Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act

Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act

Order Code RL34181
Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in
FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
Updated January 28, 2008
Shawn Reese
Analyst in Emergency Management and Homeland Security
Government and Finance Division
Steven Maguire
Specialist in Public Finance
Government and Finance Division

Distribution of Homeland Security Grants in FY2007
and P.L. 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of
the 9/11 Commission Act
Summary
On July 18, 2007, the Department of Homeland Security’s Office of Grant
Programs issued the document FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Final
Awards Overview to Congress, states, and localities. The Overview provides a
summary of how the department determined FY2007 state and local Homeland
Security Grant Program allocations and information on state and local grant awards.
In FY2007, the Department of Homeland Security allocated 100% of total
appropriations for the State Homeland Security Grant Program, the Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program, and the Urban Area Security Initiative based on risk
and anticipated effectiveness.
Weeks later, on August 3, 2007, Congress enacted P.L. 110-53, the
Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007, which changes
the distribution methods the Department of Homeland Security uses to allocate
Homeland Security Grant Program funding. Title I (Homeland Security Grants) of
P.L. 110-53 addresses the administration and allocation of homeland security funding
to states and localities beginning in FY2008. P.L. 110-53 requires the department to
allocate homeland security grants based on risk from FY2008 through FY2012. On
December 26, 2007, the President signed the Consolidated Appropriations Act of
2008 (P.L. 110-161) and the act requires DHS to allocate the FY2008 state and local
homeland security assistance programs as required by P.L. 110-53.
This report summarizes and compares the FY2007 and P.L. 110-53 Homeland
Security Grant Program distribution methods: it also presents an estimate of State
Homeland Security Grant Program guaranteed minimum allocations for FY2008
through FY2012.
This report will not be updated.

Contents
Homeland Security Grant Program Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
The Homeland Security Grant Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) . . . . . . . . . 3
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Citizen Corps Program (CCP) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Final Awards Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Risk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
Effectiveness and Peer Review . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
SHSGP and LETPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
UASI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
MMRS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
CCP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Homeland Security Grant Allocations Under P.L. 110-53 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
SHSGP and LETPP . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
UASI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
SHSGP and LETPP Guaranteed State Minimums: FY2007, and FY2008
to FY2012 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
9/11 Commission Recommendation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
List of Tables
Table 1. FY2007 and P.L. 110-53 Distribution Methods . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Table 2. FY2007-FY2012 SHSGP Guaranteed Minimums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Distribution of Homeland Security Grants
in FY2007 and P.L. 110-53, Implementing
Recommendations of the
9/11 Commission Act
On July 18, 2007, the Office of Grant Programs (OGP) — within the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS) — issued the FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Final Awards
Overview to Congress, states, and localities. The Overview provides a summary of
how DHS determined FY2007 state and local Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) allocations and includes information on state and local grant awards. HSGP
includes the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI), the Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS), and the
Citizen Corps Program (CCP).
On August 3, 2007, Congress enacted P.L. 110-53, the Implementing
Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 which changes the
distribution methods DHS uses to allocate SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funding. Title
I (Homeland Security Grants) of P.L. 110-53 addresses the administration and
allocation of homeland security funding to states and localities beginning in FY2008.
Congress appropriated funding for SHSGP and UASI in the FY2008 Consolidated
Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-161) on December 26, 2007. The appropriations act
states that SHSGP and UASI funding (including funding for law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities) will be allocated by the methods enacted in P.L. 110-
53.
Both the FY2007 Overview and P.L. 110-53 distribution methods1 are similar
in that SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI grants are 100% based on risk and anticipated
effectiveness. The primary differences between the two distribution methods
described in the FY2007 Overview and P.L. 110-53 are as follows:
! The FY2007 Overview states that DHS first allocated 100% of
SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funding based on risk and anticipated
effectiveness. Then DHS ensured each applicant was allocated a
guaranteed minimum of 0.75% — as required by Section 1014 of the
USA PATRIOT Act (P.L. 107-56) — of total SHSGP and LETPP
appropriations to each state, the District of Columbia (DC), and
Puerto Rico. Also, each U.S. insular area is guaranteed a 0.25%
1 The distribution method enacted in P.L. 110-53 is the method Congress requires DHS to
use in FY2008.

