First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options

First Responder Initiative: Policy Issues and Options

Order Code RL31475
CRS Report for Congress
Received through the CRS Web
First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Updated September 29, 2003
Ben Canada
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Summary
In its FY2004 budget request, the Bush Administration proposed a new grant
program called the “First Responder Initiative” to help first responders prepare for
possible terrorist attacks. Under the proposal, the Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP), within the Department of Homeland Security, would administer program
components of the initiative. The program’s primary purpose would be to improve
the ability of first responders (including police, firefighters, emergency medical, and
hazardous materials personnel) to respond to terrorist attacks involving weapons of
mass destruction. The program would fund a range of activities in the areas of
planning, training, exercises, and equipment.
The Administration proposal is one of several proposals to restructure first
responder preparedness grants before the 108th Congress. Recently, the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee approved S. 1245, the Homeland Security Grant
Enhancement Act of 2003, which seeks to simplify and streamline existing grant
programs for first responder preparedness. Among other things, the bill authorizes
a formula grant to states and localities for a broad range of preparedness activities.
Other introduced bills propose different methods of distribution, ranges of eligible
activities, and matching requirements. Examples of introduced bills include H.R.
1389, H.R. 1449, H.R. 3158, S. 87/H.R. 1007, S. 466, and S. 930. Restructuring
proposals have also been included in conference report homeland security
appropriations (H.Rept. 108-280).
While the need for federal assistance for first responders seems to be widely
acknowledged, the proposals raise a number of issues, including the following:
! Would a new program replace existing preparedness grant
programs?
! Should funds be distributed to states or directly to localities?
! Should the distribution of funds be based on risk factors? If so, who
should determine the risk factors?
! How much discretion should recipients have in using grant funds?
! Should states and localities be expected to contribute funds to
federally-funded activities? If so, how much?
! What is the appropriate balance between accountability and speedy
distribution of funds?
This report will be updated as the 108th Congress takes action on proposals to
create or modify first responder preparedness programs

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Overview of Existing Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2002 and FY2003 Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Administration Proposal for FY2004 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
FY2004 Congressional Appropriations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Legislation in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Restructuring Programs: Issues, Analysis, and Options . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Integration of Existing Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
State or Local Funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Factors in Grant Distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
State Base Amounts and Minimums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Flexibility with Grant Funds . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Matching Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Distribution of Funds and Accountability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Policy Approaches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Hearings in the 108th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Hearings in the 107th Congress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Related CRS Products . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
List of Figures
Figure 1. Selected First Responder Assistance Programs within the Department
of Homeland Security (Funded in FY2003) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Table 1. Appropriations for Selected First Responder Preparedness Programs . . 8
Table 2. Funding for Selected Programs in the Justice Department . . . . . . . . . . 17
Table 3. Examples of Matching Requirements in Selected Federal
Terrorism Preparedness Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

First Responder Initiative:
Policy Issues and Options
Introduction
Since the terrorist attacks of September 2001, both Congress and the President
have given considerable attention to the role of first responders in the nation’s
homeland security efforts.1 As part of its budget request in February 2002, the Bush
Administration proposed its First Responder Initiative, a new consolidated grant
program meant to help first responders prepare for terrorist attacks involving
weapons of mass destruction. Later that year, Congress created the new Department
of Homeland Security and stipulated that the new department would be responsible
for assisting states and localities with their homeland security efforts. Although the
107th Congress did not enact legislation to authorize the proposed new First
Responder Initiative, it did appropriate increased funding to existing first responder
grants for fiscal year 2003.
In February 2003, the Bush Administration once again proposed the Initiative
as part of its FY2004 budget request, and the 108th Congress is considering several
bills that would restructure first responder grant programs.2
This report provides background information and policy analysis pertinent to
proposals to restructure first responder assistance programs. Specifically, this report
provides information on existing programs, appropriations, legislation in the 108th
Congress, and selected policy issues. This report does not discuss all relevant policy
issues, but, rather, those issues that may be germane to any significant restructuring
of existing programs.
1 For the purposes of this report, “first responders” includes local (and sometimes state)
firefighters, emergency medical personnel, law enforcement officers, and hazardous
materials personnel. Although some analysts consider public health and hospital staff to be
first responders, this report will not address the health sector. Proposals for the First
Responder Initiative do not address public health preparedness, and there are separate
funding mechanisms for that sector in the Department of Health and Human Services.
2 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2003, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2002), pp. 646, 936.

CRS-2
Overview of Existing Preparedness Programs
State and local governments generally receive federal assistance for terrorism
preparedness from three main sources.3 All of these programs are administered by
the new Department of Homeland Security (DHS), as illustrated in Figure 1 below.
Office for Domestic Preparedness. The Office for Domestic Preparedness
(ODP) was transferred from the Justice Department to the Border and Transportation
Security directorate of the DHS on March 1, 2003. ODP awards equipment grants,
administers training programs, and provides technical assistance, among other
activities.4 The office draws authority from at least four different statutes, most of
which provide general authority to federal entities to assist states and localities with
terrorism preparedness.5 Several statutes, however, authorize such specific activities
as acquisition of interoperable communications equipment, technology research,
threat assessments, and community outreach.6 The Homeland Security Act (P.L.
107-296) enhanced ODP’s duties by making it responsible for, among other things,
“... directing and supervising terrorism preparedness grant programs of the federal
government ....”7
Congress provided $3.23 billion for ODP in regular and
supplemental FY2003 appropriations. The conference report for FY2004 (H.Rept.
108-280) provides $3.287 billion for the office.
ODP’s largest grant is the State Homeland Security Grant Program, which is a
formula grant to states. Each state receives a base amount of 0.75% of the amount
appropriated for the program. In addition, states receive an allocation in direct
proportion to their share of national population.8 Formula funds are generally used
for four general activities: planning, equipment, training, and exercises. ODP
requires states to distribute at least 80% of funds to local governments within 45 days
of the state grant award date. Congress appropriated roughly $1.87 billion for this
program in FY2003.9 The conference report for the FY2004 DHS budget provides
$1.7 billion.
3 This section discusses only those programs that fund first responder preparedness for
terrorism. It does not discuss assistance programs that may fund general public safety
improvements, such as the assistance programs in the Justice Department.
4 Additional information is available at the ODP web site: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/].
At present, the Department of Justice continues to host the ODP web site, although the
office has been transferred to the Department of Homeland Security
5 P.L. 104-132, sec. 819, 821, 822; P.L. 104-201, sec. 1412, 1415; P.L. 107-56, sec. 1005,
1014; P.L. 107-296, sec. 430.
6 P.L. 104-132, sec. 821; P.L. 107-56, sec. 1005; P.L. 107-296, sec. 430.
7 P.L. 107-296, sec. 430(c).
8 ODP points to Sec. 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) as authorization for the
0.75% minimum. The section, however, offers no further guidance on the distribution of
funds or other aspects of the grant. At present, ODP uses annual population estimates from
the U.S. Census Bureau in its population formula.
9 Program guidance for the formula grant is available at: [http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/
odp/docs/ODPApplication.pdf].

CRS-3
In addition to the formula program, ODP also administers the High-Threat
Urban Area program (also called the Urban Area Security Initiative) in which the
DHS Secretary has discretion to award grants to cities based on risk analyses.
Reportedly, ODP considers such factors as population density, critical infrastructure,
and threat and vulnerability assessments.10 The conference report for the FY2004
appropriation for DHS provides $725 million for this program, which $75 million
below the FY2003 level of $800 million.
Current Statutes Do Not Specify Grant Attributes. Arguably, current
statutory authorities provide little guidance on the structure of first responder
preparedness grants. Perhaps the only specific guidance is a provision found in
section 1014 of the PATRIOT Act guaranteeing that each state “... shall receive not
less than 0.75 percent of the total amount appropriated in the fiscal year for grants.”11
At present, ODP applies this provision to the structure of its State Homeland Security
Grant Program (formula program) and FEMA applies it to selected programs within
its Emergency Management Planning and Assistance account.12
Neither the
PATRIOT Act, nor the other statutes, however, address other grant attributes, such
as method of distribution, recipient discretion with funds, matching requirements,
and accountability mechanisms.
Assistance to Firefighters Program. This program, also known as the
FIRE grants program, awards grants directly to local fire departments, rather than
awarding funds to states for “pass through” grants.13 Congress authorized the
program in Title XVII of the National Defense Authorization Act of 2001 (P.L. 106-
398). Grants can be used for a wide variety of purposes, including firefighter safety
programs, training, equipment, and facility improvements. It is administered by the
U.S. Fire Administration, which is now located in the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate of DHS. Congress originally authorized a funding level of
$100 million in FY2001 and $300 million in FY2002.14 Following the terrorist
attacks of Sept. 2001, however, Congress raised the authorized amount to $900
million for FY2003 and FY2004.15 In the FY2003 consolidated appropriations bill,
Congress provided $750 million. For FY2004, the conference report for DHS
appropriations provides $750 million and would transfer the program to ODP.
Emergency Management Planning and Assistance Account.
Authorization for the programs in the Emergency Management Planning and
10
For more information, see DHS press release: [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/
display?theme=43&content=552], visited May 16, 2003.
11 P.L. 107-56, sec. 1014(c)(3).
12 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “FY2003 State
Homeland
Security
Grant
Program,”
Program
Guidance,
pp.
5-6.
Available
at:[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/ODPApplication.pdf], visited May 16, 2003.
13 The program web site is: [http://www.usfa.fema.gov/dhtml/inside-usfa/grants.cfm]. Also
see CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
14 15 U.S.C. 2229, sec. 33.
15 P.L. 107-107, sec. 1061.

CRS-4
Assistance account (EMPA) came from Title VI of the Stafford Act.16 The statute
does not specify an authorized funding amount for any program in the account, but
does authorize FEMA to undertake a wide array of preparedness activities. The
largest grant program in EMPA is the Emergency Management Performance Grants
(EMPG), which fund state-level emergency planning and operations. Grants are also
awarded for emergency operations centers, interoperable communications equipment,
urban search and rescue teams, and community emergency response teams (CERTs).
In FY2003, Congress appropriated roughly $443 million for EMPA activities. For
FY2004, the conference report for DHS appropriations eliminates the account, but
funds most of its activities through other accounts.
Figure 1. Selected First Responder Assistance Programs within
the Department of Homeland Security (Funded in FY2003)17
Funding
FY2002 and FY2003 Appropriations. In FY2002 and FY2003, Congress
funded terrorism preparedness for first responders through the existing programs
discussed above. FY2002 funding for these programs came to roughly $1.49 billion.
16 42 U.S.C. 5195-5196.
17 Graphic based on CRS analysis of DHS program documents, organization charts, and
congressional appropriations documents.

