Order Code RL32892
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
Homeland Security Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21
and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress
Updated May 13, 2005
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

---

Homeland Security Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21
and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress
Summary
In FY2005, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for state and local homeland
security assistance programs. These homeland security assistance programs include
the: 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.
In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to
allocate funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same manner as the
FY2004 allocations. The minimum allocations are based on the formula of 0.75%
of total appropriations guaranteed to each state, 0.25% of total appropriations
guaranteed to each U.S. territory, and the remainder of total appropriations are based
on the states’ population percentage of the total national population. The actual
FY2005 minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for
each state and $3.75 million for each territory. In the absence of statutes or
congressional guidance, DHS, in FY2004, decided to allocate the remaining
appropriations in direct proportion to the ratio of each states’s population to the total
national population.
UASI grants are the only DHS assistance that is distributed based on threat and
risk factors. On May 3, 2003, former 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.
In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (9/11 Commission) questioned the way state and local homeland
security assistance is allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance
should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”
In the 109th Congress, a bill passed by the House (H.R. 1544, “Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005”) and a bill reported by the
Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (S. 21, “Homeland
Security Enhancement Act of 2005”) propose to alter the formulas for allocating
federal homeland security assistance to states and localities. Both bills propose that
ODP use risk factors in determining state and locality homeland security assistance.
This CRS report summarizes and compares the pertinent parts of the two bills.
Specifically, the report compares the homeland security assistance distribution
formulas in S. 21 and H.R. 1544 (Table 2), presents estimated guaranteed amounts
each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas (Table 3), and a step-
by-step process for distribution of federal homeland security assistance (Appendix
A and B), as proposed by these two bills.

---

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Legislation in the 109th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
S. 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
H.R. 1544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Comparison of S. 21 and H.R. 1544 Grant Allocation Formulas . . . . . . . . . 6
Appendix A: Grant Allocation Method in S. 21 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Guaranteed Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Risk-based Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
S. 21 Minimum Allocations, Step-by-Step . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Appendix B: Grant Allocation Method in H.R. 1544 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2005 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security
Assistance Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Table 2. Side-By-Side Comparison of S. 21 and H.R. 1544 Homeland Security
Grant Formula Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Table 3. S. 21 Guaranteed Base Allocations and H.R. 1544 Guaranteed
Minimum Allocationsa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Table 4. S. 21: Guaranteed Minimums Assuming a $2,700 Million
Appropriation for SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

---

Homeland Security Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions
in S. 21 and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress
Introduction
In FY2005, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for state and local homeland
security assistance programs.1 These homeland security assistance programs include:
! the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP);
! the Citizen Corps Programs (CCP);
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE); and
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).
In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to
allocate funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same manner as the
FY2004 allocations. The minimum allocations are based on the formula of 0.75% of
total appropriations guaranteed to each state, 0.25% of total appropriations
guaranteed to each U.S. territory, and the remainder of total appropriations are based
on the states’ population percentage of the total national population.2 The actual
FY2005 minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for
each state and $3.75 million for each territory. In the absence of statutory or other
congressional guidance, DHS allocated the remaining appropriations for FY2004 in
direct proportion to the ratio of each states’s population to the total national
population.3
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, then- DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, testifying before
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said 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 P.L. 108-334. FY2005 DHS appropriations by program area are shown in Table 1.
2 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, and P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations).
3 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit,
(Washington: Nov. 2004), p. 1.

---

CRS-2
In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (9/11 Commission) criticized the way state and local homeland
security assistance is allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance
should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”4 While acknowledging
that “every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency
response,” the 9/11 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 high-
risk, vulnerable cities as examples, saying, “Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and
New York City are certainly at the top of any such list.”5
Table 1. FY2005 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland
Security Assistance Programs
(All amounts in millions)
Assistance Program
FY2005 Appropriations
State Homeland Security Grant Program
$1,100
Urban Area Security Initiative
$1,200
High-Threat, High-Risk Urban Areas
[$860]
Port Security
[$150]
Rail Security
[$150]
Trucking Industry Security
[$5]
Intra-City Bus Security
[$10]
Non-Governmental Organization
[$25]
Security
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
$400
Assistance to Firefighters
$715
Emergency Management Performance Grants
$180
Citizen Corps Programs
$15
Source: P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations).
4 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
5 Ibid.

