Order Code RL32696
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant
Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
December 13, 2004
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program:
State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
Summary
The Office for Domestic Preparedness, within the Department of Homeland
Security, is responsible for directing and supervising federal terrorism preparedness
grants for states and localities. Prior to FY2005, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness offered that assistance through six separate grant programs. Some state
and local officials, however, criticized the fragmentation of homeland security
assistance and recommended streamlining the grant process. Subsequently, the
Office for Domestic Preparedness recommended and — pursuant to Section 872 of
the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296), which authorizes the Department of
Homeland Security Secretary “to allocate, reallocate, and consolidate functions and
organization units within the Department” — Department of Homeland Security
Secretary Tom Ridge approved consolidating the separate programs into a single
Homeland Security Grant Program. Within the consolidated program, however, the
six types of assistance continue to have their separate identities and funding
allocations as “sub-grants.” As a whole, the Homeland Security Grant Program
provides assistance for a wide range of eligible activities, among which are planning,
training, equipment acquisition, and exercises. To fund the program, Congress
appropriated approximately $2.5 billion for FY2005, roughly $600,000 less than for
the programs in FY2004.
This CRS report, which will be updated, summarizes key provisions of the
FY2005 program guidance, with special attention to differences from the FY2003
and FY2004 editions. Among those differences are the following:
! consolidation of previously separate grant programs;
! specific application requirements for the Homeland Security Grant
Program sub-grants;
! provisions for citizen and private sector involvement;
! authorization of operational overtime costs associated with
Homeland Security Advisory System threat levels;
! guidance for critical infrastructure protection and border security;
and
! streamlined grant administration based on recommendations of the
Department of Homeland Security Task Force on State and Local
Homeland Security Funding.
This report also discusses issues regarding methods used to allocate federal
homeland security assistance and authorized expenditures of homeland security
assistance programs, and it analyzes options Congress may wish to consider for
resolving those issues. Tables included in the report present comparative data on
federal homeland security assistance to states and localities.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Homeland Security Grant Program Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
State Homeland Security Grant Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Urban Area Security Initiative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Citizen Corps Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Emergency Management Performance Grants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Metropolitan Medical Response System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Program Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Funding Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
HSGP Application and Matching Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
EMPG Applications and Matching Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
UASI Applications and Matching Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Pass-through Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Citizen and Private Sector Involvement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Operational Overtime Costs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Critical Infrastructure Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Border Security . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Unauthorized Homeland Security Activities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding
Recommendations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Issues . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Funding Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Authorized Expenditures for Homeland Security Assistance
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
List of Tables
Table 1. Task Force Recommendations and FY2005 HSGP Program
Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. FY2005 HSGP State Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Table 3. FY2005 UASI State and Urban Area Allocations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 4. FY2005 MMRS Allocation Recipients . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 5. FY2004 and FY2005 HSGP State Allocationsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21


Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant
Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
Introduction
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS), is responsible for directing and supervising federal
terrorism preparedness grants for states and localities.1 Prior to FY2005, ODP
offered that assistance through six separate grant programs.2 Some state and local
officials, however, criticized the fragmentation of homeland security assistance and
recommended streamlining the grant process.3 Subsequently, ODP recommended
and — pursuant to Section 872 of the Homeland Security Act (P.L. 107-296), which
authorizes the DHS Secretary “to allocate, reallocate, and consolidate functions and
organization units within the Department” — DHS Secretary Tom Ridge approved
consolidating the separate programs into a single Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP).4 Within the consolidated program, however, the six types of assistance
continue to have their separate identities and funding allocations as “sub-grants.” As
a whole, the HSGP provides assistance for a wide range of eligible activities, among
which are planning, training, equipment acquisition, and exercises. To fund the
program, Congress appropriated approximately $2.5 billion for FY2005, roughly
$600,000 less than for the programs in FY2004.5
1 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 430(c)(3), Homeland Security Act.
2 These grant programs included the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area
Security Initiative, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Citizen Corps
Programs, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and Emergency Management
Performance Grants.
3 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs,
108th Cong., 1st
sess., May 1, 2003, (Washington: GPO, 2003); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations, Combating Terrorism: Assessing Federal Assistance to First
Responders,
108th Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 15, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003).
4 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 872, Homeland Security Act. ODP recommendations and the
secretary’s decision reflected the work of DHS’s Task Force on State and Local Homeland
Security Funding. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
(Washington: Dec.
2004), p. 18.
5 P.L. 108-334 and P.L. 108-90, DHS appropriations for FY2005 and FY2004, respectively.

CRS-2
ODP administers the Homeland Security Grant Program through its annual
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit,6
which provides homeland security assistance information and instructions to states
and localities for such matters as developing and implementing state and local
homeland security strategies. The FY2005 program guidance is more fully
developed and offers more specificity than in previous years.
This CRS report, which will be updated, summarizes key provisions of the
FY2005 program guidance, with special attention to differences from the FY2003
and FY2004 editions. Among those differences are the following:
! consolidation of previously separate grant programs;
! specific application requirements for HSGP sub-grants;
! provisions for citizen and private sector involvement;
! authorization of operational overtime costs associated with
Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) threat levels;
! guidance for critical infrastructure protection and border security;
and
! streamlined grant administration based on recommendations of the
DHS Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding.
This report also discusses issues regarding methods used to allocate federal
homeland security assistance and authorized expenditures of homeland security
assistance programs, and it analyzes options Congress may wish to consider for
resolving those issues. Tables included in the report present comparative data on
federal homeland security assistance to states and localities.
Homeland Security Grant Program Overview
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidated the previous grant
programs administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) into the
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). It includes the following sub-grants:
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP);
! Citizen Corps Program (CCP);
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG); and
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS).
Each sub-grant is described briefly below:
State Homeland Security Grant Program. SHSGP provides homeland
security assistance funds directly to states and territories to prevent, respond to, and
6 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit
.

