Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress

Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress

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

Homeland Security Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21
and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress
Summary
In FY2005, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for state and local homeland
security assistance programs. These homeland security assistance programs include
the: State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP); Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI); Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP); Citizen
Corps Programs (CCP); Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE); and Emergency
Management Performance Grants.
In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to
allocate funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same manner as the
FY2004 allocations. The minimum allocations are based on the formula of 0.75%
of total appropriations guaranteed to each state, 0.25% of total appropriations
guaranteed to each U.S. territory, and the remainder of total appropriations are based
on the states’ population percentage of the total national population. The actual
FY2005 minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for
each state and $3.75 million for each territory. In the absence of statutes or
congressional guidance, DHS, in FY2004, decided to allocate the remaining
appropriations in direct proportion to the ratio of each states’s population to the total
national population.
UASI grants are the only DHS assistance that is distributed based on threat and
risk factors. On May 3, 2003, former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified before the
Senate Governmental Affairs Committee and stated that DHS uses risk and threat
assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population as factors in
determining which metropolitan areas receive funding from UASI.
In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon
the United States (9/11 Commission) questioned the way state and local homeland
security assistance is allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance
should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”
In the 109th Congress, a bill passed by the House (H.R. 1544, “Faster and
Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005”) and a bill (S. 21, “Homeland
Security Enhancement Act of 2005”) passed as an amendment to the Senate reported
H.R. 2360 (FY2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations) propose to
alter the formulas for allocating federal homeland security assistance to states and
localities. Both bills propose that ODP use risk factors in determining state and
locality homeland security assistance.
This CRS report summarizes and compares the two bills. Specifically, the
report compares the sections in S. 21 and H.R. 1544 (Table 2), presents estimated
guaranteed amounts each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas
(Table 3), and a step-by-step process for distribution of federal homeland security
assistance (Appendix A and B), as proposed by these two bills.

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

Homeland Security Grant Formulas:
A Comparison of Formula Provisions
in S. 21 and H.R. 1544, 109th Congress
Introduction
In FY2005, Congress appropriated $3.6 billion for state and local homeland
security assistance programs.1 These homeland security assistance programs include:
! the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
! the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
! the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP);
! the Citizen Corps Programs (CCP);
! Assistance to Firefighters (FIRE); and
! Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG).
In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to
allocate funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same manner as the
FY2004 allocations. The minimum allocations are based on the formula of 0.75% of
total appropriations guaranteed to each state, 0.25% of total appropriations
guaranteed to each U.S. territory, and the remainder of total appropriations are based
on the states’ population percentage of the total national population.2 The actual
FY2005 minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for
each state and $3.75 million for each territory. In the absence of statutory or other
congressional guidance, DHS allocated the remaining appropriations for FY2004 in
direct proportion to the ratio of each states’s population to the total national
population.3
FIRE grants are distributed based on individual fire department applications for
funding. UASI grants are the only DHS assistance that is distributed based on threat
and risk factors. On May 3, 2003, then- DHS Secretary Tom Ridge, testifying before
the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee, said that DHS uses risk and threat
assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population as factors in
determining which metropolitan areas receive funding from UASI.
1 P.L. 108-334. FY2005 DHS appropriations by program area are shown in Table 1.
2 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, and P.L. 108-334 (FY2005 DHS appropriations).
3 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit,
(Washington: Nov. 2004), p. 1.