---

CRS-3
Legislation in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, one bill, passed by the House on May 13, 2005 (H.R.
1544, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005”)6 and one bill
reported by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee (S.
21, “Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005”)7 propose to alter the formulas
for allocating federal homeland security assistance to states and localities. Both bills
propose that ODP use risk factors in determining state and locality homeland security
assistance. Among the differences between the two bills are the following:
! S. 21 proposes a guaranteed funding base for each state;
! S. 21 proposes to establish a task force to assist the DHS Secretary
establish essential terrorism preparedness capabilities;
! S. 21 proposes to authorize metropolitan communities to apply as a
metropolitan region;
! S. 21 proposes an authorization of appropriations of $2.9 billion in
FY2006 and FY2007 for the covered grant programs;
! H.R. 1544 proposes to allocate funding to states based on threat and
risk, however each state is guaranteed a minimum if it does not meet
a specified threshold (0.25% or 0.45%) after funding is allocated by
threat and risk factors;
! H.R. 1544 proposes to establish a task force to assist the DHS
Secretary in updating, revising, or replacing essential first responder
capabilities, and a First Responder Grant Board to evaluate and
prioritize state homeland security assistance applications based on
risk; and
! H.R. 1544 proposes a Government Accountability Office report on
the inventory and status of homeland security first responder
training.
! H.R. 1544 proposes a 25% state matching requirement.
This CRS report summarizes and compares the pertinent parts of the two bills.
Specifically, the report compares the homeland security assistance distribution
formulas in S. 21 and H.R. 1544 (Table 2), presents estimated guaranteed amounts
each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas (Table 3), and
6 Reported by the House Homeland Security Committee on April 21, 2005 (H Rept. 109-65).
7 Reported by the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee on April
13, 2005.

---

CRS-4
discusses a step-by-step process for distribution of federal homeland security
assistance (Appendix A and B), as proposed by these two bills.
S. 21
S. 21, as reported, would combine SHSGP, LETTP, and UASI into a single
grant program (Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program). Allocation of
funding would be based on a sliding scale baseline or fixed minimum base, with
remainder of funding distributed based on risk factors — up to 50% of the threat-
based funding is to be distributed to high-threat, high-risk urban areas.8
Additionally, the bill proposes to establish an interagency committee to
coordinate and streamline homeland security grant programs. The interagency
committee would:
! consult with state and local governments and emergency responders
regarding their homeland security needs and capabilities;
! advise the DHS Secretary on the development of homeland security
performance measures;
! compile a list of homeland security assistance programs; and
! develop a proposal to coordinate the planning, reporting, application,
and other guidance for federal homeland security assistance.9
The bill proposes to establish an information clearinghouse to assist states,
localities, and first responders with homeland security grant information, technical
assistance, best practices, and use of federal funds. The bill proposes to establish a
task force to assist the DHS Secretary establish essential terrorism preparedness
capabilities, and proposes to authorize metropolitan communities to apply as a
metropolitan region.10 S. 21 proposes an authorization of appropriations of $2.9
billion in FY2006 and FY2007 for the covered grant programs.11
The bill would also authorize the DHS Secretary to deny entry into the United
States to any commercial vehicle carrying solid waste, unless the DHS Secretary
certified that the waste had been screened for chemical, nuclear, biological, and
radiological weapons.12 The DHS Secretary would also be required to support the
development and update of national voluntary standards for emergency responder
8 S. 21, Sec. 4. See Table 2 for specific information on the grant formula, and Appendix
A for the step-by-step process for determining state minimum allocations.
9 S. 21, Sec. 2.
10 S. 21, Sec. 3.
11 S. 21, Sec. 4.
12 Ibid.

---

CRS-5
equipment13. Finally, the bill proposes the establishment of an International Border
Community Interoperable Communications Demonstration Project.14
H.R. 1544
H.R. 1544, as passed by the House, would give the DHS Secretary discretionary
authority to allocate total appropriations, based on the First Responder Grant Board’s
evaluation and prioritization (based on risk) of state homeland security assistance
applications.15 Additionally, the bill would guarantee states at least 0.25% or 0.45%
of total appropriations for the covered grants. States with a significant international
border or adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line
extends would be deemed high-risk and receive at least 0.45% of total appropriations.
The states without these high-risk criteria would receive at least 0.25% of total
appropriations.16
H.R. 1544 proposes to establish a task force to assist the DHS Secretary in
updating, revising, or replacing essential first responder capabilities, and a First
Responder Grant Board to evaluate and prioritize state homeland security assistance
applications based on risk.17
The bill would establish regional, state, and tribal homeland security assistance
application standards. Additionally, the bill would establish accountability
requirements and criteria for the use of homeland security assistance funds.18 States,
two years after enactment of H.R. 1544, would be required to provide a 25% match
of federal assistance funding. The DHS Secretary would also be required to support
the development and update of national voluntary standards for emergency responder
equipment.19 The bill would also require states to match 25% of federal funds.
Finally, the bill calls for a Government Accountability Office report on the
inventory and status of homeland security first responder training.20
13 Ibid.
14 S. 21, Sec. 5.
15 H.R. 1544, Sec. 3. See Table 2 for specific information on the grant formula, and
Appendix B for the step-by-step process for determining state allocations.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid.
18 Ibid.
19 Ibid.
20 H.R. 1544, Sec. 6.