CRS-3
recover from terrorist attacks. Funding from this program is meant to address state
homeland security planning, equipment acquisition, training, and exercise needs.7
Urban Area Security Initiative. UASI provides funding to address the
planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs in urban areas identified by DHS.
The program is designed to help the urban areas prevent, respond to, and recover
from terrorist attacks. Additionally, in the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-
334), Congress authorized that funds from this program be provided to nonprofit
organizations located within the identified urban areas.8
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. LETPP assists law
enforcement agencies in conducting terrorism prevention activities. The activities
include information sharing, target hardening, threat recognition and mapping,
counter-terrorism and security planning, interoperable communications, and terrorist
interdiction.9
Citizen Corps Program. CCP, originally administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides funding for volunteers
participating in community security through personal preparedness, training, and
community service. This program supports the state’s local Citizen Corps Councils
which encourage citizens to prevent, prepare for, and respond to all hazards.10
Emergency Management Performance Grants. EMPGs, originally
administered by FEMA, support comprehensive emergency management at the state
and local levels. The program assists in mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery from all hazards. Funds provided from this program may also be used to
support state and local activities to manage the consequences of terrorist attacks.11
Metropolitan Medical Response System. MMRS was originally
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but was
transferred to FEMA (within the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate
of DHS) in March 2003.12 The program helps the 124 metropolitan medical systems
identified by DHS to enhance and sustain their integrated and systematic
preparedness actions to respond to mass casualty events. The mass casualty events
can be the result of incidents ranging from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
and explosive attacks to epidemic outbreaks, natural disasters, and large-scale
hazardous materials events.13
7 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit
, p. 19.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., p. 20.
11 Ibid.
12 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 503(5), Homeland Security Act.
13 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
(continued...)

CRS-4
Program Guidance
Funding Distribution Methods. In the conference report (H.Rept. 108-774)
accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed
DHS to allocate FY2005 funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same
manner as the FY2004 allocations. These allocations are based on the formula of
0.75% of total appropriations guaranteed to each state, and 0.25% of total
appropriations guaranteed to each U.S. territory.14 In the absence of statutes or
congressional guidance, DHS decided to allocate the remaining appropriations in
direct proportion to the ratio of the state’s population to the total national
population.15
UASI discretionary allocations are distributed using credible threat, presence of
critical infrastructure, vulnerability, population, population density, law enforcement
investigative and enforcement activity, and the existence of formal mutual aid
agreements as funding factors.16 MMRS allocations guarantee all 124 MMRS
jurisdictions $227,592 in FY2005 for a total appropriation of $28.2 million, which
is $21.8 million less than appropriated in FY2004.17
HSGP Application and Matching Requirements. ODP requires every
state and territory to submit its application for HSGP sub-grants (including the State
Homeland Security Grant Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program, and Citizen Corps Programs) by January 16, 2005. ODP states it will
respond to each completed application no later than 15 days after receipt. With each
application, the state must provide a program narrative that describes current
management capabilities to develop, implement, and manage the HSGP sub-grants.
This narrative also includes such specifics as an overview of the process by which
the state determines funding allocations to localities, and state efforts to achieve
National Incident Management System (NIMS) standards.18 There is no matching
requirement for these sub-grants.
Each application must delineate the allocation of HSGP funds and state
resources in the following homeland security activities: planning; training; exercises;
and management and administration. Each state must provide an explanation of
13 (...continued)
Application Kit, p. 20.
14 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, USA PATRIOT Act.
15 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit
, p. 1.
16 Ibid.
17 FY2004 MMRS allocations are available at [http://mmrs.fema.gov], visited Dec. 8, 2004.
18 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit
(Washington: Dec. 2004), p. 1.

CRS-5
challenges and impediments that complicate the administration and management of
the homeland security assistance programs.19
EMPG Applications and Matching Requirements. For EMPG
allocations, applicants must provide a narrative similar to the HSGP management
narrative. Additionally, states must provide a list of major emergency management
initiatives and a brief overview of each initiative. EMPG is the only HSGP sub-grant
that has a matching requirement of a 50% federal share and 50% state cost-share cash
or in-kind match. American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands do not have a matching requirement
for their EMPG allocations.20
UASI Applications and Matching Requirements. The application
process for UASI recipients has not changed from FY2004 program guidance. This
guidance, however, is provided for newly identified UASI urban areas. This
guidance requires newly identified urban areas to provide ODP with points of
contact, a definition of the urban area, and the establishment of an Urban Area
Working Group (UAWG).21 There is no matching requirement for UASI grants.
Pass-through Requirements. Each state must obligate not less than 80%
of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Metropolitan Medical Response
System to localities within 60 days of the grant award date. Additionally, any UASI
funds retained by the state must be used to support directly the identified urban area.
The state is encouraged to pass-through 100% of MMRS funding to the identified
metropolitan medical system. Any funds retained by the state, however, must be
documented in a written agreement between the state MMRS grant administering
agency and the chair of the identified MMRS recipient.
There is no minimum pass-through requirement for CCP. States, however, are
expected to work with local Citizen Corps Councils and to expend the funds to
support Citizen Corps Council education, and training. States are required to pass
through 100% of EMPG funding to designated state-level emergency management
agencies.22
State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. DHS requires
states and urban areas to develop and use their State Homeland Security Strategies
(SHSS) and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies (UAHSS) as an approved
guide for all security and preparedness activities funded through HSGP allocations.
19 Ibid., p. 13.
20 Ibid., p. 12.
21 Ibid., p. 17.
22 Ibid., p. 21.

