First Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S.2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress

Order Code RL32634 CRS Report for Congress Received through the CRS Web First Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress Updated December 20, 2004 Shawn Reese Analyst in American National Government Government and Finance Division Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress First Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress Summary On July 22, 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) issued The 9/11 Commission Report. On page 396 of the report, the 9/11 Commission recommends that federal homeland security assistance be distributed to state and local governments based on risk and vulnerability. According to the report, the risk and vulnerability assessments should consider population, population density, vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure within each state. Currently, the majority of state and local homeland security assistance programs distribute funds based on Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) and guarantee each state a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriated amounts. The Urban Area Security Initiative is the only federal homeland security assistance program that distributes funding to states and localities based on risk and threat. S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004 (passed by the Senate on October 6, 2004), and H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act (passed by the House on October 8, 2004), proposed to change the current formula used to distribute first responder grant funding to states and localities. The bills also would have included threat and risk criteria in the distribution of funds. Neither H.R. 10 nor S. 2845 proposed to fund state and local homeland security assistance strictly according to threat and risk; both bills proposed a guaranteed amount to each state. Title V, Subtitle A of H.R. 10, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders,” was originally a separate bill, H.R. 3266, introduced by Representative Christopher Cox and reported by four House committees. Title IV of S. 2845, “Homeland Security Grants,” was also a separate bill, S. 1245, introduced by Senator Susan Collins and reported by the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee. The 108th Congress did not reconcile the differences between the Senate and House versions of the legislation. The Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) includes a Sense of Congress resolution that the funding allocation issue should be resolved by the 109th Congress. Table 1 compares first responder grant formula provisions of S. 2845 and H.R. 10. Table 2 compares guaranteed state amounts and population shares of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 first responder grant formulas. The Appendix at the end of this report provides a detailed explanation (including a Table A) of the S. 2845 first responder grant formula. This report will be updated as congressional actions warrant. Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 H.R. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 H.R. 10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 List of Tables Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 First Responder Grant Provisions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Table 2. S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Guaranteed State Minimums or Population Share Amounts Assuming an Appropriation of $3 Billion for First Responder Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 Table A. Funding for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program Provided for in S. 2845 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 First Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 2845 and H.R. 10, 108th Congress Introduction Since the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001, Congress has recognized the importance of state and local homeland security assistance. In FY2003 and FY2004, Congress appropriated roughly $7.4 billion for first responder grant programs.1 Conference report H.Rept. 108-774, accompanying H.R. 4567 (FY2005 Department of Homeland Security appropriations), appropriates roughly $3.6 billion for these homeland security assistance programs in the current fiscal year. These assistance programs include: ! ! ! ! ! ! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP); Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI); Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP); Citizen Corps Programs (CCP); Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE); and Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). SHSGP, LETPP, CCP, and EMPG grants are distributed to states as authorized by Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56), which guarantees each state a minimum grant of 0.75% of funds appropriated for these programs. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has been allocating the remainder of the appropriations to states based on their percentage of the nation’s population.2 FIRE grants are distributed based on individual fire department applications for funding. UASI grants are the only DHS assistance that is distributed based on threat and risk factors. On May 3, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and stated that DHS uses risk and threat assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population as factors in determining which metropolitan areas receive funding from UASI. 1 The appropriations acts were P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11, and P.L. 108-90; these assistance programs include the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Assistance to Firefighters, Citizen Corps Programs, and Emergency Management Performance Grant Program. 