---

CRS-6
Comparison of S. 21 and H.R. 1544
Grant Allocation Formulas
S. 21 proposes a guaranteed funding base to each state with remainder of
funding allocated on risk criteria. H.R. 1544 proposes to allocate funding based on
risk criteria, however, states are guaranteed at least 0.25% or 0.45% of total
appropriations depending on location criteria.
The following tables compare the provisions of the bills that would alter the
formula used in allocating funding to states and localities for homeland security
assistance, and depict the estimated guaranteed amounts each state would be
allocated under the bills. CRS is unable to determine individual states’ threat and
risk variables; thus Table 3 depicts guaranteed amounts.

---

CRS-7
Table 2. Side-By-Side Comparison of S. 21 and H.R. 1544
Homeland Security Grant Formula Provisions
Topic
S. 21
H.R. 1544
Grant Programs Not Covered by New
Would exclude the following grant programs:
Would exclude the following grant programs:
Formula
Assistance to Firefighters; Emergency
Assistance to Firefighters; Emergency
Management Performance Grants; Urban
Management Performance Grants; Urban
Search and Rescue Grants; Justice Assistance
Search and Rescue Grants; and any other
Grants; Community-Oriented Policing Service
grant not administered by DHS. [Sec. 3]
Grants; and Department of Health and Human
Services’ public health and bioterrorism
grants. [Sec. 4]
Grant Programs Covered by New Formula
Would include the following grant programs:
Would include the following grant programs:
SHSGP; UASI; and LETTP. [Sec. 4]
SHSGP; UASI; and LETTP. [Sec. 3]
Would establish a single grant program —
Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant
Program (TBHSGP) — that would include the
grant programs listed above. [Sec. 4]
Risk Criteria
Would allocate the UASI portion of TBHSGP
Proposes that the First Responder Grants
funds to major metropolitan regions with the
Board evaluate and prioritize state homeland
following criteria: target of prior terrorist
security applications on the following risk
attack; had a higher Homeland Security
criteria: “the variables of threat, vulnerability,
Advisory System threat level than the nation
and consequences with respect to the Nation’s
as a whole; large population or high
population (including transient commuting
population density; high threat and risk
and tourist populations) and critical
related to critical infrastructure; international
infrastructure.” [Sec. 3]
border or coastline; bordering at-risk sites or
activities in a nearby jurisdiction; unmet
essential first responder capabilities; and any
other threat factors as determined by the DHS
Secretary. [Sec. 4]

---

CRS-8
Topic
S. 21
H.R. 1544
Risk Criteria (cont.)
Would allocate the SHSGP portion of
TBHSGP funding to states according to the
following criteria: target of prior terrorist
attack within or in part of state; state has had
a higher Homeland Security Advisory System
Threat level than the nation as whole; percent
of state’s population residing in metropolitan
statistical areas (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget); threat and risk
related to critical infrastructure; international
border or coastline; bordering at-risk sites or
activities in a nearby jurisdiction; unmet
essential first responder capabilities; and any
other threat factors as determined by the DHS
Secretary. [Sec. 4]
Would allocate the LETPP portion of
TBHSGP funding to metropolitan areas and
states according to the following criteria:
target of prior terrorist attack; has had a
higher Homeland Security Advisory System
Threat level than the nation as whole; threat
and risk related to critical infrastructure;
international border or coastline; large
population or high population density; percent
of state’s population residing in metropolitan
statistical areas (as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget); unmet essential
first responder capabilities; and any other
threat factors as determined by the DHS
Secretary. [Sec. 4]
Funding Formula
Would allocate funding to states and localities
Would allocate funding to states and localities
in the following manner:
in the following manner:
Would establish a state and local first
Would establish a state and local first
responder task force to assist the DHS
responder task force to assist the DHS
Secretary in establishing first responder
Secretary in updating, revising, or replacing
essential capabilities. [Sec. 4]
first responder essential capabilities. [Sec. 3]

