Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program, H.R. 1, and S. 4: Description and Analysis

Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program, H.R. 1, and S. 4: Description and Analysis

Order Code RL33859
Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security
Grant Program, H.R. 1, and S. 4:
Description and Analysis
Updated April 17, 2007
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division
Steven Maguire
Analyst in Public Finance
Government and Finance Division

Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security Grant Program,
H.R. 1, and S. 4: Description and Analysis
Summary
On January 5, 2007, the Office for Grants and Training — within the
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — issued the FY2007 Homeland Security
Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application Kit, to states and localities. On
January 10, 2007, the House of Representatives passed H.R. 1 — “Implementing the
9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of 2007.” On March 13, the Senate passed
S. 4 — “The Improving America’s Security Act of 2007.”
The FY2007 guidance provides information on how DHS intends to allocate
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funding to states, urban areas, and U.S.
insular areas. The HSGP includes the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the
Urban Area Security Initiative, the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program,
the Metropolitan Medical Response System, and the Citizen Corps Program. H.R.
1 and S. 4 address the first three but are silent on Metropolitan Medical Response
System and Citizen Corps Program. H.R. 1 and S. 4 also propose changes to the
distribution methods DHS would use to allocate some components the HSGP
funding. The key difference between the two bills is H.R. 1 has a lower minimum
amount for states without an international border. The FY2007 guidance has higher
minimum amounts than both H.R. 1 and S. 4.
The FY2007 guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4 all propose using risk and effectiveness
evaluations to allocate HSGP funding to the states, the District of Columbia (DC),
and U.S. insular areas. H.R. 1 and S. 4 both intend for the Urban Area Security
Initiative funding to be based purely on risk and effectiveness assessments.

This report summarizes and compares the FY2007 program guidance, H.R. 1,
and S. 4 HSGP distribution methods; it presents rough estimates of the State
Homeland Security Grant Program and the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program grant allocations following each of the three methods and assumes a $900
million appropriation. The report also compares the estimates with actual FY2006
allocations.
Both the FY2007 guidance and H.R. 1 address critical infrastructure protection,
homeland security information sharing, interoperable communications, radiological
and nuclear detection capabilities, catastrophic planning, and National Incident
Management System compliance. These homeland security activities and programs
are, however, outside the scope of this report. For information on the National
Preparedness Goal, Homeland Security Strategies, and Targeted Capabilities
Enhancement Plans, see CRS Report RL33583, Homeland Security Grants:
Evolution of Program Guidance and Grant Distribution Methods, by Shawn Reese.
For more on the DHS grant distributions for more DHS programs for earlier years,
see CRS Report RL33770, Department of Homeland Security Grants to State and
Local Governments: FY2003 to FY2006, by Steven Maguire and Shawn Reese.
This report will updated as legislative events warrant.

Contents
Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Homeland Security Grant Program
Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
FY2007 DHS Program Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Risk and Anticipated Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
H.R. 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
S. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Estimating SHSGP and LETPP Grant Allocations
for FY2007, Under H.R. 1 and S. 4 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
Caveat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Calculating the Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Establishing Proxies for Risk and Effectiveness Scores . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Estimating Risk and Effectiveness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Meeting the Minimums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Allocating the Excess Amount . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Final Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Comparison of the Estimates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2006, FY2007, H.R. 1, and S. 4 Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. Potential Allocation of DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP for
FY2007 Based on Proxy FY2006 Measures of Risk and Effectiveness . . . 15
Table 3. Estimated FY2007 DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP
with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Table 4. Estimated DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP under H.R. 1
with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Table 5. Estimated DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP under S. 4
with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Table 6. Estimated SHSGP and LETPP Grant Allocations Under
FY2007 Program Guidance, H.R. 1 as Passed by the House, and S. 4
as Passed by the Senate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
Table 7. Estimated Share of Total Authorization for SHSGP and
LETPP Grant Allocations Under FY2007 Program Guidance,
H.R. 1 as Passed by the House, and S. 4 as Passed by the Senate . . . . . . . . 30

Fiscal Year 2007 Homeland Security
Grant Program, H.R. 1, and S. 4:
Description and Analysis
Introduction
On January 5, 2007, the Office for Grants and Training (now renamed the Office
of Grant Programs) — within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) — issued
the FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application
Kit, to states and localities. On January 10, 2007, the House of Representatives
passed H.R. 1 — “Implementing the 9/11 Commission Recommendations Act of
2007.” On March 13, the Senate passed S. 4 — “The Improving America’s Security
Act of 2007.” The FY2007 guidance provides information on how DHS intends to
allocate Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funding to states, urban areas,
and U.S. insular areas. H.R. 1 and S. 4 propose to change the distribution methods
DHS uses to allocate some components HSGP funding.
HSGP includes the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program (LETPP), the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and the
Citizen Corps Program (CCP). H.R. 1 and S. 4, however, only address SHSGP,
LETPP, and UASI distribution methods, and are silent on MMRS and CCP.
The FY2007 guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4 all propose using risk and effectiveness
evaluations to allocate HSGP funding to the states, the District of Columbia (DC),
and U.S. insular areas. Both intend for UASI funding to be based purely on risk and
effectiveness assessments. The primary differences between distribution methods in
the FY2007 guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4 are as follows:
! The FY2007 guidance states that DHS intends to guarantee a
minimum of 0.75% — as required by Section 1014 of the USA
PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) — of total appropriations for SHSGP
and LETPP to each state, DC, and Puerto Rico; each U.S. insular
area is guaranteed a 0.25% minimum of total appropriations. H.R.
1 proposes to amend Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act and
reduce the minimum guaranteed amount from 0.75% to 0.25% for
states without international boundaries, DC, and Puerto Rico, and to
0.45% for applicants with international borders. U.S. insular areas
other than Puerto Rico would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.08%.1
1 The insular areas are American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas, and the U.S. Virgin
(continued...)

CRS-2
! S. 4 proposes to amend Section 1014 of the USA PATRIOT Act and
reduce the minimum guaranteed amount from 0.75% to 0.45% for
the states, DC, and Puerto Rico. U.S. insular areas other than Puerto
Rico would be guaranteed a minimum of 0.08%.
! The FY2007 guidance provides information on how DHS intends to
allocate MMRS and CCP funding. H.R. 1 and S. 4 are silent on the
distribution method for these two programs.
! The FY2007 guidance intends to separate UASI high-threat, high-
density urban areas into two categories: Tier I urban areas —
applying for $410.8 million (approximately 54% of total UASI
funding), and Tier II urban areas — applying for $336.1 million
(approximately 46% of total UASI funding).2 H.R. 1 and S. 4 are
silent on the categorization of UASI applicants.
This report summarizes and compares the FY2007 program guidance, H.R. 1,
and S. 4 HSGP distribution methods; it presents rough estimates of SHSGP and
LETPP grant allocations following each of the three methods and assuming a $900
million appropriation for H.R. 1. S. 4 proposes $913,180,500 for LETPP and
SHSGP; it also compares the estimates with actual FY2006 allocations.
The FY2007 guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4 all address critical infrastructure
protection, homeland security information sharing, interoperable communications,
radiological and nuclear detection capabilities, catastrophic planning, and National
Incident Management System compliance. These homeland security activities and
programs are, however, outside the scope of this report.
Homeland Security Grant Program
Distribution Methods
The HSGP includes five separate programs and Congress appropriates funding
for each program separately.3 For purposes of satisfying the minimum as prescribed
by Congress, DHS groups SHSGP and LETPP together.4 Following is a brief
1 (...continued)
Islands. H.R. 1 proposes for UASI allocations to be counted toward state and territory
minimums, however, UASI recipients would not be guaranteed a minimum amount of
funding.
2 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Grants and Training, FY2007
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application Kit (Washington:
Jan. 2007), p. 10.
3 Ibid., pp. 1-2.
4 Congress directed DHS to allocate funds appropriated for these programs at DHS’s
discretion, however, DHS is required to allocate at least 0.75% of total appropriations for
(continued...)