CRS-2
minimum of total appropriations. If an applicant did not receive a
guaranteed minimum allocation, DHS reallocated funding to ensure
each applicant received the guaranteed amount.2 By comparison,
P.L. 110-53 changed the guaranteed minimum for SHSGP funding
to 0.375% in FY2008 of total SHSGP and UASI (not LETPP)
appropriations (reduced to 0.35% by FY2012) for states, DC, and
Puerto Rico; each U.S. insular area is guaranteed 0.08% minimum.
P.L. 110-53 specifically states that it does affect MMRS
distributions, and the act is silent on CCP distribution methods.
! In FY2007, DHS risk analysis included the U.S. Intelligence
Community’s assessment of potential terrorist targets and affected
populations, the economic impact of a terrorist attack, the presence
of critical infrastructure, population, percent of national Gross
Domestic Product for state analysis, total Gross Metropolitan
Product for urban area analysis, presence of military facilities, and
border crossing.3 P.L. 110-53 requires the FEMA Administrator to
consider the following risk factors in prioritizing homeland security
grant allocations: terrorism threats; population; population density;
history of terrorism threats; critical infrastructure; international
borders; ocean or international waters coastline; likely need to
respond to a terrorist attack in a nearby jurisdiction; unmet target
preparedness capabilities; and anticipated effectiveness of the
proposed use of the grant.4
This report summarizes and compares the FY2007 and P.L. 110-53 HSGP
distribution methods. It also presents an estimate of SHSGP guaranteed minimum
allocations for FY2008 through FY2012.
Homeland Security Grant Program
Distribution Methods
As noted previously, the HSGP includes five separate programs, Congress
appropriated funding in FY2007 for each program separately.5 For purposes of
satisfying the guaranteed minimum of 0.75%, DHS grouped SHSGP and LETPP
funding together.6 Following is a brief description of the five programs, the FY2007
2 DHS has not provided public information on how it reallocates funding to ensure all
applicants receive the guaranteed minimum.
3 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Grant Program, FY2007 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Final Awards Overview (Washington: July 2007), p. 3.
4 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’, 121 Stat. 282.
5 P.L. 109-295, Title III, 120 Stat. 1368.
6 Congress directed DHS to allocate funds appropriated for these programs at DHS’s
discretion, however, DHS was required to allocate at least 0.75% of total appropriations for
(continued...)

CRS-3
appropriation, a summary of the FY2007 Overview, a summary of the P.L. 110-53
HSGP distribution method, and an explanation of the “risk and effectiveness”
parameter in the new statute.
The Homeland Security Grant Programs
State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP). This program
provides assistance to states, DC, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. insular areas in
implementing their Homeland Security Strategies. The program addresses state-
identified planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs to improve response
capabilities to acts of terrorism. Additionally, SHSGP supports the implementation
of the National Preparedness Goal, the National Incident Management System, and
the National Response Plan. The FY2008 appropriation was $950 million,7 including
$60 million for Operation Stonegarden. Operation Stonegarden assists state and local
law enforcement border security operations in four Southwestern states.8
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP). This
program provides funding to law enforcement and public safety entities to support
terrorism prevention activities. This includes establishing and enhancing information
fusion centers and collaborating with non-law enforcement partners, other
government agencies, and the private sector. In FY2008, there is no separate line
item for LETTP, however, in accordance with P.L. 110-53 grant recipients are to
obligate no less than 25% of their SHSGP and UASI allocations on law enforcement
terrorism prevention activities.9
Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). This program supports the efforts
of eligible high-threat, high-density urban areas10 seeking to improve their planning,
equipment, training, and exercise needs for response to acts of terrorism. The
FY2007 appropriation was $820 million.11
Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS). This program
supports designated jurisdictions seeking to enhance and sustain a regionally
6 (...continued)
SHSGP and LETPP to each state, DC, and Puerto Rico; and 0.25% to U.S. insular areas.
P.L. 109-295 (FY2007 DHS appropriations), Title III.
7 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title III.
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Press Secretary, “DHS Expands
Operation Stonegarden to Bolster Border Security Efforts,” available at
[http://test.rwb.gov.edgesuite.net/dhspublic/display?content=5332], visited January 24,
2008.
9 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title III.
10 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. 120 Stat.
1368.
11 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title III. Of this $820 million, $15 million is for non-profit
organizations’ security.