CRS-6
ODP certifies and approves all SHSS and UAHSS. States are also encouraged to
supplement federal homeland security assistance funding with state resources.23
Citizen and Private Sector Involvement. States are required to coordinate
SHSGP and UASI citizen awareness and participation activities with the state
agencies administering CCP. In addition, states are encouraged to collaborate with
the private sector to leverage private sector homeland security initiatives, resources,
and capabilities. DHS considers private sector involvement crucial, given most of
the nation’s critical infrastructure is privately owned and operated.24
Operational Overtime Costs. States and localities are authorized to use up
to 25% of their LETPP allocation to support operational overtime costs incurred
during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level that is associated with critical
infrastructure security. Urban areas are authorized to use up to 25% of their UASI
allocations to support operational overtime costs for increased critical infrastructure
security. Of this amount, only 10% may be used for overtime costs associated with
an HSAS “elevated-yellow” or “high-orange” threat level. The remaining 15% of
UASI allocations can be used only to support overtime costs incurred during an
HSAS “high-orange” threat level.25
Critical Infrastructure Protection. DHS directs states and local
governments to consider critical infrastructure as any system or asset that if attacked
would result in catastrophic loss of life and cause catastrophic economic loss. States
and localities are required to consider specific facilities as critical infrastructure. This
includes such facilities as: venues for large public celebrations and events; water
systems; chemical facilities; power generations systems; rail and highway bridges;
mass transit subway systems; and telecommunications and cyber facilities.26
Border Security. The security of the nation’s borders has become an
important aspect of homeland security since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The importance of border security has resulted in DHS authorizing a portion of
HSGP funding to be used for securing the U.S. borders. States and localities are
authorized to use LETPP funding to provide enhanced law enforcement operations
for increased border security during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level. UASI
funding can be used for enhancing border security during an HSAS “elevated-
yellow” or “high-orange” threat level. Increased patrol presence at the border and
additional traffic control points are some of the enhanced law enforcement operations
authorized by DHS for border security.27
Unauthorized Homeland Security Activities. DHS does not allow states
or localities to use HSGP funding for the following activities: construction and
23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., pp. 23-24.
25 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
26 Ibid., p. 27.
27 Ibid., p. 27.

CRS-7
renovation of a building (unless for enhancing the security of the facility), and hiring
of personnel.28 The hiring of personnel is an issue that many state and local officials
have stated is a critical homeland security need. DHS Secretary Ridge, however,
stated before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that it was not the role
of the federal government to pay the salaries of state and local employees.29
In addition to guidance on applications, homeland security strategies, citizen and
private sector involvement, operational overtime costs, critical infrastructure
protection, and border security, DHS provides information on homeland security
equipment, training, and exercises in the HSGP program guidance. This information,
however, is similar to that provided to states and localities in FY2003 and FY2004.30
Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding
Recommendations

In March 2004, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge established the Task Force on State
and Local Homeland Security Funding. This task force comprised governors,
mayors, local government officials, and tribal officials. It was tasked to examine the
distribution of homeland security funds to states and localities, and develop specific
and objective recommendations to expedite the process by which DHS allocates
homeland security assistance funding. The task force focused on three areas: delay
of funding; best practices; and recommendations to eliminate delay in funding.31 In
June 2004, the task force published its report, A Report from the Task Force on State
and Local Funding
, which provided recommendations to streamline federal
homeland security grant applications and distribution processes.32
The following table provides information on task force recommendations from
its report, and the corresponding FY2005 HSGP program guidance:
28 Ibid., p. 41.
29 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs.

30 Ibid., pp. 28-41.
31 Ibid., p. 18.
32 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Task Force on State and Local Funding, A Report
from the Task Force on State and Local Funding,
(Washington: June 2004).

CRS-8
Table 1. Task Force Recommendations and
FY2005 HSGP Program Guidance
Task Force Recommendation
FY2005 HSGP Guidance
Allow states and localities to draw down
States and localities are authorized to
grant funds from the U.S. Treasury up to
draw down grant funding 120 days prior
120 days in advance of expenditure, as
to expenditure.
opposed to the 3-5 days currently
allowed.
Expand the approved uses of SHSGP
UASI grant recipients are authorized to
funds to allow states and local
support operational overtime costs
governments better to address short term
incurred at an HSAS “elevated-yellow”
homeland security issues.
or “high-orange” threat level for critical
infrastructure security.
Enhance training and technical assistance
DHS provides grant management
available to states and localities involved
technical assistance to states and
in the management and distribution of
localities to assist in the distribution of
homeland security assistance grants.
HSGP funding.
Establish an Office of the Comptroller
DHS will establish the Office of Grant
within DHS to assume complete financial
operations, within SLGCP, to provide
responsibility for homeland security
administrative and financial grants
assistance grants.
management support.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding,
and the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Issues
Funding Distribution Methods. On July 22, 2004, the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) issued
The 9/11 Commission Report recommending, among other things, that federal
homeland security assistance be distributed to state and local governments based on
risk and vulnerability. The 9/11 Commission recommends that risk and vulnerability
assessments consider population, population density, vulnerability, and the presence
of critical infrastructure within each state.33
Other critics of the present funding distribution method, including some
Members of Congress, have stated that the funding distribution methods used to
provide federal homeland security assistance to states and localities are inadequate
and unfair. Additionally, these critics assert that the present formula does not
33 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report
(Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), p. 396.

