Department of Homeland Security Assistance
to States and Localities: A Summary and
Issues for the 111th Congress
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
August 5, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40246
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Summary
In light of lessons learned from the September 2001, terrorist attacks and other catastrophes such
as Hurricanes Katrina and Gustav, the 111th Congress is expected to consider questions and issues
associated with federal homeland security assistance. Federal homeland security assistance, for
the purpose of this report, is defined as U.S. Department of Homeland Security programs that
provide funding, training, or technical assistance to states, localities, tribes, and other entities to
prepare for, respond to, and recover from man-made and natural disasters. Since the nation is still
threatened by terrorist attacks and natural disasters, the 111th Congress may wish to consider
questions and challenges about whether, or how, federal homeland security assistance policy
should be revisited. Policy solutions could affect, and be constrained by, existing law and
regulations, and constitutional considerations.
Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated over $29 billion for homeland security assistance to
states, specified urban areas and critical infrastructures (such as ports and rail systems), the
District of Columbia, and U.S. insular areas. Originally, in FY2002, there were eight programs; in
FY2009 there are 17 programs. This expansion and scope of homeland security assistance
programs are the result of congressional and executive branch actions.
The Grant Programs Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency,
administers these programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program
has either an all-hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose. However, in FY2009, 61%
of funding has been appropriated for terrorism preparedness programs, a decision which has been
criticized by some grant recipients, Members of Congress, and others.
The President’s budget for FY2010 proposes $908 million less for the state and local programs
than was appropriated in FY2009, however, some programs would receive increased funding in
FY2010. This reduction is primarily the result of the Administration not requesting funding for
Emergency Operations Centers, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, Over-the-
Road Bus Security Program, the Trucking Security Grant program, and the Center for
Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime, and the Administration has also requested a funding
reduction for the State Local Training Program, Transportation and Infrastructure Protection, and
Assistance to Firefighters. The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 (FY2010 DHS appropriations)
proposes $3.96 billion and the Senate-passed version proposes $4.23 billion for these programs.
This report summarizes these programs, and identifies and analyzes potential issues for the 111th
Congress. These issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) the
evaluation of the use of grant funding; (3) the determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) the
programs’ funding amounts; and (5) the programs’ funding distribution methodologies. Some of
these issues have been debated and legislation passed since FY2002. However, some observers,
including Members of Congress and President Barack Obama’s administration, have raised them
as issues.
This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant.

Congressional Research Service

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................................ 1
Historical Development of Federal Homeland Security Assistance .............................................. 2
Summary of Grant Programs ....................................................................................................... 4
Terrorism Preparedness Grant Programs................................................................................ 4
State Homeland Security Grant Program ......................................................................... 4
Urban Area Security Initiative ......................................................................................... 5
Transit Security Grant Program ....................................................................................... 5
Port Security Grant Program ........................................................................................... 6
Freight Rail Security Grant Program ............................................................................... 6
Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Amtrak) ..................................................................... 6
Intercity Bus Security Grant Program.............................................................................. 7
Trucking Security Program ............................................................................................. 7
Buffer Zone Protection Program...................................................................................... 7
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program......................................................... 8
All-Hazards Preparedness Grant Programs ............................................................................ 8
Metropolitan Medical Response System .......................................................................... 8
Assistance to Firefighters Program .................................................................................. 8
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program ........................................................ 9
Citizen Corps Programs .................................................................................................. 9
Emergency Management Performance Grants ............................................................... 10
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program......................................... 10
Emergency Operations Center Grant Program ............................................................... 10
Other DHS Assistance and Activities................................................................................... 11
Legal Citations.................................................................................................................... 11
Issues for the 111th Congress ..................................................................................................... 12
Purpose and Number of Assistance Programs ...................................................................... 12
Evaluation of Funding Use.................................................................................................. 16
Eligible Grant Recipients .................................................................................................... 18
Funding Amounts................................................................................................................ 20
Funding Distribution Methodologies ................................................................................... 22
Conclusion................................................................................................................................ 23

Tables
Table 1. Homeland Assistance Program Acronyms ...................................................................... 2
Table 2. Legal Citation to GPD Programs .................................................................................. 11
Table 3. FY2002-FY2009 Number and Types of DHS Assistance Programs .............................. 14
Table 4. Eligible Recipients of FY2009 Homeland Security Assistance, by Program.................. 19
Table 5. FY2002-FY2009 Appropriations for Homeland Security Assistance Programs ............. 21

Congressional Research Service

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Contacts
Author Contact Information ...................................................................................................... 24

Congressional Research Service

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Introduction
Congress has enacted legislation and appropriated funds for homeland security assistance
programs1 since 1996, a policy initiated in large measure by the bombings of the World Trade
Center on February 26, 1993, and the Alfred P. Murrah building in Oklahoma City on April 19,
1995. Following the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress further increased its attention
on homeland security assistance programs by, among other things, establishing the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS).2 This report focuses on the department’s homeland security assistance
programs, but not the department as a whole.
The number and purpose of programs, their administration, and funding have evolved over the
past 12 years. These assistance programs are intended to enhance and maintain state, local, and
non-federal government entities’3 homeland security and emergency management capabilities.
Since FY2003, DHS has administered these assistance programs through four different offices or
agencies within the department due to both congressional and departmental actions.4
With the increase of terrorist threats and attacks against the United States following the end of the
Cold War and the termination of old civil defense programs, a number of policy questions have
arisen regarding homeland security assistance programs. The majority of these questions have not
been addressed, even though Congress has debated and enacted legislation that provides
homeland security assistance to states and localities since 1997. Some observers (including state
and local government officials), Members of Congress, former President Bush’s administration,
and President Barack Obama have questioned: (1) the purpose and number of assistance
programs; (2) the use of preparedness funding; (3) the determination of eligibility; (4) the funding
amounts for the assistance programs; and (5) the programs’ funding distribution methodology.
These policy questions may continue to be important to the 111th Congress as it continues to
appropriate funding and conduct oversight of these assistance programs. Specifically, the House
Homeland Security Committee stated that oversight of DHS grants is one of its priorities for the
1st session of the 111th Congress.5 Discussion of these potential issues may enable Congress and


1 For the purpose of this report, homeland security assistance programs are defined as DHS grant programs, or
programs that were transferred to DHS, that provide funding to states, localities, tribes, and other entities; however,
public safety and National Guard funding is not included in this report. Additionally, the term “homeland security
program” was not used until 2002. Prior to this, the term “domestic preparedness” was used to describe programs and
activities that assisted states and localities to prepare for possible terrorist attacks.
2 The most recent legislation that focuses on these programs was P.L. 110-53, “Implementing Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act.” This law authorized the majority of these programs and altered the method in which the grant
programs are distributed.
3 Non-federal entities include grant recipients such as privately owned ports and transit systems.
4 The four offices include the Office for Domestic Preparedness (Border and Transportation Security Directorate),
Office for State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (Office of the Secretary), Office for Grants and
Training (Preparedness Directorate), and the Office of Grant Programs (Federal Emergency Management Agency)
which is now reorganized and renamed the Grant Programs Directorate.
5 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Committee of Homeland Security Oversight Plan, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., February 4, 2009, pp. 3-4.
Congressional Research Service
1