---

CRS-9
Topic
S. 21
H.R. 1544
Funding Formula (cont.)
Would guarantee each state and DC 0.55% of
Would establish a First Responder Grants
the total appropriations; Puerto Rico is
Board that would evaluate and prioritize state
guaranteed 0.35%; and other specified U.S.
and regional applications for grant funding
possessions are guaranteed 0.055% of the
based on: the degree to which the applications
total appropriations. [Sec. 4]
achieve, maintain, or enhance essential first
responder capabilities; and threat to persons
Would allow states to choose to accept an
and critical infrastructure. [Sec. 3]
alternative guaranteed minimum amount
which is based on a “sliding scale baseline
Would allocate total appropriations based on
allocation.” [Sec. 4]
DHS Secretary’s discretion (based on threat
and risk) and the First Responder Grant
Would allocate the remainder of the funds not
Board’s evaluation and prioritization of
distributed by the sliding scale baseline
homeland security assistance applications.
allocation or the fixed minimum based on risk
[Sec. 3]
and threat, with up to 50% to be distributed to
high-threat, high-risk urban areas, and the
Would guarantee states at least 0.25% of total
remainder by risk to states. [Sec. 4]
appropriated funding for the covered grant
program. [Sec. 3]
Would guarantee at least 0.45% of total
appropriated funding for the covered grant
programs to states having a significant
international border or adjoining a body of
water which an international boundary line
extends. [Sec. 3]
Cost Share
No Provision
Would require states to provide 25%
matching of funds allocated through the
covered grant program. [Sec. 3,]

---

CRS-10
Table 3. S. 21 Guaranteed Base Allocations and H.R. 1544 Guaranteed Minimum Allocationsa
(All amounts in millions)
S. 21
H.R. 1544
(Includes SHSGP, UASI, and
(Includes SHSGP, UASI,
Census Bureau 2004
LETTP)b
and LETTP)c
State
Population Estimate
Fixed
Choice
0.25%f
0.45%g
F
Minimumd
Stepe
Alabama
4,530,182
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Alaska
655,435
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Arizona
5,743,834
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Arkansas
2,752,629
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
California
35,893,799
$14.85
$81.07
—
$12.15
Colorado
4,601,403
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Connecticut
3,503,604
$14.85
$19.46
$6.75
—
Delaware
830,364
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Florida
17,397,161
$14.85
$42.77
$6.75
—
Georgia
8,829,383
$14.85
$21.52
$6.75
—
Hawaii
1,262,840
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Idaho
1,393,262
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Illinois
12,713,634
$14.85
$31.14
$6.75
—
Indiana
6,237,569
$14.85
$16.29
$6.75
—
Iowa
2,954,451
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Kansas
2,735,502
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Kentucky
4,145,922
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Louisiana
4,515,770
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Maine
1,317,253
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Maryland
5,558,058
$14.85
$21.33
$6.75
—
Massachusetts
6,416,505
$14.85
$27.30
$6.75
—
Michigan
10,112,620
$14.85
$24.70
—
$12.15
Minnesota
5,100,958
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Mississippi
2,902,966
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Missouri
5,754,618
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Montana
926,865
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Nebraska
1,747,214
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Nevada
2,334,771
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
New Hampshire
1,299,500
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15

---

CRS-11
S. 21
H.R. 1544
(Includes SHSGP, UASI, and
(Includes SHSGP, UASI,
Census Bureau 2004
LETTP)b
and LETTP)c
State
Population Estimate
Fixed
Choice
0.25%f
0.45%g
F
Minimumd
Stepe
New Jersey
8,698,879
$14.85
$38.05
$6.75
—
New Mexico
1,903,289
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
New York
19,227,088
$14.85
$48.10
—
$12.15
North Carolina
8,541,221
$14.85
$21.28
$6.75
—
North Dakota
634,366
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Ohio
11,459,011
$14.85
$29.28
—
$12.15
Oklahoma
3,523,553
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Oregon
3,594,586
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Pennsylvania
12,406,292
$14.85
$31.27
—
$12.15
Rhode Island
1,080,632
$14.85
$19.36
$6.75
—
South Carolina
4,198,068
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
South Dakota
770,883
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Tennessee
5,900,962
$14.85
$15.06
$6.75
—
Texas
22,490,022
$14.85
$49.83
—
$12.15
Utah
2,389,039
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Vermont
621,394
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Virginia
7,459,827
$14.85
$19.16
$6.75
—
Washington
6,203,788
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
West Virginia
1,815,354
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Wisconsin
5,509,026
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Wyoming
506,529
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
DC+NCR
553,523
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Puerto Rico
3,894,855
$9.45
$9.45
$6.75
—
U.S. Virgin Islands
108,612
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Guam
154,805
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
American Samoa
57,291
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Northern Marianas
69,221
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Total
297,940,188
$772.74
$1,062.44
$238.14
$206.55