CRS-9
consider the threat of terrorist attack or vulnerability.34 Other observers have also
noted this allegedly unfair distribution of funds.35
Variation in the distribution of funds under the FY2005 State Homeland
Security Grant Program is seen, for example, in a comparison of Wyoming and New
York. Wyoming’s FY2005 State Homeland Security Grant Program allocation of $9
million.36 Based on Wyoming’s 2002 estimated census population of 498,703, the
state was allocated $18.00 per capita. In contrast, New York (arguably a more likely
target for terrorist attacks) was allocated $49.4 million from the State Homeland
Security Grant Program in FY2005.37 Based on New York’s 2002 estimated census
population of 19,157,532, New York was allocated $2.57 per capita.
The 9/11 Commission Recommendation. The 9/11 Commission reports
that prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, no federal department had as
its first priority defending the United States from domestic terrorist attack. This
changed with the creation of DHS in 2002.38 According to the report, no challenge
is more difficult for federal government decision makers “than to set priorities,
making hard choices in allocating limited resources.”39
The 9/11 Commission recommends that state and local homeland security
assistance should be allocated strictly on risk and vulnerability assessments. In 2004,
New York City and Washington, D.C., would likely be at or near the top of any threat
assessment list. The commission indicates that it understands the argument for state
and local baseline security. It states unequivocally, however, that federal homeland
security assistance should not remain a program “for general revenue sharing.” It
suggests that federal assistance should supplement state and local resources based on
risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support.40
Some would argue that the 9/11 Commission recommendation to distribute
federal homeland security assistance funding based on threat and vulnerability is not
viable at this time. Critics point to the lack of DHS’s ability to determine accurately
34 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Democratic Members of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk: The State of Homeland Security, Initial
Findings,
108th Cong., 2nd sess., Jan. 13, 2004. See also U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives, Select Committee on Homeland Security, An Analysis of First Responder
Grant Funding,
108th Cong., 2nd sess., May 5, 2004.
35 John Doyle, “DHS Making $2.2B in Grants Available to States, Territories,” Aviation
Week’s Homeland Security & Defense,
Nov. 5, 2003, p. 6. Thomas Frank, “Minding the
Gaps: A Push for Rethinking Anti-Terror Funds,” Newsday, Oct. 30, 2003, p. A3.
36 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit
, p. 2.
37 Ibid.
38 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 102(c) states that the DHS Secretary is responsible for administering
grant programs for state and local homeland security.
39 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 395.
40 Ibid., p. 396.

CRS-10
the nation’s threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. An example of this would be the latest
decision by DHS to raise the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) threat
level from “elevated-yellow” to “high-orange” on August 1, 2004. This action,
based, in part, on terrorist threat intelligence that is reportedly pre-September 11,
2001, led to the following comment by a senior law enforcement official: “There is
nothing right now that we’re hearing that is new. Why did we go to this level? I still
don’t know that.”41 Another example would be Attorney General John Ashcroft’s
June 14, 2004 announcement that a secret cell of Al Qaeda had plotted to attack an
undisclosed Columbus, Ohio, shopping mall.42
Some arguing against the proposed risk and vulnerability criteria point out that
when security increases in one location, there is a possibility that terrorists search for
other, softer, targets.43 Additionally, in a letter to DHS Secretary Ridge, the
Democrats on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security expressed concern
that inconsistent methodology for extracting data about key critical infrastructure
assets around the nation have resulted in incomplete and inadequate vulnerability
assessments.44
Those responding to such critics note that risk and vulnerability assessments
based on credible and corroborated intelligence are arguably the logical method of
allocating limited homeland security assistance funding. The recommendation,
however, is based on the 9/11 Commission’s recognition of the reality of limited
funding for protecting the nation, and that risk and vulnerability assessments, based
on available intelligence, are two main criteria in determining the appropriate level
of homeland security.
It may be argued, however, that the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation does
not provide sufficient guidance for distributing homeland security assistance based
on risk and vulnerability assessments. The recommendation, however, identifies the
political issues associated with homeland security funding distribution. Additionally,
the recommendation proposes such criteria as population, population density,
vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure. The 9/11 Commission does
not define risk and vulnerability factors, nor does it define critical infrastructure. In
the absence of definitions for these criteria, each state could theoretically argue for
a significant portion of homeland security funding based on its own definition of risk,
vulnerability, and critical infrastructure.
If Congress legislates the 9/11 Commission recommendation to distribute
homeland security assistance funding based on risk and vulnerability assessments,
and critical infrastructure, it may need to give guidance to DHS on what risk and
41 Dan Eggen and Dana Priest, “Pre-9/11 Acts Led to Alerts,” The Washington Post, Aug.
3, 2004, p. A1.
42 John Futty, “Heartland Logical Target,” The Columbus Dispatch, June 16, 2004, p. A1.
43 Ibid.
44 “Democrats Criticize Homeland Security Vulnerability Assessments,” GOVEXEC.com,
Aug. 4, 2004, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0804/080404tdpm2.htm],
visited Dec. 6, 2004.