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

the federal government to anticipate possible homeland security crises and establish policies that
are not strictly reactionary.
This report provides a brief summary of the development of the federal government’s role in
providing homeland security assistance, a summary of assistance programs DHS presently
provides to states and localities, and a discussion of the policy issues identified above. In light of
the large number of homeland security assistance programs, the following table lists acronyms
used throughout the report.
Table 1. Homeland Assistance Program Acronyms
Program Acronym
Bus Safety Program
BSP
Buffer Zone Protection Program
BZPP
Citizen Corps Program
CCP
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program
CEDAP
Critical Infrastructure Protection Program
CIPP
Emergency Management Performance Grant
EMPG
Emergency Operations Center
EOC
Assistance to Firefighters Program
FIRE
Metropolitan Medical Response System
MMRS
Port Security Program
PSP
Public Safety Interoperable Communications
PSIC
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant
RCPG
State Homeland Security Grant Program
SHSGP
Training, technical assistance, exercises &evaluations
TTAE&E
Transit Security Programs
TSP
Trucking Security Program
TRSP
Urban Area Security Initiative
UASI
Source: Compiled by CRS
Historical Development of Federal Homeland
Security Assistance
The federal government began providing counter-terrorism assistance to states and localities
following the bombings of the World Trade Center in 1993, and the Alfred P. Murrah federal
building in 1995. This assistance was separate from any federal disaster assistance these cities
may have received due to these terrorist attacks. Federal homeland security assistance evolved
and expanded after the terrorist attacks on September 11th, 2001, and the establishment of DHS in
2002 with P.L. 107-296, “Homeland Security Act of 2002.” A brief discussion on this evolution
and expansion follows.
Congressional Research Service
2

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

In 1996, Congress enacted The Defense Against Weapons of Mass Destruction Act (also known
as the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Act). This law, among other things, established the Nunn-Lugar-
Domenici Program (NLD) that provided financial assistance to over 150 major U.S. cities. This
assistance, with the Oklahoma City bombing being the primary catalyst, was focused on helping
first responders prepare for, prevent, and respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of mass
destruction.6 Two years later, the Department of Justice (DOJ) established the Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) to administer assistance programs that enhanced state and local
emergency response capabilities, including terrorist attack response.7 At first, NLD provided
assistance to 120 cities; it was later expanded to include 157 cities and counties. At the end of
1998, 40 of the original 120 cities had received funding and training. In addition to training,
approximately $300,000 was provided by DOD to each city for personal protection,
decontamination, and detection equipment. Following the transfer of NLD to DOJ, all cities
completed the training initiated by DOD, and DOJ based the training and exercises on state
assessments. The program ended in 2001 upon completion of the training.8
ODP was transferred to DHS with enactment of the Homeland Security Act of 2002.9 Initially,
ODP and its terrorism preparedness programs were administered by the Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, and all-hazard preparedness programs were in the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). ODP and all assistance programs were transferred to
the Office of the Secretary in 2004 due to state and local criticism of DHS not having a “one-
stop-shop”10 for grant programs assistance. After investigations into the problematic response to
Hurricane Katrina, the programs were transferred to the National Preparedness Directorate.
Currently ODP programs and activities are administered by the Grants Program Directorate
(GPD), within FEMA. GPD is now the primary DHS and FEMA entity responsible for managing
the majority of DHS assistance to states and localities.
Since the establishment of DHS, the department has not only been responsible for preparing for
and responding to terrorist attacks, it is also the lead agency for preparing for, responding to, and
recovering from any accidental man-made or natural disasters. The most recent legislative action
affecting DHS grants was P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission
Act of 2007, which authorized a number of the DHS grants and mandated some of their allocation
methodologies.11 This legislation was a result of numerous years of debate on how DHS should
allocate homeland security assistance funding to states, DC, and U.S. insular areas.12


6 P.L. 104-201, Title XIV, Subtitle A, Sec. 1412, 110 Stat. 2718.
7 U.S. Department of Justice, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Emergency Responder Guidelines, Washington, DC,
August 2002, p. 1, http://www.homelandone.com/docs/em-guidelines.pdf.
8 James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies, Nunn-Lugar-Domenici Domestic Preparedness and WMD Civil
Support Teams, Monterey, CA, October 2001, http://cns.miis.edu/research/cbw/120city.htm.
9 P.L. 107-296, Title IV, Sec. 403, 116 Stat. 2178.
10 A “one-stop-shop” is a single entity within DHS that provides all information concerning grants to states and
localities.
11 For a discussion on P.L. 110-53 affected grant distribution methodologies, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of
Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,
by Shawn Reese and Steven Maguire.
12 U.S. insular areas include Puerto Rico, Northern Mariana Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and American Samoa.
Congressional Research Service
3

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Summary of Grant Programs
In FY2003, DHS administered eight assistance programs, and expanded to 17 programs in
FY2009. The following section summarizes 16 of the 17 programs that are currently administered
by DHS. The department has yet to issue information or guidance on the new FY2009 Center for
Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime Program so there is no summary of this program. This report
uses the FY2009 grant guidance, DHS documents, and congressional reports to summarize the
programs. This report is not intended to provide in-depth information on these grants. For detailed
information on individual grant programs, see the cited sources.13
DHS does not identify grant programs as either terrorism preparedness or all-hazards
preparedness. As a result, CRS has based its characterization of programs falling primarily into
one category or another on an examination of DHS grant guidance documents. The criteria for
placing a grant program in either the terrorism preparedness or all-hazards preparedness
categories is based on a review of the program’s eligible activities or the DHS’s stated goal for
the program. Other analysts might categorize the programs differently.

Terrorism Preparedness Grant Programs
Ten of the seventeen programs administered by GPD could arguably be categorized as terrorism
preparedness. These programs specifically address terrorism preparedness activities, terrorist
incident response, or focus on law enforcement activities.
State Homeland Security Grant Program
The State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) provides states, tribal governments, the
District of Columbia (DC), and U.S. insular areas assistance in preparing for terrorist attacks.14
Grant recipients must have a DHS approved homeland security strategy to be eligible for SHSGP
funding. The program is intended to implement state homeland security strategies and initiatives
outlined in State Preparedness Reports. The program’s eligible activities include the purchase of
specialized equipment, training, and exercises. It also provides funds for the protection of critical
infrastructure of national importance.15
All states, DC, and Puerto Rico are guaranteed a minimum allocation of 0.365% of total
appropriations for SHSGP and Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). U.S. insular areas are
guaranteed a minimum allocation of 0.08% of total appropriations for SHSGP and UASI.