CRS-5
For FY2003, Congress appropriated a total of about $4.42 billion for first
responder preparedness, including regular and supplemental appropriations (P.L.
108-7, P.L. 108-11).18 The bulk of this amount, $3.23 billion, was appropriated to
ODP for its formula grants, high-threat urban area program, and other assistance
activities. Congress directed $750 million to the Assistance to Firefighters program,
and roughly $443 million to the EMPA account (see Table 1). For more information
on the FY2003 funding, see CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First
Responder Preparedness: Fact Sheet.
Administration Proposal for FY2004. The Administration requested
$3.558 billion for ODP for FY2004, which would be roughly $328 million more than
the office’s FY2003 amount of $3.23 billion. The request called for selected
terrorism preparedness programs to be integrated into ODP as part of the “First
Responder Initiative,” including current ODP programs, the Assistance to
Firefighters Program, and selected activities in FEMA’s Emergency Management
Planning and Assistance Account.19
Under the FY2004 request, 91% of ODP’s budget ($3.247 billion) would have
been distributed as grants. The Administration request did not identify funding
amounts for a number of ODP programs funded in FY2003, including the formula
program, high-threat urban area program, and critical infrastructure protection grants.
Of the $3.558 billion proposal, the request explains the use of roughly $1.642 billion.
This leaves $1.916 billion (53.8%) in funding requests for which there was arguably
no detailed explanation.
Regarding the distribution of formula-based funds, the ODP budget justification
stated that “... ODP will work closely with Congress to ensure that these funds are
allocated through a transparent formula that accounts for the varying level of threat
faced by each state.”20 DHS Secretary Ridge stated that such factors would likely
include population density, location of critical infrastructure, and risk assessments.21
Specific risk factors to be included in the formula of the State Homeland Security
Grant Program, however, were not specified in the budget justification or any
available DHS documents. Other proposed aspects of the grant program were
specified. States would have had to redistribute 80% of formula funds to sub-state
jurisdictions, but would have had discretion in using the remaining 20% of funds.
18 Since enactment of the FY2003 appropriations, at least one bill has been introduced
calling for further appropriations for preparedness grants during FY2003 — H.R. 764, the
First Responders Expedited Assistance Act of 2003. For more information on FY2003
funding, see CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First Responders: Fact
Sheet, by Ben Canada and Shawn Reese.
19 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government,
Appendix (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003), pp. 456-457.
20 Ibid.
21 U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security,
Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., May 1, 2003 (Washington: GPO). See opening statement and comments by DHS
Secretary Tom Ridge.

CRS-6
The FY2004 request stipulated that all recipients should provide a matching amount
not less than 25%.22
Furthermore, the request did not explain the method of distributing grants from
other ODP programs, including the high-threat urban area program and the proposed
program for law enforcement agencies. Some Members of Congress urged the
Administration to provide more information, suggesting that Administration
documents provided a broad strategy, but not specific details about the program.23
FY2004 Congressional Appropriations. The House homeland security
appropriations bill (H.R. 2555), which passed the House on June 24, 2003, would
have maintained the current arrangement of some programmatic accounts, but
restructure others (see Table 1 for funding amounts). It would have funded existing
programs in ODP and funded the Administration’s proposed grant program to law
enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention. The new law enforcement program
would be funded separately from ODP’s current formula program.24 The House bill
would also have continued to fund the Assistance to Firefighters Program through the
Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate (formerly the Federal Emergency
Management Agency). The EMPA account, on the other hand, would not have been
used. The House version of H.R. 2555 did contain line items in the Emergency
Preparedness and Response Directorate (EPR, Title III) for selected programs
traditionally funded through the EMPA account, including Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG), Citizen Corps, and emergency operations center
grants.25
On July 24, 2003, the Senate passed its homeland security appropriations bill
(H.R. 2555). As in the House version, the Senate bill preserved existing ODP
programs and the Assistance to Firefighters program (see Table 1). The Senate bill
also funded a new law enforcement grants program, but funded it through the ODP
formula grant program, rather than as a separate grant program (as proposed by the
House). Likewise, the Firefighters program would have been funded through ODP
(Title II) rather than through the EPR Directorate (Title III).26 The Senate bill would
22 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003), pp. 456-457.
23 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
FY2004 Homeland Security Budget Request, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st. sess., March 20, 2003
(Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 1-3.
24 In FY2003, the ODP formula program was called the “State Homeland Security Grant
Program.”
25 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, FY2004, report to accompany H.R. 2555, 108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept.
108-169, (Washington: GPO, June 2003), pp. 42-55.
26 While the Senate Appropriations Committee would have funded the Firefighters Program
through ODP, neither the bill (H.R. 2555), nor the accompanying report (S.Rept. 108-86)
specifically instructed DHS to transfer the program from the EPR Directorate to ODP. The
committee report stated that, “The Committee believes that this [the Firefighters Program]
(continued...)

CRS-7
have also discontinued the EMPA account, but would have funded some EMPA
programs through the EPR Directorate, including the Emergency Management
Performance Grants (EMPG) and Urban Search and Rescue task forces (US&R).
Funding for Citizen Corps programs, formerly funded through EMPA, would receive
funding through the ODP formula program.27
The conference report on DHS appropriations, issued on September 23, 2003
(H.Rept. 108-280), would enact a number of the proposed changes. The report
authorizes the new law enforcement grant program, with $500 million in funding.
ODP would receive a total budget of $3.287 billion, including $1.7 billion for the
State Homeland Security Grant Program and $725 million for the High Threat Urban
Area grants. The conference report also funds the Firefighters program at $750
million through a separate account in ODP (but does not explicitly relocate the
program into the office). The conference report eliminates the EMPA account, but
arguably funds most of its activities, including EMPG and US&R. Citizen Corps
would be funding through ODP.
26 (...continued)
should remain a separate grant program within the Department of Homeland Security, and
not be combined with any other grant program” (p. 49).
27 U.S. Congress, Senate Appropriations Committee, Department of Homeland Security
Appropriations Bill, FY2004, report to accompany H.R. 2555, 108th Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept.
108-86 (Washington: GPO, July 2003), pp. 47-57.

CRS-8
Table 1. Appropriations for Selected First Responder Preparedness Programs
(all amounts in millions)
FY2004 Appropriations
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
House-
Senate-
Conference
Program
Agency
Approp.A
Approp.B
Request
passed
passed
Report
State Homeland Security Grant Program
ODP
315.7D
1,870
NS
1,900
1,750E
1,700
(formula grants)C
High Threat Urban Areas
ODP
2.6F
800G
NS
500
750
725
Critical Infrastructure Protection GrantsH
ODP
—
200
NS
200
NSI
—
Law Enforcement GrantsJ
ODP
—
—
500
510K
[500]L
500
Other (technical assistance, training, research)
ODP
333.2D
360
NS
393M
388N
362O
ODP Subtotal
651.5
3,230
3,558
3,503
3,638P
3,287
Assistance to Firefighters Program
360
750
[500]Q
760K
[750]Q
750Q
EMPA Account (includes EMPG, CERT,
479.6
443.1
NS S
NS S
NS S
240 S
US&R, EOC grants)R
“First Responder” Assistance Total
1,491.1
4,423.1
3,558
4,263U
3,638U
4,277U
(Department of Homeland Security)T
Source: FY2002 and FY2003 amounts come from appropriations statutes and conference reports and selected agency documents.
FY2004 request amounts comes from: U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the United States
Government (Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003); U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Budget Justifications for FY2004, selected
sections, no pagination; and, selected press releases and reports from federal agencies. FY2004 House amounts come from House
Appropriations Committee reports (H.Rept. 108-169) and analysis of House amendments. FY2004 Senate amounts come from Senate
Appropriations Committee reports (S.Rept. 108-86). FY2004 Conference Report amounts taken from H.Rept. 108-280 and
accompanying joint explanatory statement.
Notes:
A Amounts include regular and supplemental appropriations. Amounts from P.L. 107-206 that were “contingency” items are not
included in program totals. In P.L. 107-206, Congress designated selected funds as “contingency” items, which the President had
discretion to use or reject. In August 2002, the President rejected the funds; thus, these grant funds were not distributed.
B Amounts include regular and supplemental appropriations (P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11).