CRS-11
vulnerability criteria, and critical infrastructure to consider. With this guidance,
Congress could, through statutory or conference report language, direct DHS to
weigh some risk and vulnerability criteria, and critical infrastructure more heavily
than others. Due to the diversity of the U.S. economy, the large and interconnected
nature of private and government operated critical infrastructure sectors, DHS may
not be able to conduct in-depth and complete risk and vulnerability assessments in
a short amount of time. DHS would need to establish a national vulnerability
assessment based on state vulnerability assessments. Then DHS would need to
identify the nation’s critical infrastructure and establish priorities for its protection.
Intelligence Reform Bills. In the 108th Congress, two bills passed the House
and Senate that included provisions to change the current homeland security
assistance funding formulas : S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004;
and H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Both bills proposed
to include threat and risk criteria in the distribution of a portion of the funds. Neither
H.R. 10 nor S. 2845, however, proposed to distribute state and local homeland
security funding strictly according to threat and risk; both bills proposed a guaranteed
minimum amount to each state.45 These provisions were removed from the bill as
finally enacted.46
Options. In addition to the options proposed in legislation noted above and the
9/11 Commission’s recommendation, there are other possible options to change the
distribution formulas for federal homeland security assistance programs.
Reduce Minimum Percentage. Should Congress determine that the 0.75%
state minimum guaranteed by the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014)
provides greater funding to the less populous states than it deems equitable, but still
wants to provide a base amount to each state, it could consider legislation directing
ODP to lower the guaranteed minimum. This option would address the issue of the
reported unfair distribution of grant funds to less populous states, while maintaining
a provision for a homeland security baseline in every state. A reduced guaranteed
minimum, however, could result in less populous states still receiving, what critics
consider an inequitable amount of federal homeland security assistance funding.
Increase Appropriations for UASI. Were Congress to decide that the
guaranteed state minimum is adequate, yet wish to increase funding to high-threat,
high-risk urban areas, it could appropriate a larger amount to UASI and reduce the
amount appropriated to SHSGP. This option could provide greater funding to urban
areas deemed at higher risk and at a greater threat of terrorist attacks. This, however,
might not provide enough funding to states that contain high-risk, high-threat urban
areas. While the urban area would receive increased funding, the state may not
receive an adequate amount of funding to meet its overall homeland security needs.
45 For further information and a comparison of these bills, see CRS Report RL32634, First
Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 2845 and H.R. 10,
108th Congress,
by Shawn Reese.
46 S. 2845, passed by Congress and sent to the President for his signature on Dec. 8, 2004.

CRS-12
No State Minimum. Should Congress determine there is no need for
guaranteed state minimums, there are numerous approaches from which to choose
in directing ODP to distribute funding. These approaches could include having a
portion of the funds distributed based on population (which would ensure every state
receiving some funding), and the remainder based on threat and risk factors
determined by Congress, ODP, or both. The 9/11 Commission recommends that
Congress direct DHS to distribute homeland security assistance to states and
localities based strictly on threat and vulnerability. This option does not, however,
address the arguable need for having a minimum level of homeland security assured
to every state through a percentage of total appropriations, as some observers
maintain is necessary.
Authorized Expenditures for Homeland Security Assistance
Funding. Witnesses before congressional committees have testified that there is a
need at the state and local level to increase the number of homeland security
personnel.47 These personnel include firefighters, law enforcement personnel,
emergency managers, and emergency medical personnel. Additionally, these
witnesses have testified about the cost in overtime during an HSAS “high-orange”
threat level.
One could argue, that the most important homeland security asset a state and
locality possess is personnel. Without an adequate number of first responders and
other homeland security personnel, all other federal homeland security assistance is
arguably marginal at securing states and localities from terrorist attacks.
Presently, EMPG is the only HSGP program that allows states and localities to
use grant funding to pay the salaries of emergency managers. LETPP and UASI
authorize a portion of state and locality funding to be used for overtime costs during
HSAS “elevated-yellow” and “high-orange” threat levels.
Options. In addition to EMPG providing funding for personnel, and the
LETPP and UASI overtime cost funding, there are other options for providing
assistance to states and localities with a homeland security personnel need.
Funding Personnel Costs with SHSGP Grants. If Congress were to decide
that funding state and local personnel costs was an important aspect of homeland
security, it could direct ODP to authorize states and localities to use SHSGP funds
for personnel costs. Congress could also appropriate a specific percentage within
SHSGP funding for personnel costs. This option, however, would provide funding
that, some argue, is a responsibility of state and local governments. DHS Secretary
Ridge, in testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on May 1,
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs;
and U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Combating Terrorism: Assessing Federal
Assistance to First Responders.


CRS-13
2003, stated that it was not the responsibility of the federal government to pay the
salaries of state and local employees.48
Funding Overtime Costs Associated with an HSAS “High-Orange”
Threat Level. Should Congress determine that DHS does not provide enough
assistance to states and localities during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level, it could
direct ODP, through statutory or conference report language, to authorize states and
localities to use SHSGP funding for overtime costs during this threat level. If
Congress chose not to authorize the use of SHSGP funding for overtime costs, it
could direct ODP to increase the percentage of LETPP and UASI funding it
authorizes states and localities to use for overtime costs. Some could argue that the
federal government, specifically DHS, determines when there is a need to raise the
HSAS threat level; thus the federal government should assist states and localities
when they raise their homeland security due to this threat level. This option,
however, could be compared to the funding of homeland security personnel issue,
and the discussion of the federal government’s (non) role in funding personnel at the
state and local levels could be argued as valid for overtime costs.
48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs.