13 For an overview of GPD’s grant programs, see http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/index.shtm.
14 To a lesser extent, some SHSGP authorized expenditures can be dual-use such as the development of evacuation
plans.
15 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 2, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
4

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

However, prior to distribution of minimum allocations, DHS conducts a risk assessment to
determine grant recipient allocations and then ensures that the allocation amount meets or
exceeds the guaranteed amount in statute.16
Urban Area Security Initiative
UASI is a discretionary grant program that provides funding to metropolitan areas (including
counties and mutual aid partners). Designated urban areas may use UASI funds to purchase
specialized homeland security equipment, plan and execute exercises, pay first responder
overtime costs associated with heightened alert threat levels, and train first responders.
Additionally, funds from this program can be used for port and mass transit security, radiological
defense systems, pilot projects, and technical assistance.17
DHS conducts vulnerability and threat assessments that consider the location of critical
infrastructure and the population density of all major metropolitan areas. Based on these
assessments, and at the DHS Secretary’s discretion, selected metropolitan areas are grouped into
two categories, Tier I and Tier II. The seven highest risk urban areas are designated as Tier I and
receive a larger portion of funding, with the remaining areas designated as Tier II receive less
funding. All funding allocations are based on risk analysis and anticipated effectiveness of
funding.18
Transit Security Grant Program
The Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) provides funding to high-threat and high-risk urban
areas to enhance their security for bus, rail, and ferry systems.19 States are eligible to apply for
funding, and grant awards must be obligated to the state’s appropriate transit systems.20 DHS
determines eligible transit agencies by using a comprehensive risk assessment. The risk
assessment methodology is linked to the methodology that DHS uses for other state and local
grant programs. UASI eligibility determines TSGP eligibility.21


16 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, “Sec. 2004”, 121 Stat. 278.
17 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Press Secretary, Securing the Homeland: Protecting Our
Urban Areas, Press Release, Washington, DC, 2008.
18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 2, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
19 Additionally Amtrak is eligible to receive funding to continue security enhancements for its intercity rail services
between high-risk urban areas.
20 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transit Security Grant Program:
Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsgp/index.shtm.
21 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 8, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
5

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Port Security Grant Program
The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) provides funding for the protection of ports and port
infrastructure from terrorism. It is intended to enhance risk management capabilities, maritime
domain awareness, training and exercises, and counter-terrorism capabilities. Eligible applicants
include owners and operators of federally regulated terminals, facilities, or U.S. inspected
passenger vessels; port authorities or state and local agencies that provide security to federally
regulated port facilities; and any group (such as port and terminal associations) that provide
security for federally regulated ports, terminals, U.S. passenger vessels, or ferries.22
DHS conducts risk and vulnerability assessments to determine what ports are eligible to apply for
funding. Based on these risk and vulnerability assessments, ports are categorized into Tier I, Tier
II, Tier III, or “All Other Port Areas.” Tier I and Tier II ports are provided a designated amount of
funding; identified Tier III ports and “All Other Port Areas” apply and compete for remaining
funding.23
Freight Rail Security Grant Program
The Freight Rail Security Grant Program (FRSGP) provides funding and assistance, such as
technical assistance, for the protection of freight rail systems from terrorism, major disasters, and
other emergencies. Eligible applicants include Class I railroad carriers (to fund security awareness
and emergency response training for its employees), and Class II and III railroad carriers (to fund
vulnerability assessments and develop security plans).24 DHS determines eligible applicants
through a competitive process based on their ability to deliver training, develop security plans and
prepare vulnerability assessments.25
Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Amtrak)
The Intercity Passenger Rail Program (IPR) is designed to enhance security of the Amtrak rail
system through training and technical assistance. Amtrak is the only eligible applicant. DHS
provides Amtrak with an amount determined through a risk assessment process.26


22 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Port Security Grant Program:
Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/psgp/index.shtm.
23 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 7, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
24 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Transit Security Grant Program:
Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsgp/indiex.shtm.
25 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 7, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
26 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 8, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
6

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Intercity Bus Security Grant Program
The Intercity Bus Security Grant Program (IBSGP) funds security activities for intercity bus
systems from terrorism. Some of the eligible activities include planning, security enhancements,
and vehicle and driver protection. Eligible applicants include private operators of over-the-road
(mainly interstate) bus companies servicing UASI jurisdictions.27 DHS groups bus companies
into tiers. Tier I comprises companies with 250 or more buses that provide the highest volume of
services to high-risk urban areas. All other applicants are placed in Tier II. Bus companies apply
and compete for funding within their tier.28
Trucking Security Program
The Trucking Security Program (TSP) provides funding for counter-terrorism and security
awareness training for trucking industry professionals. Trucking industry professionals are
eligible to apply on the condition they support four funding priorities: participant identification
and recruitment; training; communications; and information analysis and distribution for a
counter-terrorism and security awareness program.29 DHS sponsors a panel of subject matter
experts from federal agencies; this panel reviews and assesses applications based on feasibility,
timelines and sustainability.30
Buffer Zone Protection Program
The Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) provides funding and assistance to build security
and risk management capabilities of critical infrastructure, such as chemical facilities, financial
institutions, power utility facilities, dams, and stadiums. Eligible applicants include states with a
pre-designated BZPP site.31 DHS determines all BZPP sites prior to the annual allocation of
program funding based on a risk assessment of each BZPP site.32


27 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Intercity Bus Security Grant
Program: Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/ibsgp/index.shtm.
28 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 9, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
29 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Trucking Security Program:
Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/tsp/index.shtm.
30 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 9, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
31 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Buffer Zone Protection
Program: Overview, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/bzpp/index.shtm. DHS
determines what facilities and critical infrastructure is to receive funding from this program.
32 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 10, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
7

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program
The Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP) provides technology and
equipment (along with associated training) to law enforcement and emergency responder entities
in jurisdictions not eligible for UASI funding. This assistance is intended to enhance regional,
state, and local response capabilities, mutual aid, and interoperable communications. Law
enforcement and emergency responder entities must demonstrate a need for the technology and
equipment in order to be eligible for CEDAP assistance. The entities must also demonstrate that
the assistance will enhance their homeland security capabilities.33
All-Hazards Preparedness Grant Programs
Seven of the seventeen programs administered by GPD could be categorized as all-hazards
preparedness. Specifically, these programs are focused on preparing for any emergency,
regardless of cause. One program, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program, could
also be categorized as terrorism preparedness since grant recipients are identified through DHS’s
UASI program risk assessment process. However, the program guidance does not specifically
identify terrorism incidents as the only type of preparation eligible for funding.
Metropolitan Medical Response System
The Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) facilitates the coordination of law
enforcement agencies, firefighters, emergency medical services, hospital, public health, and other
personnel’s all-hazard response capabilities. Funding and federal assistance is provided to 124
highly populated jurisdictions and MMRS authorizes planning, training, exercises, and acquiring
pharmaceuticals and personal protective equipment. FEMA states that the increased capability to
respond to a WMD mass casualty event increases the capability to respond to other causes of
mass casualty events, such as epidemic disease outbreaks and natural disasters.34 The DHS
Secretary determines the 124 jurisdictions based on population and divides the annual MMRS
appropriation evenly among the jurisdictions.35
Assistance to Firefighters Program
The Assistance to Firefighters Program (FIRE) awards one-year grants directly to fire
departments to enhance their abilities to respond to fires and fire-related hazards. FIRE seeks to
support fire departments that lack tools and resources necessary to protect the health and safety of
the public and firefighting personnel. FIRE provides funds to support firefighter safety, fire


