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 December 20, 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), proposed to change the current formula
used to distribute first responder grant funding to states and localities. The bills also
would have included threat and risk criteria in the distribution of funds. Neither H.R.
10 nor S. 2845 proposed to fund state and local homeland security assistance strictly
according to threat and risk; both bills proposed 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.
The 108th Congress did not reconcile the differences between the Senate and
House versions of the legislation. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention
Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) includes a Sense of Congress resolution that the funding
allocation issue should be resolved by the 109th Congress.
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
H.R. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
List of Tables
Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 First Responder
Grant Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
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 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table A. Funding for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program
Provided for in S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

---

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 in the current fiscal year.
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 considered by the 108th Congress would have altered the formulae 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) were approved by their respective chambers.
However, the conferees on S. 2845 could not resolve the differences between these
two versions of the bill. Instead of reconciling the differences, conferees inserted
Section 7401 into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004
(P.L. 108-458) which states:
It is the sense of Congress that Congress must pass legislation in the first session
of the 109th Congress to reform the system for distributing grants to enhance state
and local government prevention of, preparedness for, and response to acts of
terrorism.
Principal differences between the two bills include:
! the 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 members of the 9/11 Commission 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
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.

---

CRS-3
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
as approved by each chamber. Specifically, this report compares the first responder
distribution formulas in S. 2845 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 have combined SHSGP, LETTP, and UASI into a single grant
program (Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program) and would have directed
that 25% of funding be allocated to UASI, with the remainder of funding allocated
to SHSGP and LETPP. Each state would have been guaranteed a minimum or a
population share for a homeland security baseline.7
Additionally, the bill proposed to establish an interagency committee to
coordinate and streamline homeland security grant programs. The interagency
committee would have exercised the following functions:
! 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 also would have established 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 have authorized 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 have authorized the DHS Secretary to deny entry (into the United
States) of any commercial vehicle carrying solid waste unless the DHS Secretary
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.
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.

---

CRS-4
certified that the waste had been screened for chemical, nuclear, biological, and
radiological weapons.11
H.R. 10
H.R. 10 would have allocated 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
Additionally, H.R. 10 would have guaranteed 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 have been deemed high-risk and would have received at least 0.45% of total
appropriations. The states without these high-risk criteria would have received at
least 0.25% of total appropriations.13
Additionally, the bill would have required the DHS Secretary to establish first
responder capabilities essential to terrorism preparedness. In determining essential
capabilities, the DHS Secretary would have been required to consider overall threat,
vulnerability, consequences to the nation’s population, and threats to critical
infrastructure. The bill proposed to establish a state and local first responder task
force that would have assisted the DHS Secretary in establishing these capabilities.14
The bill would have established regional, state, and tribal homeland security
assistance application standards. Additionally, the bill would have established
accountability requirements and criteria for the use of homeland security assistance
funds.15 States, two years after enactment of H.R. 10, would have been 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 have required 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
have required the DHS Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility of a nationwide
telephonic alert notification system.18
11 Ibid., Sec. 1059.
12 H.R. 10, Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003. See Table 1 for specific information on the grant
formula.
13 Ibid.
14 Ibid.
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., Sec. 5005.
18 Ibid., Sec. 5009.

---

CRS-5
Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas
Neither H.R. 10 nor S. 2845 proposed to fund state and local homeland security
assistance strictly according to threat and risk. Both bills proposed a guaranteed
amount to each state.
The following tables compare the provisions of these bills that would have
altered the formula used in allocating funding to states and localities for homeland
security assistance, and depict the estimated guaranteed amount each state would
have been allocated under these bills. CRS is unable to determine individual states’
risk and threat variables; thus Table 2 depicts possible guaranteed amounts or per
capita amounts.

---

CRS-6
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 have excluded the following grant programs
Would have excluded the following grant programs from
by New Formula
from this title: Assistance to Firefighters Program;
this title: any federal grant program not administered by
Emergency Management Performance Grants; Urban
DHS; Assistance to Firefighters; Emergency Management
Search and Rescue; Byrne Memorial Formula Grants;
Performance Grants; and the Urban Search and Rescue
Community-Oriented Policing Service Grants; and
Grant program. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
Department of Heath and Human Services’ public
health and bioterrorism grants. [Sec. 1053]
Grant Programs Covered
Would have included the following grant programs in
Would have included the following grant programs in this
by New Formula
this title: SHSGP; UASI; and LETTP. [Sec. 1056]
title: SHSGP; UASI; LETPP; and CCP.
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
Would have established a single grant program —
Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program
(TBHSGP) — that would have included the grant
programs listed above. [Sec. 1056]
Funding Allocation Method
Would have allocated funding to states and localities in
Would have allocated funding to states and localities in the
[for more detailed discussion see
the following manner:
following manner:
Appendix]
Would have authorized 25% of total appropriated
Would have established a state and local first responder task
funding for TBHSGP to be allocated for UASI grants,
force to assist the DHS Secretary in determining first
and 75% of total appropriated funding for TBHSGP to
responder essential capabilities. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec.
be allocated for SHSGP. [Sec. 1056]
5003]
Would have authorized the DHS Secretary to allocate
Would have established a First Responder Grants Board to
up to 25% of SHSGP funding to LETPP program
evaluate and prioritize state and regional applications for
activities. [Sec. 1056(e)]
grant funding based on: the degree to which the applications
achieve, maintain, or enhance essential first responder
Would have allocated 38.6% of SHSGP funding (75%
capabilities; and threat to persons and critical infrastructure.
of total TBHSGP funding) to be distributed based on
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
the greater of a state guaranteed minimum of 0.75% or
a state’s per capita share (as defined by the 2002 Census
Would have allocated total appropriations based on the
Bureau population estimate). [Sec. 1056(e)]
DHS Secretary’s discretion (based on threat and risk) and
the First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and