CRS-9
C This program was titled the “State Domestic Preparedness Program” in FY2002.
D This amount is an estimate based on ODP documents on FY2002 distributions.
E This amount includes $500 million for the proposed law enforcement grants program and $50 million for Citizen Corps.
F The high threat urban area program was preceded by the Nunn-Lugar-Domenici program (NLD). The FY2002 amount reflects only
line-item appropriations in conference report language. It does not reflect any NLD funds that may have come from other accounts.
G
$100 million of this amount was appropriated through the regular FY2003 appropriation (P.L. 108-7), which was distributed to
seven selected urban areas. See DHS press release: [http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=552]. The FY2003 supplemental
(P.L. 108-11) appropriated $700 million, which ODP distributed for a variety of preparedness activities, including $500 million for
formula grants under the “Urban Area Security Initiative,” $75 million for port security grants, $65 million for mass transit security,
$35 million for radiological defense systems, $15 million for pilot projects, and $10 million for technical assistance. See DHS press
release: [http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ Protecting_Our_Urban_Areas.doc].
H Congress did not appropriate funds to ODP for critical infrastructure protection grants until the FY2003 supplemental (P.L. 108-11).
I
Although the Senate bill does not contain a line item for critical infrastructure protection grants, funds from the proposed law
enforcement grants could be used for this purpose (see S.Rept. 108-86, p. 48).
J This proposal—ODP grants to law enforcement agencies for terrorism prevention—would be a new program in FY2004.
K H.Amdt. 179 (agreed to on June 24, 2003) added an additional $10 million to the law enforcement grants and $10 to the Assistance
to Firefighters Program. The House Appropriations Committee had reported funded levels of $500 million for the law enforcement
grants and $750 million for the Firefighters program.
L The Senate Appropriations Committee would create a new grant program for law enforcement for terrorism prevention, but would
fund it through the ODP formula program, rather than as a distinct program.
M The “Other” category for the House bill includes funding for Grant Administration and Planning ($32 million), National Domestic
Preparedness Consortium ($125 million), technical assistance ($67 million), and a National Exercise Program ($50 million). It would
also create a new grant program for “Centers for Emergency Preparedness” ($35 million).
N The “Other” category for the Senate bill includes funding for technical assistance ($30 million). It also includes a new account
called “National Programs,” which includes the Center for Domestic Preparedness ($60 million), National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium ($80 million), core training programs ($28 million), training grants ($60 million), exercises ($50 million), equipment
support ($40 million), and technical assistance ($10 million), and management and administration ($30 million).
O The “Other” categroy for the conference report includes funding for Citizen Corps ($40 million), National Domestic Preparedness
Consortium ($135 million), technical assistance ($30 million), National Exercise Program ($50 million), Competitive Training Grants
($60 million), equipment and testing ($17 million), and management and administration ($30 million).
P The ODP total in the Senate bill includes funding for the Assistance to Firefighters Program ($750 million). The proposed law
enforcement grants program ($500) is included in the ODP formula program, and, thus, does not count toward the ODP total.
Q The Administration’s FY2004 request would have transferred the Firefighters program from FEMA to ODP (the funding amount
is listed for the request, but not included in FEMA’s total funding amounts.) The House bill would have maintained the program’s
location within FEMA. The Senate homeland security appropriations bill would fund the Firefighters program through ODP (Title
II). The conference report funds the Firefighters program through ODP, but does not explicitly relocate the program.
R FEMA traditionally used its EMPA account to fund a variety of natural disaster and terrorism preparedness activities. FY2002 and
FY2003, the entire account is included in the table, since funding supports general emergency management improvements. The

CRS-10
FY2004 request would not fund this account, but would transfer many of its activities to ODP and the EPR “Operating Expenses”
account.
S The Administration request did not include funding for the EMPA account. Some related activities, however, were proposed to
be administered by ODP and in the “Operating Expenses” account of the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.
Funding amounts cannot be identified from available documents. Both the House and Senate homeland security appropriations bills
would discontinue the EMPA account. Each bill does, however, contain provisions funding selected programs traditionally funded
through EMPA. The House bill contains funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants ($168 million), Citizen Corps
($45 million), and emergency operations centers grants ($25 million). These would also be funded through the EPR Directorate (Title
III). The Senate bill contains funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants ($165 million), Urban Search and Rescue
task forces ($64.6 million), and Citizen Corps ($50 million, which would come from the ODP formula program). The conference
report includes funding for Emergency Management Performance Grants ($180 million) and Urban Search and Rescue ($60 million).
T “First Responder” Assistance total includes programs that assist state and local first responders (firefighters, emergency medical
service, law enforcement, and hazardous materials teams) with terrorism preparedness activities. corresponds. This category also
corresponds to Administration and congressional proposals for a First Responder Initiative block grant program.
U Due to the discontinuation of the EMPA account and shifted funding of the programs formerly funded through that account, not
all assistance programs formerly funded through that account have been counted.

CRS-11
Legislation in the 108th Congress28
S. 1245. Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003. S. 1245 was
reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee in September, 2003. This
bill seeks to simplify and streamline existing grant programs for first responder
preparedness.
Section 2 of S. 1245 would create an “Interagency Committee to Coordinate and
Streamline Homeland Security Grant Programs” within DHS.
Among the
committee’s duties are assessing state and local needs and capabilities, advising the
DHS Secretary on performance measures, and identifying all duplicative application
and planning requirements in assistance programs. The bill would instruct the
committee to provide recommendations to federal agencies on coordination of
homeland security grant programs, and, specifically, streamlining and standardizing
applications and planning requirements.
Section 3 would reorganize selected agencies and programs within the
Department of Homeland Security that administer first responder grant programs.
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), presently located in the Border and
Transportation Security Directorate, and the Assistance to Firefighters Program,
currently located in the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate, would
both be relocated to the Office of State and Local Government Coordination
(OSLGC). S. 1245 would maintain the Firefighters program as a distinct grant
program.
Section 3 would also establish within the OSLGC a Homeland Security
Information Clearinghouse, charged with providing states and localities with
information on grant programs and the use of federal funds. It would also gather and
publish information on best practices in homeland security and voluntary standards
for training, equipment, and exercises.
Section 4 of S. 1245 would authorize a Homeland Security Grant Program, a
formula grant distributed to states for first responder preparedness activities.
Recipients could use funds for a range of activities, such as emergency planning, risk
assessments, mutual aid agreements, equipment, training, and exercises. Limited
amounts of funding would be allowed for overtime expenses incurred during period
of heightened alert, and overtime expenses incurred during training activities. Funds
could also be used for those construction activities authorized in section 611 of the
Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief Act (“Stafford Act”).
To be eligible for the formula funds, states would have to complete a state
homeland security plan.
The plans would address a number of preparedness
activities and issues, including interoperable communications, training, incident
command systems, regional coordination, response planning, and exercises. They
28 As this report addresses restructuring of first responder preparedness programs, this
section only discusses legislation that proposes such restructuring. Other bills have been
introduced in the 108th Congress, however, that would affect selected programs. For
example, see H.R. 1118/S. 544, S. 45, S. 796, and S. 838.

CRS-12
would include a 3-year strategy for allocating funding to localities on the basis of
risk, capabilities, and needs.
Plans also would include an assessment of the
“shortfall” between current response capabilities and necessary response capabilities.
The bill provides basic guidelines for states to use in developing the plans, including
mandatory input from local officials, first responders, and the private sector.
S. 1245, as reported, would give each state a base amount of 0.75% of
appropriated funds each fiscal year.29 Remaining funds would be distributed on the
basis of a risk-based formula, which would consider population (including military
and tourist population), population density, threat, risk and vulnerability of critical
infrastructure, international borders, and any factor identified by the DHS Secretary.
Following these criteria, the DHS Secretary would have discretion in creating such
a formula. States would be required to distribute at least 80% of funds to local
governments within 45 days of receiving funds. Recipients would have to match
25% of grant funds with “non-Federal contributions,” although the match would not
apply during the program’s first 2 years, and could be waived for recipients
experiencing economic distress. The bill also includes a maintenance-of-effort
provision, prohibiting recipients from using grant funds to supplant their own funds
allocated to homeland security.
The bill addresses accountability by directing the DHS Secretary to develop
“National Performance Standards” that will be based on the goals and objectives
addressed in the state homeland security plans.30 Each state will be required to report
annually on its progress in meeting the standards. DHS would be required to report
annually to Congress on the status of preparedness goals and objectives, state and
local adherence to performance standards, and the total amount of resources provided
to state and local governments, as well as how the funds were used. The bill would
give the DHS Secretary authority to penalize states for not meeting performance
standards. Among the penalty options are reducing or terminating grant payments,
and limiting the use of grant funds.
Section 5 seeks to give states and localities greater flexibility with previously
appropriated funds for ODP grant programs. The bill would allow recipients to
request transfers of funds among different activities.31
29 The bill treats the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states. The territories of Guam,
U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Marianas
would receive a base amount of 0.25%.
30 Until such standards are developed, DHS would assist states and localities in developing
“Interim Performance Measures.”
31 From FY2001 through the regular FY2003 appropriation (P.L. 108-7), conference reports
accompanying the appropriations statutes allocated amounts for specific activities, including
planning, training, equipment, and exercises. ODP followed the conference report language,
distributing formula funds in distinct allocations. States were not allowed to transfer funds
among allocations. The FY2003 supplemental (P.L. 108-11), however, appropriated a lump-
sum to the ODP formula program and offered no further breakdown. Thus, ODP is offering
states greater flexibility with the use of FY2003 supplemental funds. See U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “Program Guidance, State
(continued...)

CRS-13
S. 930. Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003. On July 30, 2003,
the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee ordered S. 930 to be reported.
The bill would authorize $3.5 billion in assistance. Each state would get a base
amount of $15 million; remaining funds would be distributed using a risk-based
formula. The bill provides guidance on the risk factors to be included in the formula,
but gives the administering agency discretion to design the formula. States would
have to distribute at least 75% of funds to local governments.
The range of eligible activities would include planning, training, equipment, and
exercises, as well as construction of emergency operating centers and training
facilities. Funds could not be used for compensation to first responders, including
overtime expenses. All recipients would have to satisfy a matching requirement of
up to 25%. The bill specifies reporting requirements that states must satisfy. Within
3 years after enactment, states would have had to participate in a response exercise
to “... measure the progress of the State in enhancing the ability of State and local
first responders to respond to all hazards ....”32 States would also have to submit
annual reports on the use of grant funds.
(In the 107th Congress, the Senate
Environment and Public Works Committee reported a similar bill—S. 2664.)
S. 87/ H.R. 1007. Homeland Security Block Grant Act of 2003. These bills
propose $3.5 billion in funding, of which $3 billion would be distributed to states and
localities for homeland security improvements. Seventy percent of the $3 billion
would be distributed to cities and urban counties, and the remaining 30% would go
to states for use in non-metropolitan areas.
Eligible activities would include
purchasing equipment, developing emergency response plans, improving
infrastructure and transportation security, and covering overtime expenses of law
enforcement and other first responder disciplines. Under the bills, the remaining
$500 million would be distributed to states and regional organizations for emergency
planning, developing training facilities, and improving interoperable communications
systems. Recipients would have to provide a 10% match with non-federal funds.
Similar bills were introduced in the 107th Congress as S. 2038/H.R. 4059. In the
108th Congress, S. 87 was referred to the Senate Committee on Governmental
Affairs. H.R. 1007 was referred to the House Select Committee on Homeland
Security, as well as the committees on Transportation and Infrastructure, Judiciary,
and Energy and Commerce.
S. 466. First Responders Partnership Grant Act of 2003. This would authorize
$5 billion to state and local governments. The bill authorizes the Secretary of
Homeland Security to administer the program, but does not specify an agency within
DHS. It would have sub-programs for different types of communities, including
Indian tribes, rural states, metropolitan cities and urban counties. Funds could be
used to “fund overtime expenses, equipment, training, and facilities to support public
31 (...continued)
Homeland
Security
Grant
Program
II,”
April
2003,
available
at:
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy03shsgp2.pdf], visited May 13, 2003.
32 S. 930, sec. 630(h). (108th Cong.)