CRS-3
description of the five programs including the FY2007 appropriation, summaries of
FY2007 DHS guidance and of H.R. 1, of S. 4, and an explanation of the “risk and
effectiveness” parameter.
! State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) supports states,
DC, and U.S. insular areas in implementing their Homeland Security
Strategies. The program addresses state-identified planning,
equipment, training, and exercise needs for response to acts of
terrorism. Additionally, SHSGP supports the implementation of the
National Preparedness Goal, the National Incident Management
System, and the National Response Plan. FY2007 appropriation is
$525 million.
! Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) provides
funding to law enforcement and public safety entities to support
terrorism prevention activities. This includes establishing and
enhancing of information fusion centers and collaborating with non-
law enforcement partners, other government agencies, and the
private sector. FY2007 appropriation is $375 million.
! Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) supports eligible high-threat,
high-density urban areas5 in addressing their planning, equipment,
training, and exercise needs for response to acts of terrorism.6
FY2007 appropriation is $770 million.
! Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) supports
designated jurisdictions to enhance and sustain a regionally
integrated, systematic mass casualty incident preparedness program.
It is also intended to prepare jurisdictions for responding to all-
hazards mass casualty incidents including chemical, biologicial,
radiological, nuclear, and explosive (CBRNE); terrorism; epidemic
disease outbreaks, natural disasters; and large-scale hazardous
materials incidents. FY2007 appropriation is $33 million.
! Citizen Corps Program (CCP) supports community and local
government efforts to coordinate community members in emergency
4 (...continued)
SHSGP and LETPP to each state, DC, Puerto Rico; U.S. insular areas, 0.25%. P.L. 109-295
(FY2007 DHS appropriations), Title III, and H.Rept. 109-699 accompanying P.L. 109-295.
5 DHS determines what urban areas are high-threat through a classified process based on
threat, vulnerability, and consequence assessments. Congress authorized DHS to determine
FY2007 UASI recipients in P.L. 109-295 (FY2007 DHS appropriations), Title III.
6 For a list of eligible FY2007 UASI high-threat, high-density urban areas, MMRS
jurisdictions, and CCP allocations, see U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for
Grants and Training, FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and
Application Kit (Washington: Jan. 2007).

CRS-4
preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. FY2007
appropriation is $15 million.7
FY2007 DHS Program Guidance
The department’s program provides, among other things, information on eligible
applicants, authorized expenditures, funding availability, program application
requirements, award and reporting requirements, and grant allocation methods. The
grant allocation methods are discussed below for each component program.

! SHSGP and LETPP. DHS will allocate 100% of funds based on an
analyses of risk and anticipated effectiveness. Each state, DC, and
Puerto Rico is to receive a minimum of 0.75% of total
appropriations; each U.S. insular area, 0.25%.8 If a jurisdiction does
not receive the statutory minimum, DHS will adjust the distribution
to ensure that all jurisdictions receive at least the minimum.9
! UASI program, each eligible urban area is to receive a grant based
on DHS’s determination of risk and anticipated effectiveness. Seven
high-threat, high-density urban areas would be categorized as Tier
I urban areas and would be eligible to apply for $410.8 million
(approximately 54% of total UASI funding). These Tier I urban
areas include the San Francisco Bay Area (CA), Chicago (IL),
Houston (TX), Los Angeles and Long Beach (CA), the National
Capital Region (DC), New York City (NY), and Northern New
Jersey (NJ). In FY2006, these same UASI applicants were allocated
$383.2 million, which was approximately 55% of total FY2006
UASI funding. In FY2007, the remaining UASI funding ($336.1
million) would be allocated to 39 Tier II urban areas. 10
! MMRS program, DHS intends to evenly divide total appropriations
among 124 jurisdictions.11
! Citizen Corps Program, each state, DC, and Puerto Rico will receive
a base amount of 0.75% of total appropriations; each U.S. insular
7 P.L. 109-295 (FY2007 DHS appropriations), Title III, and H.Rept. 109-699 accompanying
P.L. 109-295.
8 Ibid.
9 In FY2006, a base amount was guaranteed to each grant applicant without regard to risk
or the effectiveness of proposed spending. Of the total appropriation, 40% was distributed
by the base amount formula: 0.75% to each state, DC, and Puerto Rico; 0.25% to each of
the four insular areas. The remaining 60% of the total appropriation was then allocated
using DHS evaluations of each jurisdiction’s level of risk and the effectiveness the
jurisdiction’s proposed spending. In other words, the total grant received by the recipient
was the base amount plus the risk-and-effectiveness amount.
10 Ibid.
11 Ibid., p. 11.

CRS-5
area, 0.25%. The remainder of total appropriations will be allocated
on a state’s, DC’s, and U.S. insular area’s proportion of the total
national and U.S. insular area population.12
Risk and Anticipated Effectiveness. As noted above, risk and
effectiveness will be the primary tool for distributing funds to the states and insular
areas. State and local risk will be determined by DHS using a risk and anticipated
effectiveness formula developed by the Office for Grants and Training (renamed the
Office of Grant Programs in January 2007), in conjunction with other DHS and
federal entities. Distribution of SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funding will be based on
this risk and effectiveness formula. The specific formula, however, is not publicly
available at this time and may not be available in the future due to its possible
security classification. More generally, DHS has indicated that risk calculations are
based upon the following:
! “threat”: the likelihood of an attack occurring; and
! “vulnerability and consequence”: the relative exposure and expected
impact of an attack.13
The risk model DHS intends to use to allocate SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funds
will incorporate the potential risk of terrorism to people, critical infrastructure, and
economic sectors. For these risk assessments, DHS will use population in geographic
areas at possible risk, population density, and specific location characteristics that
might contribute to risk.
When considering threat, DHS intends to use the U.S. Intelligence Community’s
threat assessments for identifying potential targets. DHS plans to identify
vulnerability and consequence by considering the expected impact of successful
terrorist attacks occurring at specific geographic locations, to people, economic
sectors, and national critical infrastructure and national security facilities. Risk
assessments of individual applicants will be worth two-thirds of their final
application score.14
Grant applicants must submit an “Investment Justification” that identifies how
their homeland security activities, programs, and initiatives support the National
Preparedness Goal, relevant applicant Homeland Security Strategies, and Targeted
Capabilities Enhancement Plans.15 Individual applicant Investment Justifications will
be evaluated on the anticipated effectiveness of the applicant’s homeland security
priorities, priorities identified in the FY2007 guidance, and the National Preparedness
12 Ibid., p. 12.
13 Ibid., p. 8.
14 Ibid.
15 For information on the National Preparedness Goal, Homeland Security Strategies, and
Targeted Capabilities Enhancement Plans, see CRS Report RL33583, Homeland Security
Grants: Evolution of Program Guidance and Grant Distribution Methods, by Shawn Reese.

CRS-6
Goal. DHS states that the evaluation of Investment Justifications will identify which
applicants have effective plans to reduce overall terrorism risks.16
Investment Justifications will be scored through a peer review process, which
was begun for FY2006. The Office of Grant Programs intends to provide additional
assistance during the application period to states and urban areas as they develop
their justifications, which would include applicants submitting draft justifications to
the Office of Grant Programs prior to final submission. Anticipated effectiveness
will be worth one-third of their final application score.17
H.R. 1
The bill proposes to allocate HSGP funding (excluding MMRS and CCP)18 in
the following manner:
! From SHSGP and LETPP programs, DHS would allocate 100% of
funds based on an analysis of risk and anticipated effectiveness.
Each grant applicant (states, DC, and Puerto Rico) without an
international border will receive a minimum of 0.25% of total
appropriations; applicants (states) with an international border or
bordering a body of water with an international boundary will
receive a minimum of 0.45%; and U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. If a
state, DC, Puerto Rico, or U.S. insular area were to have an urban
area that receives a UASI grant award, that award would be
incorporated into the amount used to determine if the state or insular
area meets the required minimum.
! From the UASI program, each eligible urban area is to receive a
grant based on DHS’s determination of risk and anticipated
effectiveness.19
Specifically, H.R. 1 proposes to require the DHS Secretary to evaluate and
prioritize grant applications based on the degree to which the application would
achieve, maintain or enhance applicant homeland security capabilities, lessen the
vulnerability and consequences to people (including transient, commuting, and tourist
populations) and critical infrastructure. The evaluations and prioritization would be
based upon current risk assessments.20 H.R. 1 requires the DHS Secretary to consider
16 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Grants and Training, FY2007
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application Kit, p. 9.
17 Ibid.
18 H.R. 1 is silent on the distribution of MMRS and CCP funding.
19 H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’.
20 H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(1)’. Some could argue that the
evaluation and prioritization of applications is also a determination of effectiveness, and
similar to DHS’s present method of determining risk and effectiveness.

CRS-7
specific terrorist threats against specific critical infrastructure sectors, and additional
factors.21
S. 4
The Senate proposal for HSGP distribution is similar to H.R. 1, though it does
not include differential minimums for states with an international border as does H.R.
1. S. 4 also includes an authorization of $913,180,500, H.R. 1 has not proposed a
funding amount.
Table 1 provides comparison of the distribution methods for FY2006, FY2007,
H.R. 1 and as proposed in S. 4 for the five programs identified in this report.
21 H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)’.