---

CRS-12
a. In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress appropriated $1,100 million for SHSGP and $400 million for LETPP. SHSGP
and LETPP were distributed to states based on a guaranteed minimum base of 0.75% of total appropriations for the programs. Actual FY2005
minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for States and $3.75 million for territories.
b. S. 21, Sec. 4 consolidates SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP into a single program — TBHSGP. In the FY2005 DHS appropriations, Congress
appropriated $1,100 for SHSGP, $1,200 million for UASI, and $400 million for LETPP.
c. H.R. 1544, Sec. 3 does not consolidate SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP into a single covered grant.
d. States and D.C. receive 0.55% of TBHSGP; Puerto Rico receives 0.35%; and other U.S. territories and possessions receive 0.0055% of total
appropriations.
e. States choose to receive either the sliding scale baseline minimum (explained in Appendix A) or the 0.55% minimum.
f. 0.25% is not a base, but an amount a state is guaranteed if threat and risk factors do not result in the state receiving 0.25% of total appropriations.
H.R. 1544 authorizes DHS to determine what is a “significant international border.”
g. 0.45% is not a base, but an amount a state is guaranteed if threat and risk factors do not result in the state receiving 0.45% of total appropriations.
H.R. 1544 authorizes DHS to determine what is a “significant international border.”

---

CRS-13
Appendix A: Grant Allocation Method in S. 2121
S. 21 establishes a “threat-based state homeland security grant program,” which
includes the State Homeland Security Grant Program, and the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program. Additionally, it includes discretionary grants for
state and local programs administered by the DHS Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness (including the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI) program) provided in §1804(B).
Estimates of the minimum amounts that would be available to qualifying
jurisdictions as provided by the S. 21, are based on the following assumptions.
Although § 1804(k) authorizes a total of $2.925 billion, our analysis uses $2.700
billion (the FY2005 appropriation for these programs). S. 21 includes a guaranteed
minimum, and a risk-based funding for covered jurisdictions.
Guaranteed Funding. Funds are divided among the states, the District of
Columbia (DC), and specified U.S. possessions as follows: Each state and DC, is
entitled to 0.55% of the total appropriation; Puerto Rico gets 0.35%, and other
specified U.S. territories and possessions receive 0.055% of the total.
Risk-based Funding. States are entitled to choose to accept an alternative
to the guaranteed minimum amount which is based on a “sliding scale baseline
allocation” (§ 1801(7)), which is calculated by multiplying 0.001 times:

(A) the value of a state’s population relative to that of the most populous
of the 50 states, where the population of the 50 states has been normalized
to a maximum value of 100; and
(B) one-fourth of the value of a state’s population density relative to that
of the most densely populated of the 50 states, where the population
density of the 50 states has been normalized to a maximum value of 100.
These two indexes are added into a single number X 28.62% of the total
appropriation (the sum of the fixed guaranteed minimums: 51 X 0.55% (the states
plus DC), plus, 0.35% (Puerto Rico), and 4 X 0.055% (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam,
American Samoa, and Northern Marianas)). Jurisdictions can compare the funding
provided by the different methods and choose the higher amount.
The remainder of the funds not distributed by the sliding scale baseline
allocation or the fixed minimum are distributed in the threat-based portion, with up
to 50% to be distributed to high-threat urban areas (the UASI program), and the
remainder by risk to states.
S. 21 Minimum Allocations, Step-by-Step. The following narrative and
table 1 represents CRS’s understanding of how an administrator in the Department
of Homeland Security might create a “guaranteed minimum” funding allocation table
21 This information provided by David Huchabee, Specialist in American National
Government, Government and Finance Division.