CRS-14
safety officers in their efforts to protect homeland security and prevent and respond
to acts of terrorism.” All recipients would face a matching requirement of at least
10%. S. 466 was referred to the Senate Judiciary Committee.
H.R. 1389. Homeland Emergency Response Act of 2003. The bill proposes
$3.5 billion funding for a new grant initiative. One-third of appropriated funds
would be distributed to the five local governments that the DHS Secretary determines
are at the highest risk. Two-thirds of funds would be distributed to states on the basis
of population and risk factors, of which states would have to distribute at least 75%
to localities.
Funds could be used for a wide range of activities, including
preparedness efforts and critical infrastructure protection. Recipients would be
required to participate in exercises and submit reports to DHS. The bill does not
propose a matching requirement. H.R. 1389 was referred to the committees on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Science, and Judiciary, as well as the Select
Committee on Homeland Security.
H.R. 1449.
First Responder and Emergency Preparedness Block Grant
Program for Local Governments. The bill proposes $3.5 billion for a block grant to
states and localities. The distribution formula would be based on population and risk
factors, at the discretion of ODP.
The bill would authorize a wide range of
preparedness and critical infrastructure protection activities. Ten percent of funds
could be used for personnel costs, including overtime. There are a number of
accountability provisions, including requirements for exercises and reporting. It also
instructs the DHS Secretary to develop an assistance tracking system that tracks
funds awarded by states to localities. Recipients would face a matching requirement
of up to 25%. The bill was referred to the House Committees on Transportation and
Infrastructure and the Select Committee on Homeland Security.
H.R. 3158. Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003 (PREPARE
Act). Under this bill, formula funds would be distributed on the basis of essential
needs. DHS would receive state needs assessments and allocate funds based on each
state’s percentage of the total needs of the nation.33 State-determined priorities would
determine distribution to localities. Recipients would have to satisfy a matching
requirement of 25%, although the DHS Secretary would have discretion to reduce the
match to 10%. The bill seeks to prevent selected programs from being affected by
a new formula program, including such DHS programs as the Firefighter grants and
EMPG and such Justice Department programs as the Local Law Enforcement Block
Grant, Byrne Memorial Formula Grant, and Community Oriented Policing Services
program (COPS). Standards for training, equipment and other preparedness aspects
are highly emphasized in the bill.
It also seeks to enhance accountability by
stipulating a number of reporting requirements for recipients and ODP.
33 H.R. 3158, sec. 1806(b)(1).

CRS-15
Restructuring Programs:
Issues, Analysis, and Options
As the 108th Congress considers creating and modifying grant programs for first
responders, it is likely to debate a number of issues. The following section describes
issues that may arise specifically in the context of restructuring first responder
preparedness programs.34
Integration of Existing Preparedness Programs
Although details have not been published, Administration officials have
previously stated that some existing programs should be integrated into the First
Responder Initiative. The existing programs in ODP, for example, would likely serve
as the foundation for any restructuring. In its FY2004 request, the Administration
proposed transferring the Assistance to Firefighters program from the U.S. Fire
Administration to ODP and not funding the EMPA account. The FY2004 conference
report on DHS appropriations (H.Rept. 108-280) approves these changes by
transferring the Firefighters program and eliminating the EMPA account (although
several EMPA programs are funded through other accounts).
Analysis. Some emergency managers have expressed concern that new federal
policies may allocate disproportionate resources to terrorism preparedness, leaving
states and localities less prepared for catastrophic natural disasters, such as floods
and hurricanes.35 The Assistance to Firefighters program and several programs in the
EMPA account, for example, were created to help state and local governments with
general emergency management improvements, not specifically with terrorism
preparedness.36 Such a consolidation could arguably transfer federal resources away
from the traditional all-hazards approach, since the mission of ODP, and the purpose
of the First Responder Initiative, is to prepare responders for terrorist attacks, not
natural disasters (although there is overlap in skills and resources).37
The Administration’s proposal to integrate existing FEMA programs into the
First Responder Initiative has encountered opposition from a number of observers.
The International Association of Firefighters and other nongovernmental
organizations have encouraged Congress and the Administration to enact the First
Responder Initiative, but also to preserve the Assistance to Firefighters program as
34 For a discussion of general issues that may arise during the debate on a grant program,
please see CRS Report RL30778, Federal Grants to State and Local Governments:
Concepts for Legislative Design and Oversight, by Ben Canada.
35 Eric Tolbert, former president, National Emergency Management Association (NEMA),
Remarks before the Virginia Emergency Management Association, March 15, 2002.
36 For more information on the Assistance to Firefighters program, see CRS Report
RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
37 The “all-hazards” approach is discussed further in CRS Report RL31490, Department of
Homeland Security: State and Local Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada; and CRS Report
RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security: Issues for
Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.

CRS-16
a separate grant program to help states and localities maintain an all-hazards
approach to emergency management.38 Similarly, the International Association of
Emergency Managers (IAEM) has encouraged Congress to preserve the Emergency
Management Performance Grants (EMPG), which are funded through FEMA’s
EMPA account.
IAEM argues that EMPG is crucial to supporting statewide
emergency planning and intergovernmental coordination.39
The Administration’s FY2004 request would have eliminated or reduce funding
to a number of existing general assistance programs that are geared to helping states
and localities with public safety activities (see Table 2). Such programs as the
Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS), Byrne Memorial Formula
Program, and Local Law Enforcement Block Grant, all of which are located in the
Justice Department and assist states and localities with a range of public safety
activities.40 Recipients may use a portion of these funds for terrorism preparedness
activities.
The Administration’s FY2004 budget would create a new Justice
Department grant program for public safety, called the Justice Assistance Grant
Program, and also would allocate $500 million from the Homeland Security
Department’s First Responder Initiative for law enforcement assistance.41 Following
the signing of the FY2003 consolidated appropriations act (P.L. 108-7), the President
expressed his desire for Congress to increase funding to “higher-priority” terrorism
preparedness programs. Specifically, he stated,
Most troublesome, [the bill falls] short of my request for State and local law
enforcement and emergency personnel, and in particular underfunds terrorism
preparedness for first responders. [The bill funds] existing State and local grant
programs, which are not directly related to higher-priority terrorism preparedness
and prevention efforts. This is unsatisfactory, and my Administration will use
every appropriate tool available to ensure that these funds are directed to the
highest priority homeland security needs.42
38 U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line,” hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 9, 2003 (Washington:
GPO, 2003). See statement of Captain Chauncey Bowers, Prince George’s County Fire
Department, Prince George’s County, Maryland, on behalf of the IAFF.
39 U.S. Congress, House Appropriations Committee, Subcommittee on Homeland Security,
Appropriations for the Department of Homeland Security for 2004, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., April 4, 2003. See statement of J.R. Thomas, President, International Association of
Emergency Managers.
40 For more information on these programs, see “Office of Justice Programs” by Bill Krouse
and Cindy Moors-Hill [http://www.congress.gov/brbk/html/apcjs28.html]; and, CRS Report
97-196 GOV, The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: An Overview,
by David Teasley and JoAnne O’Bryant.
41 U.S. Office of Management and Budget, Budget for Fiscal Year 2004, Appendix
(Washington: GPO, Feb. 2003), pp. 640-645.
42 U.S. President (Bush), “Statement by the President,” Feb. 20, 2003. Available at:
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/02/20030220-9.html], visited May 16,
2003.

CRS-17
Some observers agree with the Administration’s approach. For example, one
policy research and advocacy group recommended that Congress transfer funding for
the Community Oriented Policy Services (COPS) and other programs to the ODP in
order to create a new, single flexible assistance program.43 Other observers disagree,
however:
The Administration’s proposed [FY2004] budget once again calls for drastic
reductions in the COPS program and the merging of LLEBG and Byrne grant
moneys into a small grant fund. In their place, the Administration has not funded
adequate alternatives that could meet the abilities of these threatened programs.44
Table 2. Funding for Selected Programs in the Justice
Department
(All amounts in millions)
FY2002
FY2003
FY2004
Program
Appropriation
Appropriation
Request
Community Oriented
1,050
984
164
Policing Services (COPS)
Byrne Memorial Formula
846
651
0
Grant
Local Law Enforcement
400
400
0
Block Grant
Justice Assistance Grants
—
—
600
(new program)
Source: P.L. 107-77, P.L. 107-117, P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11, and U.S. Office of Management and
Budget, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, pp. 641-644.
Policy Approaches.
Congress could continue funding existing DHS
programs and related Justice Department programs to help states and localities with
general preparedness and public safety improvements, in addition to terrorism
preparedness. A number of state and local officials have testified before Congress
that general assistance programs are critical to the success of their daily operations.45
This approach was also endorsed in S. 2664, as reported during the 107th Congress.
The accompanying report stated that the First Responder Initiative would be
“separate and distinct” from the Assistance to Firefighters Program and the COPS
program. The Senate Environment and Public Works Committee also observed that
both programs, along with other assistance programs, “... are important components
of a coordinated effort to provide supplemental assistance to States and local
43 Michael Scardaville, “Emphasize How, Not How Much, in Domestic Preparedness
Spending,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1628, Feb. 27, 2003. Available at:
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1628.cfm], visited May 16, 2003.
44 National Association of Police Organizations, “Legislative Update,” available at:
[http://www.napo.org/legislative-update/legislativeupdate.htm], visited May 16, 2003.
45 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, April 9, 2003, See statements of Chief
Jeffrey Horvath, Dover Police Department, Dover, Delaware; and, Captain Chauncey
Bowers, Prince George’s County Fire Department, Prince George’s County, Maryland.