CRS-8
Table 1. FY2006, FY2007, H.R. 1, and S. 4 Distribution Methods
FY2006 Distribution Method
FY2007 Distribution Method
H.R. 1 Distribution Method
S. 4 Distribution Method
State Homeland Security Grant Program
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico
Each state (without an international
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
border), DC, and Puerto Rico would be
be guaranteed 0.45% of total
U.S. insular areas were guaranteed 0.25%
U.S. insular areas guaranteed 0.25% of
guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations.
appropriations. U.S. insular areas would
of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec.
total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec.
States with an international border would
be guaranteed 0.08% of total
1014]
1014]
be guaranteed 0.45% of total
appropriations. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202,

appropriations. U.S. insular areas would
‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(d)’]
Remainder of Appropriations
Remainder of Appropriations
be guaranteed 0.08% of total

Remainder of total appropriations at the
Remainder of total appropriations at the
appropriations. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101,
DHS Implementation
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title
‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’]
S. 4 would require DHS to allocate 100%
III]
III]

SHSGP appropriations based on risk and

DHS Implementation
the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s
DHS Implementation
DHS Implementation
H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate
proposed solutions to identified
DHS chose to allocate the remainder of
DHS intends to allocate 100% SHSGP
100% SHSGP appropriations based on
homeland security needs. DHS,
total SHSGP appropriations based on risk
appropriations based on risk and the
risk and the anticipated effectiveness of
however, would be required to guarantee
and the effectiveness of the state’s
anticipated effectiveness of the state’s
the state’s proposed solutions to
a minimum of 0.45% to each state, D.C.
proposed solutions to identified
proposed solutions to identified
identified homeland security needs.
and P.R.; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%.
homeland security needs. [FY2006
homeland security needs. DHS,
DHS, however, would be required to
HSGP Program Guidance and
however, intends to guarantee a
guarantee a minimum of 0.25% or 0.45%
Application Kit]
minimum of 0.75% to each state; U.S.
to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%.
insular areas, 0.25%. [FY2007 HSGP
[H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec.
Program Guidance and Application Kit]
2004(a)(5)’]

CRS-9
FY2006 Distribution Method
FY2007 Distribution Method
H.R. 1 Distribution Method
S. 4 Distribution Method
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was
Each state (without an international
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
border), DC, and Puerto Rico would be
be guaranteed 0.45% of total
U.S. insular areas were guaranteed 0.25%
U.S. insular areas guaranteed 0.25% of
guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations.
appropriations. U.S. insular areas would
of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec.
total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec.
States with an international border would
be guaranteed 0.08% of total
1014]
1014]
be guaranteed 0.45% of total
appropriations. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202]

appropriations. U.S. insular areas would

Remainder of Appropriations
Remainder of Appropriations
be guaranteed 0.08% of total
DHS Implementation
Remainder of total appropriations at the
Remainder of total appropriations at the
appropriations. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101,
S. 4 would require DHS to allocate total
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title
‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’]
LETPP appropriations based on risk and
III]
III]

the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s

DHS Implementation
proposed solutions to identified
DHS Implementation
DHS Implementation
H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate
homeland security needs. DHS,
DHS chose to allocate the remainder of
DHS intends to allocate 100% LETPP
100% LETPP appropriations based on
however, would be required to guarantee
total LETPP appropriations based on risk
appropriations based on risk and the
risk and the anticipated effectiveness of
a minimum of 0.45% to each state, D.C.
and the effectiveness of the state’s
anticipated effectiveness of the state’s
the state’s proposed solutions to
and P.R.; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. No
proposed solution to identified homeland
proposed solutions to identified
identified homeland security needs.
less than 25% of the combined amount
security needs. [FY2006 HSGP Program
homeland security needs. DHS,
DHS, however, would be required to
appropriated for grants under UASI and
Guidance and Application Kit]
however, intends to guarantee a
guarantee a minimum of 0.25% or 0.45%
SHSGP shall be used for LETPP. [S. 4,
minimum of 0.75% to each state; U.S.
to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%.
Title II, Sec. 202]
insular areas, 0.25%. [FY2007 HSGP
[H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec.
Program Guidance and Application Kit]
2004(a)(5)’]

CRS-10
FY2006 Distribution Method
FY2007 Distribution Method
H.R. 1 Distribution Method
S. 4 Distribution Method
Urban Area Security Initiative
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
NA
NA
NA
NA

Remainder of Appropriations
Remainder of Appropriations
DHS Implementation
DHS Implementation
Allocation of total appropriations at the
Allocation of total appropriations at the
H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate
S. 4 would require DHS to allocate 100%
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title
100% UASI appropriations based on risk
UASI appropriations based on risk and
III]
III]
and the anticipated effectiveness of the
the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s
state’s proposed solutions to identified
proposed solutions to identified
DHS Implementation
DHS Implementation
homeland security needs. [H.R. 1, Title I,
homeland security needs. [S. 4, Title II,
DHS allocated UASI funds based on risk
DHS allocated UASI funds based on risk
Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’]
Sec. 202]
and effectiveness of urban area’s
and effectiveness of urban area’s
proposed solutions to identified
proposed solutions to identified
homeland security needs. [FY2006
homeland security needs. [FY2007
HSGP Program Guidance and
HSGP Program Guidance and
Application Kit]
Application Kit]
Metropolitan Medical Response System
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
NA
NA
DHS determines what metropolitan
DHS determines what metropolitan
medical systems receive funding and
medical systems receive funding and
amount. [P.L. 109-90, Title III]
amount. [P.L. 109-295, Title III]

CRS-11
FY2006 Distribution Method
FY2007 Distribution Method
H.R. 1 Distribution Method
S. 4 Distribution Method
Citizen Corps Program
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
NA
NA
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations.
[P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014]
[P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014]

Remainder of Appropriations
Remainder of Appropriations
Remainder of total appropriations at the
Remainder of total appropriations at the
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title
discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title
III]
III]

DHS Implementation
DHS Implementation
DHS chose to allocate the remainder of
DHS chose to allocate the remainder of
total CCP appropriations in direct
total CCP appropriations in direct
proportion to the state’s percentage of the
proportion to the state’s percentage of the
nation’s population. [FY2006 HSGP
nation’s population. [FY2007 HSGP
Program Guidance and Application Kit]
Program Guidance and Application Kit]

CRS-12
Estimating SHSGP and LETPP Grant Allocations
for FY2007, Under H.R. 1 and S. 4
The previous sections of this report described the DHS programs and the
department’s methods for allocating grants in FY2006 and FY2007 for the SHSGP
and LETPP programs — grants that are not to be less than statutorily set minimums.22
Moreover, H.R. 1, as passed by the House, and S. 4, as passed by the Senate, would
both lower the minimums that are currently in effect for those two programs.
A question that immediately arises is how those changes would affect total
SHSGP and LETPP grant amounts that the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico and the insular areas can expect to receive. Answering that question precisely,
however, is not feasible because DHS does not disclose the risk and effectiveness
scores it assigns to the applications it evaluates. Accordingly, any effort to calculate
rough estimates of grant amounts for FY2007 under the current statutory minimum
as interpreted by DHS program guidance and under H.R. 1 or S. 4 proposed
minimums, must make three fundamental assumptions:23
Assumption 1. DHS Risk and effectiveness scores for each applicant for
FY2007 and under H.R. 1 and S. 4 will equal those for FY2006. This assumption
is valid only to the extent that the determinants of risk and effectiveness that
pertain to each applicant and the DHS scoring system do not significantly vary
from one year to the next.
Assumption 2. A proxy for each grant recipient’s undisclosed risk and
effectiveness score in FY2006 can be found in the ratio of (a) the amount of the
recipient’s FY2006 total grant that was based on risk and effectiveness to (b) the
sum of risk and effectiveness amounts for all recipients. In other words, if one
assumes that if a recipient received 5% of the total funds available for allocation
on the basis of risk and effectiveness in FY2006, then that recipient will receive
5% of the total funds available for allocation on the basis of risk and
effectiveness in FY2007 and under H.R. 1 and S. 4.
Assumption 3. The total appropriation for FY2007 for the SHSGP and LETPP
programs was $900 million. In order to estimate grants under the provisions of
H.R. 1, one assumes the same total appropriation of $900 million for whatever
fiscal year a congressionally enacted and presidentially approved H.R. 1 were to
go into effect.
22 As described earlier in the report, in FY2006 each state and the territories received a base
amount calculated by formula. States then received an additional allocation based on
potential risk and effectiveness. The effectiveness (as judged by peer review) of each
jurisdiction’s risk mitigation strategy was used to adjust the amount of the risk-based portion
of the total allocation. Thus, some states received more or less than they would have under
the FY2005 formula, which was based only on population — an admittedly imperfect
indicator of risk. For FY2007, however, DHS has decided to allocate grants first on the
basis of risk and effectiveness and then to adjust the sub-minimum grants upwards. As of
this writing, the department had not identified its method for reducing grants greater than
the minimum so as not to exceed the appropriated amount.
23 This is but one option for making the estimates. Other approaches may yield other results.