---

CRS-14
for jurisdictions entitled to funding according to §1804(A), (B) of S. 21. As noted
above, jurisdictions are entitled to funding under the sliding scale baseline allocation
formula, or the fixed minimum calculation.
Sliding Scale Minimum Steps
! Step 1. “Normalize” population figures and population density to
100 by setting the most populous, and most population-dense state
to 100 and index other states to those values. This is done by
dividing each jurisdiction’s population (or density) by the state with
the largest population (or density), and then multiplying the resulting
quotient by 100.
! Step 2. Using the two step 1 indexes, create a combined multiplier
for each state by adding the normalized population index to one
fourth of the population density index and multiply the resulting sum
by 0.001.
! Step 3. To compute the sliding scale minimum allocation, multiply
each state’s multiplier from step 3 times 28.62% of total
authorization amount ($2.700 billion in this example).
Fixed Minimum Step
! Step 4. States and DC receive 0.55% of Threat-Based Homeland
Security Grant Program; Puerto Rico receives 0.35%; and other U.S.
territories and possessions receive 0.0055% of total appropriations.
Choice Step
! States choose to receive either the sliding scale baseline minimum
from step 3, or the fixed minimum from step 4.
Table 4 shows minimum funding levels for each covered jurisdiction based on
a total FY2005 appropriation of $2,700 million for SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP.

---

CRS-15
Table 4. S. 21: Guaranteed Minimums Assuming a $2,700 Million Appropriation for SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP
(All amounts in millions)
Sliding scale baseline allocation calculation:
4. Fixed
5. Choice step:
minimum: States
States choose to
and DC receive
receive either the
1. “Normalize” pop. and
2. Using the two
3. Sliding scale
0.55% of threat-
sliding scale baseline
pop. density to 100 by
step 1 indexes,
min. allocation:
based homeland
minimum, or the
setting most populous,
create a combined
multiply each
security grant
0.55% minimum.
Census Bureau 2004
and most pop. dense state multiplier for each state’s multiplier
program; PR gets
($1,062.44 million
population estimate
to 100 and index other
state by adding the from step 3 times 0.35%; and others
distributed by this
states to those values
normalized pop.
28.62% of total
receive 0.055% of
step.)c
index to 1/4th of
appropriation
total appropriation
the pop. density
amount
index and
multiplying the
Jurisdiction
Population
Pro-
Land area Population Normalized Normalized
resulting sum by
portion of
density
population pop. density
0.001.
total pop.a
index
index
Alabama
4,530,182
0.02
50,744.00
89.28
12.62
7.61
0.01452
11.22
14.85
14.85
Alaska
655,435
0.00 571,951.26
1.15
1.83
0.10
0.00185
1.43
14.85
14.85
Arizona
5,743,834
0.02 113,634.57
50.55
16.00
4.31
0.01708
13.20
14.85
14.85
Arkansas
2,752,629
0.01
52,068.17
52.87
7.67
4.51
0.00880
6.80
14.85
14.85
California
35,893,799
0.12 155,959.34
230.15
100.00
19.62
0.10491
81.07
14.85
81.07
Colorado
4,601,403
0.02 103,717.53
44.36
12.82
3.78
0.01377
10.64
14.85
14.85
Connecticut
3,503,604
0.01
4,844.80
723.17
9.76
61.66
0.02518
19.46
14.85
19.46
Delaware
830,364
0.00
1,953.56
425.05
2.31
36.24
0.01137
8.79
14.85
14.85
Florida
17,397,161
0.06
53,926.82
322.61
48.47
27.51
0.05535
42.77
14.85
42.77
Georgia
8,829,383
0.03
57,906.14
152.48
24.60
13.00
0.02785
21.52
14.85
21.52
Hawaii
1,262,840
0.00
6,422.62
196.62
3.52
16.77
0.00771
5.96
14.85
14.85
Idaho
1,393,262
0.00
82,747.21
16.84
3.88
1.44
0.00424
3.28
14.85
14.85
Illinois
12,713,634
0.04
55,583.58
228.73
35.42
19.50
0.04030
31.14
14.85
31.14
Indiana
6,237,569
0.02
35,866.90
173.91
17.38
14.83
0.02109
16.29
14.85
16.29
Iowa
2,954,451
0.01
55,869.36
52.88
8.23
4.51
0.00936
7.23
14.85
14.85
Kansas
2,735,502
0.01
81,814.88
33.44
7.62
2.85
0.00833
6.44
14.85
14.85
Kentucky
4,145,922
0.01
39,728.18
104.36
11.55
8.90
0.01378
10.64
14.85
14.85
Louisiana
4,515,770
0.02
43,561.85
103.66
12.58
8.84
0.01479
11.43
14.85
14.85