CRS-18
communities.”46 Congress has arguably taken this approach in the FY2004 DHS
appropriations, which relocates some preparedness programs, but continues funding.
As reported in the 108th Congress, S. 1245 would restructure selected grant
programs in DHS, including the ODP formula program and high-threat urban area
grants. The formula program proposed in S. 1245 also incorporates elements of the
Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). The bill, however, would not
integrate DOJ programs.
Furthermore, S. 1245 would create an interagency
committee charged with making recommendations to improve coordination of
homeland security grant programs.47
Integrating the Homeland Security Department’s preparedness programs into a
single agency would arguably create a “one-stop shop” for terrorism preparedness
grants, which is a stated goal of the Administration and some Members of
Congress.48 DHS Secretary Tom Ridge has emphasized the importance of integrating
first responder programs into ODP, and suggested that such existing programs as the
Assistance to Firefighters Program can be integrated without decreasing the
program’s effectiveness.49 Congress carried out this relocation in its funding bill for
FY2004 DHS appropriations. S. 1245, as reported, takes this approach. It would
relocate ODP and the Assistance to Firefighters program into the Office for State and
Local Government Coordination. The firefighters program would be maintained as
a distinct program.50
In light of the increasing federal budget deficit, however, Congress might be
concerned about additional federal spending in the area of emergency management,
and modify programs and funding accordingly. If a new large grant program were
created and existing programs with related functions were funded at current levels,
this would present a significant increase in assistance to states and localities for
emergency management activities.
State or Local Funding
Several organizations representing state and local governments and first
responder groups have generally supported proposals to increase funding to states
and localities. There are disagreements, however, among these organizations, as well
as policymakers, as to whether a new formula program should distribute funds
initially to states or directly to localities.
46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, First Responder
Terrorism Preparedness Act of 2002, report to accompany S. 2664, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
S.Rept. 107-295 (Washington: GPO, 2002), p. 6.
47 See S. 1245, sec. 2.
48 White House Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, July
2002, pp. 41-45.
49 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, May 1, 2003, see Senator Collins
questions to DHS Secretary Ridge.
50 S. 1245, sec. 3.

CRS-19
Analysis. Organizations representing local governments such as the U.S.
Conference of Mayors (USCM) and the National Association of Counties, have
expressed concern that the First Responder Initiative would give states substantial
decision-making authority and offer local governments little discretion in the use of
funds. A 2002 USCM survey, for example, showed that 87% of city mayors believed
that the channeling of federal funds through states would ultimately “hamper” city
preparedness efforts.51 A number of congressional witnesses have also testified that
direct funding to localities is essential to improving preparedness, since local
responders will almost always be the first to arrive at the scene of an attack.52
On the other hand, organizations representing states contend that state
coordination of federal assistance is crucial to improving preparedness. One state
emergency manager, representing the National Emergency Management Association,
testified that, “[a]ll efforts to increase emergency management capacity building must
be coordinated through the states to ensure harmonization with the state emergency
operations plan, ensure equitable distribution of resources, and to synthesize
resources [for mutual aid agreements] ....”53 In its fourth annual report to Congress,
the Gilmore Commission agreed with this approach, concluding that states must have
discretion over the use of grant funds to ensure that “resources are allocated on the
basis of assessed needs.”54
Policy Approaches. Should Congress determine that greater local discretion
over the use of funds is desirable, it might instruct the administering agency to
distribute all or a portion of funds directly to localities. Such an approach is taken
in the Community Development Block Grant program (CDBG), which distributes
70% of formula funds to urban cities and counties and 30% of funds to states for use
in nonurban areas. DHS Secretary Tom Ridge has stated that he is uncertain that
such a distribution pattern would achieve the desired preparedness improvements,
since distributing funds to localities might inhibit consistency with statewide plans.
At the time of this writing, no introduced bill would distribute all formula funds to
51 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “Homeland Security: Mayors on the Frontline,” June 2002,
available at: [http://www.usmayors.org/70thAnnualMeeting/madison_061302.asp], visited
June 19, 2002.
52 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, April 9, 2003. See statements of Chief
Edward Plaugher, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington, VA, and Chief Michael
Chitwood, Portland Police Department, Portland, ME.
53 Statement of Woodbury Fogg, on behalf of the National Emergency Management
Association, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works and Environment, First
Responder Initiative, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Mar. 12, 2002.
54 Advisory Panel to Assess Domestic Response Capabilities for Terrorism Involving
Weapons of Mass Destruction (Gilmore Commission), Fourth Annual Report to the
President and Congress (Washington: RAND, Dec. 15, 2002), pp. 34-35. Available at:
[http://www.rand.org/nsrd/terrpanel/index.html], visited March 14, 2003.
The name
“Gilmore Commission” comes from the name of the Chairman, former Governor James
Gilmore of Virginia. The commission was charged with assessing the capabilities of
federal, state, and local governments for responding to terrorist incidents involving weapons
of mass destruction. Congress authorized the commission in Section 1405 of the National
Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1999 (P.L. 105-261).

CRS-20
localities. S. 87 would follow a distribution pattern similar to CDBG, disbursing
most funds to qualifying local governments and the remainder to states.
On the other hand, Congress might find that states require discretion in the use
of funds to effectively coordinate statewide preparedness efforts. Thus, it could
distribute funds through the states, as is currently done in the ODP formula grant
program, and has been proposed by the Administration and S. 1245. Under this
policy approach, Congress might determine what portion of funds states would have
to distribute to local governments. At present, ODP requires states to pass on 80%
of formula program funds.
S. 1245 would continue the 80% “pass through”
requirement, and instruct states to distribute funds to localities within 45 days of
receipt of funds. The bill, as reported, gives the DHS Secretary authority to penalize
recipients that do not comply with the statute, which might include failure of states
to distribute funds in compliance with statutory deadlines.
Factors in Grant Distribution55
Much recent discussion about first responder grants has focused on the factors
in the formula for distributing grant funds. Currently, ODP distributes money for
homeland security grants according to a single criterion set out in the Patriot Act:
each state receives a minimum of 0.75% of the total money available.56 The
remainder of the money has, to date, been distributed according to state population,
an action not specified in the Patriot Act. Combining this minimum amount with an
amount based on population has resulted in per person grant numbers that vary
significantly, with more populous states receiving more total grant money, but fewer
dollars per person than less populous states.57 Some Members of Congress and other
groups advocate a risk-based formula that reflects the threats to, and vulnerabilities
of, different regions of the country. How to measure those threats and vulnerabilities
is, however, a contentious issue, as is the question of how much discretion ODP will
have to determine risk — and therefore where homeland security money goes. In a
related action that attempted to take risk into account, ODP recently distributed $800
million to “high-threat urban areas,” selected cities chosen on the criteria of
“population density, critical infrastructure, and threat/vulnerability assessment.”58
The exact definitions of these criteria are classified.
55 This section was originally written by Rob Buschmann, former CRS Analyst in American
National Government.
56 P.L. 107-56, section 1014. The Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern
Marina Islands each receive a minimum of 0.25%.
57 Dale Russakoff and Rene Sanchez, “Begging, Borrowing for Security; Homeland Burden
Grows for Cash-Strapped States, Cities,” Washington Post, Apr. 1, 2003, p. A1.
5 8
W h i t e
H o u s e
p r e s s
r e l e a s e ,
A p r i l
8 ,
2 0 0 3 ,
a v a i l a b l e
a t :
[http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/ 2003/04/print/20030408-5.html], visited May
19, 2003. The seven cities are New York, Washington, DC, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago,
San Francisco, and Houston. An additional $700 million has been appropriated to the high
threat urban area program in the 2003 supplemental bill (P.L. 108-11).

CRS-21
Analysis. Generally, discussion over the variables in any homeland security
grant formula has focused on at least two subjects: how to measure the different
risks59 to different areas, and how much discretion should be given to DHS to
determine the risks to different areas. These questions are:
! What indicates risk to an area?
! Who decides what those indicators are?
The first issue is the what question. Determining risks to different geographic
areas across the United States is difficult, since most existing risk assessment
practices are not designed for such broad mandates. Risk assessment guidelines are
generally centered around particular factories and industries, or finding the likelihood
of cancer from an individual hazardous chemical. DHS, through ODP, is reportedly
working to create ways to measure risk of a terrorist attack to a particular area
(“metrics”), reportedly in consultation with state and local groups.60 These metrics,
however, do not appear likely to be finished in the near future. The Department of
Homeland Security has attempted to improve upon the basic criteria outlined in the
Patriot Act, with little apparent success, and Secretary Ridge has asked to work with
Congress in finding acceptable variables for a formula distributing money for first
responders.61 Describing the current grant structure as “ineffective,” one study has
listed six factors it believes should be weighted in the formula for grants: population,
threat assessments, vulnerability assessments of critical infrastructure, number of
areas where large numbers of people gather (such as stadiums), number of facilities
where large volumes of hazardous materials are stored or produced, and percentage
of counties and cities participating in mutual assistance agreements.62 Considering
(1) the difficulties in designing metrics to measure risk — determining what critical
infrastructure should count, and how to weight each piece of infrastructure in terms
of importance; and (2) the implications for grant allocation based on those metrics,
finding an acceptable formula with agreed-upon variables that reflect risk may be
very difficult.
An additional issue with risk-based allocation may be how to prevent “risk
transfers” — shifts in the risk of terrorist attack from one state or locality to another
without actually eliminating the overall chance of a catastrophic attack. The current
minimum allocation to each state appears to address that issue; Secretary Ridge has
59 “Risk” here is defined as a combination of “threat,” usually measured by intelligence
reports, and “vulnerability,” measured by a variety of methods.
60 Dalen A. Harris, “Homeland Security Funds Flow to State, Local Governments,” National
Association of Counties, County News Online, vol. 35, no. 9, May 5, 2003, available at:
[http://www.naco.org/Template.cfm?Section=5-5-03&template=/ContentManagement/C
ontentDisplay.cfm&ContentID=7876], visited May 19, 2003.
61 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, May 1, 2003. See Secretary Ridge’s
remarks responding to questions from Sen. Collins.
62 Michael Scardaville, “Adding Flexibility and Purpose to Domestic Preparedness Grant
Programs,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1652, May 6, 2003 at
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1652.cfm], visited May 16, 2003.