CRS-13
Caveat
As with all assumption-based estimates, the estimates that are presented in the
following discussion should be interpreted carefully and used with great caution.
Actual grant allocations will almost certainly differ from the estimates presented
here.
Calculating the Estimates
Estimating grants for each eligible recipient involves the following steps, the
results of which are shown in Tables 2, 3, 4, and 5:
1.
Establish the proxies for risk and effectiveness. [Table 2, col. (g)]
2.
Allocate the total available $900 million ($913,180,500 for S. 4) in
proportion to the proxies.
3.
When a recipient’s risk and effectiveness allocation is less than the
statutory minimum, allocate an additional amount to reach the
minimum. [Tables 3, 4 and 5, col. (c). Recipients of additional
amount are shown in italics.]
4.
Because this results in a total greater than $900 million,
proportionally reduce the grants of all recipients in excess of the
minimum to prevent exceeding the appropriation of $900 million.
[Tables 3, 4 and 5, col. (d)]
5.
Display the resulting adjusted estimated allocations. [Tables 3, 4 and
5, col. (e)]
Each of these steps is discussed below.
Establishing Proxies for Risk and Effectiveness Scores. In FY2006,
Congress appropriated a total of $912 million for the SHSGP and LETPP programs;
of that total, 40% ($365 million) was required to satisfy the minimum allocation for
every eligible recipient; the remaining 60% ($547 million) was allocated based on
risk and effectiveness.24 Examination of column (g) in Table 2 shows, for example,
that California received 15.18% of the $547 million; New York, 8.52%; Texas,
8.05%; and Florida, 6.82%.25 These percentages and the corresponding percentage
for each grant recipient serve as a proxy for each jurisdiction’s risk-and-effectiveness
score for the CRS estimated allocations for FY2007 and as proposed under H.R. 1.
Estimating Risk and Effectiveness. The DHS guidance for FY2007, H.R.
1, and S. 4 would allocate total SHSGP and LETPP amounts by risk and assessment
24 The precise amounts were $914,975,000, $368,277,000 and $546,919,000, respectively.
25 Table 2 presents the FY2006 actual state-by-state distributions for the SHSGP and LETPP
programs. The table also shows the portion of the total allocation distributed to each state
in FY2006 by the risk and effectiveness parameter. For the amounts for all DHS programs
from FY2003 through FY2006, see CRS Report RL33770, Department of Homeland
Security Grants to State and Local Governments: FY2003 to FY2006, by Steven Maguire
and Shawn Reese.

CRS-14
subject to statutory minimums — generally lower under H.R. 1 and S. 4 than under
existing law. In order to estimate the risk and effectiveness allocations for each
eligible jurisdiction, we multiply the proxy percentage discussed above by the total
appropriation of $900 million. For FY2007 under DHS guidance, this unadjusted
amount is shown in column (c) of Table 3. The corresponding amounts under H.R.
1 and S. 4 are shown in column (c) of Table 4 and Table 5, respectively.
Meeting the Minimums. As noted earlier, existing law sets two minimum
amounts based on the total appropriation: 0.75% per state, the District of Columbia,
and Puerto Rico, 0.25% for other U.S. insular areas. Given an appropriation of $900
million, these minimums are $6,750,000 and $2,250,000, per state or insular area
respectively. Under H.R. 1, however, there would be three minimum amounts based
on the total appropriation: 0.45% for international border states (18 states); 0.25%
for states without an international border (32 states) the District of Columbia and
Puerto Rico; and 0.08% for the other U.S. insular areas. With an appropriation of
$900 million, these minimums would be $4,050,000, $2,250,000 for the two
categories of state respectively, and $720,000, for insular areas.
The risk-and-effectiveness proxies give some jurisdictions less than the required
minimum. Column (h) of Table 2 shows that the FY2007 method does not provide
the minimum to 18 states, Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, the U.S. Virgin
Islands, Guam, and the Northern Marianas. Those jurisdictions can be seen in the
italicized entries in columns (a) and (c) of Table 3. Examination of the italicized
entries in columns (a) and (c) of Table 4 shows that risk and assessment allocations
do not meet the H.R. 1 minimums for 14 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto
Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands. The
italicized entries in columns (a) and (c) of Table 5 shows that risk and assessment
allocations do not meet the S. 4 minimums for 15 states, the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, and the Northern Mariana Islands.
Tables 3, 4, and 5 show that when all minimums are met, adjustments will be
required to avoid exceeding the annual authorization — an excess of $96,558,345
under DHS program guidance for FY2007; an excess of $24,109,768 under H.R. 1;
an excess of $44,470,354 under S. 4.
Allocating the Excess Amount. To avoid exceeding the annual
authorization, the reductions to cover the excess must be distributed among the
jurisdictions whose risk-and-effectiveness allocation exceeded the minimum. For
FY2007, a 15.2% reduction in the unadjusted grant amount for those jurisdictions
would be needed. Under H.R. 1, a 3.1% reduction would be required; under S. 4, a
reduction of 6.0% would be required.26
26 The base for the adjustment percentage is the sum of all risk-and-effectiveness allocations
that exceed the minimum. The denominator in the ratio is the sum of amounts required to
bring all grants up to the minimum. In the case of FY2007 allocations, the ratio is
$96,558,345 / $636,558,345 or 0.151688. In the case of estimates under H.R. 1, the ratio is
$24,109,768 / $747,720,000 or 0.0312372; S. 4, the ratio is $44,470,354 / 741,044,440.

CRS-15
Table 2. Potential Allocation of DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP for FY2007
Based on Proxy FY2006 Measures of Risk and Effectiveness
FY2006 Actual Allocations
Estimated
FY2007
State or Territory
Risk and Effectiveness
Allocation:
Guaranteed
Total SHSGP
SHSGP
LETPP
Total
Base Amount
Share of
and LETPP
Amount
National
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Alabama
$8,300,000
$6,030,000
$14,330,000
$6,842,138
$7,487,863
1.37%
12,311,716
Alaska
$4,430,000
$3,230,000
$7,660,000
$6,842,138
$817,863
0.15%
1,344,748
Arizona
$8,660,000
$6,290,000
$14,950,000
$6,842,138
$8,107,863
1.48%
13,331,134
Arkansas
$4,550,000
$3,310,000
$7,860,000
$6,842,138
$1,017,863
0.19%
1,673,593
California
$47,580,000
$42,370,000
$89,950,000
$6,842,138
$83,107,863
15.18%
136,647,861
Colorado
$8,080,000
$7,600,000
$15,680,000
$6,842,138
$8,837,863
1.61%
14,531,417
Connecticut
$11,160,000
$1,850,000
$13,010,000
$6,842,138
$6,167,863
1.13%
10,141,342
Delaware
$6,070,000
$4,050,000
$10,120,000
$6,842,138
$3,277,863
0.60%
5,389,537
District of Columbia
$4,270,000
$3,110,000
$7,380,000
$6,842,138
$537,863
0.10%
884,366
Florida
$25,590,000
$18,610,000
$44,200,000
$6,842,138
$37,357,863
6.82%
61,424,658
Georgia
$13,360,000
$11,430,000
$24,790,000
$6,842,138
$17,947,863
3.28%
29,510,289
Hawaii
$4,490,000
$3,260,000
$7,750,000
$6,842,138
$907,863
0.17%
1,492,728
Idaho
$6,690,000
$4,870,000
$11,560,000
$6,842,138
$4,717,863
0.86%
7,757,218
Illinois
$19,080,000
$18,200,000
$37,280,000
$6,842,138
$30,437,863
5.56%
50,046,634
Indiana
$10,820,000
$5,090,000
$15,910,000
$6,842,138
$9,067,863
1.66%
14,909,588
Iowa
$7,520,000
$5,470,000
$12,990,000
$6,842,138
$6,147,863
1.12%
10,108,457