2 The USA PATRIOT Act is silent on how the remaining appropriations are to be allocated, thus leaving the matter to the discretion of the Department of Homeland Security. CRS-2 In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) expressed dissatisfaction with the way first responder grants are allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”3 While acknowledging that “every state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response,” the commission recommended that state and local homeland security assistance should “supplement state and local resources based on the risks or vulnerabilities that merit additional support.” The commission offered two examples: “Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York City are certainly at the top of any such list.”4 Two bills considered by the 108th Congress would have altered the formulae for allocating first responder grants to states and localities. S. 2845 (Title IV, “Homeland Security Grants”) and H.R. 10 (Title V, Subtitle A, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders) were approved by their respective chambers. However, the conferees on S. 2845 could not resolve the differences between these two versions of the bill. Instead of reconciling the differences, conferees inserted Section 7401 into the Intelligence Reform and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2004 (P.L. 108-458) which states: It is the sense of Congress that Congress must pass legislation in the first session of the 109th Congress to reform the system for distributing grants to enhance state and local government prevention of, preparedness for, and response to acts of terrorism. Principal differences between the two bills include: ! ! ! the formulas for distributing first responder grants; state guaranteed amounts and population shares of total appropriations; and threat and risk criteria. Both the Bush Administration and members of the 9/11 Commission expressed concerns regarding the two bills’ homeland security assistance provisions. The Administration, in a letter to the conference committee, commended H.R. 10's flexibility in allowing the DHS Secretary to distribute homeland security assistance funds. The Administration, however, was concerned that H.R. 10's proposal of 0.25% and 0.45% guaranteed amounts to states would limit the DHS Secretary’s ability to allocate funding to high-risk areas.5 The 9/11 Commission reiterated its recommendation, in a letter to the conference committee, that state homeland security assistance should be distributed based on risk and threat. The commission, however, stated that H.R. 10's provision for distribution of assistance funding was preferable 3 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report (Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), p. 396. 4 5 Ibid. Joshua B. Bolten, Director of the Office of Management and Budget, and Condoleeza Rice, Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, letter to Rep. Peter Hoekstra and Senator Susan Collins, Oct. 18, 2004. CRS-3 to S. 2845's provision. Additionally, the commission recommended the conference committee alter Section 5003 of H.R. 10 to reflect the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation on threat and risk.6 This CRS report summarizes and compares the pertinent parts of the two bills as approved by each chamber. Specifically, this report compares the first responder distribution formulas in S. 2845 and H.R. 10 (Table 1) and presents the estimated guaranteed amounts each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas (Table 2). S. 2845 S. 2845 would have combined SHSGP, LETTP, and UASI into a single grant program (Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program) and would have directed that 25% of funding be allocated to UASI, with the remainder of funding allocated to SHSGP and LETPP. Each state would have been guaranteed a minimum or a population share for a homeland security baseline.7 Additionally, the bill proposed to establish an interagency committee to coordinate and streamline homeland security grant programs. The interagency committee would have exercised the following functions: ! ! ! ! consult with state and local governments and emergency responders regarding their homeland security needs and capabilities; advise the DHS Secretary on the development of homeland security performance measures; compile a list of homeland security assistance programs; and develop a proposal to coordinate the planning, reporting, application, and other guidance for federal homeland security assistance.8 The bill also would have established an information clearinghouse to assist states, localities, and first responders with homeland security grant information, technical assistance, best practices, and use of federal funds.9 Section 1048 of the bill would have authorized the ODP Director to allow a state (with an approved request) to reallocate homeland security assistance funds within the four categories of equipment, training, exercises, and planning.10 Finally, the bill would have authorized the DHS Secretary to deny entry (into the United States) of any commercial vehicle carrying solid waste unless the DHS Secretary 6 Thomas H. Kean and Lee H. Hamilton, Chair and Vice Chair of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, letter to Rep. Peter Hoekstra, Oct. 20, 2004. 