---

CRS-16
Sliding scale baseline allocation calculation:
4. Fixed
5. Choice step:
minimum: States
States choose to
and DC receive
receive either the
1. “Normalize” pop. and
2. Using the two
3. Sliding scale
0.55% of threat-
sliding scale baseline
pop. density to 100 by
step 1 indexes,
min. allocation:
based homeland
minimum, or the
setting most populous,
create a combined
multiply each
security grant
0.55% minimum.
Census Bureau 2004
and most pop. dense state multiplier for each state’s multiplier
program; PR gets
($1,062.44 million
population estimate
to 100 and index other
state by adding the from step 3 times 0.35%; and others
distributed by this
states to those values
normalized pop.
28.62% of total
receive 0.055% of
step.)c
index to 1/4th of
appropriation
total appropriation
the pop. density
amount
index and
multiplying the
Jurisdiction
Population
Pro-
Land area Population Normalized Normalized
resulting sum by
portion of
density
population pop. density
0.001.
total pop.a
index
index
Maine
1,317,253
0.00
30,861.55
42.68
3.67
3.64
0.00458
3.54
14.85
14.85
Maryland
5,558,058
0.02
9,773.82
568.67
15.48
48.49
0.02761
21.33
14.85
21.33
Massachusetts
6,416,505
0.02
7,840.02
818.43
17.88
69.79
0.03532
27.30
14.85
27.30
Michigan
10,112,620
0.03
56,803.82
178.03
28.17
15.18
0.03197
24.70
14.85
24.70
Minnesota
5,100,958
0.02
79,610.08
64.07
14.21
5.46
0.01558
12.04
14.85
14.85
Mississippi
2,902,966
0.01
46,906.96
61.89
8.09
5.28
0.00941
7.27
14.85
14.85
Missouri
5,754,618
0.02
68,885.93
83.54
16.03
7.12
0.01781
13.76
14.85
14.85
Montana
926,865
0.00 145,552.43
6.37
2.58
0.54
0.00272
2.10
14.85
14.85
Nebraska
1,747,214
0.01
76,872.41
22.73
4.87
1.94
0.00535
4.14
14.85
14.85
Nevada
2,334,771
0.01 109,825.99
21.26
6.50
1.81
0.00696
5.38
14.85
14.85
New Hampshire
1,299,500
0.00
8,968.10
144.90
3.62
12.36
0.00671
5.18
14.85
14.85
New Jersey
8,698,879
0.03
7,417.34
1,172.78
24.24
100.00
0.04924
38.05
14.85
38.05
New Mexico
1,903,289
0.01 121,355.53
15.68
5.30
1.34
0.00564
4.36
14.85
14.85
New York
19,227,088
0.06
47,213.79
407.23
53.57
34.72
0.06225
48.10
14.85
48.10
North Carolina
8,541,221
0.03
48,710.88
175.35
23.80
14.95
0.02753
21.28
14.85
21.28
North Dakota
634,366
0.00
68,975.93
9.20
1.77
0.78
0.00196
1.52
14.85
14.85
Ohio
11,459,011
0.04
40,948.38
279.84
31.92
23.86
0.03789
29.28
14.85
29.28
Oklahoma
3,523,553
0.01
68,667.06
51.31
9.82
4.38
0.01091
8.43
14.85
14.85
Oregon
3,594,586
0.01
95,996.79
37.44
10.01
3.19
0.01081
8.36
14.85
14.85
Pennsylvania
12,406,292
0.04
44,816.61
276.82
34.56
23.60
0.04046
31.27
14.85
31.27
Rhode Island
1,080,632
0.00
1,044.93
1,034.17
3.01
88.18
0.02506
19.36
14.85
19.36
South Carolina
4,198,068
0.01
30,109.47
139.43
11.70
11.89
0.01467
11.33
14.85
14.85

