FY2010 Department of Homeland Security
Assistance to States and Localities
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security Policy
August 5, 2009
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R40632
CRS Report for Congress
P
repared for Members and Committees of Congress
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Summary
Since FY2002, Congress has appropriated more than $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. The Grant Programs Directorate and the National
Preparedness Directorate, within the Federal Emergency Management Agency, administer these
programs for the Department of Homeland Security. Each assistance program has either an all-
hazards purpose or a terrorism preparedness purpose.
These programs are primarily used by first responders, which include firefighters, emergency
medical personnel, emergency managers, and law enforcement officers. Specifically, the
appropriations for these programs provide for grants, training, exercises, and other support to
states, territories, and tribal and joint jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism and major disasters.
This report provides information on enacted FY2009 and proposed FY2010 funding for these
grant programs. It also identifies potential issues Congress may wish to address during the
appropriation process. The report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions
warrant.
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Contents
Grant Programs Directorate......................................................................................................... 1
State and Regional Preparedness Program ............................................................................. 1
Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program.............................................................. 2
National Preparedness Directorate (NPD).................................................................................... 2
FY2010 Appropriations............................................................................................................... 2
Issues.......................................................................................................................................... 4
State and Local Grant Funding .............................................................................................. 4
Allocation Methodology ....................................................................................................... 5
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Program.................................................................... 6
Tables
Table 1.FY2009 Enacted and FY2010 Requested Budget Authority for State and Local
Programs ................................................................................................................................. 3
Contacts
Author Contact Information ........................................................................................................ 7
Congressional Research Service
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
his report is an overview of the FY2010 appropriations for the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) programs that are designed to provide assistance to state and local
T governments, and public and private entities, such as ports.1 These programs are primarily
used by first responders, which include firefighters, emergency medical personnel, emergency
managers, and law enforcement officers. Specifically, the appropriations for these programs
provide for grants, training, exercises, and other support to states, territories, and tribal and joint
jurisdictions to prepare for terrorism and major disasters. The programs are administered by two
different organizations within the Federal Emergency Management Agency: the Grant Programs
Directorate (GPD) and the National Preparedness Directorate (NPD). This report will be updated
to reflect appropriated funding for these programs in FY2010.
Grant Programs Directorate
GPD is responsible for administering the State and Regional Preparedness Program and the
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) Preparedness Program.
State and Regional Preparedness Program
The State and Regional Preparedness Program includes seven programs intended to provide
resources to support preparedness projects and activities that build state and local homeland
security capabilities as outlined in the National Preparedness Guidelines,2 the Target Capabilities
List,3 and the National Strategy for Homeland Security of 2007.4 The State and Regional
Preparedness Program includes:
• State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
• Firefighter Assistance Grants Program (FIRE);
• Driver’s License Security Grants Program (DLSGP, formerly known as REAL
ID);
• Citizen Corps Grant Program (CCP);
• Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP);
• Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP);
• Medical Surge Grant Program (MSGP); and
• Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).5
1 For more information and analysis of FY2009 DHS grants to states and localities, see CRS Report R40246,
Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities: A Summary and Issues for the 111th Congress,
by Shawn Reese.
2 The National Preparedness Guidelines are available at http://www.dhs.gov/xprepresp/publications/
gc_1189788256647.shtm.
3 The Target Capabilities List is available at https://www.llis.dhs.gov/displayContent?contentID=26724.
4 The National Strategy for Homeland Security of 2007 is available at http://www.dhs.gov/xabout/history/
gc_1193938363680.shtm.
5 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management
Agency, State and Local Programs: Fiscal Year 2010 Congressional Budget Submission, Washington, DC, May 2009,
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
1
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program
The Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program is specifically designed to provide
assistance to high-threat, high-risk urban areas, and critical infrastructure (primarily
transportation infrastructure). The Metropolitan Statistical Area Preparedness Program includes:
• Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI); and
• Transportation Infrastructure Protection (including port, rail/transit, and Buffer
Zone Protection security programs).6
National Preparedness Directorate (NPD)
NPD is responsible for administering the Training, Measurement, and Exercise Programs, which
fund state and local preparedness exercises, training, technical assistance activities and
evaluations. The Administration proposes that in FY2010 this account fund the National Exercise
Program (NEP), State and Local Training Programs, Technical Assistance (TA) Programs, and
Evaluations and National Assessments.7
FY2010 Appropriations
FEMA, in its FY2010 congressional justification, categorizes GPD and NPD grant programs into
the following groups: Homeland Security Prevention and Protection Programs; Homeland
Security Response and Recovery Programs; and Other National, State and Local
Programs/Training, Measurement, and Exercise Program. The FY2010 budget request proposes
$908 million less for all of these programs than was appropriated in FY2009; however, some
programs would receive increased funding in FY2010. The reduction is primarily the result of the
Administration not requesting funding for Emergency Operations Centers, the Commercial
Equipment Direct Assistance Program, the Over-the-Road Bus Security Program, the Trucking
Security Grant Program, and the Center for Counterterrorism and Cyber Crime. Also, the
Administration requests a reduction in appropriations for the Assistance to Firefighters Program.
