152
$9.93
Michigan
10,050,446
$15,284,118
$16,875,000
$29,849,437
$29,849,437
$47,430,659
$77,280,097
$7.69 $19,320,024
$92,564,215 $9.21
$83,565,640
$8.31
Minnesota
5,019,720
$22,353,717
$16,875,000
$14,908,375
$16,875,000
$23,689,360
$40,564,360
$8.08 $10,141,090
$62,918,077 $12.53
$56,801,533 $11.32
Mississippi
2,871,782
$0
$16,875,000
$8,529,082
$16,875,000
$13,552,683
$30,427,683 $10.60
$7,606,921
$30,427,683 $10.60
$27,469,674
$9.57
Missouri
5,672,579
$26,733,312
$16,875,000
$16,847,341
$16,875,000
$26,770,370
$43,645,370
$7.69 $10,911,343
$70,378,682 $12.41
$63,536,861 $11.20
Montana
909,453
$0
$16,875,000
$2,701,040
$16,875,000
$4,291,944
$21,166,944 $23.27
$5,291,736
$21,166,944 $23.27
$19,109,213 $21.01
Nebraska
1,729,180
$0
$16,875,000
$5,135,598
$16,875,000
$8,160,449
$25,035,449 $14.48
$6,258,862
$25,035,449 $14.48
$22,601,642 $13.07
Nevada
2,173,491
$11,704,855
$16,875,000
$6,455,185
$16,875,000
$10,257,267
$27,132,267 $12.48
$6,783,067
$38,837,122 $17.87
$35,061,595 $16.13
New Hampshire
1,275,056
$0
$16,875,000
$3,786,867
$16,875,000
$6,017,320
$22,892,320 $17.95
$5,723,080
$22,892,320 $17.95
$20,666,857 $16.21
New Jersey
8,590,300
$35,748,162
$16,875,000
$25,512,860
$25,512,860
$40,539,852
$66,052,712
$7.69 $16,513,178 $101,800,874 $11.85
$91,904,363 $10.70
New Mexico
1,855,059
$0
$16,875,000
$5,509,454
$16,875,000
$8,754,504
$25,629,504 $13.82
$6,407,376
$25,629,504 $13.82
$23,137,947 $12.47
New York
19,157,532
$70,996,117
$16,875,000
$56,897,132
$56,897,132
$90,409,358 $147,306,490
$7.69 $36,826,623 $218,302,607 $11.40
$197,080,449 $10.29
North Carolina
8,320,146
$8,225,634
$16,875,000
$24,710,513
$24,710,513
$39,264,925
$63,975,438
$7.69 $15,993,860
$72,201,072 $8.68
$65,182,088
$7.83
North Dakota
634,110
$0
$16,875,000
$1,883,282
$16,875,000
$2,992,529
$19,867,529 $31.33
$4,966,882
$19,867,529 $31.33
$17,936,119 $28.29
Ohio
11,421,267
$35,481,385
$16,875,000
$33,920,723
$33,920,723
$53,899,919
$87,820,642
$7.69 $21,955,160 $123,302,027 $10.80
$111,315,294
$9.75
Oklahoma
3,493,714
$0
$16,875,000
$10,376,196
$16,875,000
$16,487,742
$33,362,742
$9.55
$8,340,685
$33,362,742 $9.55
$30,119,403
$8.62
Oregon
3,521,515
$9,070,429
$16,875,000
$10,458,764
$16,875,000
$16,618,942
$33,493,942
$9.51
$8,373,485
$42,564,371 $12.09
$38,426,501 $10.91
Pennsylvania
12,335,091
$38,893,912
$16,875,000
$36,634,745
$36,634,745
$58,212,491
$94,847,236
$7.69 $23,711,809 $133,741,148 $10.84
$120,739,582
$9.79