CRS-4
integrated, systematic mass casualty incident preparedness program. It is also
intended to prepare jurisdictions for responding to all-hazard mass casualty incidents,
including those classified as: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, and
explosive (CBRNE); terrorism; epidemic disease outbreaks; natural disasters; and
large-scale hazardous materials incidents. The FY2008 appropriation was $41
million.12
Citizen Corps Program (CCP). This program supports community and
local government efforts to coordinate community members in emergency
preparedness, planning, mitigation, response, and recovery. The FY2008
appropriation was $15 million.13
For further information on FY2008 appropriations for DHS assistance programs
for states and localities, see CRS Report RS22596, FY2008 Appropriations for State
and Local Homeland Security, by Shawn Reese.
FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Final Awards Overview
DHS’s HSGP guidance and final awards overview for FY2007 provides, among
other things, information on eligible applicants, authorized expenditures, funding
availability, program application requirements, award and reporting requirements,
grant allocation methods, and final grant awards. The Overview also discusses the
role of risk and effectiveness in the grant award allocations. Risk and effectiveness
were the primary factors considered in the distribution of HSGP funds to states and
U.S. insular areas in FY2007.
Risk. DHS determined state and urban area risk by using a risk and anticipated
effectiveness formula developed by the Office of Grant Programs (OGP), in
conjunction with other DHS and federal entities. Distribution of SHSGP, LETPP,
and UASI funding was based on this risk and effectiveness formula. The specific
formula, however, was not made publicly available and may not be available in the
future due to security concerns. More generally, DHS indicated that the risk
calculations were based upon consideration of the following factors:
! “threat”: the likelihood of an attack occurring; and
! “vulnerability and consequence”: the relative exposure and expected
impact of an attack.14
The risk “score” generated by DHS for the HSGP in FY2007 was based on a
100 point scale where threat could contribute a maximum of 20 points and
vulnerability/consequence could contribute up to 80 points. Thus, most of the
variation across jurisdictions likely arose from variation in the vulnerability and
consequence factor.
12 P.L. 110-161, Div. E, Title III.
13 Ibid.
14 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Grant Program, FY2007 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Final Awards Overview, p. 3.

CRS-5
The risk evaluation incorporated the potential impact of terrorism on people,
critical infrastructure, and the economy generally. More specifically, for each
jurisdiction, DHS used total population at risk, population density, and location of
specific characteristics that might contribute to risk. When quantifying threat, DHS
used the U.S. Intelligence Community’s threat assessments for identifying potential
targets. Risk assessments of individual applicants were worth two-thirds of their
application score.15
Effectiveness and Peer Review. Grant applicants were required to submit
an Investment Justification that identified how their homeland security activities,
programs, and initiatives supported the National Preparedness Goal, relevant
applicant Homeland Security Strategies, and Targeted Capabilities Enhancement
Plans. Individual applicant Investment Justifications were evaluated on the
anticipated effectiveness of the applicant’s homeland security priorities, priorities
identified in DHS’s FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance
and Application Kit, and the National Preparedness Goal. DHS stated that the
evaluation of Investment Justifications would identify which applicants had effective
plans to reduce overall terrorism risks.16
The FY2007 grant allocation methods for all of the component programs are
discussed in more detail below.
SHSGP and LETPP. DHS first allocated 100% of FY2007 funds based on
an analysis of risk and anticipated effectiveness. Then DHS ensured each state, DC,
and Puerto Rico received a minimum of 0.75% of total appropriations; each U.S.
insular area, 0.25%.17 If a jurisdiction did not receive the statutory minimum, DHS
adjusted the distribution to ensure that all jurisdictions received at least the
minimum.
UASI. Each eligible urban area received a grant in FY2007 based on DHS’s
determination of risk and effectiveness. Seven high-threat, high-density urban areas
were categorized as Tier I urban areas and were eligible to apply for $410.8 million
(approximately 54% of total FY2007 UASI funding). These Tier I urban areas
included 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 FY2007, UASI funding ($336.1 million)
that remained after Tier I distributions was allocated to 39 Tier II urban areas.18
15 Ibid.
16 Ibid.
17 Ibid., p. 2.
18 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Grant Programs, FY2007 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Final Awards Overview, p. 5.