CRS-22
said that “[DHS] made sure all the states get a minimum level of funding, because
there are certain things that the federal government wants the states to do.”63 This
statement seems to imply that DHS wants first responders across the country to be
able to handle the same basic situations, perhaps in an attempt to ensure that every
person across the country will have a minimum level of protection against terrorist
attacks.
The second issue in funding formulas is how much discretion DHS will have in
creating and altering the formula over time: the who question. Currently, ODP
follows the minimal criteria in the Patriot Act, while distributing money to certain
areas according to specific appropriations and accompanying instructions from
Congress. DHS Secretary Ridge has asked for guidance from Congress in designing
a formula for distributing homeland security grant money to reflect the threats and
vulnerabilities of different regions across the United States; Ridge apparently
believes the current method should be improved.64 The National Association of
Counties, however, has “insisted that any changes to the program support continued
funding to both large and rural counties,” a view that may conflict with increasing
ODP discretion to focus funding on areas of highest risk.65 Members of Congress
have also expressed concern that unique aspects of their home states and cities may
be missed by a DHS funding formula that is not spelled out in law.66
The what and who questions have both been addressed in introduced bills. One
example, S. 87, directs the Secretary of DHS to allocate money to urban areas
according to a specific formula that includes variables such as population, proximity
to a nuclear or chemical plant, or international border; there is little or no discretion
for the secretary to determine the level of risk to any area.67 Another way of handling
risk in formula factors would be to give more discretion to the Secretary of DHS
while providing guiding factors; the high-threat urban areas grants, for example,
followed language in the conference report which authorized the grants. As another
example, S. 1245 gives DHS certain factors to follow in making grants, but includes
a clause that gives the Department discretion to create a formula.
Policy Approaches. At least two general approaches to handling risk in
homeland security formula grants appear to have emerged: (1) specifying the risk
factors in law, leaving limited discretion to DHS, and (2) specifying broad factors or
concepts in law, giving more discretion to DHS.
63 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, May 1, 2003. See Secretary Ridge’s
remarks responding to questions from Sen. Collins.
64 U.S. Congress, Senate Commerce Committee, Transportation and Border Security,
hearing, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 9, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003). See remarks by
Secretary Ridge.
65 Harris, National Association of Counties County News Online.
66 Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, May 1, 2003. See remarks from Sen.
Levin.
67 S. 87, sec. 7.

CRS-23
In the first approach Congress would determine the specific variables — critical
infrastructure, threat assessments, etc. — that must be considered in making grants.
This is the approach S. 87 takes for homeland security grants to cities. One possible
advantage of this method may be that homeland security funding would be
reasonably consistent once the variables are specified in law; for example, if a city
is within 50 miles of nuclear power plant, it would continue to get funding year after
year. This approach would also be relatively easy for Congress to oversee, as the
basis for the formula is explicit. However, risk variables specified in law may be
difficult to change later if threat and vulnerability assessments suggest the risks to
particular areas have changed.
In the second approach Congress would define the guiding principles behind
homeland security grants, allowing more discretion to DHS. This approach allows
Congress to rely upon the expertise of DHS when setting the variables in grant
formulas, without giving up oversight over how the money is spent. Arguably, if
DHS is given greater discretion, it can interpret the legislative guidelines to fit
changing risk conditions, and reflect the latest intelligence and threat assessments.
A possible disadvantage to this method, however, is that homeland security funding
may be inconsistent from year to year if the formula is changed often; moreover, if
Congress chooses to give broad discretion to DHS, some states or localities may feel
they have been shortchanged in funding for homeland security.
This second approach is arguably taken in S. 1245, as approved by the Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee in June 2003. The bill would allow DHS to
establish the distribution formula, but it would have to consider selected risk factors,
including population (including tourist and military populations), population density,
risk (including threat and vulnerability), and international borders. S. 1245 would
allow other risk factors to be included in the formula at the DHS Secretary’s
discretion.68
This approach was also taken in the FY2003 consolidated appropriations bill
(P.L. 108-7) and its accompanying report, which directed ODP to make grants to
high-threat urban areas based on such things as credible threat, vulnerability,
population, and infrastructure of national importance.69
State Base Amounts and Minimums. Regardless of what approach is
taken to the formula, Congress might consider providing a basic level of protection
from terrorism by assuring all states a minimum level of funding, as is currently done
in ODP formula grants.70 Supporters of this approach argue that assuring funding to
states and localities may allow them to fulfill basic requirements for training or other
68 S. 1245, sec. (4)(g).
69 U.S. Congress, Conference Committee, Making Further Appropriations for the Fiscal
Year 2003, and for Other Purposes, report to accompany H.J.Res. 2, 108th Cong., 1st sess.,
H. Rep. 108-10 (Washington: GPO, 2003), p. 637.
70 For more information on this issues, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum,
“Restructuring the Formula Program in the Office for Domestic Preparedness (Department
of Homeland Security): Hypothetical Effects of Adjusting State Minimums,” by Ben
Canada.

CRS-24
activities without worrying about losing money based on recent threat assessments.
If, however, a high minimum level of funding is set, DHS may not have enough
resources (after allotting each state’s minimum) to adequately address areas of high
threat or vulnerability, regardless of the discretion Congress allows to the
Department. S. 1245 would provide a 0.75% base amount to each state.71 After each
state received its minimum, remaining funds would be distributed on the basis of
risk.
Flexibility with Grant Funds
In general, first responder preparedness programs fund four broad categories of
assistance: planning, training, equipment, and exercises.
Such activities have
traditionally focused on enhancing the response capabilities of responders. A number
of state and local officials have argued that the range of eligible activities should be
expanded to include infrastructure security, personnel salaries, and overtime costs.
Analysis. Arguably, state and local officials have had more discretion and
flexibility with preparedness funds since the terrorist attacks of September 2001.
ODP’s formula program, for example, had four categories of eligible equipment in
FY2001, but 12 categories in FY2003.72 In the FY2003 supplemental appropriation,
Congress authorized grant funds specifically for critical infrastructure protection
(including overtime), a new activity for ODP.73 The supplemental also appropriated
a lump sum for the ODP formula program, rather than appropriating specific amounts
for planning, training, equipment, and exercises, as had been done in recent
appropriations bills. ODP, drawing on this relatively broad appropriations language,
has given states more flexibility with FY2003 supplemental funds.74
Some state and local officials may wish to use first responder grants to increase
security at such public facilities as water treatment plants, electricity plants, and
transportation hubs. A number of precedents for authorizing infrastructure security
activities exists. Since the attacks of September 2001, Congress has authorized
funding for security at certain types of facilities, including airports, seaports, and
71 S. 1245 would treat the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico as states. Territories would
receive a base amount of 0.25%.
72 Based on analysis of ODP guidance documents for formula program.
73 P.L. 108-11, “Office for Domestic Preparedness.”
74 From FY2001 through the regular FY2003 appropriation (P.L. 108-7), conference reports
accompanying the appropriations statutes allocated amounts for specific activities, including
planning, training, equipment, and exercises. ODP followed the conference report language,
distributing formula funds in distinct allocations. States were not allowed to transfer funds
among allocations. The FY2003 supplemental (P.L. 108-11), however, appropriated a lump-
sum to the ODP formula program and offered no further breakdown. Thus, ODP is offering
states greater flexibility with the use of FY2003 supplemental funds. See U.S. Department
of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, “Program Guidance, State
Homeland
Security
Grant
Program
II,”
April
2003,
available
at:
[http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy03shsgp2.pdf], visited May 13, 2003.

CRS-25
water treatment plants.75 Beginning with the FY2002 program, recipients of ODP
formula grants were authorized to a use a portion of funds for infrastructure security.
Perhaps most importantly, Congress appropriated $200 million in the FY2003
supplemental specifically for critical infrastructure protection grants.
State and local officials have also encouraged Congress to authorize funding for
hiring and salary expenses. At present, the only emergency management program
that funds salaries is FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grant program
(EMPG), which supports state-level emergency planning efforts.76 State emergency
management agencies use EMPG funds to hire planners and administrative
personnel. The Community Oriented Policing Services program (COPS) in the
Justice Department, a general public safety program, also funds hiring and salary
expenses. Local law enforcement agencies use a portion of funds under the COPS
program to hire (or rehire) officers.77 At least one bill has been introduced in the
108th Congress that would authorize FEMA to award grants for hiring firefighters
(H.R. 1118/S. 544, the SAFER Act).78
A number of state and local officials have also asked Congress to provide
funding for overtime costs. The U.S. Conference of Mayors (USCM), for example,
recommended that “at least a portion of the funding be authorized for overtime
assistance under the first responders initiative so that our local police and fire
personnel can be fully integrated into the national homeland defense effort.”79
Congress did fund overtime costs in FY2003 supplemental appropriations, which
allowed funds from the critical infrastructure protection grants and high-threat urban
area grants to be used for overtime.
In testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, DHS
Secretary Ridge addressed the issues of funding for hiring and overtime costs. He
indicated that federal, state, and local governments should share responsibility for
increasing preparedness levels, and that federal funding for hiring and salaries would
not be an appropriate activity. He did state, however, that federal funding for
75 This issue is discussed generally in CRS Report RL30153, Critical Infrastructures:
Background, Policy, and Implementation, by John Moteff. Also see CRS Report RL31465,
Protecting Critical Infrastructure from Terrorist Attack: A Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by John Moteff.
76 Authority for funding personnel salaries comes from Title VI of the “Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Appropriations Act” (Stafford Act), 42 U.S.C. 5196b (a) and
(b)(4).
77 For more information on the COPS program, see CRS Report 97-196 GOV, The
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Program: An Overview, by David Teasley
and Joanne O’Bryant.
78 Another version of the SAFER Act, was inserted into the FY2004 National Defense
Authorization Act (H.R. 1588), which passed the Senate on June 4, 2003.
79 U.S. Conference of Mayors, Letter to Hon. J. Dennis Hastert and Hon. Richard A.
Gephardt, “First Responders Initiative and America’s Cities,” July 10, 2002.