The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 proposed $3.96 billion and the Senate-passed version
proposed $4.23 billion for these programs in FY2010. See Table 1 below for current and
requested funding levels.
(...continued)
pp. FEMA-SLP-1 - FEMA-SLP-2.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid., p. FEMA-SLP-3.
Congressional Research Service
2
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Table 1.FY2009 Enacted and FY2010 Requested Budget Authority for State and
Local Programs
(All amounts in millions)
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported Reported
Enacted
Homeland Security Prevention
and Protection Programs
Urban Area Security Initiative
838
887
887
887
State Homeland Security Grant
950a 950a 950a 950
Program
Driver’s License Security Program
50 50
50
50
(REAL ID)
Buffer Zone Protection Program
50
50
50
50
Transportation Security Grant
1,120b 500c 512 706
Program
Homeland Security Response and
Recovery Programs
Assistance to Firefighters
985d 590e 800 800
Emergency Management
315 315
330
350
Performance Grants
Medical Surge Grants
41
40
40
40
Citizen Corps Programs
15
15
15
15
Regional Catastrophic Preparedness
35
35
35
Interoperable Emergency
50 50
50
50
Communications Grants
Mississippi Interoperable
20 0
Communications
Emergency
Operations
Centers 35
0 40 20
Other National, State and Local
Grant Programs/Training,
Measurement and Exercise
Program
Commercial Equipment Direct
8 0
Assistance Program
Continuing Training Grants
31
23
31
27
National Domestic Preparedness
102 52
92
102
Consortium
Cybercrime Counterterrorism
2 0
2
Training
Center for Domestic
62 63
40
63
Preparedness/Noble Training
Center
National Exercise Program
40
42
40
40
Technical Assistance Programs
11
13
13
13
Congressional Research Service
3
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
FY2010
FY2010
FY2010
FY2009
Budget
House-
Senate-
FY2010
Programs
Enacted
Request
Reported Reported
Enacted
Evaluations and Assessments
16
18
16
18
Rural Domestic Preparedness
3
Consortium
Management and Administration
—f 175
Total 4,776
3,868
3,959
4,217
Source: CRS Analysis of the FY2010 DHS Congressional Budget Justifications, the FY2010 DHS Budget in Brief,
House-reported H.R. 2892 and H.Rept. 111-157, and Senate-reported S. 1298 and S.Rept. 111-31.
Notes: Totals may not add due to rounding.
a. This amount includes $60 million for Operation Stone Garden.
b. This amount includes $550 million for port security, $550 million for rail security, $12 million for bus
security, and $8 million for trucking security.
c. This amount includes $250 million for port security, and $250 million for rail security.
d. This amount includes $565 million for fire grants, and $420 million for the SAFER program.
e. This amount includes $170 million for fire grants, and $420 million for the SAFER program.
f.
Unlike FY2009, in FY2010, the Administration requests a specific budget authority for Management and
Administration.
Issues
In FY2010, Congress could elect to address three issues when considering appropriating funds for
DHS’s state and local assistance programs. The first issue is the overall reduction in funding for
state and local assistance programs, the second issue is the allocation method DHS uses to
determine state and local grant awards, and the third issue is the reduction in appropriations for
the Assistance to Firefighters Program.
State and Local Grant Funding
One issue that has been debated annually by Congress is the overall amount to be appropriated for
these programs. In FY2010, the Administration proposes to reduce the overall funding for these
programs by $909 million. The House-passed version of H.R. 2892 proposed to reduce the
overall funding for these programs in FY2010 by $817 million and the Senate-passed version of
H.R. 2892 proposed a reduction of $559 million. As stated earlier in this report, this reduction is
proposed either through the elimination of funding for some grant programs or through the
reduction of funding for others. 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; the lowest
appropriated amount was $1.43 billion in FY2002.