CRS-6
MMRS. DHS divided total appropriations evenly among 124 jurisdictions. The
risk assessment described above did not play an explicit role in the allocation of
MMRS grants.19
CCP. Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico received a base amount of 0.75% of
total appropriations; each U.S. insular area, 0.25%. The remainder of total
appropriations were allocated on a state’s, DC’s, Puerto Rico’s, and U.S. insular
area’s proportion of the total national and U.S. insular area population.20
Homeland Security Grant Allocations Under P.L. 110-5321
P.L. 110-53, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act
of 2007, modifies the DHS allocation method for some HSGP component programs
beginning in FY2008. The law changes the distribution method for SHSGP, LETPP,
and UASI. Other HSGP component programs, MMRS and CCP, are not affected by
P.L. 110-53.22 The HSGP funding allocation factors for each program are described
below. Table 1 compares FY2007 distribution criteria to P.L. 110-53 minimum
allocation formulae.
SHSGP and LETPP. First, DHS is to allocate 100% of appropriated grant
funds based on an analysis of risk and effectiveness. SHSGP applicants are to be
prioritized based on: (1) relative threat based on its most current threat assessment;
(2) proximity to an international border; (3) presence of coastline bordering an ocean
or international waters; (4) the anticipated need to respond to acts of terrorism
occurring in nearby jurisdictions; (5) existence of unmet target capabilities; and (6)
the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed use of the SHSGP grant.23 The FEMA
Administrator must ensure that 25% of authorized appropriations for SHSGP and
UASI are devoted to LETPP activities. 24 Second, DHS is to ensure each applicant
is allocated a guaranteed minimum for SHSGP funding to 0.375% in FY2008 of total
SHSGP and UASI (not LETPP) appropriations (reduced to 0.35% by FY2012) for
states, DC, and Puerto Rico; each U.S. insular area is guaranteed 0.08% minimum.25
If a jurisdiction does not receive the statutory minimum, DHS would need to adjust
the distribution to ensure that all jurisdictions received at least the minimum.
UASI. DHS is to allocate 100% of funds based on an analysis of risk and
effectiveness. UASI applicants are to be prioritized similar to SHSGP applicants,
and based on: (1) relative threat based on its most current threat assessment; (2)
19 Ibid., p. 6.
20 Ibid.
21 Congress requires DHS to use the P.L. 110-53 distribution method in FY2008.
22 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2002(b)’. 121 Stat. 273.
23 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’. 121 Stat. 282.
24 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2006(a)’. 121 Stat. 281. Some of these
activities include information sharing and analysis, threat recognition, and terrorist
interdiction.
25 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2004(e)’. 121 Stat. 278.

CRS-7
proximity to an international border; (3) presence of coastline bordering an ocean or
international waters; (4) the anticipated need to respond to acts of terrorism occurring
in nearby jurisdictions; (5) existence of unmet target capabilities, and (6) the
anticipated effectiveness of the proposed use of the UASI grant.26 The FEMA
Administrator is to ensure that grant applicants allocate 25% of their UASI award be
used for LETPP activities.27
26 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’. 121 Stat. 282.
27 P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2006(a)’. 121 Stat. 281.

CRS-8
Table 1. FY2007 and P.L. 110-53 Distribution Methods
Program
FY2007
P.L. 110-53
SHSGP
DHS first allocated 100% of
First, DHS is to allocate 100% of
SHSGP appropriations based on
SHSGP appropriations based on
risk and the anticipated
risk and anticipated effectiveness
effectiveness of the applicant’s
of the applicant’s proposed
proposed solutions to identified
solutions to identified homeland
homeland security needs. [FY2007
security needs. [P.L. 110-53, Title
HSGP Final Awards Overview]
I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2007’]
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Second, each state, DC, and Puerto
Second, each state, DC, and
Rico was guaranteed 0.75% of total
Puerto Rico is guaranteed 0.375%
SHSGP appropriations. U.S.
(reduced to 0.35% by FY2012) of
insular areas were guaranteed
total SHSGP and UASI
0.25% of total appropriations. If a
appropriations. U.S. insular areas
jurisdiction did not receive the
are guaranteed 0.08% of total
statutory minimum, DHS adjusted
SHSGP and UASI appropriations.
the distribution to ensure that all
If a jurisdiction did not receive the
jurisdictions received at least the
statutory minimum, DHS would
minimum. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014]
need to adjust the distribution to
ensure that all jurisdictions
received at least the minimum.
[P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec. 101,
‘Title XX, Sec. 2004’]
LETPP
DHS first allocated 100% of
The FEMA Administrator is to
LETPP appropriations based on
ensure 25% of total SHSGP and
risk and the anticipated
UASI allocations are used for
effectiveness of the applicant’s
LETPP activities. [P.L. 110-53,
proposed solutions to identified
Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec.
homeland security needs. [FY2007
2006’]
HSGP Final Awards Overview]
Guaranteed Amount
Guaranteed Amount
Second, each state, DC, and Puerto
Each state, DC, and Puerto Rico is
Rico was guaranteed 0.75% of total
guaranteed 0.375% (reduced to
LETPP appropriations. U.S.
0.35% by FY2012) of total
insular areas were guaranteed
SHSGP and UASI appropriations
0.25% of total appropriations. If a
and LETPP allocations are 25% of
jurisdiction did not receive the
these appropriations. U.S. insular
statutory minimum, DHS adjusted
areas are guaranteed 0.08% of
the distribution to ensure that all
total SHSGP and UASI
jurisdictions received at least the
appropriations, and LETPP
minimum. [P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014]
allocations are 25% of these
appropriations.. [P.L. 110-53,
Title I, Sec. 101, ‘Title XX, Sec.
2004’]