---

CRS-14
State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Grand Total:
Prevention Program)
“Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater
amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of
the full appropriation, see column A) or their
E. Risk
population-based proportional share of $869
A. UASI
portion:
Law
million (the total amount that would be allocated in
Allocation
(remaining
Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of
With proportional
column A if there were no population option).
F. Total: (sum of
$750 million
$1.381 billion,
(Maximum
columns A and F with
reduction: (reducing
columns D and E,
divided among
not accounted
amount that the
no proportional
funding to sum to $3
D. “Hold
totaling $2.573 billion)
2002
the states based
for in col.D,
Secretary of
reduction)
billion)
Harmless” base
State
population
on their shares
plus the funds
DHS may
amount: States
estimate
of the 2004
from the Large
designate for
get the greater of
Urban Area
C. Population
High-Threat
the Law
0.75% of $2.25
Security
option: States’
Grant Program
Enforcement
billion (col. B), or
Initiative
B. Base
population-
Population has
Terrorism
their population-
funding
amount: (first
based
been used as a
Prevention
based
$869 million)
proportional
surrogate for
Program
proportional share
share of $869
risk in this
(25%))
of $869 million
million
calculation.)
Per
Per
Per
(col.C). This step
Total
Total
Total
capita
capita
capita
allocates $1.192
billion of the
total.
Rhode Island
1,069,725
$0
$16,875,000
$3,177,042
$16,875,000
$5,048,310
$21,923,310 $20.49
$5,480,827
$21,923,310 $20.49
$19,792,048 $18.50
South Carolina
4,107,183
$0
$16,875,000
$12,198,175
$16,875,000
$19,382,861
$36,257,861
$8.83
$9,064,465
$36,257,861 $8.83
$32,733,075
$7.97
South Dakota
761,063
$0
$16,875,000
$2,260,328
$16,875,000
$3,591,654
$20,466,654 $26.89
$5,116,663
$20,466,654 $26.89
$18,477,000 $24.28
Tennessee
5,797,289
$11,126,838
$16,875,000
$17,217,725
$17,217,725
$27,358,909
$44,576,634
$7.69 $11,144,159
$55,703,472 $9.61
$50,288,292
$8.67
Texas
21,779,893
$42,751,067
$16,875,000
$64,685,443
$64,685,443 $102,784,959 $167,470,402
$7.69 $41,867,601 $210,221,469 $9.65
$189,784,915
$8.71
Utah
2,316,256
$0
$16,875,000
$6,879,191
$16,875,000
$10,931,012
$27,806,012 $12.00
$6,951,503
$27,806,012 $12.00
$25,102,867 $10.84
Vermont
616,592
$0
$16,875,000
$1,831,254
$16,875,000
$2,909,857
$19,784,857 $32.09
$4,946,214
$19,784,857 $32.09
$17,861,484 $28.97
Virginia
7,293,542
$7,269,682
$16,875,000
$21,661,539
$21,661,539
$34,420,115
$56,081,654
$7.69 $14,020,413
$63,351,336 $8.69
$57,192,673
$7.84
Washington
6,068,996
$18,363,173
$16,875,000
$18,024,684
$18,024,684
$28,641,165
$46,665,849
$7.69 $11,666,462
$65,029,022 $10.72
$58,707,265
$9.67
West Virginia
1,801,873
$0
$16,875,000
$5,351,493
$16,875,000
$8,503,506
$25,378,506 $14.08
$6,344,626
$25,378,506 $14.08
$22,911,349 $12.72
Wisconsin
5,441,196
$11,315,805
$16,875,000
$16,160,142
$16,875,000
$25,678,414
$42,553,414
$7.82 $10,638,354
$53,869,219 $9.90
$48,632,355
$8.94
Wyoming
498,703
$0
$16,875,000
$1,481,129
$16,875,000
$2,353,509
$19,228,509 $38.56
$4,807,127
$19,228,509 $38.56
$17,359,221 $34.81
Puerto Rico
3,858,806
$0
$1,687,500
$11,460,505
$11,460,505
$18,210,706
$29,671,211
$7.69
$7,417,803
$29,671,211 $7.69
$26,786,742
$6.94
Guam
154,805
$0
$1,687,500
$459,765
$1,687,500
$730,565
$2,418,065 $15.62
$604,516
$2,418,065 $15.62
$2,182,994 $14.10
U.S. Virgin Islands
108,612
$0
$1,687,500
$322,573
$1,687,500
$512,568
$2,200,068 $20.26
$550,017
$2,200,068 $20.26
$1,986,190 $18.29
Northern Marianas
69,221
$0
$1,687,500
$205,584
$1,687,500
$326,672
$2,014,172 $29.10
$503,543
$2,014,172 $29.10
$1,818,365 $26.27
American Samoa
57,291
$0
$1,687,500
$170,152
$1,687,500
$270,371
$1,957,871 $34.17
$489,468
$1,957,871 $34.17
$1,767,538 $30.85
Total
292,617,433
$750,000,000
$869,062,500
$869,062,500
$1,192,110,642 $1,380,937,500 $2,573,048,142
$8.79
$643,262,035 $3,323,048,142 $11.36
$3,000,000,000
$10.25
Sources: P.L. 108-90, and CRS calculations based on 2002 census population estimates by the Bureau of the Census.

---

CRS-15
H.R. 10
The following discussion demonstrates how the formula in H.R. 10 would
allocate first responder grants to states.
First, with the assistance of a state and local first responder task force, the DHS
Secretary would determine essential capabilities for first responders terrorism
preparedness. These essential capabilities would be based upon variables of threat,
vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the nation’s population (including
transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure.
Second, the First Responder Grants Board would evaluate and prioritize state
homeland security assistance applications based on the degree to which they would
achieve, maintain, or enhance the essential capabilities of first responders.
Additionally, the applications would be evaluated and prioritized on the extent to
which an application lessened the threat to, vulnerability of, and consequences for
persons and critical infrastructure. Greater weight would be given to applications
based on threats of terrorism that were specific and credible, including patterns of
repetition.
Third, appropriations would be distributed based on the DHS Secretary’s
discretion (based on threat and risk) and the First Responder Grants Board’s
evaluation and prioritization of homeland security assistance applications.
Fourth, states without international borders and not adjoining a body of water
through which an international boundary line extends would receive at least 0.25%
of the total appropriations. Assuming a total of $3 billion, this amount would be $7.5
million.
Fifth, states with international borders or adjoining a body of water through
which an international boundary line extends would receive at least 0.45% of the
total appropriations. Assuming a total of $3 billion, the amount would be $13.5
million.
Finally, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
Mariana Islands would receive at least 0.08% of the total appropriations. Assuming
a total of $3 billion, the amount would be $2.4 million.
State amounts are shown in Table 2 of this report.

---