33 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fact Sheet: 2008 Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program
(CEDAP), Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xnews/releases/pr_1198172954591.shtm.
34 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, FEMA: Metropolitan Medical
Response System, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/mmrs/.
35 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 3, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
8

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

prevention, emergency medical services, and firefighting vehicle acquisition. Individual
(professional and volunteer) fire departments are eligible to apply for grants under this program.
There is no set formula for the distribution of FIRE grants; fire departments and nonaffiliated
emergency medical service entities throughout the nation apply, and award decisions are made
through a multi-level review process that includes evaluation by a peer review panel. Award
decisions are based primarily on the merits of the application and the needs of the community the
fire department serves. Every year, a criteria development panel composed of fire service
representatives makes recommendations to DHS regarding funding priorities and criteria for
awarding grants.36
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) provides funding to enhance
catastrophic incident preparedness in designated high-risk, high-threat urban areas which also
receive UASI funding. The program supports coordination of regional all-hazard planning for
catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans,
protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event.37
The DHS Secretary determines what high-risk, high-consequence urban areas will receive
funding based on UASI allocations. In FY2009, eleven urban areas have been designated to
receive funding. The funds are allocated based on the assessed risk of a catastrophic incident
occurring in the region, as well as the anticipated effectiveness of the funding.38
Citizen Corps Programs
The Citizen Corps Program (CCP) was established to coordinate volunteer organizations with the
mission to make local communities safe and prepared to respond to emergency situations. CCP
includes Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT), Enhanced Neighborhood Watch,
Volunteers in Police Service, and Medical Reserve Service. States, DC, and Puerto Rico are
guaranteed a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for CCP, and the U.S. insular areas are
guaranteed a minimum of 0.25%.39 The remainder of CCP appropriations are distributed based on
a recipient’s percentage of the national population.40


36 For detailed information on the FIRE grant application, evaluation, and distribution process, see U.S. Department of
Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2008 Assistance to Firefighters Grants
Program and Application Guidance, Washington, DC, February 2008, http://www.firegrantsupport.com/docs/
2008AFGguidance.pdf.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 12, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
38 Ibid.
39 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, 115 Stat. 399.
40 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 3, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
9

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Emergency Management Performance Grants
The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program (EMPG) is designed to assist the
development, maintenance, and improvement of state and local emergency management
capabilities. It provides support to state and local governments to achieve measurable results in
key emergency management functional areas. EMPG funding can be used for activities such as
personnel costs, travel, training, supplies, and other routine expenditures for emergency
management activities.
EMPG funds are allocated in the same manner as CCP. States, DC, and Puerto Rico are
guaranteed a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations for EMPG and the U.S. insular areas are
guaranteed a minimum of 0.25%.41 The remainder of EMPG appropriations are distributed based
on a recipients percentage of the national population.42
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program
The Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program (PSIC) provides assistance,
planning, training, exercise, and equipment funding to states and localities to improve
interoperable communications, including communications for responding to natural disasters, acts
of terrorism and other man-made emergencies. All proposed activities must be integral to
interoperable communications and aligned with the goals, objectives, and initiatives identified in
the recipient’s Communication Interoperability Plan. DHS allocates funding based on risk and
guarantees each state, DC, and Puerto Rico a minimum of 0.50% of total appropriations; each
U.S. insular area is guaranteed a minimum of 0.08% of total appropriations.43
Emergency Operations Center Grant Program
The Emergency Operations Center Grant Program (EOC) provides funding and assistance to
states and localities for developing and enhancing their emergency operations centers and
improving their unified command capabilities. Funding may be used for equipping, upgrading,
and constructing EOCs.44 Annually, EOC sites are designated in statute with a specified
appropriation.


41 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, 115 Stat. 399.
42 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 11, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
43 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 12, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
44 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Operations Center
Grant Program, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/eoc/index.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
10

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Other DHS Assistance and Activities
The Grant Programs Directorate (GPD), within FEMA, conducts research and development
through its Equipment Acquisition and Support Program within SHSGP. The Equipment
Acquisition and Support Program provides assistance to federal, state, and local entities on
equipment related issues such as testing, standards, and the identification of new equipment
needs. Technical assistance is generally targeted to state and local agencies to enhance their
ability to develop, plan, and implement programs for terrorism and disaster preparedness.
Additionally, GDP provides specific assistance in such areas as the development of response
plans, exercise scenarios, conduct of risk and vulnerability assessments, and the development of
homeland security strategies.
Legal Citations
The following table provides legal citations to the authorization statutes for the grant programs
summarized in this report. Where noted, public law is provided when there is no authorization
language but appropriations language is available.
Table 2. Legal Citation to GPD Programs
Programs Citation
State Homeland Security Grant Program
6 U.S.C. 605
Urban Area Security Initiative
6 U.S.C. 604
Transit Security Grant Program
6 U.S.C. 1135, 1163
Port Security Grant Program
46 U.S.C. 70107
Freight Rail Security Grant Program
6 U.S.C. 1163
Intercity Passenger Rail Program (Amtrak)
6 U.S.C. 1163
Intercity Bus Security Grant Program
6 U.S.C. 1182
Trucking Security Program
P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3671.
Buffer Zone Protection Program
P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3672.
Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program
P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3672
Metropolitan Medical Response System
6 U.S.C. 723
Assistance to Firefighters Program
15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq.
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program
P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3671.
Citizen Corps Programs
P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3671.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
42 U.S.C. 4001 et seq, 42 U.SC. 5121 et seq, 42 U.S.C. 7701
et seq
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant
6 U.S.C. 579
Program
Emergency Operations Center Grant Program
42 U.S.C. 5196c
Source: United States Code or public law.
Notes: Public law numbers and statutes at large citations are used if the program is authorized only in an
appropriation act.
Congressional Research Service
11

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Issues for the 111th Congress
More than seven years after the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, and six years since the
establishment of DHS, debate continues on policy questions related to homeland security
assistance for states and localities. Some of these questions arguably have been addressed in
legislation, such as the statute that modified the distribution of funding to states and localities
(P.L. 110-53). Additionally, congressional committees have conducted hearings related to state
and local homeland security assistance and preparedness. Some may contend there is a need for
the 111th Congress to conduct further oversight hearings (which the House Homeland Security
states it intends to do)45 and legislate on policy issues related to DHS assistance to states and
localities. These potential issues include (1) the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2)
the use of preparedness funding; (3) the determination of eligible recipients of assistance; (4) the
funding for the assistance programs; and (5) the programs’ distribution methodology. The
following analysis of these policy issues provides a background for this policy discussion.
Purpose and Number of Assistance Programs
Some may argue the purpose and number of DHS programs have not been sufficiently addressed.
Specifically, should DHS provide more all-hazards assistance versus terrorism focused
assistance? Do the number of programs result in coordination challenges and deficient
preparedness at the state and local level? Would program consolidation improve domestic
security?
An all-hazards assistance program allows recipients to obligate and fund activities to prepare for,
respond to, and recover from almost any emergency regardless of type or reason, which includes
man-made (accidental or intentional) and natural disasters. EMPG is an example of an all-hazards
assistance program. Terrorism preparedness focused programs allows recipients to obligate and
fund activities to prepare for, respond to, and recover from terrorist incidents. SHSGP is an
example of a terrorism preparedness focused program.
The majority of national emergencies that have occurred since September 11, 2001, have been
natural disasters such as Hurricane Katrina and Gustav. However, the majority of homeland
security assistance funding to states and localities has been appropriated to programs dedicated to
preparing for and responding to terrorist attacks. A DHS fact sheet regarding Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD)46 states that federal preparedness assistance is intended primarily
to support State and local efforts to build capacity to address major (or catastrophic) events,
especially terrorism.47