---

CRS-17
Sliding scale baseline allocation calculation:
4. Fixed
5. Choice step:
minimum: States
States choose to
and DC receive
receive either the
1. “Normalize” pop. and
2. Using the two
3. Sliding scale
0.55% of threat-
sliding scale baseline
pop. density to 100 by
step 1 indexes,
min. allocation:
based homeland
minimum, or the
setting most populous,
create a combined
multiply each
security grant
0.55% minimum.
Census Bureau 2004
and most pop. dense state multiplier for each state’s multiplier
program; PR gets
($1,062.44 million
population estimate
to 100 and index other
state by adding the from step 3 times 0.35%; and others
distributed by this
states to those values
normalized pop.
28.62% of total
receive 0.055% of
step.)c
index to 1/4th of
appropriation
total appropriation
the pop. density
amount
index and
multiplying the
Jurisdiction
Population
Pro-
Land area Population Normalized Normalized
resulting sum by
portion of
density
population pop. density
0.001.
total pop.a
index
index
South Dakota
770,883
0.00
75,884.64
10.16
2.15
0.87
0.00236
1.83
14.85
14.85
Tennessee
5,900,962
0.02
41,217.12
143.17
16.44
12.21
0.01949
15.06
14.85
15.06
Texas
22,490,022
0.08 261,797.12
85.91
62.66
7.33
0.06449
49.83
14.85
49.83
Utah
2,389,039
0.01
82,143.65
29.08
6.66
2.48
0.00728
5.62
14.85
14.85
Vermont
621,394
0.00
9,249.56
67.18
1.73
5.73
0.00316
2.44
14.85
14.85
Virginia
7,459,827
0.03
39,594.07
188.41
20.78
16.07
0.02480
19.16
14.85
19.16
Washington
6,203,788
0.02
66,544.06
93.23
17.28
7.95
0.01927
14.89
14.85
14.89
West Virginia
1,815,354
0.01
24,077.73
75.40
5.06
6.43
0.00666
5.15
14.85
14.85
Wisconsin
5,509,026
0.02
54,310.10
101.44
15.35
8.65
0.01751
13.53
14.85
14.85
Wyoming
506,529
0.00
97,100.40
5.22
1.41
0.44
0.00152
1.18
14.85
14.85
DC+NCRb
553,523
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
14.85
14.85
Puerto Rico
3,894,855
0.01
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
0.00
9.45
9.45
U.S. Virgin Islands
108,612
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.49
1.49
Guam
154,805
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.49
1.49
American Samoa
57,291
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.49
1.49
Northern Marianas
69,221
0.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.49
1.49
Total
297,940,188
1.000
786.06
772.74
1,062.44
a. For display purposes, only two decimal places are shown in this column and the figures have been rounded. Calculations based on these proportions use unrounded figures, thus
small jurisdictions that are displayed as “0.00” are larger than zero.
b. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) figures for the District of Columbia include funds for the National Capital Region (NCR) which comprises DC; the Maryland counties of
Montgomery and Prince Georges; and the Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince William, and Loudon; and the Virginia cities of Alexandria, Falls Church, Manassas,
and Manassas Park.
c. Remaining funds($1637.56 million in this example) are allocated by threat: up to half of the remaining funds are distributed through the UASI program; the rest by threat after
considering specified threat criteria.

---

CRS-18
Appendix B: Grant Allocation Method in H.R. 1544
The following discussion demonstrates how the grant allocation method in
H.R. 1544 would allocate federal homeland security assistance to states.
! Step 1. The DHS Secretary, with the assistance of a state and local
responder task force, would update, revise, or replace essential
capabilities for first responders’ terrorism preparedness. The
essential capabilities would be based on variables of threat,
vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the nation’s
population (including transient, commuting, and tourist populations)
and critical infrastructure.
! Step 2. The First Responder Grants Board would evaluate and
prioritize state homeland security assistance applications based on
the degree to which they would achieve, maintain, or enhance the
essential capabilities of first responders. Additionally, the
applications would be evaluated and prioritized on the extent to
which an application lessened the threat to, vulnerability of, and
consequences for, persons and critical infrastructure. Greater weight
would be given to applications based on threats of terrorism that
were specific and credible, including patterns of repetition.
! Step 3. Appropriations would be distributed based on the DHS
Secretary’s discretion and the First Responder Grants Board’s
evaluation and prioritization (based on risk) of homeland security
assistance applications.
! Step 4. States without a significant international border22 and not
adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary
line extends would receive at least 0.25% of the total appropriations.
Assuming a total of $2,700 million, this amount would be $6.75
million.
! Step 5. States with a significant international border or adjoining a
body of water through which an international boundary line extends
would receive at least 0.45% of the total appropriations. Assuming
a total of $2,700 million, this amount would be $12.15 million.
! Step 6. The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands would receive at least 0.08% of total
appropriations. Assuming a total of $2,700 million, the amount
would be $2.16 million.
State amounts are shown in Table 3 of this report.

22 H.R. 1544 proposes to authorize DHS to determine what is a “significant international
border.”

---