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

CRS-3
Legislation in the 109th Congress
In the 109th Congress, one bill, passed by the House on May 13, 2005 (H.R.
1544, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005”)6 and a bill (S.
21, “Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005”) passed as an amendment to the
Senate reported H.R. 2360 (FY2006 Department of Homeland Security
appropriations)7 propose to alter the formulas for allocating federal homeland
security assistance to states and localities. propose to alter the formulas for allocating
federal homeland security assistance to states and localities. Both bills propose that
ODP use risk factors in determining state and locality homeland security assistance.
Among the differences between the two bills are the following:
! S. 21 proposes a guaranteed funding base for each state;
! S. 21 proposes to establish a task force to assist the DHS Secretary
establish essential terrorism preparedness capabilities;
! S. 21 proposes to authorize metropolitan communities to apply as a
metropolitan region;
! S. 21 proposes an authorization of appropriations of $2.9 billion in
FY2006 and FY2007 for the covered grant programs;
! H.R. 1544 proposes to allocate funding to states based on threat and
risk, however each state is guaranteed a minimum if it does not meet
a specified threshold (0.25% or 0.45%) after funding is allocated by
threat and risk factors;
! H.R. 1544 proposes to establish a task force to assist the DHS
Secretary in updating, revising, or replacing essential first responder
capabilities, and a First Responder Grant Board to evaluate and
prioritize state homeland security assistance applications based on
risk; and
! H.R. 1544 proposes a Government Accountability Office report on
the inventory and status of homeland security first responder
training.
! H.R. 1544 proposes a 25% state matching requirement.
This CRS report summarizes and compares the two bills. Specifically, the
report compares the sections in S. 21 and H.R. 1544 (Table 2), presents estimated
guaranteed amounts each state would receive under the House and Senate formulas
6 Reported by the House Homeland Security Committee on April 21, 2005 (H.Rept. 109-65).
7 Passed as an amendment to Senate reported H.R. 2360 on July 12, 2005.

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

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

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

CRS-7
Table 2. Side-By-Side Comparison of S. 21 and H.R. 1544
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Short Title
“Homeland Security Grant
N/A
“Faster and Smarter
N/A
Enhancement Act of 2005”
Funding for First Responder
[Sec. 1]
Act of 2005.” [Sec. 1]
Interagency Committee
Would require the DHS
Amends Title III of the
No provision.
N/A
Secretary to establish an
Homeland Security Act
interagency committee to
(HSA) — 6 U.S.C. 361 et
coordinate and streamline
seq. — by inserting a new
homeland security grants.
§802.
The committee would be
responsible for: providing
findings to an information
clearinghouse; consulting
with state and local
governments, and
emergency responders
regarding their needs and
capabilities; advising the
DHS Secretary on the
development of
performance measures;
compiling a list of
assistance programs; and
developing a proposal to
coordinate the planning,
reporting, application, and
other documents in
homeland security
assistance programs. [Sec.
2(a), §802]

CRS-8
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Office for State and Local
Would establish the Office
Amends Section 801(a) of
No provision.
N/A
Government Coordination
for State and Local
the HSA.
and Preparedness
Government Coordination
and Preparedness
(OSLGCP,) which would be
headed by an Executive
Director (appointed by the
President, by and with the
advice and consent of the
Senate). [Sec. 3(a), §801(a)]
Would establish the Office
Amends Section 801(a) of
No provision.
for Domestic Preparedness
the HSA by redesignating
(ODP) within OSLGCP.
Section 430 of the HSA as
ODP would report to the
Section 803.
OSLGCP Executive
Director, and ODP would
be responsible for managing
the Homeland Security
Information Clearinghouse.
[Sec. 3(b)-(c), §803]
Information Clearinghouse
Would establish a
Amends Section 801(a) of
No provision.
N/A
Homeland Security
the HSA.
Information Clearinghouse,
which would assist states,
local governments, and
emergency responders in
grant information, technical
assistance, best practices,
use of funds, and other
information the DHS
Secretary determines as
necessary. [Sec. 3(d),
§801(a)]

CRS-9
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Excluded Programs
Would exclude the
Amends the HSA by
Would exclude the
Amends the HSA by
following programs:
inserting a new Title XVIII,
following programs: FIRE;
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Assistance to Firefighters
§1802.
EMPG; Urban Search and
§1802.
Program(FIRE); Emergency
Rescue Grants; and any
Management Performance
other grant not administered
Grants (EMPG); Urban
by DHS. [Sec. 3, §1802(b)]
Search and Rescue Grants;
Justice Assistance Grants
(JAG); Community-
Oriented Policing Service
Grants (COPS); and
Department of Health and
Human Services (HHS)
bioterrorism grants. [Sec. 4,
§1802]
Essential Capabilities
Would require the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Would require the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Secretary to establish
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Secretary to update, revise,
inserting a new Title XVIII,
essential emergency
§1803.
or replace essential
§1805.
responder capabilities, and
emergency responder
establish a Task Force on
capabilities, and establish a
Essential Capabilities to
Task Force on Essential
assist in the establishment
Capabilities to assist in the
of the capabilities. [Sec. 4,
updating, revising, or
§1803]
replacing of the capabilities.
[Sec. 3, §1805(a)]
Covered Programs
Would establish a Threat-
Amends the HSA by
Would include the
Amends the HSA by
Based Homeland Security
inserting a new Title XVIII,
following grant programs:
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Grant Program (TBHSGP),
§1804.
SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI.
§1802.
which would include the
[Sec. 3, §1802(a)]
State Homeland Security
Grant Program (SHSGP),
Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program
(LETPP), and Urban Area
Security Initiative (UASI).
[Sec. 4, §1804(a)]