CRS-14
Table 2. FY2005 HSGP State Allocations
(In millions of dollars, except per capita amounts)
State
SHSGP
UASI
LETPP
CCP
EMPG
MMRS
Total
Per Capita
Alabama
$17.7

$6.4
$0.2
$2.9
$0.9
$28.1
$6.24
Alaska
$9.4

$3.4
$0.1
$1.5
$0.5
$14.9
$24.83
Arizona
$20.0
$10.0
$7.3
$0.3
$3.2
$0.9
$41.7
$7.58
Arkansas
$13.9

$5.0
$0.2
$2.3
$0.2
$21.6
$8.00
California
$84.6
$148.3
$30.8
$1.1
$13.8
$4.1
$282.7
$8.05
Colorado
$17.8
$8.7
$6.5
$0.2
$2.9
$0.7
$36.8
$8.18
Connecticut
$15.5

$5.6
$0.2
$2.5
$0.2
$24.0
$6.86
Delaware
$9.7

$3.5
$0.1
$1.6

$14.9
$18.63
D.C.
$9.2

$3.3
$0.1
$1.5

$14.1
$23.50
Florida
$44.7
$30.9
$16.3
$0.6
$7.2
$1.6
$101.3
$6.07
Georgia
$26.7
$13.3
$9.7
$0.3
$4.3
$0.5
$54.8
$6.37
Hawaii
$10.7
$6.5
$3.9
$0.1
$1.7
$0.2
$23.1
$19.25
Idaho
$10.9

$4.0
$0.1
$1.8

$16.8
$12.92
Illinois
$35.3
$48.0
$12.8
$0.4
$5.8
$0.2
$102.5
$8.13
Indiana
$21.3
$5.7
$7.8
$0.3
$3.5
$0.5
$39.1
$6.31
Iowa
$14.3

$5.2
$0.2
$2.3
$0.2
$22.2
$7.66
Kansas
$13.8

$5.0
$0.2
$2.3
$0.5
$21.8
$8.07
Kentucky
$16.9
$5.0
$6.1
$0.2
$2.8
$0.5
$31.5
$7.68
Louisiana
$17.7
$14.5
$6.4
$0.2
$2.9
$0.9
$42.6
$9.47
Maine
$10.8

$3.9
$0.1
$1.8

$16.6
$12.77

CRS-15
State
SHSGP
UASI
LETPP
CCP
EMPG
MMRS
Total
Per Capita
Maryland
$19.9
$11.4
$7.2
$0.3
$3.2
$0.2
$42.2
$7.67
Mass.
$21.9
$28.1
$8.0
$0.2
$3.6
$0.7
$62.5
$9.77
Michigan
$29.7
$17.6
$10.8
$0.4
$4.9
$0.7
$64.1
$6.35
Minnesota
$18.9
$5.8
$6.9
$0.2
$3.1
$0.5
$35.4
$7.08
Mississippi
$14.2

$5.2
$0.2
$2.3
$0.2
$22.1
$7.62
Missouri
$20.3
$15.3
$7.4
$0.3
$3.3
$0.5
$47.1
$8.26
Montana
$9.9

$3.6
$0.1
$1.6

$15.2
$16.89
NCRA

$82.0




$82.0
$6.12B
Nebraska
$11.7
$5.1
$4.3
$0.1
$1.9
$0.5
$23.6
$13.88
Nevada
$12.8
$8.5
$4.7
$0.2
$2.1
$0.2
$28.5
$12.95
New Hamp.
$10.7

$3.9
$0.1
$1.8
$0.2
$16.7
$12.85
New Jersey
$26.6
$19.4
$9.7
$0.3
$4.4
$0.5
$60.9
$7.08
New Mexico
$12.0

$4.4
$0.2
$2.0

$18.6
$9.79
New York
$49.4
$221.1
$18.0
$0.6
$8.1
$1.1
$298.3
$15.54
N. Carolina
$26.1
$5.5
$9.5
$0.3
$4.3
$0.9
$46.6
$5.61
N. Dakota
$9.3

$3.4
$0.1
$1.5

$14.3
$23.83
Ohio
$32.7
$26.1
$11.9
$0.4
$5.4
$1.4
$77.9
$6.83
Oklahoma
$15.6
$5.6
$5.7
$0.2
$2.5
$0.2
$29.8
$8.51
Oregon
$15.7
$10.5
$5.7
$0.2
$2.6
$0.5
$35.2
$10.06
Pennsylvania
$34.7
$33.8
$12.6
$0.4
$5.7
$0.5
$87.7
$7.13
Rhode Island
$10.3

$3.7
$0.1
$1.7
$0.2
$16.0
$14.55

CRS-16
State
SHSGP
UASI
LETPP
CCP
EMPG
MMRS
Total
Per Capita
S. Carolina
$16.9

$6.2
$0.2
$2.8
$0.2
$26.3
$6.41
S. Dakota
$9.6

$3.5
$0.1
$1.6

$14.8
$18.50
Tennessee
$20.6

$7.5
$0.3
$3.4
$0.9
$32.7
$5.64
Texas
$55.7
$49.8
$20.3
$0.7
$9.0
$3.0
$138.5
$6.35
Utah
$13.0