CRS-16
FY2006 Actual Allocations
Estimated
FY2007
State or Territory
Risk and Effectiveness
Allocation:
Guaranteed
Total SHSGP
SHSGP
LETPP
Total
Base Amount
Share of
and LETPP
Amount
National
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Kansas
$7,850,000
$5,710,000
$13,560,000
$6,842,138
$6,717,863
1.23%
11,045,664
Kentucky
$10,510,000
$4,320,000
$14,830,000
$6,842,138
$7,987,863
1.46%
13,133,827
Louisiana
$12,020,000
$8,740,000
$20,760,000
$6,842,138
$13,917,863
2.54%
22,884,070
Maine
$4,390,000
$3,200,000
$7,590,000
$6,842,138
$747,863
0.14%
1,229,653
Maryland
$8,120,000
$5,910,000
$14,030,000
$6,842,138
$7,187,863
1.31%
11,818,449
Massachusetts
$11,710,000
$10,240,000
$21,950,000
$6,842,138
$15,107,863
2.76%
24,840,695
Michigan
$15,650,000
$11,390,000
$27,040,000
$6,842,138
$20,197,863
3.69%
33,209,791
Minnesota
$4,790,000
$3,490,000
$8,280,000
$6,842,138
$1,437,863
0.26%
2,364,167
Mississippi
$4,650,000
$3,390,000
$8,040,000
$6,842,138
$1,197,863
0.22%
1,969,553
Missouri
$17,980,000
$5,610,000
$23,590,000
$6,842,138
$16,747,863
3.06%
27,537,221
Montana
$4,490,000
$3,260,000
$7,750,000
$6,842,138
$907,863
0.17%
1,492,728
Nebraska
$11,200,000
$1,540,000
$12,740,000
$6,842,138
$5,897,863
1.08%
9,697,401
Nevada
$8,110,000
$4,180,000
$12,290,000
$6,842,138
$5,447,863
1.00%
8,957,501
New Hampshire
$4,320,000
$3,140,000
$7,460,000
$6,842,138
$617,863
0.11%
1,015,904
New Jersey
$9,170,000
$7,540,000
$16,710,000
$6,842,138
$9,867,863
1.80%
$16,224,967
New Mexico
$4,530,000
$3,290,000
$7,820,000
$6,842,138
$977,863
0.18%
$1,607,824
New York
$27,460,000
$26,010,000
$53,470,000
$6,842,138
$46,627,863
8.52%
$76,666,605
North Carolina
$10,780,000
$9,560,000
$20,340,000
$6,842,138
$13,497,863
2.47%
$22,193,496
North Dakota
$6,270,000
$4,350,000
$10,620,000
$6,842,138
$3,777,863
0.69%
$6,211,648

CRS-17
FY2006 Actual Allocations
Estimated
FY2007
State or Territory
Risk and Effectiveness
Allocation:
Guaranteed
Total SHSGP
SHSGP
LETPP
Total
Base Amount
Share of
and LETPP
Amount
National
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Ohio
$12,630,000
$9,180,000
$21,810,000
$6,842,138
$14,967,863
2.73%
$24,610,504
Oklahoma
$8,480,000
$6,170,000
$14,650,000
$6,842,138
$7,807,863
1.43%
$12,837,867
Oregon
$4,680,000
$3,400,000
$8,080,000
$6,842,138
$1,237,863
0.23%
$2,035,322
Pennsylvania
$12,810,000
$11,050,000
$23,860,000
$6,842,138
$17,017,863
3.11%
$27,981,161
Rhode Island
$4,460,000
$2,960,000
$7,420,000
$6,842,138
$577,863
0.11%
$950,135
South Carolina
$10,040,000
$4,100,000
$14,140,000
$6,842,138
$7,297,863
1.33%
$11,999,314
South Dakota
$4,380,000
$3,180,000
$7,560,000
$6,842,138
$717,863
0.13%
$1,180,326
Tennessee
$4,780,000
$3,480,000
$8,260,000
$6,842,138
$1,417,863
0.26%
$2,331,282
Texas
$26,140,000
$24,740,000
$50,880,000
$6,842,138
$44,037,863
8.05%
$72,408,067
Utah
$4,520,000
$3,280,000
$7,800,000
$6,842,138
$957,863
0.17%
$1,574,940
Vermont
$7,220,000
$3,520,000
$10,740,000
$6,842,138
$3,897,863
0.71%
$6,408,955
Virginia
$8,720,000
$6,340,000
$15,060,000
$6,842,138
$8,217,863
1.50%
$13,511,999
Washington
$12,730,000
$9,260,000
$21,990,000
$6,842,138
$15,147,863
2.77%
$24,906,464
West Virginia
$7,570,000
$5,510,000
$13,080,000
$6,842,138
$6,237,863
1.14%
$10,256,437
Wisconsin
$8,710,000
$6,330,000
$15,040,000
$6,842,138
$8,197,863
1.50%
$13,479,114
Wyoming
$4,420,000
$3,090,000
$7,510,000
$6,842,138
$667,863
0.12%
$1,098,115
U.S. Total
$516,940,000
$375,230,000
$892,170,000
$348,949,013
$543,220,988
99.24%
$893,176,454
Puerto Rico
$4,300,000
$3,130,000
$7,430,000
$6,842,138
$587,863
0.11%
$966,577
U.S. & P.R. Total
$521,240,000
$378,360,000
$899,600,000
$355,791,150
$543,808,850
99.35%
$894,143,031

CRS-18
FY2006 Actual Allocations
Estimated
FY2007
State or Territory
Risk and Effectiveness
Allocation:
Guaranteed
Total SHSGP
SHSGP
LETPP
Total
Base Amount
Share of
and LETPP
Amount
National
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
(h)
Virgin Islands
$1,560,000
$1,130,000
$2,690,000
$2,280,713
$409,288
0.07%
$672,960
American Samoa
$2,115,000
$2,530,000
$4,645,000
$2,280,713
$2,364,288
0.43%
$3,887,416
Guam
$1,550,000
$1,130,000
$2,680,000
$2,280,713
$399,288
0.07%
$656,518
N. Mariana Islands
$1,700,000
$970,000
$2,670,000
$2,280,713
$389,288
0.07%
$640,075
All Areas Total
$528,165,000
$384,120,000
$912,285,000
$364,914,000
$547,371,000
100.00%
$900,000,000

CRS-19
Table 3. Estimated FY2007 DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP
with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments
Estimated FY2007 Allocation
Actual FY2006
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2006 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
FY2007
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Alabama
$14,330,000
$12,311,716
($843,646)
$0
$11,468,070
-20.1%
Alaska
$7,660,000
$1,344,748
$0
$5,405,252
$6,750,000
-11.9%
Arizona
$14,950,000
$13,331,134
($998,280)
$0
$12,332,854
-17.5%
Arkansas
$7,860,000
$1,673,593
$0
$5,076,407
$6,750,000
-14.1%
California
$89,950,000
$136,647,861
($19,703,964)
$0
$116,943,897
30.0%
Colorado
$15,680,000
$14,531,417
($1,180,349)
$0
$13,351,068
-14.9%
Connecticut
$13,010,000
$10,141,342
($514,426)
$0
$9,626,915
-26.0%
Delaware
$10,120,000
$5,389,537
$0
$1,360,463
$6,750,000
-33.3%
District of Columbia
$7,380,000
$884,366
$0
$5,865,634
$6,750,000
-8.5%
Florida
$44,200,000
$61,424,658
($8,293,497)
$0
$53,131,161
20.2%
Georgia
$24,790,000
$29,510,289
($3,452,466)
$0
$26,057,823
5.1%
Hawaii
$7,750,000
$1,492,728
$0
$5,257,272
$6,750,000
-12.9%
Idaho
$11,560,000
$7,757,218
($152,783)
$0
$7,604,435
-34.2%
Illinois
$37,280,000
$50,046,634
($6,567,586)
$0
$43,479,049
16.6%
Indiana
$15,910,000
$14,909,588
($1,237,713)
$0
$13,671,876
-14.1%
Iowa
$12,990,000
$10,108,457
($509,438)
$0
$9,599,019
-26.1%
Kansas
$13,560,000
$11,045,664
($651,601)
$0
$10,394,063
-23.3%
Kentucky
$14,830,000
$13,133,827
($968,351)
$0
$12,165,477
-18.0%