7 S. 2845, sec. 1056. See Table 1 for specific information on the grant formula. 8 S. 2845, Sec. 1054. 9 Ibid. 10 Ibid., Sec. 1058. CRS-4 certified that the waste had been screened for chemical, nuclear, biological, and radiological weapons.11 H.R. 10 H.R. 10 would have allocated total appropriations based on the DHS Secretary’s discretion (based on threat and risk) and the First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and prioritization of homeland security assistance applications.12 Additionally, H.R. 10 would have guaranteed states at least 0.25% or 0.45% of total appropriations for the covered grants. States with an international border or adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line extends would have been deemed high-risk and would have received at least 0.45% of total appropriations. The states without these high-risk criteria would have received at least 0.25% of total appropriations.13 Additionally, the bill would have required the DHS Secretary to establish first responder capabilities essential to terrorism preparedness. In determining essential capabilities, the DHS Secretary would have been required to consider overall threat, vulnerability, consequences to the nation’s population, and threats to critical infrastructure. The bill proposed to establish a state and local first responder task force that would have assisted the DHS Secretary in establishing these capabilities.14 The bill would have established regional, state, and tribal homeland security assistance application standards. Additionally, the bill would have established accountability requirements and criteria for the use of homeland security assistance funds.15 States, two years after enactment of H.R. 10, would have been required to provide a 25% match of federal assistance funding. The DHS Secretary would also be required to support the development and update of national voluntary standards for first responder equipment.16 Additionally, the bill would have required the DHS Secretary to coordinate industry efforts to identify private sector resources and capabilities that could assist federal, state, and local government terrorism preparedness efforts.17 It would also have required the DHS Secretary to conduct a study of the feasibility of a nationwide telephonic alert notification system.18 11 Ibid., Sec. 1059. 12 H.R. 10, Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003. See Table 1 for specific information on the grant formula. 13 Ibid. 14 Ibid. 15 Ibid. 16 Ibid. 17 Ibid., Sec. 5005. 18 Ibid., Sec. 5009. CRS-5 Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Formulas Neither H.R. 10 nor S. 2845 proposed to fund state and local homeland security assistance strictly according to threat and risk. Both bills proposed a guaranteed amount to each state. The following tables compare the provisions of these bills that would have altered the formula used in allocating funding to states and localities for homeland security assistance, and depict the estimated guaranteed amount each state would have been allocated under these bills. CRS is unable to determine individual states’ risk and threat variables; thus Table 2 depicts possible guaranteed amounts or per capita amounts. CRS-6 Table 1. Side-by-Side Comparison of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 First Responder Grant Provisions Topic S. 2845 H.R. 10 Grant Programs Not Covered by New Formula Would have excluded the following grant programs from this title: Assistance to Firefighters Program; Emergency Management Performance Grants; Urban Search and Rescue; Byrne Memorial Formula Grants; Community-Oriented Policing Service Grants; and Department of Heath and Human Services’ public health and bioterrorism grants. [Sec. 1053] Would have excluded the following grant programs from this title: any federal grant program not administered by DHS; Assistance to Firefighters; Emergency Management Performance Grants; and the Urban Search and Rescue Grant program. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Grant Programs Covered by New Formula Would have included the following grant programs in this title: SHSGP; UASI; and LETTP. [Sec. 1056] Would have included the following grant programs in this title: SHSGP; UASI; LETPP; and CCP. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Would have established a single grant program — Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program (TBHSGP) — that would have included the grant programs listed above. [Sec. 1056] Funding Allocation Method [for more detailed discussion see Appendix] Would have allocated funding to states and localities in the following manner: Would have allocated funding to states and localities in the following manner: Would have authorized 25% of total appropriated funding for TBHSGP to be allocated for UASI grants, and 75% of total appropriated funding for TBHSGP to be allocated for SHSGP. [Sec. 1056] Would have established a state and local first responder task force to assist the DHS Secretary in determining first responder essential capabilities. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Would have authorized the DHS Secretary to allocate up to 25% of SHSGP funding to LETPP program activities. [Sec. 1056(e)] Would have established a First Responder Grants Board to evaluate and prioritize state and regional applications for grant funding based on: the degree to which the applications achieve, maintain, or enhance essential first responder capabilities; and threat to persons and critical infrastructure. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Would have allocated 38.6% of SHSGP funding (75% of total TBHSGP funding) to be distributed based on the greater of a state guaranteed minimum of 0.75% or a state’s per capita share (as defined by the 2002 Census Bureau population estimate). [Sec. 1056(e)] Would have allocated total appropriations based on the DHS Secretary’s discretion (based on threat and risk) and the First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and CRS-7 Topic S. 2845 H.R. 10 Would have authorized the Large High-Threat State Fund (LHTSF), with 10.8% of the amount appropriated for TBHSGP used to provide additional funding to states that were to choose the per capita funding, if 38.6% of SHSGP were not sufficient. [Sec. 1056(j)] prioritization of homeland security assistance applications. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] If Congress chose not to fund the LHTSF, DHS would have reduced (proportionally) all states’ guaranteed minimums or population shares. [Sec. 1056(e)] Would have guaranteed states at least 0.25% of total appropriated funding for the covered grant program. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Would have guaranteed states at least 0.45% of total appropriated funding for the covered grant programs to states that have an international border or adjoining a body of water which an international boundary line extends. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] UASI Threat Criteria Would have allocated UASI funds to major metropolitan areas with the following criteria: large population or high population density; high threat and risk related to critical infrastructure; international border or coastline; and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS Secretary. [Sec. 1056(e)] No threat criteria identified. SHSGP Threat Criteria Would have allocated 61.4% of SHSGP funding to states according to the following criteria: substantial percentage of state’s population residing in “Metropolitan Statistical Areas as defined by the Office of Management and Budget”; high threat and risk to critical infrastructure; international border or coastline; and any other threat factors as determined by the DHS Secretary. [Sec. 1056(e)] Would have directed DHS Secretary, in establishing essential capabilities of first responders, to consider “the variables of threat, vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the Nation’s population (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure.” The Secretary would have been required to base this consideration upon “the most current risk assessment available by the directorate for Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection of the threats of terrorism against the United States.” The Secretary would have been required to consider threats of terrorism in critical infrastructure sectors and types of threat set forth in the bill. [Title V, Subtitle A, Sec. 5003] Sources: H.R. 10 and S. 2845. CRS-8 Table 2. S. 2845 and H.R. 10 Guaranteed State Minimums or Population Share Amounts Assuming an Appropriation of $3 Billion for First Responder Grant Programs (Amounts in millions of dollars) S. 2845A H.R. 10B (States choose the greater of) State 2002 Population Estimate Dollars per capita 0.75% Alabama Population Share Dollars per capita At least 0.25% Dollars per capita $16.9 $4.12 $13.3 $2.96 $7.5 643,786 $16.9 $28.17 $1.9 $3.17 — — $13.5 $22.50 Arizona 5,456,453 $16.9 $3.07 $16.2 $2.95 — — $13.5 $2.45 Arkansas 2,710,079 $16.9 $6.26 $8.0 $2.96 $7.5 California 35,116,033 $16.9 $0.48 $104.3 $2.97 — Colorado 4,506,542 $16.9 $3.76 $13.4 $2.98 $7.5 $1.67 — — Connecticut 3,460,503 $16.9 $4.83 $10.3 $2.94 $7.5 $2.14 — — District of Columbia 570,898 $16.9 $28.17 $1.7 $2.83 $7.5 $12.50 — — Delaware 807,385 $16.9 $21.13 $2.4 $3.00 $7.5 $9.38 — — Florida 16,713,149 $16.9 $1.01 $49.6 $2.97 $7.5 $0.45 — — Georgia 8,560,310 $16.9 $1.97 $25.4 $2.95 $7.5 $0.87 — — Hawaii 1,244,898 $16.9 $14.08 $3.7 $3.08 $7.5 $6.25 — — Idaho 1,341,131 $16.9 $13.00 $4.0 $3.08 — Illinois 12,600,620 $16.9 $1.34 $37.4 $2.97 $7.5 $0.60 — — Indiana 6,159,068 $16.9 $2.73 $18.3 $2.95 $7.5 $1.21 — — Iowa 2,936,760 $16.9 $5.83 $8.7 $3.00 $7.5 $2.59 — — $2.78 — — — Dollars per capita 4,486,508 Alaska $1.67 At least 0.45% — $13.5 $13.5 — — $0.38 $10.38 CRS-9 S. 2845A H.R. 10B (States choose the greater of) State 2002 Population Estimate Dollars per capita 0.75% Population Share Dollars per capita At least 0.25% Dollars per capita At least 0.45% Dollars per capita Kansas 2,715,884 $16.9 $6.26 $8.1 $3.00 $7.5 $2.78 — — Kentucky 4,092,891 $16.9 $4.12 $12.2 $2.98 $7.5 $1.83 — — Louisiana 4,482,646 $16.9 $3.76 $13.3 $2.96 $7.5 $1.67 — — Maine 1,294,464 $16.9 $13.00 $3.8 $2.92 — Maryland 5,458,137 $16.9 $3.07 $16.2 $2.95 $7.5 $1.36 — — Massachusetts 6,427,801 $16.9 $2.64 $19.1 $2.98 $7.5 $1.17 — — Michigan 10,050,446 $16.9 $1.67 $29.8 $2.95 — — $13.5 $1.34 Minnesota 5,019,720 $16.9 $3.38 $14.9 $2.98 — — $13.5 $2.70 Mississippi 2,871,782 $16.9 $5.83 $8.5 $2.93 $7.5 $2.59 — — Missouri 5,672,579 $16.9 $2.96 $16.8 $2.95 $7.5 $1.32 — — Montana 909,453 $16.9 $18.78 $2.7 $3.00 — Nebraska 1,729,180 $16.9 $9.94 $5.1 $3.00 $7.5 $4.41 — — Nevada 2,173,491 $16.9 $7.68 $6.5 $2.95 $7.5 $3.41 — — New Hampshire 1,275,056 $16.9 $13.00 $3.8 $2.92 — New Jersey 8,590,300 $16.9 $1.97 $25.5 $2.97 $7.5 New Mexico 1,855,059 $16.9 $8.89 $5.5 $2.89 — — $13.5 $7.11 19,157,532 $16.9 $0.88 $56.9 $2.96 — — $13.5 $0.70 8,320,146 $16.9 $2.04 $24.7 $2.98 $7.5 — — 634,110 $16.9 $28.17 $1.9 $3.17 — New York North Carolina North Dakota — — — $0.87 $0.90 — $13.5 $13.5 $13.5 — $13.5 $10.38 $15.00 $10.38 — $22.50 CRS-10 S. 2845A H.R. 10B (States choose the greater of) State 2002 Population Estimate Dollars per capita 0.75% Ohio Population Share Dollars per capita At least 0.25% At least 0.45% Dollars per capita 11,421,267 $16.9 $1.48 $33.9 $2.97 — — $13.5 Oklahoma 3,493,714 $16.9 $4.83 $10.4 $2.97 $7.5 $2.14 — Oregon 3,521,515 $16.9 $4.83 $10.5 $3.00 — — $13.5 Pennsylvania 12,335,091 $16.9 $1.37 $36.6 $2.98 — — $13.5 Rhode Island 1,069,725 $16.9 $15.36 $3.2 $2.91 $7.5 $6.82 — — South Carolina 4,107,183 $16.9 $4.12 $12.2 $2.98 $7.5 $1.83 — — 761,063 $16.9 $21.13 $2.3 $2.88 $7.5 $9.38 — — 5,797,289 $16.9 $2.91 $17.2 $2.97 $7.5 $1.29 — — Texas 21,779,893 $16.9 $0.78 $64.7 $2.97 — Utah 2,316,256 $16.9 $7.34 $6.9 $3.00 $7.5 Vermont 616,592 $16.9 $28.17 $1.8 $3.00 — Virginia 7,293,542 $16.9 $2.32 $21.7 $2.97 $7.5 Washington 6,068,996 $16.9 $2.77 $18.0 $2.95 — West Virginia 1,801,873 $16.9 $9.39 $5.4 $3.00 $7.5 Wisconsin 5,441,196 $16.9 $3.13 $16.2 $3.00 — South Dakota Tennessee Wyoming 498,703 $16.9 $33.80 $1.5 $3.00 $7.5 Sources: S. 2845 and H.R. 10, and CRS calculations based on 2002 census population estimates by the Bureau of the Census. A Dollars per capita — $3.26 — $1.03 — $4.17 — $15.00 $13.5 — $13.5 $1.18 — $3.86 $1.10 $0.62 — $22.50 — — $13.5 $2.21 — $13.5 — — $2.50 — See Appendix for a step-by-step explanation (including table) of S. 2845 and H.R. 10 first responder grant allocation methods. H.R. 10 would have guaranteed at least 0.25% or 0.45% of total appropriations for covered grants to states. States with international border or coastline adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line extends would have received at least 0.45%. B CRS-11 Appendix: Grant Allocation Methods in S. 2845 and H.R. 10 S. 2845 The following discussion19 demonstrates how the formula in S. 2845 would have allocated first responder grants to states. The calculations are performed in stepwise fashion, and the results of each step are presented in Table A of this appendix. The final allocations resulting from the formula are presented in Table 2 of this report. The columns in Table A following these steps assume a “tentative allocation” of $3 billion, which would have become $3.323 billion if the 10.8% of total Large High-Threat State Fund were fully funded. First, DHS would have allocated funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Program (summing to $750 million). (See column A, which assumes that each state would have received the same share of the total that it received in 2004.) Second, column B calculates how much would have been allocated to the jurisdictions if they received only their base percentage shares. States (and DC) would have received 0.75% of the total, and territories would have received one-tenth of the state minimum (0.075%). This step allocates 38.625% of the total appropriation, summing to approximately $869 million. Third, column C calculates how much the jurisdictions would have received based on population. In this example, the amount would be the jurisdictions’ proportional share of the total population multiplied by the same 38.625% of the total allocated in the second step (summing to $869 million). (The salient point here is that the percentage calculations in the “choice” step are based on $869 million, not the entire $3 billion.) Fourth, the amount in column D represents allocations to the states that would have been the greater amount in either the second step or the third step. This step allocates a total of $1.192 billion, $323 million more than in second or third steps. The $323 million is just under 10.8% of $3 billion the table assumes would have been allocated by the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program. The table assumes the 10.8% figure was chosen for the Large High-Threat State Fund because it is big enough to make up for the fact that without the fund, not enough money would be authorized to all states for the “choice step” encompassed by columns B, C, and D. Fifth, column E allocates the “risk portion,” using population as a surrogate for risk. The funding sources for the risk portion include the remainder of the $1.058 billion of the $2.25 billion that would have been allocated under the State Homeland 19 Based on an analysis prepared by David Huckabee, Specialist in American National Government, Government and Finance Division, Congressional Research Service. CRS-12 Security Grant Program which is not allocated by the fourth step, plus $323 million from the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program. (As noted in the fourth step, $323 million would have been needed cover the shortfall generated by the “choice step.” This separately authorized account actually authorizes $324 million, but the jurisdictions would have needed only $323 million of the funds authorized to make up for the shortfall. The extra $1 million in the authorization would have served as an “insurance policy” to make sure