45 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Committee of Homeland Security Oversight Plan, 111th
Cong., 1st sess., February 4, 2009, pp. 3-4. The House Committee on Homeland Security states that, in the 111th
Congress, it intends to continue oversight of DHS’s assistance programs for states and localities.
46 Executive Office of the President, Office of the Press Secretary, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8:
National Preparedness,” press release, December 17, 2003, http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/12/
20031217-6.html.
47 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Frequently Asked Questions: HSPD 8, Fact Sheet, Washington, DC, 2008,
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/HSPD8_FAQ.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
12

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

In FY2009, Congress appropriated approximately $4.36 billion for state and local programs, and
of this amount $2.66 billion (61%) is targeted for terrorism focused programs.48 Following
Hurricane Katrina, a congressional committee reported that some state officials “voiced a concern
that in the post-9/11 environment undue emphasis is placed on terrorism-based hazards.”49
However, DHS (FEMA specifically) does provide natural disaster assistance that is separate from
the programs summarized in this report, such as FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant
Program,50 and other Robert T. Stafford Act programs.51
In July 2005, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that emergency response
capabilities for terrorism, and man-made and natural disasters are similar for response and
recovery activities, and differ for preparedness.52 The similarity is associated with first responder
actions following a disaster that are focused on immediately saving lives and mitigating the
effects of the disaster. Preparing for a hurricane, or any natural disaster, by comparison is
markedly different than preparing for a terrorist attack. Preparing for or preventing a terrorist
attack includes such activities as installing security barriers and conducting counter-intelligence,
whereas preparing for a natural disaster involves a different set of functions such as planning for
evacuations or stockpiling equipment, food, and water. The National Governors Association
(NGA), in a policy position paper, states that an all-hazards approach to preparedness should be
preserved.53
GAO stated that legislation and presidential directives related to emergencies and disasters
following the September 2001, terrorist attacks emphasize terrorism preparedness.54 In the
FY2009 homeland security assistance guidance to states and localities, DHS continues to list
terrorism preparedness as the priority in distributing funding. DHS used terrorism risk as the
primary factor in its FY2009 state and local assessments and listed terrorism preparedness as one
of the programs’ “core missions.”55
Another aspect of this issue that the 111th Congress may wish to address is the number of state
and local assistance programs DHS administers. In FY2002, and prior to the establishment of
DHS, federal assistance programs for states and localities numbered eight. In FY2009 the


48 P.L. 110-329, Title III.
49 U.S. Congress, Joint Select Bipartisan Committee to Investigate the Preparation for and Response to Hurricane
Katrina, A Failure of Initiative, 109th Cong., 2nd sess., 2006, H.Rept. 109-377 (Washington: GPO, 2006), p. 152.
50 Information on the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program is available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/
pdm/index.shtm. Additionally, for further information see CRS Report RL34537, FEMA’s Pre-Disaster Mitigation
Program: Overview and Issues, by Francis X. McCarthy and Natalie Keegan.
51 For more information on Stafford Act disaster assistance, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by Keith Bea.
52 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS’ Efforts to Enhance First Responders’ All-Hazard
Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652, July 11, 2005, p. 1.
53 National Governors Association, Executive Committee, Homeland Security Policy, Policy Position Paper,
Washington, DC, http://www.nga.org.
54 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS’ Efforts to Enhance First Responders’ All-
Hazard Capabilities Continue to Evolve, GAO-05-652, July 11, 2005, p. 1.
55 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant Application
Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, p. 1, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-overview-
fy2009.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
13

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

programs numbered 17. The number of assistance programs has never decreased, and total
funding for all homeland security assistance programs has averaged $3.7 billion each year for the
past seven years. The funding was lowest in FY2002 when Congress appropriated $1.43 billion
for eight programs. The largest funding was in FY2004 when 11 programs shared $4.39 billion.
For the present fiscal year (FY2009), Congress appropriated $4.2 billion for 17 assistance
programs (see Table 3 for funding by year per program). This increase in the number of grant
programs might be the result of Congress and the administration targeting funds in anticipation of
future homeland security threats to specific facilities, locations, entities, and jurisdictions.
Table 3. FY2002-FY2009 Number and Types of DHS Assistance Programs
Type of
Programa
FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009
Terrorism
Preparednessb
3 4 6 7 8 8 10 10
All-Hazards
Preparednessc
5 5 5 5 6 6 7 7
Total
8 9 11 12 14 14 17 17
Source: FY2002-FY2009 DHS grant guidance documents.
Notes:
a. DHS does not identify grant programs as either terrorism preparedness or al -hazards preparedness, these
categories reflect CRS’ examination of DHS grant guidance documents.
b. Terrorism preparedness programs focus on preparing states and localities for terrorist attacks, but do not
preclude the use of funding on activities and equipment that can be used for other emergencies, such as a
natural disaster.
c. All-hazards preparedness programs do not strictly restrict the use of grant funding. States and localities are
authorized to use funding on preparing for any type of disaster, man-made or natural.
In September 2003, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) stated that DHS’s grant system
was fragmented, and therefore complicated coordination and integration of services and planning
at state and local levels.56 This fragmentation may be seen in the development of targeted
infrastructure security grant programs, such as bus and trucking security programs in FY2004; a
grouping of transit security programs in FY2005; the Buffer Zone Protection in FY2006; and the
Public Safety Interoperable Communications Grant Program in FY2008. One can assume this
expansion of terrorism preparedness programs reflects the federal government’s terrorism
preparedness priority, whereas states and localities may place a priority on natural and accidental
man-made disasters.
This expansion of programs, largely at the discretion of the administration, may be the result of
DHS intending to focus homeland security efforts and funding on specific national homeland
security needs. However, the majority of programs that have been added to GPD are terrorism
preparedness programs and, as noted earlier in this report, states and localities have criticized
DHS’s terrorism preparedness focus. It should also be noted that DHS and the administration did


56 U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding Needs,
GAO-03-1146T, September 3, 2003, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
14