CRS-20
Estimated FY2007 Allocation
Actual FY2006
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2006 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
FY2007
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Louisiana
$20,760,000
$22,884,070
($2,447,347)
$0
$20,436,723
-1.6%
Maine
$7,590,000
$1,229,653
$0
$5,520,347
$6,750,000
-11.1%
Maryland
$14,030,000
$11,818,449
($768,824)
$0
$11,049,625
-21.2%
Massachusetts
$21,950,000
$24,840,695
($2,744,144)
$0
$22,096,552
0.7%
Michigan
$27,040,000
$33,209,791
($4,013,636)
$0
$29,196,154
8.0%
Minnesota
$8,280,000
$2,364,167
$0
$4,385,833
$6,750,000
-18.5%
Mississippi
$8,040,000
$1,969,553
$0
$4,780,447
$6,750,000
-16.0%
Missouri
$23,590,000
$27,537,221
($3,153,175)
$0
$24,384,046
3.4%
Montana
$7,750,000
$1,492,728
$0
$5,257,272
$6,750,000
-12.9%
Nebraska
$12,740,000
$9,697,401
($447,086)
$0
$9,250,316
-27.4%
Nevada
$12,290,000
$8,957,501
($334,852)
$0
$8,622,649
-29.8%
New Hampshire
$7,460,000
$1,015,904
$0
$5,734,096
$6,750,000
-9.5%
New Jersey
$16,710,000
$16,224,967
($1,437,240)
$0
$14,787,727
-11.5%
New Mexico
$7,820,000
$1,607,824
$0
$5,142,176
$6,750,000
-13.7%
New York
$53,470,000
$76,666,605
($10,605,519)
$0
$66,061,086
23.5%
North Carolina
$20,340,000
$22,193,496
($2,342,595)
$0
$19,850,901
-2.4%
North Dakota
$10,620,000
$6,211,648
$0
$538,352
$6,750,000
-36.4%
Ohio
$21,810,000
$24,610,504
($2,709,226)
$0
$21,901,278
0.4%
Oklahoma
$14,650,000
$12,837,867
($923,457)
$0
$11,914,410
-18.7%
Oregon
$8,080,000
$2,035,322
$0
$4,714,678
$6,750,000
-16.5%
Pennsylvania
$23,860,000
$27,981,161
($3,220,515)
$0
$24,760,646
3.8%

CRS-21
Estimated FY2007 Allocation
Actual FY2006
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2006 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
FY2007
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Rhode Island
$7,420,000
$950,135
$0
$5,799,865
$6,750,000
-9.0%
South Carolina
$14,140,000
$11,999,314
($796,259)
$0
$11,203,055
-20.8%
South Dakota
$7,560,000
$1,180,326
$0
$5,569,674
$6,750,000
-10.7%
Tennessee
$8,260,000
$2,331,282
$0
$4,418,718
$6,750,000
-18.3%
Texas
$50,880,000
$72,408,067
($9,959,549)
$0
$62,448,518
22.7%
Utah
$7,800,000
$1,574,940
$0
$5,175,060
$6,750,000
-13.5%
Vermont
$10,740,000
$6,408,955
$0
$341,045
$6,750,000
-37.2%
Virginia
$15,060,000
$13,511,999
($1,025,715)
$0
$12,486,284
-17.1%
Washington
$21,990,000
$24,906,464
($2,754,120)
$0
$22,152,344
0.7%
West Virginia
$13,080,000
$10,256,437
($531,885)
$0
$9,724,552
-25.7%
Wisconsin
$15,040,000
$13,479,114
($1,020,727)
$0
$12,458,387
-17.2%
Wyoming
$7,510,000
$1,098,115
$0
$5,651,885
$6,750,000
-10.1%
U.S. Total
$892,170,000
$893,176,454
($96,309,969)
$85,994,475
$882,860,961
-1.0%
Puerto Rico
$7,430,000
$966,577
$0
$5,783,423
$6,750,000
-9.2%
U.S. & P.R. Total
$899,600,000
$894,143,031
($96,309,969)
$91,777,898
$889,610,961
-1.1%
Virgin Islands
$2,690,000
$672,960
$0
$1,577,040
$2,250,000
-16.4%
American Samoa
$4,645,000
$3,887,416
($248,377)
$0
$3,639,039
-21.7%
Guam
$2,680,000
$656,518
$0
$1,593,482
$2,250,000
-16.0%
N. Mariana Islands
$2,670,000
$640,075
$0
$1,609,925
$2,250,000
-15.7%
All Areas Total
$912,285,000
$900,000,000
($96,558,345)
$96,558,345
$900,000,000
-1.3%
Note: Data for FY2006 are actual distribution and the FY2007 data are CRS estimates. Italicized states and territories would receive the minimum allocation amount under the FY2007
distribution method estimated by CRS and described in the text.

CRS-22
Table 4. Estimated DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP under H.R. 1 with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments
Estimated Allocation under H.R. 1
Estimated FY2007
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2007 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
H.R. 1
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Alabama
$11,468,070
$12,311,716
($314,299)
$0
$11,997,417
4.6%
Alaska*
$6,750,000
$1,344,748
$0
$2,705,252
$4,050,000
-40.0%
Arizona*
$12,332,854
$13,331,134
($289,916)
$0
$13,041,218
5.7%
Arkansas
$6,750,000
$1,673,593
$0
$576,407
$2,250,000
-66.7%
California*
$116,943,897
$136,647,861
($4,141,980)
$0
$132,505,881
13.3%
Colorado
$13,351,068
$14,531,417
($383,637)
$0
$14,147,780
6.0%
Connecticut
$9,626,915
$10,141,342
($246,503)
$0
$9,894,838
2.8%
Delaware
$6,750,000
$5,389,537
($98,070)
$0
$5,291,467
-21.6%
District of Columbia#
$6,750,000
$884,366
$0
$1,365,634
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Florida
$53,131,161
$61,424,658
($1,848,448)
$0
$59,576,209
12.1%
Georgia
$26,057,823
$29,510,289
($851,534)
$0
$28,658,755
10.0%
Hawaii#
$6,750,000
$1,492,728
$0
$757,272
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Idaho*
$7,604,435
$7,757,218
($115,803)
$0
$7,641,415
0.5%
Illinois
$43,479,049
$50,046,634
($1,493,031)
$0
$48,553,603
11.7%
Indiana
$13,671,876
$14,909,588
($395,450)
$0
$14,514,139
6.2%
Iowa
$9,599,019
$10,108,457
($245,476)
$0
$9,862,981
2.8%
Kansas
$10,394,063
$11,045,664
($274,752)
$0
$10,770,913
3.6%
Kentucky
$12,165,477
$13,133,827
($339,980)
$0
$12,793,848
5.2%
Louisiana
$20,436,723
$22,884,070
($644,550)
$0
$22,239,520
8.8%
Maine*
$6,750,000
$1,229,653
$0
$2,820,347
$4,050,000
-40.0%
Maryland
$11,049,625
$11,818,449
($298,891)
$0
$11,519,558
4.3%

CRS-23
Estimated Allocation under H.R. 1
Estimated FY2007
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2007 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
H.R. 1
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Massachusetts
$22,096,552
$24,840,695
($705,669)
$0
$24,135,026
9.2%
Michigan*
$29,196,154
$33,209,791
($910,869)
$0
$32,298,922
10.6%
Minnesota*#
$6,750,000
$2,364,167
$0
$1,685,833
$4,050,000
-40.0%
Mississippi
$6,750,000
$1,969,553
$0
$280,447
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Missouri
$24,384,046
$27,537,221
($789,901)
$0
$26,747,320
9.7%
Montana*
$6,750,000
$1,492,728
$0
$2,557,272
$4,050,000
-40.0%
Nebraska
$9,250,316
$9,697,401
($232,636)
$0
$9,464,766
2.3%
Nevada
$8,622,649
$8,957,501
($209,523)
$0
$8,747,978
1.5%
New Hampshire*
$6,750,000
$1,015,904
$0
$3,034,096
$4,050,000
-40.0%
New Jersey
$14,787,727
$16,224,967
($436,538)
$0
$15,788,428
6.8%
New Mexico*
$6,750,000
$1,607,824
$0
$2,442,176
$4,050,000
-40.0%
New York*
$66,061,086
$76,666,605
($2,268,336)
$0
$74,398,269
12.6%
North Carolina
$19,850,901
$22,193,496
($622,978)
$0
$21,570,518
8.7%
North Dakota*
$6,750,000
$6,211,648
($67,524)
$0
$6,144,125
-9.0%
Ohio*
$21,901,278
$24,610,504
($642,252)
$0
$23,968,252
9.4%
Oklahoma
$11,914,410
$12,837,867
($330,735)
$0
$12,507,132
5.0%
Oregon
$6,750,000
$2,035,322
$0
$214,678
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Pennsylvania*
$24,760,646
$27,981,161
($747,541)
$0
$27,233,620
10.0%
Rhode Island
$6,750,000
$950,135
$0
$1,299,865
$2,250,000
-66.7%
South Carolina
$11,203,055
$11,999,314
($304,541)
$0
$11,694,773
4.4%
South Dakota
$6,750,000
$1,180,326
$0
$1,069,674
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Tennessee
$6,750,000
$2,331,282
($2,539)
$0
$2,328,743
-65.5%
Texas*
$62,448,518
$72,408,067
($2,135,312)
$0
$70,272,756
12.5%