CRS-10
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Section 1014, USA
Would propose the
Amends the HSA by
Would propose the act
N/A
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-
allocation of TBHSGP
inserting a new Title XVIII,
would supercede Sec. 1014,
56)
funding would satisfy the
§1804.
USA PATRIOT Act (P.L.
requirements of Sec. 1014,
107-56). [Sec. 4]
USA PATRIOT Act (P.L.
107-56). [Sec. 4,
§1804(a)(3)]
Authorized Use of Funds
Would authorize funds to be
Amends the HSA by
Would authorize funds to be
Amends the HSA by
used for: developing state or
inserting a new Title XVIII,
used for: purchasing and
inserting a new Title XVIII,
regional plans; conducting
§1804.
upgrading equipment;
§1806.
risk assessments; mutual aid
conducting exercises and
agreements; purchasing,
training; developing and
upgrading, storing, and
updating plans, risk
maintaining equipment;
assessments, and mutual aid
conducting exercises;
agreements; establishing
paying for overtime related
and enhancing terrorism
to training, and an increase
threat information
in Homeland Security
mechanisms; paying
Advisory System (HSAS)
overtime related to training,
alert level; conducting
an increase in HSAS alert
training; and conducting
level, travel to exercises,
law enforcement terrorism
participation in exercises;
prevention activities. [Sec.
purchasing classified
4, §1804(b)]
information equipment;
protecting critical
infrastructure; purchasing
interoperable
communications equipment;
developing first responder
educational curricula;
developing terrorism
preparedness education for
elementary and secondary
schools; and funding law
enforcement terrorism
prevention activities. [Sec.
3, §1806(a)]
Prohibited Use of Funds
Would not allow funds to
Amends the HSA by
Would not allow funds to
Amends the HSA by
be used for: construction
inserting a new Title XVIII,
be used for: construction,
inserting a new Title XVIII,
and the acquisition of land.
§1804.
acquisition of land, and for
§1806.
[Sec. 4, §1804(b)(3)]
state and local government
cost share requirement.
[Sec. 3, §1806(b)]

CRS-11
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Applicants
Would allow states,
Amends the HSA by
Would allow states, regions,
Amends the HSA by
metropolitan regions to
inserting a new Title XVIII,
and eligible tribes to apply
inserting a new Title XVIII,
apply for funding. [Sec. 4,
§1804.
for funding. [Sec. 3,
§1803.
§1804(d)]
§1803(a)]
Homeland Security Plan
Would require states to
Amends the HSA by
Would require states to
Amends the HSA by
submit a 3-year homeland
inserting a new Title XVIII,
submit a 3-year homeland
inserting a new Title XVIII,
security plan. [Sec. 4,
§1804.
security plan. [Sec. 3,
§1803.
§1804(e)]
§1803(c)]
Allocation of Guaranteed
Would guarantee each state
Amends the HSA by
Would guarantee states at
Amends the HSA by
Funding
and DC 0.55% of the total
inserting a new Title XVIII,
least 0.25% of total
inserting a new Title XVIII,
appropriations; Puerto Rico
§1804.
appropriated funding for the
§1804.
is guaranteed 0.35%; and
covered grant program.
other specified U.S.
[Sec. 3, §1804(c)(5)(A)]
possessions are guaranteed
0.055% of the total
Would guarantee at least
Amends the HSA by
appropriations. Would also
0.45% of total appropriated
inserting a new Title XVIII,
allow states to choose to
funding for the covered
§1804.
accept an alternative
grant programs to states
guaranteed minimum
having a significant
amount based on a “sliding
international border or
scale baseline allocation.”
adjoining a body of water
Additionally, would
through which an
allocate the remainder of the
international boundary line
funds not distributed by the
extends. [Sec. 3,
sliding scale baseline
§1804(c)(5)(B)]
allocation or the fixed
minimum based on risk and
Would guarantee U.S.
Amends the HSA by
threat, with up to 50% to be
possessions, territories, and
inserting a new Title XVIII,
distributed to high-threat,
eligible tribes(collectively)
§1804.
high-risk urban areas, and
no less than 0.08% of total
the remainder by risk to
appropriated funding for the
states. [Sec. 4, §1804(f)(1)]
covered grant programs.
[Sec. 3, §1804(c)(5)(C)-
(D)]

