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: ! 1 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 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, highdensity 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 4 Ibid., pp. 1-2. 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 nonlaw 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 allhazards 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 Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas were guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title III] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title III] DHS Implementation DHS chose to allocate the remainder of total SHSGP appropriations based on risk and the effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. [FY2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] DHS Implementation DHS intends to allocate 100% SHSGP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, intends to guarantee a minimum of 0.75% to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.25%. [FY2007 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] Guaranteed Amount Each state (without an international border), DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. States with an international border would be guaranteed 0.45% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas would be guaranteed 0.08% of total appropriations. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’] DHS Implementation H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate 100% SHSGP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, would be required to guarantee a minimum of 0.25% or 0.45% to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’] Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed 0.45% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas would be guaranteed 0.08% of total appropriations. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(d)’] DHS Implementation S. 4 would require DHS to allocate 100% SHSGP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, would be required to guarantee a minimum of 0.45% to each state, D.C. and P.R.; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. CRS-9 FY2006 Distribution Method FY2007 Distribution Method H.R. 1 Distribution Method S. 4 Distribution Method Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas were guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico was guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title III] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title III] DHS Implementation DHS chose to allocate the remainder of total LETPP appropriations based on risk and the effectiveness of the state’s proposed solution to identified homeland security needs. [FY2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] DHS Implementation DHS intends to allocate 100% LETPP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, intends to guarantee a minimum of 0.75% to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.25%. [FY2007 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] Guaranteed Amount Each state (without an international border), DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed 0.25% of total appropriations. States with an international border would be guaranteed 0.45% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas would be guaranteed 0.08% of total appropriations. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’] DHS Implementation H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate 100% LETPP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, would be required to guarantee a minimum of 0.25% or 0.45% to each state; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’] Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico would be guaranteed 0.45% of total appropriations. U.S. insular areas would be guaranteed 0.08% of total appropriations. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202] DHS Implementation S. 4 would require DHS to allocate total LETPP appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. DHS, however, would be required to guarantee a minimum of 0.45% to each state, D.C. and P.R.; U.S. insular areas, 0.08%. No less than 25% of the combined amount appropriated for grants under UASI and SHSGP shall be used for LETPP. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202] CRS-10 FY2006 Distribution Method FY2007 Distribution Method H.R. 1 Distribution Method S. 4 Distribution Method Urban Area Security Initiative Guaranteed Amount NA Guaranteed Amount NA Guaranteed Amount NA Guaranteed Amount NA Remainder of Appropriations Allocation of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title III] Remainder of Appropriations Allocation of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title III] DHS Implementation DHS allocated UASI funds based on risk and effectiveness of urban area’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. [FY2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] DHS Implementation DHS allocated UASI funds based on risk and effectiveness of urban area’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. [FY2007 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] DHS Implementation H.R. 1 would require DHS to allocate 100% UASI appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. [H.R. 1, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(a)(5)’] DHS Implementation S. 4 would require DHS to allocate 100% UASI appropriations based on risk and the anticipated effectiveness of the state’s proposed solutions to identified homeland security needs. [S. 4, Title II, Sec. 202] Metropolitan Medical Response System Guaranteed Amount DHS determines what metropolitan medical systems receive funding and amount. [P.L. 109-90, Title III] Guaranteed Amount DHS determines what metropolitan medical systems receive funding and amount. [P.L. 109-295, Title III] NA NA CRS-11 FY2006 Distribution Method FY2007 Distribution Method H.R. 1 Distribution Method S. 4 Distribution Method Citizen Corps Program Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Guaranteed Amount Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico guaranteed 0.75% of total appropriations. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-90, Title III] Remainder of Appropriations Remainder of total appropriations at the discretion of DHS. [P.L. 109-295, Title III] DHS Implementation DHS chose to allocate the remainder of total CCP appropriations in direct proportion to the state’s percentage of the nation’s population. [FY2006 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] DHS Implementation DHS chose to allocate the remainder of total CCP appropriations in direct proportion to the state’s percentage of the nation’s population. [FY2007 HSGP Program Guidance and Application Kit] NA NA 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. 2. 3. 4. 5. Establish the proxies for risk and effectiveness. [Table 2, col. (g)] Allocate the total available $900 million ($913,180,500 for S. 4) in proportion to the proxies. 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.] 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)] 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 25 The precise amounts were $914,975,000, $368,277,000 and $546,919,000, respectively. 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 State or Territory SHSGP LETPP Total Guaranteed Base Amount Risk and Effectiveness Amount (a) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa (b) $8,300,000 $4,430,000 $8,660,000 $4,550,000 $47,580,000 $8,080,000 $11,160,000 $6,070,000 $4,270,000 $25,590,000 $13,360,000 $4,490,000 $6,690,000 $19,080,000 $10,820,000 $7,520,000 (c) $6,030,000 $3,230,000 $6,290,000 $3,310,000 $42,370,000 $7,600,000 $1,850,000 $4,050,000 $3,110,000 $18,610,000 $11,430,000 $3,260,000 $4,870,000 $18,200,000 $5,090,000 $5,470,000 (d) $14,330,000 $7,660,000 $14,950,000 $7,860,000 $89,950,000 $15,680,000 $13,010,000 $10,120,000 $7,380,000 $44,200,000 $24,790,000 $7,750,000 $11,560,000 $37,280,000 $15,910,000 $12,990,000 (e) $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 (f) $7,487,863 $817,863 $8,107,863 $1,017,863 $83,107,863 $8,837,863 $6,167,863 $3,277,863 $537,863 $37,357,863 $17,947,863 $907,863 $4,717,863 $30,437,863 $9,067,863 $6,147,863 Share of National (g) 1.37% 0.15% 1.48% 0.19% 15.18% 1.61% 1.13% 0.60% 0.10% 6.82% 3.28% 0.17% 0.86% 5.56% 1.66% 1.12% Estimated FY2007 Allocation: Total SHSGP and LETPP (h) 12,311,716 1,344,748 13,331,134 1,673,593 136,647,861 14,531,417 10,141,342 5,389,537 884,366 61,424,658 29,510,289 1,492,728 7,757,218 50,046,634 14,909,588 10,108,457 CRS-16 FY2006 Actual Allocations State or Territory SHSGP LETPP Total Guaranteed Base Amount Risk and Effectiveness Amount (a) Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota (b) $7,850,000 $10,510,000 $12,020,000 $4,390,000 $8,120,000 $11,710,000 $15,650,000 $4,790,000 $4,650,000 $17,980,000 $4,490,000 $11,200,000 $8,110,000 $4,320,000 $9,170,000 $4,530,000 $27,460,000 $10,780,000 $6,270,000 (c) $5,710,000 $4,320,000 $8,740,000 $3,200,000 $5,910,000 $10,240,000 $11,390,000 $3,490,000 $3,390,000 $5,610,000 $3,260,000 $1,540,000 $4,180,000 $3,140,000 $7,540,000 $3,290,000 $26,010,000 $9,560,000 $4,350,000 (d) $13,560,000 $14,830,000 $20,760,000 $7,590,000 $14,030,000 $21,950,000 $27,040,000 $8,280,000 $8,040,000 $23,590,000 $7,750,000 $12,740,000 $12,290,000 $7,460,000 $16,710,000 $7,820,000 $53,470,000 $20,340,000 $10,620,000 (e) $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 (f) $6,717,863 $7,987,863 $13,917,863 $747,863 $7,187,863 $15,107,863 $20,197,863 $1,437,863 $1,197,863 $16,747,863 $907,863 $5,897,863 $5,447,863 $617,863 $9,867,863 $977,863 $46,627,863 $13,497,863 $3,777,863 Share of National (g) 1.23% 1.46% 2.54% 0.14% 1.31% 2.76% 3.69% 0.26% 0.22% 3.06% 0.17% 1.08% 1.00% 0.11% 1.80% 0.18% 8.52% 2.47% 0.69% Estimated FY2007 Allocation: Total SHSGP and LETPP (h) 11,045,664 13,133,827 22,884,070 1,229,653 11,818,449 24,840,695 33,209,791 2,364,167 1,969,553 27,537,221 1,492,728 9,697,401 8,957,501 1,015,904 $16,224,967 $1,607,824 $76,666,605 $22,193,496 $6,211,648 CRS-17 FY2006 Actual Allocations State or Territory SHSGP LETPP Total Guaranteed Base Amount Risk and Effectiveness Amount (a) Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. & P.R. Total (b) $12,630,000 $8,480,000 $4,680,000 $12,810,000 $4,460,000 $10,040,000 $4,380,000 $4,780,000 $26,140,000 $4,520,000 $7,220,000 $8,720,000 $12,730,000 $7,570,000 $8,710,000 $4,420,000 $516,940,000 $4,300,000 $521,240,000 (c) $9,180,000 $6,170,000 $3,400,000 $11,050,000 $2,960,000 $4,100,000 $3,180,000 $3,480,000 $24,740,000 $3,280,000 $3,520,000 $6,340,000 $9,260,000 $5,510,000 $6,330,000 $3,090,000 $375,230,000 $3,130,000 $378,360,000 (d) $21,810,000 $14,650,000 $8,080,000 $23,860,000 $7,420,000 $14,140,000 $7,560,000 $8,260,000 $50,880,000 $7,800,000 $10,740,000 $15,060,000 $21,990,000 $13,080,000 $15,040,000 $7,510,000 $892,170,000 $7,430,000 $899,600,000 (e) $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $6,842,138 $348,949,013 $6,842,138 $355,791,150 (f) $14,967,863 $7,807,863 $1,237,863 $17,017,863 $577,863 $7,297,863 $717,863 $1,417,863 $44,037,863 $957,863 $3,897,863 $8,217,863 $15,147,863 $6,237,863 $8,197,863 $667,863 $543,220,988 $587,863 $543,808,850 Share of National (g) 2.73% 1.43% 0.23% 3.11% 0.11% 1.33% 0.13% 0.26% 8.05% 0.17% 0.71% 1.50% 2.77% 1.14% 1.50% 0.12% 99.24% 0.11% 99.35% Estimated FY2007 Allocation: Total SHSGP and LETPP (h) $24,610,504 $12,837,867 $2,035,322 $27,981,161 $950,135 $11,999,314 $1,180,326 $2,331,282 $72,408,067 $1,574,940 $6,408,955 $13,511,999 $24,906,464 $10,256,437 $13,479,114 $1,098,115 $893,176,454 $966,577 $894,143,031 CRS-18 FY2006 Actual Allocations State or Territory SHSGP LETPP Total Guaranteed Base Amount Risk and Effectiveness Amount (a) Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total (b) $1,560,000 $2,115,000 $1,550,000 $1,700,000 $528,165,000 (c) $1,130,000 $2,530,000 $1,130,000 $970,000 $384,120,000 (d) $2,690,000 $4,645,000 $2,680,000 $2,670,000 $912,285,000 (e) $2,280,713 $2,280,713 $2,280,713 $2,280,713 $364,914,000 (f) $409,288 $2,364,288 $399,288 $389,288 $547,371,000 Share of National (g) 0.07% 0.43% 0.07% 0.07% 100.00% Estimated FY2007 Allocation: Total SHSGP and LETPP (h) $672,960 $3,887,416 $656,518 $640,075 $900,000,000 CRS-19 Table 3. Estimated FY2007 DHS Grants for SHSGP and LETPP with Possible Under-Minimum Adjustments Estimated FY2007 Allocation State or Territory (a) Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Actual FY2006 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP (b) $14,330,000 $7,660,000 $14,950,000 $7,860,000 $89,950,000 $15,680,000 $13,010,000 $10,120,000 $7,380,000 $44,200,000 $24,790,000 $7,750,000 $11,560,000 $37,280,000 $15,910,000 $12,990,000 $13,560,000 $14,830,000 Unadjusted (c) $12,311,716 $1,344,748 $13,331,134 $1,673,593 $136,647,861 $14,531,417 $10,141,342 $5,389,537 $884,366 $61,424,658 $29,510,289 $1,492,728 $7,757,218 $50,046,634 $14,909,588 $10,108,457 $11,045,664 $13,133,827 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) ($843,646) $0 ($998,280) $0 ($19,703,964) ($1,180,349) ($514,426) $0 $0 ($8,293,497) ($3,452,466) $0 ($152,783) ($6,567,586) ($1,237,713) ($509,438) ($651,601) ($968,351) UnderMinimum Adjustment (e) $0 $5,405,252 $0 $5,076,407 $0 $0 $0 $1,360,463 $5,865,634 $0 $0 $5,257,272 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Allocation After Adjustment (f) $11,468,070 $6,750,000 $12,332,854 $6,750,000 $116,943,897 $13,351,068 $9,626,915 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $53,131,161 $26,057,823 $6,750,000 $7,604,435 $43,479,049 $13,671,876 $9,599,019 $10,394,063 $12,165,477 Percentage Change from FY2006 to FY2007 (g) -20.1% -11.9% -17.5% -14.1% 30.0% -14.9% -26.0% -33.3% -8.5% 20.2% 5.1% -12.9% -34.2% 16.6% -14.1% -26.1% -23.3% -18.0% CRS-20 Estimated FY2007 Allocation State or Territory (a) Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Actual FY2006 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP (b) $20,760,000 $7,590,000 $14,030,000 $21,950,000 $27,040,000 $8,280,000 $8,040,000 $23,590,000 $7,750,000 $12,740,000 $12,290,000 $7,460,000 $16,710,000 $7,820,000 $53,470,000 $20,340,000 $10,620,000 $21,810,000 $14,650,000 $8,080,000 $23,860,000 Unadjusted (c) $22,884,070 $1,229,653 $11,818,449 $24,840,695 $33,209,791 $2,364,167 $1,969,553 $27,537,221 $1,492,728 $9,697,401 $8,957,501 $1,015,904 $16,224,967 $1,607,824 $76,666,605 $22,193,496 $6,211,648 $24,610,504 $12,837,867 $2,035,322 $27,981,161 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) ($2,447,347) $0 ($768,824) ($2,744,144) ($4,013,636) $0 $0 ($3,153,175) $0 ($447,086) ($334,852) $0 ($1,437,240) $0 ($10,605,519) ($2,342,595) $0 ($2,709,226) ($923,457) $0 ($3,220,515) UnderMinimum Adjustment (e) $0 $5,520,347 $0 $0 $0 $4,385,833 $4,780,447 $0 $5,257,272 $0 $0 $5,734,096 $0 $5,142,176 $0 $0 $538,352 $0 $0 $4,714,678 $0 Allocation After Adjustment (f) $20,436,723 $6,750,000 $11,049,625 $22,096,552 $29,196,154 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $24,384,046 $6,750,000 $9,250,316 $8,622,649 $6,750,000 $14,787,727 $6,750,000 $66,061,086 $19,850,901 $6,750,000 $21,901,278 $11,914,410 $6,750,000 $24,760,646 Percentage Change from FY2006 to FY2007 (g) -1.6% -11.1% -21.2% 0.7% 8.0% -18.5% -16.0% 3.4% -12.9% -27.4% -29.8% -9.5% -11.5% -13.7% 23.5% -2.4% -36.4% 0.4% -18.7% -16.5% 3.8% CRS-21 Estimated FY2007 Allocation State or Territory (a) Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. & P.R. Total Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total Actual FY2006 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP (b) $7,420,000 $14,140,000 $7,560,000 $8,260,000 $50,880,000 $7,800,000 $10,740,000 $15,060,000 $21,990,000 $13,080,000 $15,040,000 $7,510,000 $892,170,000 $7,430,000 $899,600,000 $2,690,000 $4,645,000 $2,680,000 $2,670,000 $912,285,000 Unadjusted (c) $950,135 $11,999,314 $1,180,326 $2,331,282 $72,408,067 $1,574,940 $6,408,955 $13,511,999 $24,906,464 $10,256,437 $13,479,114 $1,098,115 $893,176,454 $966,577 $894,143,031 $672,960 $3,887,416 $656,518 $640,075 $900,000,000 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) $0 ($796,259) $0 $0 ($9,959,549) $0 $0 ($1,025,715) ($2,754,120) ($531,885) ($1,020,727) $0 ($96,309,969) $0 ($96,309,969) $0 ($248,377) $0 $0 ($96,558,345) UnderMinimum Adjustment (e) $5,799,865 $0 $5,569,674 $4,418,718 $0 $5,175,060 $341,045 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,651,885 $85,994,475 $5,783,423 $91,777,898 $1,577,040 $0 $1,593,482 $1,609,925 $96,558,345 Allocation After Adjustment (f) $6,750,000 $11,203,055 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $62,448,518 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $12,486,284 $22,152,344 $9,724,552 $12,458,387 $6,750,000 $882,860,961 $6,750,000 $889,610,961 $2,250,000 $3,639,039 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $900,000,000 Percentage Change from FY2006 to FY2007 (g) -9.0% -20.8% -10.7% -18.3% 22.7% -13.5% -37.2% -17.1% 0.7% -25.7% -17.2% -10.1% -1.0% -9.2% -1.1% -16.4% -21.7% -16.0% -15.7% -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 State or Territory (a) Alabama Alaska* Arizona* Arkansas California* Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia# Florida Georgia Hawaii# Idaho* Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine* Maryland Estimated FY2007 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP Unadjusted (b) $11,468,070 (c) $12,311,716 $6,750,000 $12,332,854 $6,750,000 $116,943,897 $13,351,068 $9,626,915 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $53,131,161 $26,057,823 $6,750,000 $7,604,435 $43,479,049 $13,671,876 $9,599,019 $10,394,063 $12,165,477 $20,436,723 $6,750,000 $11,049,625 $1,344,748 $13,331,134 $1,673,593 $136,647,861 $14,531,417 $10,141,342 $5,389,537 $884,366 $61,424,658 $29,510,289 $1,492,728 $7,757,218 $50,046,634 $14,909,588 $10,108,457 $11,045,664 $13,133,827 $22,884,070 $1,229,653 $11,818,449 Over-Minimum Adjustment UnderMinimum Adjustment Allocation After Adjustment Percentage Change from FY2007 to H.R. 1 (d) (e) (f) (g) ($314,299) $0 ($289,916) $0 ($4,141,980) ($383,637) ($246,503) ($98,070) $0 ($1,848,448) ($851,534) $0 ($115,803) ($1,493,031) ($395,450) ($245,476) ($274,752) ($339,980) ($644,550) $0 ($298,891) $0 $2,705,252 $0 $576,407 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,365,634 $0 $0 $757,272 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,820,347 $0 $11,997,417 $4,050,000 $13,041,218 $2,250,000 $132,505,881 $14,147,780 $9,894,838 $5,291,467 $2,250,000 $59,576,209 $28,658,755 $2,250,000 $7,641,415 $48,553,603 $14,514,139 $9,862,981 $10,770,913 $12,793,848 $22,239,520 $4,050,000 $11,519,558 4.6% -40.0% 5.7% -66.7% 13.3% 6.0% 2.8% -21.6% -66.7% 12.1% 10.0% -66.7% 0.5% 11.7% 6.2% 2.8% 3.6% 5.2% 8.8% -40.0% 4.3% CRS-23 Estimated Allocation under H.R. 1 State or Territory (a) Massachusetts Michigan* Minnesota*# Mississippi Missouri Montana* Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire* New Jersey New Mexico* New York* North Carolina North Dakota* Ohio* Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania* Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas* Estimated FY2007 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP (b) $22,096,552 $29,196,154 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $24,384,046 $6,750,000 $9,250,316 $8,622,649 $6,750,000 $14,787,727 $6,750,000 $66,061,086 $19,850,901 $6,750,000 $21,901,278 $11,914,410 $6,750,000 $24,760,646 $6,750,000 $11,203,055 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $62,448,518 Unadjusted Over-Minimum Adjustment UnderMinimum Adjustment (c) (d) (e) $24,840,695 $33,209,791 $2,364,167 $1,969,553 $27,537,221 $1,492,728 $9,697,401 $8,957,501 $1,015,904 $16,224,967 $1,607,824 $76,666,605 $22,193,496 $6,211,648 $24,610,504 $12,837,867 $2,035,322 $27,981,161 $950,135 $11,999,314 $1,180,326 $2,331,282 $72,408,067 ($705,669) ($910,869) $0 $0 ($789,901) $0 ($232,636) ($209,523) $0 ($436,538) $0 ($2,268,336) ($622,978) ($67,524) ($642,252) ($330,735) $0 ($747,541) $0 ($304,541) $0 ($2,539) ($2,135,312) $0 $0 $1,685,833 $280,447 $0 $2,557,272 $0 $0 $3,034,096 $0 $2,442,176 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $214,678 $0 $1,299,865 $0 $1,069,674 $0 $0 Allocation After Adjustment Percentage Change from FY2007 to H.R. 1 (f) (g) $24,135,026 $32,298,922 $4,050,000 $2,250,000 $26,747,320 $4,050,000 $9,464,766 $8,747,978 $4,050,000 $15,788,428 $4,050,000 $74,398,269 $21,570,518 $6,144,125 $23,968,252 $12,507,132 $2,250,000 $27,233,620 $2,250,000 $11,694,773 $2,250,000 $2,328,743 $70,272,756 9.2% 10.6% -40.0% -66.7% 9.7% -40.0% 2.3% 1.5% -40.0% 6.8% -40.0% 12.6% 8.7% -9.0% 9.4% 5.0% -66.7% 10.0% -66.7% 4.4% -66.7% -65.5% 12.5% CRS-24 Estimated Allocation under H.R. 1 State or Territory (a) Utah Vermont* Virginia Washington* West Virginia Wisconsin* Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. & P.R. Total Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total Estimated FY2007 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP (b) $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $12,486,284 $22,152,344 $9,724,552 $12,458,387 $6,750,000 $882,860,961 $6,750,000 $889,610,961 $2,250,000 $3,639,039 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $900,000,000 Unadjusted Over-Minimum Adjustment UnderMinimum Adjustment (c) (d) (e) $1,574,940 $6,408,955 $13,511,999 $24,906,464 $10,256,437 $13,479,114 $1,098,115 $893,176,454 $966,577 $894,143,031 $672,960 $3,887,416 $656,518 $640,075 $900,000,000 $0 ($73,687) ($351,793) ($651,497) ($250,098) ($294,539) $0 ($24,010,827) $0 ($24,010,827) $0 ($98,941) $0 $0 ($24,109,768) $675,060 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,151,885 $22,635,898 $1,283,423 $23,919,321 $47,040 $0 $63,482 $79,925 $24,109,768 Allocation After Adjustment Percentage Change from FY2007 to H.R. 1 (f) (g) $2,250,000 $6,335,268 $13,160,206 $24,254,968 $10,006,339 $13,184,576 $2,250,000 $891,801,525 $2,250,000 $894,051,525 $720,000 $3,788,475 $720,000 $720,000 $900,000,000 -66.7% -6.1% 5.4% 9.5% 2.9% 5.8% -66.7% 1.0% -66.7% 0.5% -68.0% 4.1% -68.0% -68.0% 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 State or Territory (a) Alabama Alaska* Arizona* Arkansas California* Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho* Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine* Estimated H.R. 1 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP ($900,000,000) (b) $11,997,417 $4,050,000 $13,041,218 $2,250,000 $132,505,881 $14,147,780 $9,894,838 $5,291,467 $2,250,000 $59,576,209 $28,658,755 $2,250,000 $7,641,415 $48,553,603 $14,514,139 $9,862,981 $10,770,913 $12,793,848 $22,239,520 $4,050,000 Estimated Allocation under S. 4 ($913,180,500) Unadjusted (c) $12,492,021 $1,364,442 $13,526,369 $1,698,103 $138,649,069 $14,744,230 $10,289,861 $5,468,467 $897,317 $62,324,222 $29,942,467 $1,514,589 $7,870,823 $50,779,567 $15,127,939 $10,256,495 $11,207,428 $13,326,172 $23,219,207 $1,247,661 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) ($503,049) $0 ($565,121) $0 ($8,073,781) ($638,205) ($370,897) ($81,563) $0 ($3,493,499) ($1,550,257) $0 ($225,730) ($2,800,699) ($661,232) ($368,895) ($425,961) ($553,107) ($1,146,792) $0 Under-Minimum Adjustment (e) $0 $2,744,870 $0 $2,411,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,211,995 $0 $0 $2,594,723 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,861,651 Allocation After Adjustment (f) $11,988,972 $4,109,312 $12,961,248 $4,109,312 $130,575,288 $14,106,024 $9,918,964 $5,386,903 $4,109,312 $58,830,723 $28,392,210 $4,109,312 $7,645,093 $47,978,868 $14,466,707 $9,887,601 $10,781,467 $12,773,065 $22,072,415 $4,109,312 H.R. 1 Allocation less S. 4 (g) $8,445 ($59,312) $79,970 ($1,859,312) $1,930,593 $41,756 ($24,126) ($95,436) ($1,859,312) $745,486 $266,545 ($1,859,312) ($3,678) $574,735 $47,432 ($24,620) ($10,554) $20,783 $167,105 ($59,312) CRS-26 State or Territory (a) Maryland Massachusetts Michigan* Minnesota* Mississippi Missouri Montana* Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire* New Jersey New Mexico* New York* North Carolina North Dakota* Ohio* Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania* Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Estimated H.R. 1 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP ($900,000,000) (b) $11,519,558 $24,135,026 $32,298,922 $4,050,000 $2,250,000 $26,747,320 $4,050,000 $9,464,766 $8,747,978 $4,050,000 $15,788,428 $4,050,000 $74,398,269 $21,570,518 $6,144,125 $23,968,252 $12,507,132 $2,250,000 $27,233,620 $2,250,000 $11,694,773 $2,250,000 Estimated Allocation under S. 4 ($913,180,500) Unadjusted (c) $11,991,530 $25,204,487 $33,696,148 $2,398,790 $1,998,397 $27,940,504 $1,514,589 $9,839,420 $9,088,684 $1,030,782 $16,462,581 $1,631,371 $77,789,387 $22,518,520 $6,302,618 $24,970,925 $13,025,878 $2,065,129 $28,390,945 $964,050 $12,175,043 $1,197,612 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) ($473,015) ($1,265,929) ($1,775,517) $0 $0 ($1,430,119) $0 ($343,866) ($298,814) $0 ($741,324) $0 ($4,421,569) ($1,104,743) ($131,621) ($1,251,913) ($535,086) $0 ($1,457,150) $0 ($484,028) $0 Under-Minimum Adjustment (e) $0 $0 $0 $1,710,522 $2,110,915 $0 $2,594,723 $0 $0 $3,078,531 $0 $2,477,942 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,044,183 $0 $3,145,263 $0 $2,911,700 Allocation After Adjustment (f) $11,518,515 $23,938,558 $31,920,631 $4,109,312 $4,109,312 $26,510,385 $4,109,312 $9,495,554 $8,789,870 $4,109,312 $15,721,257 $4,109,312 $73,367,819 $21,413,777 $6,170,997 $23,719,012 $12,490,791 $4,109,312 $26,933,796 $4,109,312 $11,691,016 $4,109,312 H.R. 1 Allocation less S. 4 (g) $1,043 $196,468 $378,291 ($59,312) ($1,859,312) $236,935 ($59,312) ($30,788) ($41,892) ($59,312) $67,171 ($59,312) $1,030,450 $156,741 ($26,872) $249,240 $16,341 ($1,859,312) $299,824 ($1,859,312) $3,757 ($1,859,312) CRS-27 State or Territory (a) Tennessee Texas* Utah Vermont* Virginia Washington* West Virginia Wisconsin* Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. & P.R. Total Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total Estimated H.R. 1 Allocation for SHSGP and LETPP ($900,000,000) (b) $2,328,743 $70,272,756 $2,250,000 $6,335,268 $13,160,206 $24,254,968 $10,006,339 $13,184,576 $2,250,000 $891,801,525 $2,250,000 $894,051,525 $720,000 $3,788,475 $720,000 $720,000 $900,000,000 Estimated Allocation under S. 4 ($913,180,500) Unadjusted (c) $2,365,424 $73,468,484 $1,598,005 $6,502,814 $13,709,882 $25,271,219 $10,406,643 $13,676,516 $1,114,197 $906,257,023 $980,733 $907,237,756 $682,815 $3,944,347 $666,132 $649,449 $913,180,500 Over-Minimum Adjustment (d) $0 ($4,162,270) $0 ($143,635) ($576,134) ($1,269,934) ($377,905) ($574,131) $0 ($44,277,493) $0 ($44,277,493) $0 ($192,862) $0 $0 ($44,470,354) Under-Minimum Adjustment Allocation After Adjustment (e) $1,743,888 $0 $2,511,308 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,995,115 $41,148,539 $3,128,580 $44,277,118 $47,729 $0 $64,412 $81,095 $44,470,354 (f) $4,109,312 $69,306,214 $4,109,312 $6,359,179 $13,133,748 $24,001,285 $10,028,738 $13,102,384 $4,109,312 $903,128,069 $4,109,312 $907,237,381 $730,544 $3,751,486 $730,544 $730,544 $913,180,500 H.R. 1 Allocation less S. 4 (g) ($1,780,569) $966,542 ($1,859,312) ($23,911) $26,458 $253,683 ($22,399) $82,192 ($1,859,312) ($11,326,544) ($1,859,312) ($13,185,856) ($10,544) $36,989 ($10,544) ($10,544) ($13,180,500) CRS-28 Final Estimates. Column (f) of Tables 3, 4, and 5 show the total postadjustment 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 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey FY2007 Program Guidance $11,468,070 $6,750,000 $12,332,854 $6,750,000 $116,943,897 $13,351,068 $9,626,915 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $53,131,161 $26,057,823 $6,750,000 $7,604,435 $43,479,049 $13,671,876 $9,599,019 $10,394,063 $12,165,477 $20,436,723 $6,750,000 $11,049,625 $22,096,552 $29,196,154 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $24,384,046 $6,750,000 $9,250,316 $8,622,649 $6,750,000 $14,787,727 H.R. 1 $11,997,417 $4,050,000 $13,041,218 $2,250,000 $132,505,881 $14,147,780 $9,894,838 $5,291,467 $2,250,000 $59,576,209 $28,658,755 $2,250,000 $7,641,415 $48,553,603 $14,514,139 $9,862,981 $10,770,913 $12,793,848 $22,239,520 $4,050,000 $11,519,558 $24,135,026 $32,298,922 $4,050,000 $2,250,000 $26,747,320 $4,050,000 $9,464,766 $8,747,978 $4,050,000 $15,788,428 S. 4 $11,988,972 $4,109,312 $12,961,248 $4,109,312 $130,575,288 $14,106,024 $9,918,964 $5,386,903 $4,109,312 $58,830,723 $28,392,210 $4,109,312 $7,645,093 $47,978,868 $14,466,707 $9,887,601 $10,781,467 $12,773,065 $22,072,415 $4,109,312 $11,518,515 $23,938,558 $31,920,631 $4,109,312 $4,109,312 $26,510,385 $4,109,312 $9,495,554 $8,789,870 $4,109,312 $15,721,257 CRS-29 Estimated Post-Adjustment Allocations Jurisdiction New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. and P.R. Total Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total FY2007 Program Guidance $6,750,000 $66,061,086 $19,850,901 $6,750,000 $21,901,278 $11,914,410 $6,750,000 $24,760,646 $6,750,000 $11,203,055 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $62,448,518 $6,750,000 $6,750,000 $12,486,284 $22,152,344 $9,724,552 $12,458,387 $6,750,000 $882,860,961 $6,750,000 $889,610,961 $2,250,000 $3,639,039 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $900,000,000 H.R. 1 $4,050,000 $74,398,269 $21,570,518 $6,144,125 $23,968,252 $12,507,132 $2,250,000 $27,233,620 $2,250,000 $11,694,773 $2,250,000 $2,328,743 $70,272,756 $2,250,000 $6,335,268 $13,160,206 $24,254,968 $10,006,339 $13,184,576 $2,250,000 $891,801,525 $2,250,000 $894,051,525 $720,000 $3,788,475 $720,000 $720,000 $900,000,000 S. 4 $4,109,312 $73,367,819 $21,413,777 $6,170,997 $23,719,012 $12,490,791 $4,109,312 $26,933,796 $4,109,312 $11,691,016 $4,109,312 $4,109,312 $69,306,214 $4,109,312 $6,359,179 $13,133,748 $24,001,285 $10,028,738 $13,102,384 $4,109,312 $903,128,069 $4,109,312 $907,237,381 $730,544 $3,751,486 $730,544 $730,544 $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 Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Rhode Island South Carolina FY2007 Program Guidance 1.27% 0.75% 1.37% 0.75% 12.99% 1.48% 1.07% 0.75% 0.75% 5.90% 2.90% 0.75% 0.84% 4.83% 1.52% 1.07% 1.15% 1.35% 2.27% 0.75% 1.23% 2.46% 3.24% 0.75% 0.75% 2.71% 0.75% 1.03% 0.96% 0.75% 1.64% 0.75% 7.34% 2.21% 0.75% 2.43% 1.32% 0.75% 2.75% 0.75% 1.24% H.R. 1 1.33% 0.45% 1.45% 0.25% 14.72% 1.57% 1.10% 0.59% 0.25% 6.62% 3.18% 0.25% 0.85% 5.39% 1.61% 1.10% 1.20% 1.42% 2.47% 0.45% 1.28% 2.68% 3.59% 0.45% 0.25% 2.97% 0.45% 1.05% 0.97% 0.45% 1.75% 0.45% 8.27% 2.40% 0.68% 2.66% 1.39% 0.25% 3.03% 0.25% 1.30% S. 4 1.31% 0.45% 1.42% 0.45% 14.30% 1.54% 1.09% 0.59% 0.45% 6.44% 3.11% 0.45% 0.84% 5.25% 1.58% 1.08% 1.18% 1.40% 2.42% 0.45% 1.26% 2.62% 3.50% 0.45% 0.45% 2.90% 0.45% 1.04% 0.96% 0.45% 1.72% 0.45% 8.03% 2.35% 0.68% 2.60% 1.37% 0.45% 2.95% 0.45% 1.28% CRS-31 Estimated Post-Adjustment Percentage Share of Total Authorization Jurisdiction South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming U.S. Total Puerto Rico U.S. and P.R. Total Virgin Islands American Samoa Guam N. Mariana Islands All Areas Total FY2007 Program Guidance 0.75% 0.75% 6.94% 0.75% 0.75% 1.39% 2.46% 1.08% 1.38% 0.75% 98.10% 0.75% 98.85% 0.25% 0.40% 0.25% 0.25% 100.00% H.R. 1 0.25% 0.26% 7.81% 0.25% 0.70% 1.46% 2.70% 1.11% 1.47% 0.25% 99.09% 0.25% 99.34% 0.08% 0.42% 0.08% 0.08% 100.00% S. 4 0.45% 0.45% 7.59% 0.45% 0.70% 1.44% 2.63% 1.10% 1.43% 0.45% 98.90% 0.45% 99.35% 0.08% 0.41% 0.08% 0.08% 100.00%