CRS-24
Estimated Allocation under H.R. 1
Estimated FY2007
Percentage Change
State or Territory
Allocation for SHSGP
Under-
from FY2007 to
Over-Minimum
Allocation After
and LETPP
Unadjusted
Minimum
H.R. 1
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Utah
$6,750,000
$1,574,940
$0
$675,060
$2,250,000
-66.7%
Vermont*
$6,750,000
$6,408,955
($73,687)
$0
$6,335,268
-6.1%
Virginia
$12,486,284
$13,511,999
($351,793)
$0
$13,160,206
5.4%
Washington*
$22,152,344
$24,906,464
($651,497)
$0
$24,254,968
9.5%
West Virginia
$9,724,552
$10,256,437
($250,098)
$0
$10,006,339
2.9%
Wisconsin*
$12,458,387
$13,479,114
($294,539)
$0
$13,184,576
5.8%
Wyoming
$6,750,000
$1,098,115
$0
$1,151,885
$2,250,000
-66.7%
U.S. Total
$882,860,961
$893,176,454
($24,010,827)
$22,635,898
$891,801,525
1.0%
Puerto Rico
$6,750,000
$966,577
$0
$1,283,423
$2,250,000
-66.7%
U.S. & P.R. Total
$889,610,961
$894,143,031
($24,010,827)
$23,919,321
$894,051,525
0.5%
Virgin Islands
$2,250,000
$672,960
$0
$47,040
$720,000
-68.0%
American Samoa
$3,639,039
$3,887,416
($98,941)
$0
$3,788,475
4.1%
Guam
$2,250,000
$656,518
$0
$63,482
$720,000
-68.0%
N. Mariana Islands
$2,250,000
$640,075
$0
$79,925
$720,000
-68.0%
All Areas Total
$900,000,000
$900,000,000
($24,109,768)
$24,109,768
$900,000,000
0.0%
Note: FY2007 data are CRS estimates. Italicized states and territories would receive the minimum allocation amount under the H.R. 1 distribution method as estimated by CRS and
described in the text. *States marked with an asterisk are considered international border states. #DC, Hawaii, and Minnesota are identified FY07 UASI grant recipients, and would
be below the minimum based on CRS estimates of SHSGP and LETPP grant awards. However, under H.R. 1, UASI grant awards would be included in the guaranteed minimum. This
could result in states above the minimum receiving approximately 0.5% increase in SHSGP and LETPP funding amounts, because DC, Hawaii, and Minnesota’s guaranteed minimum
amount would include a portion or all of a possible UASI grant award.

CRS-25
Table 5. Estimated DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP under S. 4 with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments
Estimated H.R. 1
Estimated Allocation under S. 4
Allocation for SHSGP
($913,180,500)
H.R. 1 Allocation
State or Territory
and LETPP
less S. 4
Over-Minimum
Under-Minimum
Allocation After
($900,000,000)
Unadjusted
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Alabama
$11,997,417
$12,492,021
($503,049)
$0
$11,988,972
$8,445
Alaska*
$4,050,000
$1,364,442
$0
$2,744,870
$4,109,312
($59,312)
Arizona*
$13,041,218
$13,526,369
($565,121)
$0
$12,961,248
$79,970
Arkansas
$2,250,000
$1,698,103
$0
$2,411,210
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
California*
$132,505,881
$138,649,069
($8,073,781)
$0
$130,575,288
$1,930,593
Colorado
$14,147,780
$14,744,230
($638,205)
$0
$14,106,024
$41,756
Connecticut
$9,894,838
$10,289,861
($370,897)
$0
$9,918,964
($24,126)
Delaware
$5,291,467
$5,468,467
($81,563)
$0
$5,386,903
($95,436)
District of Columbia
$2,250,000
$897,317
$0
$3,211,995
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
Florida
$59,576,209
$62,324,222
($3,493,499)
$0
$58,830,723
$745,486
Georgia
$28,658,755
$29,942,467
($1,550,257)
$0
$28,392,210
$266,545
Hawaii
$2,250,000
$1,514,589
$0
$2,594,723
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
Idaho*
$7,641,415
$7,870,823
($225,730)
$0
$7,645,093
($3,678)
Illinois
$48,553,603
$50,779,567
($2,800,699)
$0
$47,978,868
$574,735
Indiana
$14,514,139
$15,127,939
($661,232)
$0
$14,466,707
$47,432
Iowa
$9,862,981
$10,256,495
($368,895)
$0
$9,887,601
($24,620)
Kansas
$10,770,913
$11,207,428
($425,961)
$0
$10,781,467
($10,554)
Kentucky
$12,793,848
$13,326,172
($553,107)
$0
$12,773,065
$20,783
Louisiana
$22,239,520
$23,219,207
($1,146,792)
$0
$22,072,415
$167,105
Maine*
$4,050,000
$1,247,661
$0
$2,861,651
$4,109,312
($59,312)

CRS-26
Estimated H.R. 1
Estimated Allocation under S. 4
Allocation for SHSGP
($913,180,500)
H.R. 1 Allocation
State or Territory
and LETPP
less S. 4
Over-Minimum
Under-Minimum
Allocation After
($900,000,000)
Unadjusted
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Maryland
$11,519,558
$11,991,530
($473,015)
$0
$11,518,515
$1,043
Massachusetts
$24,135,026
$25,204,487
($1,265,929)
$0
$23,938,558
$196,468
Michigan*
$32,298,922
$33,696,148
($1,775,517)
$0
$31,920,631
$378,291
Minnesota*
$4,050,000
$2,398,790
$0
$1,710,522
$4,109,312
($59,312)
Mississippi
$2,250,000
$1,998,397
$0
$2,110,915
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
Missouri
$26,747,320
$27,940,504
($1,430,119)
$0
$26,510,385
$236,935
Montana*
$4,050,000
$1,514,589
$0
$2,594,723
$4,109,312
($59,312)
Nebraska
$9,464,766
$9,839,420
($343,866)
$0
$9,495,554
($30,788)
Nevada
$8,747,978
$9,088,684
($298,814)
$0
$8,789,870
($41,892)
New Hampshire*
$4,050,000
$1,030,782
$0
$3,078,531
$4,109,312
($59,312)
New Jersey
$15,788,428
$16,462,581
($741,324)
$0
$15,721,257
$67,171
New Mexico*
$4,050,000
$1,631,371
$0
$2,477,942
$4,109,312
($59,312)
New York*
$74,398,269
$77,789,387
($4,421,569)
$0
$73,367,819
$1,030,450
North Carolina
$21,570,518
$22,518,520
($1,104,743)
$0
$21,413,777
$156,741
North Dakota*
$6,144,125
$6,302,618
($131,621)
$0
$6,170,997
($26,872)
Ohio*
$23,968,252
$24,970,925
($1,251,913)
$0
$23,719,012
$249,240
Oklahoma
$12,507,132
$13,025,878
($535,086)
$0
$12,490,791
$16,341
Oregon
$2,250,000
$2,065,129
$0
$2,044,183
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
Pennsylvania*
$27,233,620
$28,390,945
($1,457,150)
$0
$26,933,796
$299,824
Rhode Island
$2,250,000
$964,050
$0
$3,145,263
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
South Carolina
$11,694,773
$12,175,043
($484,028)
$0
$11,691,016
$3,757
South Dakota
$2,250,000
$1,197,612
$0
$2,911,700
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)