CRS-12
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Allocation of Risk-Based
Would allocate the risk-
Amends the HSA by
Would allocate total
Amends the HSA by
Funding
based portion of TBHSGP
inserting a new Title
appropriations based on
inserting a new Title XVIII,
funds to major metropolitan
XVIII, §1804.
DHS Secretary’s discretion
§1803.
regions with the following
(based on threat and risk)
criteria: target of prior
and the First Responder
terrorist attack; had a higher
Grant Board’s evaluation
Homeland Security
and prioritization of
Advisory System threat
homeland security
level than the nation as a
assistance applications.
whole; large population or
[Sec. 3, §1803]
high population density;
high threat and risk related
to critical infrastructure;
international border or
coastline; bordering at-risk
sites or activities in a nearby
jurisdiction; unmet essential
first responder capabilities;
and any other threat factors
as determined by the DHS
Secretary. [Sec.4,
§1804(f)(2)]
Would allocate the risk-
Amends the HSA by
based portion of TBHSGP
inserting a new Title XVIII,
funding to states according
§1804.
to the following criteria:
target of prior terrorist
attack within or in part of
state; state has had a higher
Homeland Security
Advisory System Threat
level than the nation as
whole; percent of state’s
population residing in
metropolitan statistical areas
(as defined by the Office of
Management and Budget);
threat and risk related to
critical infrastructure;
international border or
coastline; bordering at-risk
sites or activities in a nearby
jurisdiction; unmet essential
first responder capabilities;

CRS-13
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Pass Through Requirement
Would require states to pass
Amends the HSA by
Would require states to pass
Amends the HSA by
through 80% of grant funds
inserting a new Title XVIII,
through 80% of grant funds
inserting a new Title XVIII,
to local and tribal
§1804.
to localities within 45 days
§1806.
governments, and
after receiving grant
emergency responders
funding. [Sec. 3,
within 60 days after
§1806(g)(1)]
receiving grant funding.
[Sec. 4, §1804(f)(4)]
Law Enforcement Terrorism
Would authorize the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Would authorize covered
Amends the HSA by
Prevention Activities
Secretary to designate no
inserting a new Title
grant funds to be used for
inserting a new Title XVIII,
more than 25% of total
XVIII, §1804.
law enforcement terrorism
§1806.
funding for law
prevention activities. [Sec.
enforcement terrorism
3, §1806(a)(14)]
prevention activities. [Sec.
4, §1804(f)(6)]
Report on Homeland
Would require states and
Amends the HSA by
Would require grant
Amends the HSA by
Security Spending
metropolitan regions to
inserting a new Title XVIII,
recipients to submit an
inserting a new Title XVIII,
report homeland security
§1804.
annual homeland security
§1806.
spending annually to DHS.
spending report to DHS not
[Sec. 4, §1804(g)]
later than 60 days after the
end of each fiscal year.
[Sec. 3, §1806(g)(5)]
Non-compliance
Would authorize the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Would authorize the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Secretary to terminate
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Secretary to terminate
inserting a new Title XVIII,
funding, reduce funding, or
§1804.
funding, reduce funding, or
§1806.
limit use of funding to
limit use of funding to grant
states and metropolitan
recipients if it is determined
regions if it is determined
they failed to comply with
they failed to comply with
any provision in the act.
any provision in the act.
[Sec. 3, §1806(h)]
[Sec. 4, §1804(i)]
Authorization of
Would authorize
Amends the HSA by
No provision.
N/A
Appropriations
appropriations for TBHSGP
inserting a new Title XVIII,
at $2.9 billion annually
§1804.
(FY2006 and FY2007) and
such sums as necessary
thereafter. [Sec. 4,
§1804(k)]