$4.7
$0.2
$2.1
$0.2
$20.2
$8.78
Vermont
$9.3

$3.4
$0.1
$1.5

$14.3
$23.83
Virginia
$23.9

$8.7
$0.3
$3.9
$1.4
$38.2
$5.23
Washington
$21.2
$12.0
$7.7
$0.3
$3.5
$0.7
$45.4
$7.44
W. Virginia
$11.9

$4.3
$0.2
$1.9

$18.3
$10.17
Wisconsin
$19.8
$6.3
$7.2
$0.3
$3.2
$0.5
$37.3
$6.91
Wyoming
$9.0

$3.3
$0.1
$1.5

$13.9
$27.80
Puerto Rico
$16.3

$5.9
$0.2
$2.7

$25.1
$6.44
Virgin Is.
$2.9

$1.1
$0.04
$0.6

$4.6
$46.00
A. Samoa
$2.8

$1.0
$0.04
$0.5

$4.3
$71.67
Guam
$3.0

$1.1
$0.04
$0.6

$4.7
$23.50
N. Ma. Is.
$2.8

$1.0
$0.04
$0.5

$4.3
$61.43
Total
$1,062.0
$854.8
$386.4
$13.26
$173.9
$28.5
$2,518.9
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington: Dec.
2004), and CRS calculations based on the 2002 population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Census.
a. The National Capital Region (NCR) comprises the District of Columbia; Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges, Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudon;
and the Virginia cities of Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Fairfax, and Alexandria.
b. This per capita amount is based on the 2002 population estimates for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The 2002 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates are available at
[http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php], visited December 8, 2004.

CRS-17
Table 3. FY2005 UASI State and Urban Area Allocations
(In millions of dollars)
FY2005
State
Urban Area
UASI
State Total
Allocation
Arizona
Phoenix
$10.0
$10.0
California
Anaheim
$10.9
$148.3
Santa Ana
$9.0
Oakland
$6.2
San Francisco
$21.4
San Jose
$6.6
Los Angeles
$65.1
Long Beach
$8.0
Sacramento
$6.0
San Diego
$15.1
Colorado
Denver
$8.7
$8.7
National Capital
District of Columbia; Maryland
$82.0
$82.0
Region
counties of Montgomery and Prince
Georges, Virginia counties of
Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and
Loudon; Virginia cities of Falls
Church, Manassas, Manassas Park,
Fairfax, and Alexandria
Florida
Jacksonville
$6.9
$30.9
Miami
$16.2
Tampa
$7.8
Georgia
Atlanta
$13.3
$13.3
Hawaii
Honolulu
$6.5
$6.5
Illinois
Chicago
$48.0
$48.0
Indiana
Indianapolis
$5.7
$5.7
Kentucky
Louisville
$5.0
$5.0
Louisiana
Baton Rouge
$5.2
$14.5
New Orleans
$9.3
Massachusetts
Boston
$28.1
$28.1
Maryland
Baltimore
$11.4
$11.4
Michigan
Detroit
$17.6
$17.6

CRS-18
FY2005
State
Urban Area
UASI
State Total
Allocation
Minnesota
Minneapolis
$5.8
$5.8
Missouri
Kansas City
$8.2
$15.3
St. Louis
$7.1
Nebraska
Omaha
$5.1
$5.1
North Carolina
Charlotte
$5.5
$5.5
New Jersey
Jersey City
$6.8
$19.4
Newark
$12.6
New York
Buffalo
$7.2
$221.1
New York City
$213.9
Nevada
Las Vegas
$8.5
$8.5
Ohio
Cincinnati
$5.9
$26.1
Cleveland
$7.3
Columbus
$7.6
Toledo
$5.3
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City
$5.6
$5.6
Oregon
Portland
$10.5
$10.5
Philadelphia
$24.1
Pennsylvania
$33.8
Pittsburgh
$9.7
Texas
Arlington
$5.1
$49.8
Dallas
$14.1
Forth Worth
$5.4
Houston
$19.2
San Antonio
$6.0
Washington
Seattle
$12.0
$12.0
Wisconsin
Milwaukee
$6.3
$6.3
Total
$854.8
$854.8
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
(Washington:
December 2004).

CRS-19
Table 4. FY2005 MMRS Allocation Recipients
(Each metropolitan medical system is allocated $227,592)
State
Metropolitan Medical System
Alabama
Birmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and
Montgomery
Alaska
Anchorage and Southeast Alaska
Arizona
Glendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson
Arkansas
Little Rock
California
Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego,
San Jose, Long Beach, Oakland,
Sacramento, Fresno, Santa Ana,
Anaheim, Riverside, Glendale,
Huntington Beach, Stockton, Bakersfield,
Fremont, Modesto, and San Bernardino
Colorado
Aurora, Colorado Springs, and Denver
Connecticut
Hartford
Florida
Miami, Jacksonville, Tampa, St.
Petersburg, Hialeah, Ft. Lauderdale, and
Orlando
Georgia
Atlanta and Columbus
Hawaii
Honolulu
Illinois
Chicago
Indiana
Ft. Wayne and Indianapolis
Iowa
Des Moines
Kansas
Kansas City and Wichita
Kentucky
Lexington and Louisville
Louisiana
Baton Rouge, Jefferson Parish, New
Orleans, and Shreveport
Maryland
Baltimore
Massachusetts
Boston, Springfield, Worcester
Michigan
Detroit, Grand Rapids, and Warran
Minnesota
Minneapolis and St. Paul
Mississippi
Jackson
Missouri
Kansas City and St. Louis
Nebraska
Lincoln and Omaha