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

not request the development of all these new grant programs, such as the bus security program.
Congress appropriated funding, for the first time, in FY2005 for the bus security program even
though the Administration had not requested an appropriation for this program.57 Additionally, the
Administration has requested the consolidation of grant programs, such as in FY2007 when the
Administration requested an appropriation for a Targeted Infrastructure Protection Program
(TIPP).58 TIPP was to be a consolidation of six infrastructure security grant programs; however,
Congress did not appropriate the infrastructure security programs through TIPP.
Congress might wish to continue providing a share of funding to the present number of terrorism
preparedness programs. Specific and targeted programs, such as the Buffer Zone Protection
Program, could provide a funding source for a specific homeland security need. However, this
would not address the criticism of some state and local officials who believe more funding should
be provided for all-hazard emergencies and disasters, that the programs are fragmented, and
federal, state, and local disaster response is uncoordinated.
Congress might also consider increasing funding to all-hazards programs, such as the Emergency
Performance Grant Program and the Metropolitan Medical Response System. This could be
achieved by increasing overall funding to state and local programs or decreasing the funding for
terrorism preparedness programs. This option would address state and local criticism; however, if
terrorism preparedness program funding were decreased states and localities may not be able to
meet their terrorism preparedness needs.
Should Congress determine there is a need to address the types and number of grants DHS
provides to states and localities, it could consider allowing terrorism preparedness programs such
as the State Homeland Security Grant Program and the Urban Area Security Initiative, to be used
for all-hazards preparedness, response, and recovery. Presently, these programs require states and
localities to focus their funding on terrorism preparedness. This use of terrorism preparedness
programs to address all-hazards might result in states and localities having more flexibility in
prioritizing their homeland security needs, whether they are targeted to natural disasters or
terrorism needs.
Finally, Congress may wish to establish one or more block grant programs to reduce the number
of programs administered by GPD. This option might include the development of both an all-
hazards and a terrorism preparedness block grant program. This option could encourage grant
recipients to further prioritize their homeland security needs and apply federal funding to both all-
hazards and terrorism priorities. Additionally, this would increase greater flexibility in use of
grant funding. This might address the issue of grant coordination, and allow recipients to focus
funding on specific needs instead of targeted programs established by Congress and the
Administration. However, DHS would need to ensure its distribution methodology included
aspects of all the disparate grant programs currently administered by GPD.


57 Conference report, H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations).
58 Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget for the United States Government, Washington, DC,
February 2006, pp. 507-509.
Congressional Research Service
15

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Evaluation of Funding Use
Another issue Congress may wish to address is how effectively DHS’s assistance to states and
localities is being spent. One way to review the use of program funding is to evaluate state and
local jurisdiction’s use of DHS’s assistance. However, DHS has yet to complete an evaluation of
how states and localities have spent past homeland security program allocations. It can be argued
that prior to establishing preparedness benchmarks for future program funding allocations, DHS,
or another federal entity, would need to complete an evaluation of present homeland security
funding and its uses to determine a baseline for any future evaluation of states and localities
meeting federal preparedness benchmarks.
When DHS announces annual state and locality homeland security grant allocations, grant
recipients submit implementation plans that identify how these allocations are to be obligated.
However, the question remains whether or not the grant funding has been used in an effective
way to enhance the nation’s homeland security. DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano has directed
FEMA to provide reports on national planning and state and local integration with FEMA;
however, the directives do not address state and local use of grant funding.59
In early 2009, GPD began an evaluation called Cost-to-Capability (C2C). This evaluation is
intended to measure a grant recipient’s ability to prevent and respond to various types of disasters.
C2C uses DHS’s National Planning Scenarios60 to organize the evaluation. The intent of this
evaluation is to enable GPD to effectively administer DHS’s grant programs and help states and
localities use their grant allocations.61 Prior to GPD beginning the C2C, state and local capability
assessments have been self-assessments.
GAO, in a congressionally mandated report,62 stated that the input data for C2C is to be based on
capability self-assessments from state preparedness plans, estimates of baseline capabilities, and
other factors. However, GAO states that the validity of the input data is uncertain since the data
are based on state and local self-assessments. Additionally, GAO criticizes the C2C as a limited
national capability assessment tool because of the limited analytical skill levels, due to the level
of training and experience of analysts, across state and local users of C2C.63 Also, in a summary
of testimony from March 2008, GAO concluded that even though DHS has taken some steps in
establishing goals, gathering information, and measuring progress, the monitoring of homeland


59 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, “DHS Secretary Napolitano Issues Action Directives on FEMA State and
Local Integration and National Planning,” press release, January 27, 2009, http://www.dhs.gov/ynews/releases/
pr_1233073331655.shtm.
60 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Strengthening National Preparedness: Capabilities Based Planning, Fact
Sheet, Washington, DC, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/CBP_041305.pdf. National Planning Scenarios are
possible emergencies and disasters that grant recipients are required to prepare for, and ensure they have the capability
to respond to.
61 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Congressional Affairs, The Cost-to-Capability Initiative (C2C):
Connecting local investment strategies to the Nation’s Homeland Security priorities, Fact Sheet, Washington, DC,
2008, p. 1.
62 P.L. 110-329, Title III. 122 Stat. 3673.
63 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security Grant Program Risk-Based Distribution Methods:
Presentation to Congressional Committees - November 14, 2008 and December 15, 2008, GAO-09-168R, November
2008, pp. 16-17.
Congressional Research Service
16

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

security grant spending does not provide a method to measure the achievement of desired
program outcomes.64
In 2008, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) conducted a Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART) for some of DHS’s grants to states and localities. OMB assessed the program
effectiveness of the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Urban Area Security Initiative,
and the Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. Overall, OMB rated the programs
as adequate. However, the programs were rated as “small extent” for the question: “Do
independent evaluations of sufficient scope and quality indicate that the program is effective and
achieving results?”65 The PART analysis and GAO’s research might lead an observer to assume
that GPD’s grant programs are not enhancing state and locality homeland security capabilities.
But one could argue that even though these assessments have not shown that GPD’s grant
programs can achieve certain benchmarks, states and localities have increased, at a minimum, the
amount and types of homeland security equipment, planning, and training needed in case of a
natural disaster or terrorist attack. Arguably, states, localities, and the nation as a whole are better
prepared than on September 11, 2001. However, critics have seen the PART as overly political
and a tool to shift power from Congress to the President, as well as failing to provide for adequate
stakeholder consultation and public participation. Some observers have commented that PART
has provided a needed stimulus to agency program evaluation efforts, but they do not agree on
whether the PART tool validly assesses program effectiveness.66
In January 2009, DHS’s Office of Inspector General (OIG) released an annual report on states’
and urban areas’ management of homeland security grant programs.67 Individual audit reports for
states and urban areas resulted in identified areas for improvement that included questioned costs,
monitoring and oversight, measurable program goals and objectives, and needs assessment.68 The
report, however, does not address overall issues for DHS, states, or urban areas. Instead it only
identifies areas for improvement for individual states and urban areas. Additionally, in March
2009, DHS OIG reported that FEMA does not consistently and comprehensively execute its two
oversight activities, which are financial and program monitoring.69
In light of GAO and OMB’s conclusions and the absence of a completed preparedness evaluation,
Congress may determine that DHS’s C2C is adequate in determining state and local homeland