CRS-14
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Homeland Security Fraud,
Would require the
Amends the HSA by
No provision.
N/A
Waste, and Abuse
Comptroller General of the
inserting a new Title
United States to conduct an
XVIII, §1805.
annual audit of TBHSGP.
[Sec. 4, §1805]
Unspent Homeland Security
Would authorize the ODP
Amends the HSA by
Would authorize the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Funds
Director to allow states to
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Secretary to allow grantees
inserting a new Title XVIII,
request approval to
§1806.
to transfer all or part of
§1806.
reallocate funds among the
funds from specified uses to
four categories of
other uses authorized by the
equipment, training,
act. [Sec. 3, §1806(f)]
exercises, and planning.
[Sec. 4, §1806]
Equipment and Training
Would require the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Would require the DHS
Amends the HSA by
Standards
Secretary to support the
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Secretary to support the
inserting a new Title XVIII,
development and update of
§1807.
development and update of
§1807.
voluntary consensus
voluntary consensus
equipment and training
equipment and training
standards. [Sec. 4, §1807]
standards. [Sec. 3, §1807]
Screening of Municipal
Would require the Bureau
Amends the HSA by
No provision.
N/A
Waste
of Customs and Border
inserting a new Title XVIII,
Protection to report to
§1808.
Congress on: whether the
methodologies and
technologies used by the
bureau to screen for and
detect chemical, nuclear,
biological, and radiological
weapons in municipal waste
are effective; if the
methodologies and
technologies used to screen
solid waste are less effective
than those used to screen
other commercial items; and
what actions the bureau will
take to achieve the same
level of effectiveness in
screening solid waste. [Sec.
4, §1808]

CRS-15
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
International Border
Would establish an
N/A
No provision.
N/A
Communications
International Border
Demonstration Project
Community Interoperable
Communications
Demonstration Project. The
project would address
emergency responder
communications needs and
interoperable
communications issues.
Funds would be distributed
at the discretion of the DHS
Secretary, and such sums as
necessary are authorized.
[Sec. 5]
Grants Board
No provision.
N/A
Proposes to establish a First
Amends the HSA by
Responder Grants Board to
inserting a new Title XVIII,
evaluate and prioritize state
§1804.
homeland security
applications on the
following risk criteria: “the
variables of threat,
vulnerability, and
consequences with respect
to the Nation’s population
(including transient
commuting and tourist
populations) and critical
infrastructure.” [Sec.
3,§1804(a) ]
Cost Sharing
No provision.
N/A
Would require states to
Amends the HSA by
provide 25% matching of
inserting a new Title XVIII,
funds allocated through the
§1806.
covered grant program.
[Sec. 3, §1806(g)(2)]
Office of Comptroller
No provision.
N/A
Would establish an Office
N/A
of Comptroller to manage
the grant distribution
process. [Sec. 5]

CRS-16
Changes to Current
Changes to Current
Provision
S. 21
Statute
H.R. 1544
Statute
Homeland Security
No provision.
N/A
Would request a
Training
Government Accountability
Office report on an
inventory and status of
homeland security first
responder training. [Sec. 6]

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

CRS-18
S. 21
H.R. 1544
(Includes SHSGP, UASI, and
(Includes SHSGP, UASI,
Census Bureau 2004
LETTP)b
and LETTP)c
State
Population Estimate
Fixed
Choice
0.25%f
0.45%g
Minimumd
Stepe
New Jersey
8,698,879
$14.85
$38.05
$6.75
—
New Mexico
1,903,289
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
New York
19,227,088
$14.85
$48.10
—
$12.15
North Carolina
8,541,221
$14.85
$21.28
$6.75
—
North Dakota
634,366
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Ohio
11,459,011
$14.85
$29.28
—
$12.15
Oklahoma
3,523,553
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Oregon
3,594,586
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Pennsylvania
12,406,292
$14.85
$31.27
—
$12.15
Rhode Island
1,080,632
$14.85
$19.36
$6.75
—
South Carolina
4,198,068
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
South Dakota
770,883
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Tennessee
5,900,962
$14.85
$15.06
$6.75
—
Texas
22,490,022
$14.85
$49.83
—
$12.15
Utah
2,389,039
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Vermont
621,394
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Virginia
7,459,827
$14.85
$19.16
$6.75
—
Washington
6,203,788
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
West Virginia
1,815,354
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Wisconsin
5,509,026
$14.85
$14.85
—
$12.15
Wyoming
506,529
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
DC+NCR
553,523
$14.85
$14.85
$6.75
—
Puerto Rico
3,894,855
$9.45
$9.45
$6.75
—
U.S. Virgin Islands
108,612
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Guam
154,805
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
American Samoa
57,291
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Northern Marianas
69,221
$1.49
$1.49
$2.16
—
Total
297,940,188
$772.74
$1,062.44
$238.14
$206.55