CRS-20
State
Metropolitan Medical System
Nevada
Las Vegas
New Hampshire
Northern New England (also serves
Maine and Vermont)
New Jersey
Jersey City and Newark
New York
Buffalo, New York City, Rochester,
Syracuse, and Yonkers
North Carolina
Charlotte, Columbia, Greensboro, and
Raleigh
Ohio
Akron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus,
Dayton, and Toledo
Oklahoma
Oklahoma City and Tulsa
Oregon
Portland
Pennsylvania
Allegheny County and Philadelphia
Rhode Island
Providence
South Carolina
Columbia
Tennessee
Chattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and
Nashville
Texas
Amarillo, Arlington, Austin, Corpus
Christi, Dallas, El Paso, Fort Worth,
Garland, Houston, Irving, Lubbock, San
Antonio, and Southern Rio Grande
Utah
Salt Lake City
Virginia
Arlington County, Chesapeake, Newport
News, Norfolk, Richmond, and Virginia
Beach
Washington
Seattle, Spokane, and Tacoma
Wisconsin
Madison and Milwaukee
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
(Washington: Dec.
2004).

CRS-21
Table 5. FY2004 and FY2005 HSGP State Allocationsa
(In millions of dollars, except per capita amounts)
FY2004
FY2005
State
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Alabama
$41.4
$9.20
$28.1
$6.24
Alaska
$21.0
$35.00
$14.9
$24.83
Arizona
$56.9
$10.35
$41.7
$7.58
Arkansas
$33.1
$12.26
$21.6
$8.00
California
$337.8
$9.62
$282.7
$8.05
Colorado
$49.6
$11.02
$36.8
$8.18
Connecticut
$45.5
$13.00
$24.0
$6.86
Delaware
$21.8
$27.25
$14.9
$18.63
District of Columbia
$20.6
$34.33
$14.1
$23.50
Florida
$144.0
$8.62
$101.3
$6.07
Georgia
$72.4
$8.42
$54.8
$6.37
Hawaii
$24.3
$20.25
$23.1
$19.25
Idaho
$24.5
$18.85
$16.8
$12.92
Illinois
$120.0
$9.52
$102.5
$8.13
Indiana
$58.8
$9.48
$39.1
$6.31
Iowa
$32.2
$11.10
$22.2
$7.66
Kansas
$31.9
$11.81
$21.8
$8.07
Kentucky
$47.5
$11.59
$31.5
$7.68
Louisiana
$55.5
$12.33
$42.6
$9.47

CRS-22
FY2004
FY2005
State
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Maine
$24.2
$18.62
$16.6
$12.77
Maryland
$62.6
$11.38
$42.2
$7.67
Massachusetts
$73.1
$11.42
$62.5
$9.77
Michigan
$81.4
$8.06
$64.1
$6.35
Minnesota
$63.1
$12.62
$35.4
$7.08
Mississippi
$32.3
$11.14
$22.1
$7.62
Missouri
$70.5
$12.37
$47.1
$8.26
Montana
$22.3
$24.78
$15.2
$16.89
Nebraska
$27.0
$15.88
$23.6
$13.88
Nevada
$39.3
$17.86
$28.5
$12.95
New Hampshire
$24.4
$18.77
$16.7
$12.85
New Jersey
$93.2
$10.84
$60.9
$7.08
New Mexico
$27.3
$14.37
$18.6
$9.79
New York
$194.4
$10.13
$298.3
$15.54
North Carolina
$67.0
$8.07
$46.6
$5.61
North Dakota
$20.9
$34.83
$14.3
$23.83
Ohio
$108.9
$9.55
$77.9
$6.83
Oklahoma
$36.3
$10.37
$29.8
$8.51
Oregon
$43.5
$12.43
$35.2
$10.06
Pennsylvania
$117.1
$9.52
$87.7
$7.13

CRS-23
FY2004
FY2005
State
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Allocation
Per Capita Amount
Rhode Island
$23.0
$20.91
$16.0
$14.55
South Carolina
$38.3
$9.34
$26.3
$6.41
South Dakota
$21.6
$27.00
$14.8
$18.50
Tennessee
$57.7
$9.95
$32.7
$5.64
Texas
$167.9
$7.70
$138.5
$6.35
Utah
$29.5
$12.83
$20.2
$8.78
Vermont
$20.9
$34.83
$14.3
$23.83
Virginia
$63.5
$8.70
$38.2
$5.23
Washington
$65.5
$10.74
$45.4
$7.44
West Virginia
$26.7
$14.83
$18.3
$10.17
Wisconsin
$55.3
$10.24
$37.3
$6.91
Wyoming
$20.0
$40.00
$13.9
$27.80
Puerto Rico
$36.7
$9.41
$25.1
$6.44
Virgin Islands
$6.7
$67.00
$4.6
$46.00
American Samoa
$6.3
$105.00
$4.3
$71.67
Guam
$6.8
$34.00
$4.7
$23.50
Northern Mariana Islands
$6.3
$90.00
$4.3
$61.43
Total
$3,120.3
$2,436.7
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington: Dec.
2004), and CRS calculations based on the 2002 population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Census.
a. This comparison includes FY2004 and FY2005 state allocations for SHSGP, UASI, LETPP, CCP, EMPG, and MMRS grants