CRS-26
overtime costs, especially during times of heightened alert, was, “... a legitimate cost
that we [the federal government] should help them absorb.”80
Policy Approaches. One approach would be to authorize a broad range of
activities, giving state and local governments additional flexibility in the use of first
responder funds. Such an approach is taken in H.R. 1389, H.R. 1449, and S. 87/H.R.
1007, which would allow recipients to use funds for personnel costs, overtime, and
infrastructure security. Authorizing such activities could, arguably, change the focus
of the grant program. Were states and localities to allocate significant grant funds to
security and overtime, fewer funds would be available for enhancing the capabilities
of first responders to respond to WMD attacks, which is the Administration’s stated
goal for the program.81
Alternatively, federal funds could be restricted to only terrorism-oriented
activities in the categories of planning, training, equipment, and exercises. This
approach would limit recipient flexibility, but it could ensure that funds are used to
enhance response capabilities, rather than for operational expenses. At least one
observer has argued for such a policy, stating, “States, counties, and cities should
bear most of the burden for meeting day-to-day needs such as hiring new staff and
procuring basic equipment ....”82 ODP’s State Homeland Security Grant Program
takes such an approach in its current form. While a small portion of funds may be
used for security efforts and overtime expenses associated with training and field
exercises, the majority of funds are used for improving response capabilities. During
the 107th Congress, this approach was taken by S. 2664 (a similar bill has been
introduced in the 108th Congress as S. 930).
Another approach would be to allow a portion of funds to be used for
infrastructure security and personnel costs. Congress could instruct ODP to limit the
percentage of funds used for these activities, or give the office discretion to set such
limits. S. 1245, for example, would allow recipients to use up to 5% of funds for
personnel compensation, and up to 5% for overtime expenses (the DHS Secretary
may waive the statutory limit on funds for overtime during times of heightened
alert).83
80 U.S. Congress, Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, Investing in Homeland Security,
Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs, hearing, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., May 1, 2003 (Washington: GPO). See questions from Sen. Voinovich.
81 White House Office of Homeland Security, National Strategy for Homeland Security, p.
45.
82 Michael Scardaville, “Emphasize How ...,” Heritage Foundation, Feb. 27, 2003.
83 S. 1245, sec. 4(c)(3).

CRS-27
Matching Requirements
In its FY2004 budget request, the Bush Administration proposed that grants
under the First Responder Initiative be accompanied by a 25% matching requirement
for recipients.84 Related bills in the 108th Congress take a variety of approaches to
matching requirements: some do not include them, others propose maximum
matching amounts, while others propose minimum matching amounts. Also, federal
grant programs often include maintenance-of-effort requirements (MOEs) — policy
requirements contained in legislation or regulations requiring recipients to maintain
a pre-existing level of financial effort in a specific area in order to receive federal
funds.85 The Administration proposal does not address MOEs, although several bills
do. The legislative approach taken to matching requirements and MOEs could affect
aggregate spending on homeland security and the ability of states and localities to
participate in grant programs.
Analysis. Existing grant programs for terrorism preparedness have a range of
matching requirements. Some current programs have matching requirements that are
established either in legislation or agency rules. The largest program — ODP’s State
Homeland Security Grant Program, however, does not require a match. Some current
programs also have MOEs. The table below provides examples of the varying
matching requirements and MOEs in federal terrorism preparedness programs.
Table 3. Examples of Matching Requirements in Selected
Federal Terrorism Preparedness Programs
DHS
Matching Requirement
Maintenance-of-
Agency
Program
(contribution from recipient
Effort Provision
state or local government)
Office for
State Homeland Security Grant
no
yes
Domestic
Program
Preparedness
High-Threat Urban Area grants
no
yes
Federal
Assistance to Firefighters
30% for local departments
yes
Emergency
Program
serving jurisdictions over
Management
50,000 in population; 10% for
Agency
local departments serving
jurisdictions with a population
of 50,000 or less
84 OMB, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, p. 456. For the
purpose of this report, all matching amounts refer to the requirement placed on recipient
state and local governments.
85 For more information on matching requirements and MOEs, see CRS Report RL30778,
Federal Grants to State and Local Governments: Concepts for Legislative Design and
Oversight, by Ben Canada.

CRS-28
DHS
Matching Requirement
Maintenance-of-
Agency
Program
(contribution from recipient
Effort Provision
state or local government)
Emergency Management
not more than 50%
yes (EMPG applies
Performance Grants (Emergency
a cost-share
Management Planning and
arrangement that
Assistance Account)
requires states to
increase annually
their spending on
emergency
management)
Emergency Operations Center
Phase 1: no
no
grants (EMPA)
Phase 2: 25%
Community Emergency
no
no
Response Teams (EMPA)
Source: Analysis of authorizing legislation, program guidance, agency documents for
selected programs, as funded in FY2003.
Selected information also gathered from
discussions with DHS officials.
Observations on Matching Requirements. The former U.S. Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations (ACIR) published a number of reports
on federal grants-in-aid, many of which included observations on matching
requirements.86 One ACIR report identified several reasons for including matches
in grant programs:
! stimulate new spending for selected activities that the federal
governments deems of national interest;
! equalize spending for selected activity among states and localities;
! ensure a minimum level of service output; and,
! encourage recipient governments to administer the program in an
efficient and effective manner.87
The ACIR also reported several potential effects of applying matches in grant
programs. A grant with no or a low matching requirement for recipients encourages
eligible recipients to apply. A grant with a high matching requirement for recipients,
however, discourages eligible recipients from applying. Recipients with low fiscal
capacity typically have difficulty participating in programs with a high matching
requirement. Some observers argue that this has the impact of limiting access by
86 ACIR was created by Congress in 1959 to monitor the operation of the American federal
system and to recommend improvements.
It was a national bipartisan commission
representing the executive and legislative branches of federal, state, and local government.
ACIR was dissolved in 1995 through P.L. 104-52. Although the commission has been
dissolved, some observers and students of federalism consider its publications as essential
literature.
87 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Categorical Grants: Their
Role and Design, report A-52 (Washington: GPO, 1978), pp. 144-150.

CRS-29
communities with the greatest need, because of their limited fiscal capacity, or of
forcing needy communities to choose among competing needs.88
DHS Secretary Ridge has emphasized that states and localities should share the
financial cost of improving preparedness and security. He has pledged, however, that
DHS will review the current application of matching requirements in its assistance
programs to see whether state and local governments have difficulty satisfying such
requirements.89
On the other hand, some state and local officials have expressed concern about
matching requirements in first responder programs. One mayor, speaking on behalf
of the National League of Cities (NLC), testified before Congress that the NLC “...
was concerned that the Administration’s proposed 25% in-kind match in its First
Responder Initiative may discourage some cities from requesting funds for
first-responder preparedness.”90 Other organizations have concerns about the ability
of states to satisfy current matching requirements, given the fiscal challenges most
states are presently experiencing.
The National Emergency Management
Association, for example, reported that states may have difficulty satisfying the 50%
matching requirement in FEMA’s emergency operations center grants.91
Observations on MOEs. The ACIR argued for the inclusion of MOEs in
grant programs generally, stating, “Maintenance-of-effort and nonsubstitution
requirements are integral parts of any grant that is not totally unconditional ... They
also are important in block grants where the functional terrain is broad and often not
clearly defined, making fungibility even easier.”92 Typically, Congress uses MOEs
to ensure that recipients continue providing the same level of assistance, and use
federal funds only to supplement, not substitute, for their own funds. Without such
a requirement, federal funds could enable the activity to continue, but might not
increase the overall funding for the assisted activity.93 MOE requirements, however,
may not prevent recipients from scaling back planned increases in funding.
ODP’s State Homeland Security Grant Program, as well as FEMA’s Assistance
to Firefighters and EMPG programs, all contain MOEs. There are reasons, however,
why Congress might not include MOEs in first responder preparedness grants.
88 U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, Summary and Concluding
Observations, report A-62 (Washington: GPO, 1978), pp. 18-19.
89
Maureen Sirhal, “Ridge Cites Security Progress, urges States to Share Burden,”
Government Executive, Daily Briefing, Feb. 24, 2003.
90 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Appropriations for Homeland
Security, hearing, 107th Cong., 2nd sess., Apr. 10, 2002 (GPO: Washington, 2002). See
statement of Honorable Michael Guido, Mayor, Dearborn, Michigan.
91
National Emergency Management Association, “Emergency Operations Center
Construction Match Requirement,” Position Paper, Feb. 24, 2003.
92 ACIR, Categorical Grants, p. 174.
93 General Services Administration, Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, (Washington:
GPO, 2002), available at: [http://www.cfda.gov/public/cat-anatomy.htm], visited June 6,
2003.

CRS-30
Omitting such requirements could offer states and localities, many of which are
presently experiencing fiscal distress, more flexibility with their own funds. It could
also be argued that homeland security is a national concern, and, thus, should be
financed with federal funds.
Policy Approaches. A wide range of approaches can be taken in applying
matching requirements and MOEs to federal grant programs; this section discusses
selected basic approaches that apply to existing programs or a new first responder
block grant.
If Congress wished to ensure that states and localities continue
contributing to homeland security efforts, it could apply a MOE to first responder
preparedness programs, as is currently done in the State Homeland Security Grant
Program. The MOE could require recipients to maintain the same level of spending
as in recent fiscal years, which would establish a relatively fixed minimum of funding
that states and localities would have to contribute to preparedness activities. Another
approach would be to require recipients to use federal funds to supplement, not
supplant, their own funds dedicated to preparedness activities. This latter approach
arguably gives the administering agency greater discretion in applying the MOE, and
could complicate enforcement efforts.94 S. 1245 takes this relatively broad approach,
stating that “[grants] shall be used to supplement and not supplant other State and
local public funds obligated for the purposes provided under this act.”95
Regarding matching requirements, the Administration has proposed that states
and localities satisfy a matching requirement of not less than 25%.96 Congress could
enact this proposal, or possibly adjust the matching rate. A related approach would
be to establish a matching requirement, but give states and localities a degree of
flexibility in satisfying the requirement. This could be accomplished by establishing
a “soft match,” allowing recipients to match federal grants with “in-kind
contributions” or any non-federal funds. This would allow recipients to assess the
value of contributed goods and services and apply those amounts to their matching
requirement.97 S. 1245 would take this approach by allowing recipients to satisfy a
25% match with “non-Federal contributions.”98
Alternatively, Congress could establish a low matching rate initially and
gradually increase the rate. Considering that some existing first responder programs
have no matching requirement, including the State Homeland Security Grant
Program, gradually raising the recipient match could assist states and localities to
adjust financially to the new program. Such an approach is taken in H.R. 1389.99
Alternatively, S. 1245 would not apply the matching requirement during the first 2
years of the new program.
94 ACIR, Categorical Grants, p. 174.
95 S. 1245, sec. 4(g)(7).
96 OMB, Fiscal Year 2004 Budget of the U.S. Government, Appendix, p. 456.
97 ACIR, Categorical Grants, pp. 172-173.
98 S. 1245, sec. 4(g)(5).
99 H.R. 1389, sec. 4(a).