64 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Homeland Security: DHS Improved its Risk-Based Grant Programs’
Allocation and Management Methods, But Measuring Programs’ Impact on National Capabilities Remains a
Challenge, GAO-08-488T, March 11, 2008, p. 1.
65 Office of Management and Budget, ExpectMore.gov: Federal Emergency Management Agency: Homeland Security
Grants, Washington, DC, 2008, http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/expectmore/detail/10003626.2008.html.
66 For more information on PART, see CRS Report RL32663, The Bush Administration's Program Assessment Rating
Tool (PART), by Clinton T. Brass and CRS Report RL33301, Congress and Program Evaluation: An Overview of
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) and Related Issues, by Clinton T. Brass, Erin D. Williams, and Blas Nuñez-
Neto.
67 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Annual Report to Congress on States' and
Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs, Audit, Washington, DC, January 17, 2009.
68 Ibid., p. 1.
69 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Improvements Needed in Federal Emergency
Management Agency Monitoring of Grantees, Washington, DC, March 2009, p. 1.
Congressional Research Service
17

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

security capabilities and the cost (through grant funding). The C2C process, however, does not
address issues identified by GAO and OMB.
If Congress determines that the present C2C process is not adequate, it could require DHS to
refine the C2C assessment with a reduction in weight given to state and local self-assessments.
This might result in a baseline capability assessment, which DHS could use to determine annual
preparedness benchmarks associated with homeland security grant funding. One could argue that
these benchmarks would need to be established for individual grant recipients (state or local)
instead of serving as national benchmarks. Each state does not possess the same homeland
security capabilities; thus, benchmarks would need to reflect each state’s need for capability
enhancement.
Finally, if Congress finds the C2C inadequate in evaluating grant funding use, it could mandate
that DHS develop an assessment tool other than C2C to determine the nation’s preparedness. This
new assessment tool could rely less on state and locality self-assessments, and more on DHS
developing and implementing a new assessment tool that might require DHS to collaborate with
individual grant recipients. This might result in an assessment tool that more accurately reflects
individual state and locality preparedness baselines. However, this may extend the time that a
national preparedness baseline is established and further lengthen the time until preparedness
benchmarks can be established. One possible preparedness assessment tool could incorporate a
risk assessment of all states, DC, and U.S. insular areas that also assess vulnerability (since C2C
does not directly measure vulnerability). This risk assessment would, arguably, need to not only
assess terrorism risk, but natural and accidental man-made disaster risk. In conjunction with the
risk assessments, the preparedness assessment tool could also measure each grant recipient’s
ability to meet the Target Capabilities List (TCL).70 Such an assessment tool that incorporates risk
and an evaluation of the TCL is not the only option, just one that Congress might wish to consider
if it determines the C2C inadequately measures state and local preparedness.
Eligible Grant Recipients
Another policy issue associated with homeland grant programs is the question of who or what
entities and jurisdictions are eligible to receive federal homeland security assistance. There are
two specific questions: (1) are the appropriate eligible recipients identified for each grant
program, and (2) does the DHS use an appropriate grant recipient determination process? There
are 17 grant programs in FY2009 and this results in 17 different groups of eligible grant
recipients and numerous grant recipient determination processes, as shown below.


70 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Target Capabilities List: A
Companion to the National Preparedness Guidelines, Washington, DC, September 2007, http://www.fema.gov/pdf/
government/training/tcl.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
18

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Table 4. Eligible Recipients of FY2009 Homeland Security Assistance, by Program
Program Eligible
Recipients
Determination
Process
State Homeland Security Grant
states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.
Program
insular areas
mandated by Congress
Urban Area Security Initiative
high-threat, high-risk urban areas
determined by DHS through a risk
assessment
Port Security Program
individual ports
determined by DHS through a risk
assessment
Transit Security Programs
(including Freight Rail Security and
mass transit and passenger rail
determined by DHS through a risk
Intercity Passenger Rail Security
systems and operators
assessment
Programs)
Bus Security Program
mass transit and over-the-road bus
determined by DHS through a risk
systems and operators
assessment
Trucking Security Program
commercial trucking businesses and
recipients are determined through an
operators
application process
Emergency Operations Centers
states and identified localities
mandated by Congress
Buffer Zone Protection Program
private and public critical
determined by DHS through a risk
infrastructure facilities
assessment
Assistance to Firefighters
professional and volunteer fire
determined through a peer review of
departments
individual grant applications
Emergency Management
states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.
Performance Grant Program
insular areas
mandated by Congress
Citizen Corps Program
states, DC, Puerto Rico, and U.S.
insular areas
mandated by Congress
Metropolitan Medical Response
System
124 jurisdictions
determined by DHS
Commercial Equipment Direct
state and local law enforcement and
demonstrate need through an
Assistance Program
emergency management entities
application process
Public Safety Interoperable
states, DC, Puerto Rico, U.S. insular
determined by DHS through a risk
Communications Grant Program
areas, and localities
assessment
Regional Catastrophic
Preparedness Grant Program
high-threat, high-risk urban areas
determined by DHS through a risk
assessment
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Grant Programs Directorate, FY2009 Overview Grant
Application Guidance, Washington, DC, November 7, 2008, http://www.dhs.gov/xlibrary/assets/grant-program-
overview-fy2009.pdf.

Of these grants, seven explicitly use risk assessment as a determination of recipient eligibility,
and some sort of risk assessment may be used to determine recipients for three programs
(Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, Metropolitan Medical Response System,
and Trucking Security System). What cannot be determined is if DHS uses the same risk
assessment process for each individual grant program or if each program has a separate
assessment. This may cause confusion or duplication of effort if a jurisdiction was eligible to
apply for numerous grants. This multitude of grants with different eligible recipients may also
lead to confusion in grant funding opportunities or redundancy in funding. It would appear that
Congressional Research Service
19

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

each program is narrowly defined and involves DHS using different methods for identifying grant
recipients.
Some jurisdictions with genuine homeland security needs may not be eligible for funding because
different methods are used to identify grant recipients through various risk assessments that,
according to critics, do not adequately assess risk, vulnerability, and consequences. Because of
this, Congress might wish to address the issue of how DHS determines grant recipients. Also,
Congress might wish to require DHS to use one risk assessment process for identifying grant
recipients, or at a minimum, require DHS to refine the process to ensure grant recipients are not
requesting funding for a single homeland security need through multiple grant programs.
Congress may also decide to specifically identify (by type or name) grant recipients through
legislation, or at least mandate DHS report on the process to make it more transparent. Presently,
the determination of grant recipients appears to many to be labor intensive and confusing.
Funding Amounts
Annual federal support, through the appropriation process, for these homeland security programs
is another issue Congress may want to examine considering the present economic situation and
the limited financial resources available to the federal government. Specifically, is there a need
for continuity of federal support for these programs, or should Congress reduce or eliminate
funding? In the past eight years, Congress has appropriated a total of $29.5 billion for state and
local homeland security assistance with an average annual appropriation of $3.7 billion. In
FY2004 Congress appropriated a high total of funding of $4.39 billion, and the lowest
appropriated amount was $1.43 billion in FY2002. These data are presented in Table 5.
Congressional Research Service
20