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 could 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
Congressional Research Service
4
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
new homeland security projects. 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 circumstances.
Another argument for maintaining current 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 also argue that funding amounts should be increased
due to what appears to be an increase in natural disasters and their costs.
Allocation Methodology
Another potential issue of debate 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 states and localities meet their homeland security needs. This issue has
garnered Congress’ attention the most over the past eight years, with the issue addressed in P.L.
110-53 in January 2007. Specifically, P.L. 110-53 required that SHSGP and UASI allocations be
based entirely on risk; however, SHSGP recipients were guaranteed a minimum amount annually
through 2012.8 This funding debate has been primarily focused on SHSGP and UASI; funding
allocation methodologies for the majority of GPD and NPD programs have not been discussed
during this debate.
Some observers have criticized the guaranteed minimum allocation for SHSGP and the continued
use of population as a key variable for other grant program distribution methodologies (for such
grant programs as Emergency Management Performance Grants and Citizen Corps Programs).
For example, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11
Commission) 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. On the other
hand, some might contend that the statue requires funds to be allocated on the basis of risk but
with a floor that provides a guaranteed minimum. 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,”9 commissioners acknowledged that “every state
and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response.”10 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.”11 In a policy document published prior to his inauguration, President Obama stated, in
what arguably is in agreement with the 9/11 Commission, that homeland security assistance
should be based solely on risk.12
8 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’, 121 Stat. 282.
9 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, Washington, DC,
July 2004, p. 396.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid.
12 The Office of the President-elect, Agenda: Homeland Security, Washington, DC, 2008, http://change.gov/agenda/
homeland_security_agenda/.
Congressional Research Service
5
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Due to this criticism, Congress may wish to consider conducting oversight hearings on how DHS
allocates homeland security funding to jurisdictions. Instead of guaranteed minimums, Congress
could require that DHS allocate funding based solely on risk. This option, however, might result
in some jurisdictions receiving no or limited allocations. Arguably, a risk assessment process 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. Such a
process, however, would require DHS to evaluate state and local capabilities (currently DHS
relies primarily on grant recipient self evaluations), vulnerabilities, and risk in a manner that
accurately reflects the nation’s current homeland security environment.13
Reduction in Assistance to Firefighters Program
For FY2010, the Administration proposed $170 million for Assistance to Firefighter
Grants (AFG), a 70% decrease from the FY2009 level, and $420 million for SAFER
(Staffing for Adequate Fire and Emergency Response Firefighters), double the amount
appropriated in FY2009. The total amount requested for firefighter assistance (AFG and
SAFER) was $590 million, a 24% decrease from FY2009. The FY2010 budget proposal
stated that the firefighter assistance grant process will give priority to applications that
enhance capabilities for terrorism response and other major incidents.
AFG grants are used primarily for firefighting equipment, while SAFER grants are used for
hiring (by career departments) and recruitment/retention (by volunteer departments). The $170
million request for AFG would be the lowest level for the program since FY2001, the program’s
initial year. On the other hand, the proposed doubling of the SAFER budget to $420 million
would be the highest level for this program since its inception. In evaluating the budget proposal,
Congress may assess whether there is an appropriate balance between funding for firefighter
equipment and hiring/recruitment.
House-passed H.R. 2892 provided $810 million for firefighter assistance, including $390 million
for AFG and $420 million for SAFER. Although the SAFER level matches the Administration’s
request, the AFG level is more than twice what the Administration proposed. According to the
House committee report, the Administration’s request of $170 million for AFG “is woefully
inadequate given the vast needs of fire departments across the nation for equipment.” The
Committee directed FEMA to continue granting funds to local fire departments, include the
United States Fire Administration in the grant decision process, and maintain an all-hazard focus
while granting eligibility for activities such as wellness.
Senate-passed H.R. 2892 also provided $810 million for firefighter assistance, including $390
million for AFG and $420 million for SAFER. The Committee directed DHS to continue funding
applications according to local priorities and priorities established by the United States Fire
Administration, and to continue direct funding to fire departments through the peer review
process.
13 For information on DHS evaluation of state and local government use of federal homeland security grants, see CRS
Report R40246, Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities: A Summary and Issues for the
111th Congress, by Shawn Reese.
Congressional Research Service
6
FY2010 Department of Homeland Security Assistance to States and Localities
Author Contact Information
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland
Security Policy
sreese@crs.loc.gov, 7-0635
Congressional Research Service
7