enough funds were authorized so all states would be fully funded. Thus, the fifth step allocates a total of $1.381 billion. Sixth, column F adds the “choice step” figure (column D) to the “risk portion” (column E). This step allocates a total of $2.573 billion for the State Homeland Security Grant Program. Seventh, the State Homeland Security Grant Program total (see column F) is added to the Urban Area Security Initiative funds from the first step (see column A). This step allocates a total of $3.323 billion (see Grand Total, fully funded column). Eighth, if the Large High-Threat State Fund were not adequately funded so that all jurisdictions could be fully funded, each jurisdiction’s total would have been reduced proportionally until no more than the appropriated amount would have been allocated. A cautionary note about the funding figures in Table A is that the table consistently uses population as a surrogate for “risk.” By so doing, it may be significantly overstating possible funding levels for states. For example, the riskbased UASI program provided no funding in FY2004 to 28 of the jurisdictions covered in section 1056 of S. 2845. The “risk” column in the table (column E) shows funds being allocated to all the jurisdictions because population is used as a surrogate for risk. The Department of Homeland Security, however, might not choose population as a surrogate for risk, so the only funds that would have been “guaranteed” to jurisdictions in S. 2845 would be those distributed in the “choice step.” The purpose of the Large High-Threat Grant Program would have been to supplement the funds allocated under the State Homeland Security Grant Program because the “choice” option for jurisdictions would have reduced the total funds that could be distributed through the risk-based, secondary distribution portion of the latter program. Allowing the larger states to be guaranteed $323 million more than they would be entitled to, were they limited to 0.75% of the $2.25 billion in this example, would have reduced funding to all jurisdictions having the risk factors described in section 1056. The Large High-Threat Grant Program would have made available an additional $323 million over the $3 billion (assumed to be appropriated) to all jurisdictions qualifying for risk-based funding. CRS-13 Table A. Funding for the Threat-Based Homeland Security Grant Program Provided for in S. 2845 State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program) “Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of the full appropriation, see column A) or their population-based proportional share of $869 million (the total amount that would be allocated in column A if there were no population option). State Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut DC Delaware Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky 2002 population estimate 4,486,508 643,786 5,456,453 2,710,079 35,116,033 4,506,542 3,460,503 570,898 807,385 16,713,149 8,560,310 1,244,898 1,341,131 12,600,620 6,159,068 2,936,760 2,715,884 4,092,891 A. UASI Allocation $750 million divided among the states based on their shares of the 2004 C. Population Urban Area option: States’ Security B. Base populationInitiative amount: (first based funding $869 million) proportional share of $869 million $0 $0 $13,561,181 $0 $150,818,117 $9,615,100 $10,704,440 $32,569,066 $0 $41,350,486 $11,938,286 $0 $0 $37,949,075 $11,282,458 $0 $0 $9,993,034 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $13,324,756 $1,912,020 $16,205,455 $8,048,830 $104,293,265 $13,384,256 $10,277,561 $1,695,545 $2,397,902 $49,637,408 $25,423,791 $3,697,299 $3,983,107 $37,423,356 $18,292,195 $8,722,064 $8,066,071 $12,155,729 D. “Hold Harmless” base amount: States get the greater of 0.75% of $2.25 billion (col. B), or their populationbased proportional share of $869 million (col.C). This step allocates $1.192 billion of the total. E. Risk portion: (remaining $1.381 billion, not accounted for in col.D, plus the funds from the Large High-Threat Grant Program Population has been used as a surrogate for risk in this calculation.) Grand Total: Law Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of F. Total: (sum of columns A and F with (Maximum columns D and E, no proportional amount that the totaling $2.573 billion) reduction) Secretary of DHS may designate for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (25%)) Per Per Total Total capita capita With proportional reduction: (reducing funding to sum to $3 billion) Total Per capita $16,875,000 $21,172,994 $38,047,994 $8.48 $9,511,998 $38,047,994 $8.48 $34,349,181 $7.66 $16,875,000 $3,038,193 $19,913,193 $30.93 $4,978,298 $19,913,193 $30.93 $17,977,344 $27.92 $16,875,000 $25,750,416 $42,625,416 $7.81 $10,656,354 $56,186,597 $10.30 $50,724,450 $9.30 $16,875,000 $12,789,565 $29,664,565 $10.95 $7,416,141 $29,664,565 $10.95 $26,780,742 $9.88 $104,293,265 $165,721,660 $270,014,925 $7.69 $67,503,731 $420,833,042 $11.98 $379,922,009 $10.82 $16,875,000 $21,267,540 $38,142,540 $8.46 $9,535,635 $47,757,640 $10.60 $43,114,909 $9.57 $16,875,000 $16,331,010 $33,206,010 $9.60 $8,301,503 $43,910,450 $12.69 $39,641,722 $11.46 $16,875,000 $2,694,216 $19,569,216 $34.28 $4,892,304 $52,138,282 $91.33 $47,069,690 $82.45 $16,875,000 $3,810,259 $20,685,259 $25.62 $5,171,315 $20,685,259 $25.62 $18,674,354 $23.13 $49,637,408 $78,873,681 $128,511,090 $7.69 $32,127,772 $169,861,576 $10.16 $153,348,584 $9.18 $25,423,791 $40,398,321 $65,822,112 $7.69 $16,455,528 $77,760,398 $9.08 $70,200,967 $8.20 $16,875,000 $5,874,996 $22,749,996 $18.27 $5,687,499 $22,749,996 $18.27 $20,538,369 $16.50 $16,875,000 $6,329,145 $23,204,145 $17.30 $5,801,036 $23,204,145 $17.30 $20,948,368 $15.62 $37,423,356 $59,465,591 $96,888,947 $7.69 $24,222,237 $134,838,022 $10.70 $121,729,824 $9.66 $18,292,195 $29,066,238 $47,358,433 $7.69 $11,839,608 $58,640,891 $9.52 $52,940,151 $8.60 $16,875,000 $13,859,332 $30,734,332 $10.47 $7,683,583 $30,734,332 $10.47 $27,746,512 $9.45 $16,875,000 $12,816,960 $29,691,960 $10.93 $7,422,990 $29,691,960 $10.93 $26,805,474 $9.87 $16,875,000 $19,315,413 $36,190,413 $8.84 $9,047,603 $46,183,447 $11.28 $41,693,751 $10.19 CRS-14 State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program) “Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of the full appropriation, see column A) or their population-based proportional share of $869 million (the total amount that would be allocated in column A if there were no population option). State Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania 2002 population estimate 4,482,646 1,294,464 5,458,137 6,427,801 10,050,446 5,019,720 2,871,782 5,672,579 909,453 1,729,180 2,173,491 1,275,056 8,590,300 1,855,059 19,157,532 8,320,146 634,110 11,421,267 3,493,714 3,521,515 12,335,091 A. UASI Allocation $750 million divided among the states based on their shares of the 2004 C. Population Urban Area option: States’ Security populationB. Base Initiative based amount: (first funding $869 million) proportional share of $869 million $15,939,945 $0 $17,696,230 $21,264,376 $15,284,118 $22,353,717 $0 $26,733,312 $0 $0 $11,704,855 $0 $35,748,162 $0 $70,996,117 $8,225,634 $0 $35,481,385 $0 $9,070,429 $38,893,912 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $13,313,286 $3,844,508 $16,210,457 $19,090,321 $29,849,437 $14,908,375 $8,529,082 $16,847,341 $2,701,040 $5,135,598 $6,455,185 $3,786,867 $25,512,860 $5,509,454 $56,897,132 $24,710,513 $1,883,282 $33,920,723 $10,376,196 $10,458,764 $36,634,745 D. “Hold Harmless” base amount: States get the greater of 0.75% of $2.25 billion (col. B), or their populationbased proportional share of $869 million (col.C). This step allocates $1.192 billion of the total. $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $19,090,321 $29,849,437 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $25,512,860 $16,875,000 $56,897,132 $24,710,513 $16,875,000 $33,920,723 $16,875,000 $16,875,000 $36,634,745 E. Risk portion: (remaining $1.381 billion, not accounted for in col.D, plus the funds from the Large High-Threat Grant Program Population has been used as a surrogate for risk in this calculation.) Grand Total: Law Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of F. Total: (sum of columns A and F with (Maximum columns D and E, no proportional amount that the totaling $2.573 billion) reduction) Secretary of DHS may designate for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (25%)) Per Per Total Total capita capita With proportional reduction: (reducing funding to sum to $3 billion) Total $21,154,768 $38,029,768 $8.48 $9,507,442 $53,969,713 $12.04 $48,723,080 $6,108,911 $22,983,911 $17.76 $5,745,978 $22,983,911 $17.76 $20,749,544 $25,758,363 $42,633,363 $7.81 $10,658,341 $60,329,593 $11.05 $54,464,688 $30,334,459 $49,424,780 $7.69 $12,356,195 $70,689,156 $11.00 $63,817,152 $47,430,659 $77,280,097 $7.69 $19,320,024 $92,564,215 $9.21 $83,565,640 $23,689,360 $40,564,360 $8.08 $10,141,090 $62,918,077 $12.53 $56,801,533 $13,552,683 $30,427,683 $10.60 $7,606,921 $30,427,683 $10.60 $27,469,674 $26,770,370 $43,645,370 $7.69 $10,911,343 $70,378,682 $12.41 $63,536,861 $4,291,944 $21,166,944 $23.27 $5,291,736 $21,166,944 $23.27 $19,109,213 $8,160,449 $25,035,449 $14.48 $6,258,862 $25,035,449 $14.48 $22,601,642 $10,257,267 $27,132,267 $12.48 $6,783,067 $38,837,122 $17.87 $35,061,595 $6,017,320 $22,892,320 $17.95 $5,723,080 $22,892,320 $17.95 $20,666,857 $40,539,852 $66,052,712 $7.69 $16,513,178 $101,800,874 $11.85 $91,904,363 $8,754,504 $25,629,504 $13.82 $6,407,376 $25,629,504 $13.82 $23,137,947 $90,409,358 $147,306,490 $7.69 $36,826,623 $218,302,607 $11.40 $197,080,449 $39,264,925 $63,975,438 $7.69 $15,993,860 $72,201,072 $8.68 $65,182,088 $2,992,529 $19,867,529 $31.33 $4,966,882 $19,867,529 $31.33 $17,936,119 $53,899,919 $87,820,642 $7.69 $21,955,160 $123,302,027 $10.80 $111,315,294 $16,487,742 $33,362,742 $9.55 $8,340,685 $33,362,742 $9.55 $30,119,403 $16,618,942 $33,493,942 $9.51 $8,373,485 $42,564,371 $12.09 $38,426,501 $58,212,491 $94,847,236 $7.69 $23,711,809 $133,741,148 $10.84 $120,739,582 Per capita $10.87 $16.03 $9.98 $9.93 $8.31 $11.32 $9.57 $11.20 $21.01 $13.07 $16.13 $16.21 $10.70 $12.47 $10.29 $7.83 $28.29 $9.75 $8.62 $10.91 $9.79 CRS-15 State Homeland Security Grant Program (includes funding for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program) “Choice step” Jurisdictions receive the greater amount of the base amount (0.75% or 0.075% of the full appropriation, see column A) or their population-based proportional share of $869 million (the total amount that would be allocated in column A if there were no population option). State 2002 population estimate A. UASI Allocation $750 million divided among the states based on their shares of the 2004 C. Population Urban Area option: States’ Security populationB. Base Initiative based amount: (first funding $869 million) proportional share of $869 million D. “Hold Harmless” base amount: States get the