CRS-27
Estimated H.R. 1
Estimated Allocation under S. 4
Allocation for SHSGP
($913,180,500)
H.R. 1 Allocation
State or Territory
and LETPP
less S. 4
Over-Minimum
Under-Minimum
Allocation After
($900,000,000)
Unadjusted
Adjustment
Adjustment
Adjustment
(a)
(b)
(c)
(d)
(e)
(f)
(g)
Tennessee
$2,328,743
$2,365,424
$0
$1,743,888
$4,109,312
($1,780,569)
Texas*
$70,272,756
$73,468,484
($4,162,270)
$0
$69,306,214
$966,542
Utah
$2,250,000
$1,598,005
$0
$2,511,308
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
Vermont*
$6,335,268
$6,502,814
($143,635)
$0
$6,359,179
($23,911)
Virginia
$13,160,206
$13,709,882
($576,134)
$0
$13,133,748
$26,458
Washington*
$24,254,968
$25,271,219
($1,269,934)
$0
$24,001,285
$253,683
West Virginia
$10,006,339
$10,406,643
($377,905)
$0
$10,028,738
($22,399)
Wisconsin*
$13,184,576
$13,676,516
($574,131)
$0
$13,102,384
$82,192
Wyoming
$2,250,000
$1,114,197
$0
$2,995,115
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
U.S. Total
$891,801,525
$906,257,023
($44,277,493)
$41,148,539
$903,128,069
($11,326,544)
Puerto Rico
$2,250,000
$980,733
$0
$3,128,580
$4,109,312
($1,859,312)
U.S. & P.R. Total
$894,051,525
$907,237,756
($44,277,493)
$44,277,118
$907,237,381
($13,185,856)
Virgin Islands
$720,000
$682,815
$0
$47,729
$730,544
($10,544)
American Samoa
$3,788,475
$3,944,347
($192,862)
$0
$3,751,486
$36,989
Guam
$720,000
$666,132
$0
$64,412
$730,544
($10,544)
N. Mariana Islands
$720,000
$649,449
$0
$81,095
$730,544
($10,544)
All Areas Total
$900,000,000
$913,180,500
($44,470,354)
$44,470,354
$913,180,500
($13,180,500)

CRS-28
Final Estimates. Column (f) of Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the total post-
adjustment estimates of allocations under the FY2007 guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4,
respectively. Column (g) of Table 5 shows the difference between the H.R. 1 and
S. 4 allocations. A positive value means H.R. 1 would provide more funding for that
jurisdiction based on CRS estimates.
Comparison of the Estimates
Table 6 presents the estimated, post-adjustment allocations for each eligible
jurisdiction under the FY2007 program guidance, H.R. 1, and S. 4.
Table 6. Estimated SHSGP and LETPP Grant Allocations Under
FY2007 Program Guidance, H.R. 1 as Passed by the House, and
S. 4 as Passed by the Senate
Estimated Post-Adjustment Allocations
Jurisdiction
FY2007
Program
H.R. 1
S. 4
Guidance
Alabama
$11,468,070
$11,997,417
$11,988,972
Alaska
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
Arizona
$12,332,854
$13,041,218
$12,961,248
Arkansas
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
California
$116,943,897
$132,505,881
$130,575,288
Colorado
$13,351,068
$14,147,780
$14,106,024
Connecticut
$9,626,915
$9,894,838
$9,918,964
Delaware
$6,750,000
$5,291,467
$5,386,903
District of Columbia
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Florida
$53,131,161
$59,576,209
$58,830,723
Georgia
$26,057,823
$28,658,755
$28,392,210
Hawaii
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Idaho
$7,604,435
$7,641,415
$7,645,093
Illinois
$43,479,049
$48,553,603
$47,978,868
Indiana
$13,671,876
$14,514,139
$14,466,707
Iowa
$9,599,019
$9,862,981
$9,887,601
Kansas
$10,394,063
$10,770,913
$10,781,467
Kentucky
$12,165,477
$12,793,848
$12,773,065
Louisiana
$20,436,723
$22,239,520
$22,072,415
Maine
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
Maryland
$11,049,625
$11,519,558
$11,518,515
Massachusetts
$22,096,552
$24,135,026
$23,938,558
Michigan
$29,196,154
$32,298,922
$31,920,631
Minnesota
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
Mississippi
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Missouri
$24,384,046
$26,747,320
$26,510,385
Montana
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
Nebraska
$9,250,316
$9,464,766
$9,495,554
Nevada
$8,622,649
$8,747,978
$8,789,870
New Hampshire
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
New Jersey
$14,787,727
$15,788,428
$15,721,257

CRS-29
Estimated Post-Adjustment Allocations
Jurisdiction
FY2007
Program
H.R. 1
S. 4
Guidance
New Mexico
$6,750,000
$4,050,000
$4,109,312
New York
$66,061,086
$74,398,269
$73,367,819
North Carolina
$19,850,901
$21,570,518
$21,413,777
North Dakota
$6,750,000
$6,144,125
$6,170,997
Ohio
$21,901,278
$23,968,252
$23,719,012
Oklahoma
$11,914,410
$12,507,132
$12,490,791
Oregon
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Pennsylvania
$24,760,646
$27,233,620
$26,933,796
Rhode Island
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
South Carolina
$11,203,055
$11,694,773
$11,691,016
South Dakota
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Tennessee
$6,750,000
$2,328,743
$4,109,312
Texas
$62,448,518
$70,272,756
$69,306,214
Utah
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
Vermont
$6,750,000
$6,335,268
$6,359,179
Virginia
$12,486,284
$13,160,206
$13,133,748
Washington
$22,152,344
$24,254,968
$24,001,285
West Virginia
$9,724,552
$10,006,339
$10,028,738
Wisconsin
$12,458,387
$13,184,576
$13,102,384
Wyoming
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
U.S. Total
$882,860,961
$891,801,525
$903,128,069
Puerto Rico
$6,750,000
$2,250,000
$4,109,312
U.S. and P.R. Total
$889,610,961
$894,051,525
$907,237,381
Virgin Islands
$2,250,000
$720,000
$730,544
American Samoa
$3,639,039
$3,788,475
$3,751,486
Guam
$2,250,000
$720,000
$730,544
N. Mariana Islands
$2,250,000
$720,000
$730,544
All Areas Total
$900,000,000
$900,000,000
$913,180,500
Source: Estimates calculated by CRS. Caveat: Other estimating methods based on different
assumptions would yield different results.
Table 7 presents the estimated grant award amount for each recipient as a
percentage share of the national total authorized. The share amounts allow for direct
comparison without concern for the total amount authorized.

CRS-30
Table 7. Estimated Share of Total Authorization for SHSGP and
LETPP Grant Allocations Under FY2007 Program Guidance, H.R.
1 as Passed by the House, and S. 4 as Passed by the Senate
Estimated Post-Adjustment Percentage Share of
Total Authorization
Jurisdiction
FY2007
Program
H.R. 1
S. 4
Guidance
Alabama
1.27%
1.33%
1.31%
Alaska
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
Arizona
1.37%
1.45%
1.42%
Arkansas
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
California
12.99%
14.72%
14.30%
Colorado
1.48%
1.57%
1.54%
Connecticut
1.07%
1.10%
1.09%
Delaware
0.75%
0.59%
0.59%
District of Columbia
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Florida
5.90%
6.62%
6.44%
Georgia
2.90%
3.18%
3.11%
Hawaii
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Idaho
0.84%
0.85%
0.84%
Illinois
4.83%
5.39%
5.25%
Indiana
1.52%
1.61%
1.58%
Iowa
1.07%
1.10%
1.08%
Kansas
1.15%
1.20%
1.18%
Kentucky
1.35%
1.42%
1.40%
Louisiana
2.27%
2.47%
2.42%
Maine
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
Maryland
1.23%
1.28%
1.26%
Massachusetts
2.46%
2.68%
2.62%
Michigan
3.24%
3.59%
3.50%
Minnesota
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
Mississippi
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Missouri
2.71%
2.97%
2.90%
Montana
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
Nebraska
1.03%
1.05%
1.04%
Nevada
0.96%
0.97%
0.96%
New Hampshire
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
New Jersey
1.64%
1.75%
1.72%
New Mexico
0.75%
0.45%
0.45%
New York
7.34%
8.27%
8.03%
North Carolina
2.21%
2.40%
2.35%
North Dakota
0.75%
0.68%
0.68%
Ohio
2.43%
2.66%
2.60%
Oklahoma
1.32%
1.39%
1.37%
Oregon
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Pennsylvania
2.75%
3.03%
2.95%
Rhode Island
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
South Carolina
1.24%
1.30%
1.28%

CRS-31
Estimated Post-Adjustment Percentage Share of
Total Authorization
Jurisdiction
FY2007
Program
H.R. 1
S. 4
Guidance
South Dakota
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Tennessee
0.75%
0.26%
0.45%
Texas
6.94%
7.81%
7.59%
Utah
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
Vermont
0.75%
0.70%
0.70%
Virginia
1.39%
1.46%
1.44%
Washington
2.46%
2.70%
2.63%
West Virginia
1.08%
1.11%
1.10%
Wisconsin
1.38%
1.47%
1.43%
Wyoming
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
U.S. Total
98.10%
99.09%
98.90%
Puerto Rico
0.75%
0.25%
0.45%
U.S. and P.R. Total
98.85%
99.34%
99.35%
Virgin Islands
0.25%
0.08%
0.08%
American Samoa
0.40%
0.42%
0.41%
Guam
0.25%
0.08%
0.08%
N. Mariana Islands
0.25%
0.08%
0.08%
All Areas Total
100.00%
100.00%
100.00%