CRS-31
Finally, Congress could authorize ODP to waive matching requirements. Such
authority could be general or it could be based on specified criteria. S. 1245 would
allow the DHS Secretary to waive the 25% match for grant recipients “... deemed
economically distressed.”100 S. 87 includes a similar provision allowing DHS to
waive matching requirements for grant recipients “... that are deemed economically
distressed.”101 Similarly, H.R. 3158 would allow DHS to lower the matching
requirement from 25% to 10%.
Distribution of Funds and Accountability
The Administration has emphasized in press releases and testimony that it hopes
to minimize administrative requirements in the proposed program. It has not,
however, released specific details about the administrative and regulatory
requirements that it would support for this program. State and local officials have
emphasized that speedy distribution of funds should be a priority in all preparedness
assistance programs.102 Given the increasing amount of funding appropriated to first
responder programs, some argue that such priorities need to be balanced with the
need for accountability.
Analysis. Some congressional committees have expressed frustration over
reports that preparedness grants are not reaching local communities quickly.103 Both
the House and Senate Appropriations Committees addressed this issue in their work
on the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act of FY2003. In their
reports, the committees recommended deadlines both for ODP to distribute funds to
states, and for states to distribute funds to localities.104
The enacted FY2003
supplemental appropriations bill (P.L. 108-11) included deadlines for state
submission of applications, ODP distribution to states, and state distribution to
localities.105
Speedy distribution of funds, if accompanied by limited administrative
requirements, could affect Congress’s ability to oversee the program’s efficiency and
effectiveness. A number of observers have stressed the need for accountability in any
new block grant program. The Gilmore Commission, for example, emphasized that,
100 S. 1245, sec. 4(g)(5).
101 S. 87, sec. 14(b).
102 U.S. Conference of Mayors, “One Year Later, Cities Are Safer but Still Await Financial
Assistance from Washington,” press release, Sept. 9, 2002.
103 For more information on this topic, see CRS Congressional Distribution Memorandum,
“Office for Domestic Preparedness: Administrative Issues in Grant Disbursal to States and
Localities,” by Ben Canada.
104
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Supplemental
Appropriations For The Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2003, And For Other Purposes,
108th Cong., 1st sess., H.Rept. 108-55 (Washington: GPO, 2003) pp. 34-35;
Senate
Committee on Appropriations, Making Supplemental Appropriations ... For The Fiscal Year
Ending September 30, 2003, And For Other Purposes, report to accompany S. 762, 108th
Cong., 1st sess., S.Rept. 108-33 (Washington: GPO, 2003), pp. 23-24.
105 P.L. 108-11, chapter 6, “Office for Domestic Preparedness.”

CRS-32
Program evaluations must be more than just an audit trail of dollars and must be
part of an integrated metrics system ... [W]ithout a comprehensive approach to
measuring how well we are doing with the resources being applied any point in
time, there will be very little prospect for answering the question, “How well
prepared are we?”106
Likewise, an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign
Relations recommended that preparedness standards be linked to all federal
assistance. The task force stated that...
Congress should require DHS and HHS to work with other federal agencies, state
and local emergency responder agencies and officials, and standard-setting
bodies from the emergency responder community to establish clearly defined
standards and guidelines for federal, state, and local government emergency
preparedness and response
in such areas as training, interoperable
communication systems, and response equipment. These standards must be
sufficiently flexible to allow local officials to set priorities based on their needs
provided that they reach nationally determined preparedness levels within a fixed
time period. These capabilities must be measurable and subject to federal
audit.107
Several other reports have emphasized accountability in preparedness grant
programs, including reports from the U.S. General Accounting Office, Century
Foundation, and Heritage Foundation.108 (The concept of preparedness standards is
discussed in CRS Report RL31680, Homeland Security: Standards for State and
Local Preparedness.)
Policy Approaches. Congress could direct the administering agency to
develop preparedness goals and performance measures against which the progress of
states and localities could be compared. Such an emphasis on results, rather than
administrative processes, has been recommended in a number of studies on block
grant programs.109
106 Gilmore Commission, Fourth Annual Report, p. 37.
107 Council on Foreign Relations, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded,
Dangerously Unprepared, Report of the Independent Task Force on Emergency Responders,
July 1, 2003. Available at [http://www.cfr.org/pdf/Responders_TF.pdf], visited July 8, 2003.
108 See: U.S. General Accounting Office, Homeland Security: Effective Intergovernmental
Coordination Is Key to Success, GAO Report GAO-02-1011T (Washington: GPO, Aug.
2002), pp. 13-15; Donald F. Kettl, “Promoting State and Local Government Performance
for
Homeland
Security,”
The
Century
Foundation,
June
2002,
at
[http://www.homelandsec.org/Pub_category/pdf/state_local_gov_perform.pdf], visited May
16, 2003; Michael Scardaville, “Adding Flexibility and Purpose to Domestic Preparedness
Grant Programs,” The Heritage Foundation, Backgrounder No. 1652, May 6, 2003, at
[http://www.heritage.org/Research/HomelandDefense/bg1652.cfm], visited May 16, 2003.
109 For example, see U.S. General Accounting Office, Block Grants: Issues in Designing
Accountability Provisions, GAO/AIMD-95-226, Sept. 1995 (Washington: GPO, 1995), pp.
10-13.

CRS-33
Bills in the 108th Congress take a variety of approaches to accountability
provisions. Some bills, such as H.R. 1389, H.R. 1449, and S. 930, would require
recipients to participate in field exercises and report results to Congress. S. 1245, as
reported, would direct the DHS Secretary to develop “National Performance
Standards” that will be based on the goals and objectives addressed in the state
homeland security plans.110 Each state would be required to report annually on its
progress in meeting the standards. The bill also requires recipients to submit
financial reports, and for DHS to submit performance reports to Congress.111 H.R.
3158, introduced in the House in September 2003, heavily emphasizes standards.
The bill calls for the development of a wide array of standards for first responder
training, equipment, and other aspects of preparedness, which would be implemented
as part of a formula grant program.
On the other hand, Congress might decide that urgent state and local needs take
priority over program oversight and could instruct the administering agency to
distribute funds as expeditiously as possible. Several local emergency managers have
supported such an approach.112 Congress arguably took this approach by including
several deadlines in FY2003 emergency supplemental appropriations.
The
administering agency could also increase the level of training and technical assistance
available to state officials.
Conclusion
Should Congress take further action on the proposed First Responder Initiative,
or a similar proposal, it will face a number of issues common to all grant programs,
including range of eligible activities, matching requirements, and program
accountability. Congress would also face issues specifically related to homeland
security, such as determining whether risk factors should be included in a distribution
formula, as well as the possible development of national preparedness standards.
Hearings in the 108th Congress
House Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on Homeland Security, FY2004
Homeland Security Budget Request, 108th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2003.
——. FY2004 Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate Appropriations,
108th Cong., 1st sess., April 30, 2003.
110 Until such standards are developed, DHS would assist states and localities in developing
“Interim Performance Measures.”
111 S. 1245, sec. 4(h).
112 See statements of Chief Edward Plaugher, Arlington County Fire Department, Arlington,
VA, and Chief Michael Chitwood, Portland Police Department, Portland, ME, in Senate
Governmental Affairs Committee, hearing, April 9, 2003.

CRS-34
House Select Committee on Homeland Security, First Responders: How States,
Localities, and the Federal Government Are Working Together To Make
America Safer, 108th Cong., 1st sess., July 17, 2003.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland Security,
Challenges on the Front Line, 108th Cong., 1st sess., April 9, 2003.
——. Investing in Homeland Security, Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland
Security Grant Programs, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 1, 2003.
——.
Investing in Homeland Security, Challenges Facing State and Local
Governments, 108th Cong., 1st sess., May 15, 2003.
Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Terrorism: First Responders, 108th Cong. 1st
sess., September 3, 2003.
Hearings in the 107th Congress
House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on Government
Efficiency, Financial Management, and Intergovernmental Relations. How
Effectively Are Federal, State and Local Governments Working Together to
Prepare for a Biological, Chemical or Nuclear Attack? 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
March 1, 2002.
——. The Silent War, Are Federal, State, and Local Governments Prepared for
Biological and Chemical Attacks, 107th Cong., 1st sess., October 5, 2001.
Senate Committee on Appropriations. Homeland Security, 107th Cong., 2nd sess.,
April 10, 2002.
Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works. First Responder Initiative,
107th Cong., 2nd sess., March 12, 2002.
Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs. The Local Role in Homeland Security,
107th Cong., 1st sess., Dec. 11, 2001.
Related CRS Products
CRS Report RS21302, Assistance to Firefighters Program, by Len Kruger.
CRS Report RL31490, Department of Homeland Security: State and Local
Preparedness Issues, by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31791, Emergency Management Funding for The Department of
Homeland Security: Information and Issues for FY2004, coordinated by Keith Bea.
CRS Report RS21400, FY2003 Appropriations for First Responders: Fact Sheet, by
Ben Canada and Shawn Reese.

CRS-35
CRS Report RL31680, Homeland Security: Standards for State and Local
Preparedness, by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL32023, Homeland Security Advisory System: Possible Issues for
Congressional Oversight, by Shawn Reese.
CRS Report RS21348, Risk Assessment in the President’s National Strategy for
Homeland Security, by Rob Buschmann.
CRS Report RL31227, Terrorism Preparedness: Catalog of Selected Federal
Assistance Programs, coordinated by Ben Canada.
CRS Report RL31670, Transfer of FEMA to the Department of Homeland Security:
Issues for Congressional Oversight, by Keith Bea.