greater of 0.75% of $2.25 billion (col. B), or their populationbased proportional share of $869 million (col.C). This step allocates $1.192 billion of the total. E. Risk portion: (remaining $1.381 billion, not accounted for in col.D, plus the funds from the Large High-Threat Grant Program Population has been used as a surrogate for risk in this calculation.) Grand Total: Law Enforcement: Fully funded: (Sum of F. Total: (sum of columns A and F with (Maximum columns D and E, no proportional amount that the totaling $2.573 billion) reduction) Secretary of DHS may designate for the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (25%)) Per Per Total Total capita capita Rhode Island 1,069,725 $0 $16,875,000 $3,177,042 $16,875,000 $5,048,310 $21,923,310 South Carolina 4,107,183 $0 $16,875,000 $12,198,175 $16,875,000 $19,382,861 $36,257,861 South Dakota 761,063 $0 $16,875,000 $2,260,328 $16,875,000 $3,591,654 $20,466,654 Tennessee 5,797,289 $11,126,838 $16,875,000 $17,217,725 $17,217,725 $27,358,909 $44,576,634 Texas 21,779,893 $42,751,067 $16,875,000 $64,685,443 $64,685,443 $102,784,959 $167,470,402 Utah 2,316,256 $0 $16,875,000 $6,879,191 $16,875,000 $10,931,012 $27,806,012 Vermont 616,592 $0 $16,875,000 $1,831,254 $16,875,000 $2,909,857 $19,784,857 Virginia 7,293,542 $7,269,682 $16,875,000 $21,661,539 $21,661,539 $34,420,115 $56,081,654 Washington 6,068,996 $18,363,173 $16,875,000 $18,024,684 $18,024,684 $28,641,165 $46,665,849 West Virginia 1,801,873 $0 $16,875,000 $5,351,493 $16,875,000 $8,503,506 $25,378,506 Wisconsin 5,441,196 $11,315,805 $16,875,000 $16,160,142 $16,875,000 $25,678,414 $42,553,414 Wyoming 498,703 $0 $16,875,000 $1,481,129 $16,875,000 $2,353,509 $19,228,509 Puerto Rico 3,858,806 $0 $1,687,500 $11,460,505 $11,460,505 $18,210,706 $29,671,211 Guam 154,805 $0 $1,687,500 $459,765 $1,687,500 $730,565 $2,418,065 U.S. Virgin Islands 108,612 $0 $1,687,500 $322,573 $1,687,500 $512,568 $2,200,068 Northern Marianas 69,221 $0 $1,687,500 $205,584 $1,687,500 $326,672 $2,014,172 American Samoa 57,291 $0 $1,687,500 $170,152 $1,687,500 $270,371 $1,957,871 292,617,433 $750,000,000 $869,062,500 $869,062,500 $1,192,110,642 $1,380,937,500 $2,573,048,142 Total Sources: P.L. 108-90, and CRS calculations based on 2002 census population estimates by the Bureau of the Census. $20.49 $8.83 $26.89 $7.69 $7.69 $12.00 $32.09 $7.69 $7.69 $14.08 $7.82 $38.56 $7.69 $15.62 $20.26 $29.10 $34.17 $8.79 $5,480,827 $9,064,465 $5,116,663 $11,144,159 $41,867,601 $6,951,503 $4,946,214 $14,020,413 $11,666,462 $6,344,626 $10,638,354 $4,807,127 $7,417,803 $604,516 $550,017 $503,543 $489,468 $21,923,310 $36,257,861 $20,466,654 $55,703,472 $210,221,469 $27,806,012 $19,784,857 $63,351,336 $65,029,022 $25,378,506 $53,869,219 $19,228,509 $29,671,211 $2,418,065 $2,200,068 $2,014,172 $1,957,871 With proportional reduction: (reducing funding to sum to $3 billion) Total Per capita $20.49 $19,792,048 $18.50 $8.83 $32,733,075 $7.97 $26.89 $18,477,000 $24.28 $9.61 $50,288,292 $8.67 $9.65 $189,784,915 $8.71 $12.00 $25,102,867 $10.84 $32.09 $17,861,484 $28.97 $8.69 $57,192,673 $7.84 $10.72 $58,707,265 $9.67 $14.08 $22,911,349 $12.72 $9.90 $48,632,355 $8.94 $38.56 $17,359,221 $34.81 $7.69 $26,786,742 $6.94 $15.62 $2,182,994 $14.10 $20.26 $1,986,190 $18.29 $29.10 $1,818,365 $26.27 $34.17 $1,767,538 $30.85 $643,262,035 $3,323,048,142 $11.36 $3,000,000,000 $10.25 CRS-16 H.R. 10 The following discussion demonstrates how the formula in H.R. 10 would have allocated first responder grants to states. First, with the assistance of a state and local first responder task force, the DHS Secretary would have determined essential capabilities for first responders terrorism preparedness. These essential capabilities would have been based upon variables of threat, vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the nation’s population (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure. Second, the First Responder Grants Board would have evaluated and prioritized state homeland security assistance applications based on the degree to which they would achieve, maintain, or enhance the essential capabilities of first responders. Additionally, the applications would have been evaluated and prioritized on the extent to which an application lessened the threat to, vulnerability of, and consequences for persons and critical infrastructure. Greater weight would have been given to applications based on threats of terrorism that were specific and credible, including patterns of attacks. Third, appropriations would have been distributed based on the DHS Secretary’s discretion (based on threat and risk) and the First Responder Grants Board’s evaluation and prioritization of homeland security assistance applications. Fourth, states without international borders and not adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line extends would have received at least 0.25% of the total appropriations. Assuming a total of $3 billion, this amount would be $7.5 million. Fifth, states with international borders or adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary line extends would have received at least 0.45% of the total appropriations. Assuming a total of $3 billion, the amount would be $13.5 million. Finally, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands would have received at least 0.08% of the total appropriations. Assuming a total of $3 billion, the amount would have been $2.4 million. State amounts are shown in Table 2 of this report.