CRS-19
a. In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress appropriated $1,100 million for SHSGP and $400 million for LETPP. SHSGP
and LETPP were distributed to states based on a guaranteed minimum base of 0.75% of total appropriations for the programs. Actual FY2005
minimum allocation, including SHSGP and LETPP, was $11.25 million for States and $3.75 million for territories.
b. S. 21, Sec. 4 consolidates SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP into a single program — TBHSGP. In the FY2005 DHS appropriations, Congress
appropriated $1,100 for SHSGP, $1,200 million for UASI, and $400 million for LETPP.
c. H.R. 1544, Sec. 3 does not consolidate SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP into a single covered grant.
d. States and D.C. receive 0.55% of TBHSGP; Puerto Rico receives 0.35%; and other U.S. territories and possessions receive 0.055% of total
appropriations.
e. States choose to receive either the sliding scale baseline minimum (explained in Appendix A) or the 0.55% minimum.
f. 0.25% is not a base, but an amount a state is guaranteed if it does not have a “significant international border” or does not border on a body of
water through which an international boundary runs. H.R. 1544 authorizes DHS to determine what constitutes a “significant international
border.”
g. 0.45% is not a base, but an amount a state is guaranteed if it has a “significant international border” or borders on a body of water through which
an international boundary runs. H.R. 1544 authorizes DHS to determine what constitutes a “significant international border.”

CRS-20
Appendix A: Grant Allocation Method in S. 2121
S. 21 establishes a “threat-based state homeland security grant program,” which
includes the State Homeland Security Grant Program, and the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program. Additionally, it includes discretionary grants for
state and local programs administered by the DHS Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness (including the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI) program) provided in §1804(B).
Estimates of the minimum amounts that would be available to qualifying
jurisdictions as provided by the S. 21, are based on the following assumptions.
Although § 1804(k) authorizes a total of $2.925 billion, our analysis uses $2.700
billion (the FY2005 appropriation for these programs). S. 21 includes a guaranteed
minimum, and a risk-based funding for covered jurisdictions.
Guaranteed Funding. Funds are divided among the states, the District of
Columbia (DC), and specified U.S. possessions as follows: Each state and DC, is
entitled to 0.55% of the total appropriation; Puerto Rico gets 0.35%, and other
specified U.S. territories and possessions receive 0.055% of the total.
Risk-based Funding. States are entitled to choose to accept an alternative
to the guaranteed minimum amount which is based on a “sliding scale baseline
allocation” (§ 1801(7)), which is calculated by multiplying 0.001 times:

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

CRS-21
for jurisdictions entitled to funding according to §1804(A), (B) of S. 21. As noted
above, jurisdictions are entitled to funding under the sliding scale baseline allocation
formula, or the fixed minimum calculation.
Sliding Scale Minimum Steps
! Step 1. “Normalize” population figures and population density to
100 by setting the most populous, and most population-dense state
to 100 and index other states to those values. This is done by
dividing each jurisdiction’s population (or density) by the state with
the largest population (or density), and then multiplying the resulting
quotient by 100.
! Step 2. Using the two step 1 indexes, create a combined multiplier
for each state by adding the normalized population index to one
fourth of the population density index and multiply the resulting sum
by 0.001.
! Step 3. To compute the sliding scale minimum allocation, multiply
each state’s multiplier from step 3 times 28.62% of total
authorization amount ($2.700 billion in this example).
Fixed Minimum Step
! Step 4. States and DC receive 0.55% of Threat-Based Homeland
Security Grant Program; Puerto Rico receives 0.35%; and other U.S.
territories and possessions receive 0.055% of total appropriations.
Choice Step
! States choose to receive either the sliding scale baseline minimum
from step 3, or the fixed minimum from step 4.
Table 4 shows minimum funding levels for each covered jurisdiction based on
a total FY2005 appropriation of $2,700 million for SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP.