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Table 5. FY2002-FY2009 Appropriations for Homeland Security Assistance
Programs
Amounts in millions
Program
02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09
SHSGP 316 1,870
1,700
1,100 550 525 950 950a
UASI
3 800 725 885 765 770 820 838b
LETPP -
- 500 400 400 375 -
-
CIPP - 200 - - - - - -
PSP
198 170 125 150 175 210 400 550c
TSP
- -
- 150 150 175 400 550d
BSP
- - 10 10 10 12 12 12
TRSP - - 22 5 5 12 16 8
EOC - - - - - - 15
35
BZPP - - - - 50
50
50
50
FIRE 360 750 750 715 655 662 750 985e
EMPG 168 170 180 180 185 200 300 315
CCP 25 30 40 15 20 15 15 15
MMRS 25 50 50 30 30 33 41 41
TTAE&E
333 330 292 341 296 298 299 429f
CEDAP
- - - - 50
50
25 8
PSIC - - - - - - 50
50
Real
ID
- - - - - - 50 -
RCPG - - - - - - 35
35
Total 1,428 4,370 4,394 3,981 3,341 3,387 4,228 4,871
Source: Annual DHS appropriations.
Notes:
a. Of this $950 million for SHSGP, 25% must be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities and
$60 million for Operation Stone Garden, which provides funding to border states for homeland security
issues associated with illegal immigration.
b. Of the $838 million for UASI, 25% must be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention activities and
$15 million for non-profit organization security.
c. Of this $550 million, $150 million was a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.
d. Of the $550 million for transit security, $25 million must be used for Amtrak security, and $150 million was
a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.
e. Of the $985 million for FIRE grants, $210 million was a supplemental appropriation in P.L. 111-5.
f.
Of the $429 million for training, technical assistance, exercises, and evaluations, $165 million must be used
for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium institutions.
Congressional Research Service
21

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

Some might argue that since over $29 billion has been appropriated and allocated for state and
local homeland security, jurisdictions should have met their homeland security needs. This point
of view would lead one to assume that Congress should reduce funding to a level that ensures
states and localities are able to maintain their homeland security capabilities, but doesn’t fund
new homeland security projects. However, if DHS is unable to report on the extent of state and
local homeland security capabilities (as discussed earlier in the report), reducing funding amounts
prior to confirming state and local capabilities may result in unmet homeland security needs.
Additionally, some may argue that states and localities should assume more responsibility in
funding their homeland security projects and the federal government should reduce overall
funding. This, however, may be difficult due to the present state and local financial situations.
Another argument for maintaining present funding levels is the ever changing terrorism threat and
the constant threat of natural and accidental man-made disasters. As one homeland security threat
(natural or man-made) is identified and met, other threats develop and require new homeland
security capabilities or processes. Some may even argue that funding amounts should be
increased due to what appears to be an increase in natural disasters and their costs.
The President’s FY2010 budget proposes $909 million less for these programs than was
appropriated in FY2009, however, some programs would receive increased funding in FY2010.
This reduction is primarily the result of the Administration not requesting funding for Emergency
Operations Centers, Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program, Over-the-Road Bus
Security Program, the Trucking Security Grant program, and the Center for Counterterrorism and
Cyber Crime, and the Administration has also requested a funding reduction for the State Local
Training Program, Transportation and Infrastructure Protection, and Assistance to Firefighters.

Funding Distribution Methodologies71
The final proposed issue is how grant program funding is distributed to states and localities.
Specifically, Congress may want to continue to address the funding distribution methodologies to
ensure state and local homeland security. This issue has garnered Congress’ attention the most
over the past seven years, with the issue addressed in P.L. 110-53 in January 2007. Specifically
P.L. 110-53 required that SHSGP and UASI allocations to be based on 100% risk; however,
SHSGP recipients were guaranteed a minimum amount annually through 2012.72 This funding
debate has been primarily focused on SHSGP and UASI; the majority of GPD programs have not
been discussed during this debate.
This guaranteed minimum allocation for SHSGP, and the continued use of population as a key
factor for other grant program distribution methodologies (such as for grant programs like EMPG
and CCP) have been the focus of many critics. One of these critics was the National Commission


71 For an in-depth discussion on DHS grant distribution methodologies, see CRS Report RL34181, Distribution of
Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act,
by Shawn Reese and Steven Maguire.
72 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’, 121 Stat. 282.
Congressional Research Service
22

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) which recommended that all
homeland security assistance be allocated based only on risk. Since P.L. 110-53 required DHS to
guarantee a minimum amount of SHSGP funding to states, it could be argued that the law did not
meet the 9/11 Commission recommendation. Others might contend that the statue is consistent
with the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation because of the 100% risk allocation of SHSGP and
UASI. While the 9/11 Commission criticized the allocation of federal homeland security
assistance and recommended that the distribution not “remain a program for general revenue
sharing,”73 commissioners acknowledged that “every state and city needs to have some minimum
infrastructure for emergency response.”74 The 9/11 Commission also recommended that state and
local homeland security assistance should “supplement state and local resources based on the
risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support.”75 In a policy document published prior to
his inauguration, President Obama stated, in what appears to be in agreement with the 9/11
Commission, that homeland security assistance should be based solely on risk.76
Due to this criticism, Congress may wish to consider further refining how DHS allocates
homeland security funding to jurisdictions. Instead of guaranteed minimums, Congress could
require that DHS allocate funding based on risk. This option, however, might result in some
jurisdictions receiving no or limited allocations. Arguably, a risk assessment used to allocate
homeland security assistance would determine that every state and locality has some risk, whether
terrorism or natural disaster related, and needs some amount of funding. This, however, would
require DHS to evaluate state and local capabilities, vulnerability, and risk in a manner that
accurately reflects the nation’s current homeland security environment.
Conclusion
As the 111th Congress begins its 1st session, Members may wish to consider the policy issues
identified in this report or other related issues. The potential issues included in this report are: (1)
the purpose and number of assistance programs; (2) evaluation of grant funding use; (3)
determination of eligible grant recipients; (4) funding amounts; and (5) funding distribution
methodologies. All of these policy issues identify a potential need for Congress to continue its
debate and legislation of federal homeland security assistance for states and localities and the
nation’s overall emergency preparedness.
Additionally, if homeland security continues to be of national interest, how homeland security
assistance is funded, administered, and allocated will be of importance to the 111th Congress.
Since Congress will continue to conduct oversight and legislate on homeland security assistance
to states and localities, as the House Homeland Security Committee has stated it intends to do,
Members may elect to consider options that anticipate, as well as react to, future catastrophes.


73 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC,
July 2004, p. 396.
74 Ibid.
75 Ibid.
76 The Office of the President-elect, Agenda: Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008, http://change.gov/agenda/
homeland_security_agenda/.
Congressional Research Service
23

---

Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities

The potential issues identified in this report are not presumed to be the only issues, however,
these issues may be of enough significance to merit Congress’ attention.

Author Contact Information

Shawn Reese

Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635




Congressional Research Service
24

---