---

CRS-7
Topic
S. 2845
H.R. 10
Would have authorized the Large High-Threat State
prioritization of homeland security assistance applications.
Fund (LHTSF), with 10.8% of the amount appropriated
[Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
for TBHSGP used to provide additional funding to
states that were to choose the per capita funding, if
Would have guaranteed states at least 0.25% of total
38.6% of SHSGP were not sufficient. [Sec. 1056(j)]
appropriated funding for the covered grant program. [Title
V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003]
If Congress chose not to fund the LHTSF, DHS would
have reduced (proportionally) all states’ guaranteed
Would have guaranteed states at least 0.45% of total
minimums or population shares. [Sec. 1056(e)]
appropriated funding for the covered grant programs to
states that have 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 have allocated UASI funds
to
major
No threat criteria identified.
metropolitan areas 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 have allocated 61.4% of SHSGP funding to
Would have directed DHS Secretary, in establishing
states according to the following criteria: substantial
essential capabilities of first responders, to consider “the
percentage of state’s population residing in
variables of threat, vulnerability, and consequences with
“Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Office
respect to the Nation’s population (including transient
of Management and Budget”; high threat and risk to
commuting and tourist populations) and critical
critical infrastructure; international border or coastline;
infrastructure.” The Secretary would have been required to
and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS
base this consideration upon “the most current risk
Secretary. [Sec. 1056(e)]
assessment available by the directorate for Information
Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the threats of
terrorism against the United States.” The Secretary would
have been 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-8
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-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%
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-10
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 have guaranteed 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 have received at least 0.45%.

---

CRS-11
Appendix: Grant Allocation Methods
in S. 2845 and H.R. 10
S. 2845
The following discussion19 demonstrates how the formula in S. 2845 would
have allocated 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 have become $3.323 billion if the 10.8% of total Large
High-Threat State Fund were fully funded.
First, DHS would have allocated funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative
(UASI) Program (summing to $750 million). (See column A, which assumes that
each state would have received the same share of the total that it received in 2004.)
Second, column B calculates how much would have been allocated to the
jurisdictions if they received only their base percentage shares. States (and DC)
would have received 0.75% of the total, and territories would have received 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 have received
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, the amount in column D represents allocations to the states that would
have been 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 would have
been 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 that would have been allocated under the State Homeland
19 Based on an analysis prepared by David Huckabee, Specialist in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service.

---

CRS-12
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 would have been needed cover the shortfall generated by the
“choice step.” This separately authorized account actually authorizes $324 million,
but the jurisdictions would have needed only $323 million of the funds authorized
to make up for the shortfall. The extra $1 million in the authorization would have
served 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 have been
reduced proportionally until no more than the appropriated amount would have been
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 have been
“guaranteed” to jurisdictions in S. 2845 would be those distributed in the “choice
step.”
The purpose of the Large High-Threat Grant Program would have been to
supplement the funds allocated under the State Homeland Security Grant Program
because the “choice” option for jurisdictions would have reduced 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 have reduced funding to all jurisdictions having the risk factors
described in section 1056. The Large High-Threat Grant Program would have made
available an additional $323 million over the $3 billion (assumed to be appropriated)
to all jurisdictions qualifying for risk-based funding.

---

CRS-13
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-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.
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-15
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-16
H.R. 10
The following discussion demonstrates how the formula in H.R. 10 would have
allocated first responder grants to states.
First, with the assistance of a state and local first responder task force, the DHS
Secretary would have determined essential capabilities for first responders terrorism
preparedness. These essential capabilities would have been 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 have evaluated and prioritized
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 have been 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 have been
given to applications based on threats of terrorism that were specific and credible,
including patterns of attacks.
Third, appropriations would have been 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 have received 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 have received 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 have received at least 0.08% of the total appropriations.
Assuming a total of $3 billion, the amount would have been $2.4 million.
State amounts are shown in Table 2 of this report.

---