CRS-22
Table 4. S. 21: Guaranteed Minimums Assuming a $2,700 Million Appropriation for SHSGP, UASI, and LETPP
(All amounts in millions)
Sliding scale baseline allocation calculation:
4. Fixed
5. Choice step:
minimum: States
States choose to
and DC receive
receive either the
1. “Normalize” pop. and
2. Using the two
3. Sliding scale
0.55% of threat-
sliding scale baseline
pop. density to 100 by
step 1 indexes,
min. allocation:
based homeland
minimum, or the
setting most populous,
create a combined
multiply each
security grant
0.55% minimum.
Census Bureau 2004
and most pop. dense state multiplier for each state’s multiplier
program; PR gets
($1,062.44 million
population estimate
to 100 and index other
state by adding the from step 3 times 0.35%; and others
distributed by this
states to those values
normalized pop.
28.62% of total
receive 0.055% of
step.)c
index to 1/4th of
appropriation
total appropriation
the pop. density
amount
index and
multiplying the
Jurisdiction
Population
Pro-
Land area Population Normalized Normalized
resulting sum by
portion of
density
population pop. density
0.001.
total pop.a
index
index
Alabama
4,530,182
0.02
50,744.00
89.28
12.62
7.61
0.01452
11.22
14.85
14.85
Alaska
655,435
0.00 571,951.26
1.15
1.83
0.10
0.00185
1.43
14.85
14.85
Arizona
5,743,834
0.02 113,634.57
50.55
16.00
4.31
0.01708
13.20
14.85
14.85
Arkansas
2,752,629
0.01
52,068.17
52.87
7.67
4.51
0.00880
6.80
14.85
14.85
California
35,893,799
0.12 155,959.34
230.15
100.00
19.62
0.10491
81.07
14.85
81.07
Colorado
4,601,403
0.02 103,717.53
44.36
12.82
3.78
0.01377
10.64
14.85
14.85
Connecticut
3,503,604
0.01
4,844.80
723.17
9.76
61.66
0.02518
19.46
14.85
19.46
Delaware
830,364
0.00
1,953.56
425.05
2.31
36.24
0.01137
8.79
14.85
14.85
Florida
17,397,161
0.06
53,926.82
322.61
48.47
27.51
0.05535
42.77
14.85
42.77
Georgia
8,829,383
0.03
57,906.14
152.48
24.60
13.00
0.02785
21.52
14.85
21.52
Hawaii
1,262,840
0.00
6,422.62
196.62
3.52
16.77
0.00771
5.96
14.85
14.85
Idaho
1,393,262
0.00
82,747.21
16.84
3.88
1.44
0.00424
3.28
14.85
14.85
Illinois
12,713,634
0.04
55,583.58
228.73
35.42
19.50
0.04030
31.14
14.85
31.14
Indiana
6,237,569
0.02
35,866.90
173.91
17.38
14.83
0.02109
16.29
14.85
16.29
Iowa
2,954,451
0.01
55,869.36
52.88
8.23
4.51
0.00936
7.23
14.85
14.85
Kansas
2,735,502
0.01
81,814.88
33.44
7.62
2.85
0.00833
6.44
14.85
14.85
Kentucky
4,145,922
0.01
39,728.18
104.36
11.55
8.90
0.01378
10.64
14.85
14.85
Louisiana
4,515,770
0.02
43,561.85
103.66
12.58
8.84
0.01479
11.43
14.85
14.85

CRS-23
Sliding scale baseline allocation calculation:
4. Fixed
5. Choice step:
minimum: States
States choose to
and DC receive
receive either the
1. “Normalize” pop. and
2. Using the two
3. Sliding scale
0.55% of threat-
sliding scale baseline
pop. density to 100 by
step 1 indexes,
min. allocation:
based homeland
minimum, or the
setting most populous,
create a combined
multiply each
security grant
0.55% minimum.
Census Bureau 2004
and most pop. dense state multiplier for each state’s multiplier
program; PR gets
($1,062.44 million
population estimate
to 100 and index other
state by adding the from step 3 times 0.35%; and others
distributed by this
states to those values
normalized pop.
28.62% of total
receive 0.055% of
step.)c
index to 1/4th of
appropriation
total appropriation
the pop. density
amount
index and
multiplying the
Jurisdiction
Population
Pro-
Land area Population Normalized Normalized
resulting sum by
portion of
density
population pop. density
0.001.
total pop.a
index
index
Maine
1,317,253
0.00
30,861.55
42.68
3.67
3.64
0.00458
3.54
14.85
14.85
Maryland
5,558,058
0.02
9,773.82
568.67
15.48
48.49
0.02761
21.33
14.85
21.33
Massachusetts
6,416,505
0.02
7,840.02
818.43
17.88
69.79
0.03532
27.30
14.85
27.30
Michigan
10,112,620
0.03
56,803.82
178.03
28.17
15.18
0.03197
24.70
14.85
24.70
Minnesota
5,100,958
0.02
79,610.08
64.07
14.21
5.46
0.01558
12.04
14.85
14.85
Mississippi
2,902,966
0.01
46,906.96
61.89
8.09
5.28
0.00941
7.27
14.85
14.85
Missouri
5,754,618
0.02
68,885.93
83.54
16.03
7.12
0.01781
13.76
14.85
14.85
Montana
926,865
0.00 145,552.43
6.37
2.58
0.54
0.00272
2.10
14.85
14.85
Nebraska
1,747,214
0.01
76,872.41
22.73
4.87
1.94
0.00535
4.14
14.85
14.85
Nevada
2,334,771
0.01 109,825.99
21.26
6.50
1.81
0.00696
5.38
14.85
14.85
New Hampshire
1,299,500
0.00
8,968.10
144.90
3.62
12.36
0.00671
5.18
14.85
14.85
New Jersey
8,698,879
0.03
7,417.34
1,172.78
24.24
100.00
0.04924
38.05
14.85
38.05
New Mexico
1,903,289
0.01 121,355.53
15.68
5.30
1.34
0.00564
4.36
14.85
14.85
New York
19,227,088
0.06
47,213.79
407.23
53.57
34.72
0.06225
48.10
14.85
48.10
North Carolina
8,541,221
0.03
48,710.88
175.35
23.80
14.95
0.02753
21.28
14.85
21.28
North Dakota
634,366
0.00
68,975.93
9.20
1.77
0.78
0.00196
1.52
14.85
14.85
Ohio
11,459,011
0.04
40,948.38
279.84
31.92
23.86
0.03789
29.28
14.85
29.28
Oklahoma
3,523,553
0.01
68,667.06
51.31
9.82
4.38
0.01091
8.43
14.85
14.85
Oregon
3,594,586
0.01
95,996.79
37.44
10.01
3.19
0.01081
8.36
14.85
14.85
Pennsylvania
12,406,292
0.04
44,816.61
276.82
34.56
23.60
0.04046
31.27
14.85
31.27
Rhode Island
1,080,632
0.00
1,044.93
1,034.17
3.01
88.18
0.02506
19.36
14.85
19.36
South Carolina
4,198,068
0.01
30,109.47
139.43
11.70
11.89
0.01467
11.33
14.85
14.85

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

CRS-25
Appendix B: Grant Allocation Method in H.R. 1544
The following discussion demonstrates how the grant allocation method in
H.R. 1544 would allocate federal homeland security assistance to states.
! Step 1. The DHS Secretary, with the assistance of a state and local
responder task force, would update, revise, or replace essential
capabilities for first responders’ terrorism preparedness. The
essential capabilities would be based on variables of threat,
vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the nation’s
population (including transient, commuting, and tourist populations)
and critical infrastructure.
! Step 2. The First Responder Grants Board would evaluate and
prioritize state homeland security assistance applications based on
the degree to which they would achieve, maintain, or enhance the
essential capabilities of first responders. Additionally, the
applications would be evaluated and prioritized on the extent to
which an application lessened the threat to, vulnerability of, and
consequences for, persons and critical infrastructure. Greater weight
would be given to applications based on threats of terrorism that
were specific and credible, including patterns of repetition.
! Step 3. Appropriations would be distributed based on the DHS
Secretary’s discretion and the First Responder Grants Board’s
evaluation and prioritization (based on risk) of homeland security
assistance applications.
! Step 4. States without a significant international border22 and not
adjoining a body of water through which an international boundary
line extends would receive at least 0.25% of the total appropriations.
Assuming a total of $2,700 million, this amount would be $6.75
million.
! Step 5. States with a significant international border or adjoining a
body of water through which an international boundary line extends
would receive at least 0.45% of the total appropriations. Assuming
a total of $2,700 million, this amount would be $12.15 million.
! Step 6. The U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the
Northern Mariana Islands would receive at least 0.08% of total
appropriations. Assuming a total of $2,700 million, the amount
would be $2.16 million.
State amounts are shown in Table 3 of this report.

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