CRS-9
Program
FY2007
P.L. 110-53
UASI
DHS allocated 100% of UASI
DHS is to allocate 100% of UASI
appropriations based on risk and
appropriations based on risk and
the anticipated effectiveness of the
anticipated effectiveness of the
applicant’s proposed solutions to
applicant’s proposed solutions to
identified homeland security needs.
identified homeland security
[FY2007 HSGP Final Awards
needs. [P.L. 110-53, Title I, Sec.
Overview]
101, ‘Title XX, Sec. 2003’]
SHSGP and LETPP Guaranteed State Minimums: FY2007, and
FY2008 to FY2012
Congress appropriated FY2007 SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funds in Title III of P.L.
109-295 (FY2007 DHS appropriations). P.L. 110-53 authorizes appropriations for
SHSGP and UASI and guarantees a state minimum amount for SHSGP recipients for
FY2008 through FY2012. In contrast to FY2007, LETPP does not receive a separate
authorized appropriation with a state minimum for FY2008 to FY2012. Instead, the
FEMA Administrator must ensure that 25% of authorized appropriations for SHSGP
and UASI are devoted to LETPP activities.
Table 2 provides the SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI appropriated amounts for
FY2007, as well as the authorized SHSGP and UASI appropriation amounts for
FY2008 through FY2012 with corresponding guaranteed SHSGP (and LETPP in
FY2007) minimum amounts for each state, DC, and Puerto Rico. Calculation of the
result of the authorized appropriations times the percent guaranteed state minimum,
both specified in the statute, indicates that the minimum amount would increase over
the FY2008 to FY2012 time frame even though the minimum percentage declines.
This result occurs because the percentage is applied to the total authorized
appropriations for both SHSGP and UASI, and the UASI authorized appropriation
increases by 53% over the FY2008 to FY2012 time frame.28 For example, in
FY2008, the SHSGP guaranteed state minimum (0.375% of total SHSGP and UASI
authorized appropriations of $1.8 billion) will be $6.75 million, and in FY2012, the
SHSGP guaranteed state minimum (0.35% of total SHSGP and UASI authorized
appropriations of $2.25 billion) will be $7.875 million, an increase of $1.125 million
— if Congress appropriates the amount authorized.
In FY2007, the guaranteed minimum for each state, DC, and Puerto Rico for
SHSGP and LETPP combined was $6.75 million.29 According to DHS, 18 states
received the minimum of $6.75 million.30 DHS does not provide information on
28 DHS held back 3% of appropriations in FY2007 for administrative costs. It is likely the
same percentage will be held back for FY2008 to FY2012. Table 2 does not reflect the
effect of the 3% “hold back” for FY2007 or FY2008 to FY2012.
29 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Grant Programs, FY2007 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Final Awards Overview, p. 11.
30 The 18 states include Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Maine, Mississippi, Montana,
Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Dakota, Puerto Rico, Rhode Island, South
(continued...)

CRS-10
what portion of this $6.75 million was allocated due to its risk and effectiveness
analysis. Additionally, DHS does not provide information on how funding was
redistributed to ensure that these 18 states received the guaranteed minimum.
Table 2. FY2007-FY2012 SHSGP Guaranteed Minimums
Authorized Appropriation
Guaranteed State Minimum
Fiscal
(in millions)
(in millions)
Year
SHSGP
LETPP
UASI
Total
Percent
SHSGPa
LETPP
2007b
$525
$375
$770c
$1,670
0.750%
$3.938
$2.813
2008
$950
NA
$850
$1,800
0.375%
$6.750
NA
2009
$950
NA
$950
$1,900
0.365%
$6.935
NA
2010
$950
NA
$1,050
$2,000
0.360%
$7.200
NA
2011
$950
NA
$1,150
$2,100
0.355%
$7.455
NA
2012
$950
NA
$1,300
$2,250
0.350%
$7.875
NA
a. In FY2007, the minimum percentage is applied to the total appropriated for SHSGP and
LETPP; in FY2008 through FY2012, the SHSGP minimum percentage will be applied to
the combined total appropriations for SHSGP and UASI. For FY2008 through FY2012,
25% of total appropriated for UASI and SHSGP must be used for LETPP activities, there
is no state minimum. The insular areas minimums, which are 0.08% of total, for FY2008
through FY2012 are: $1.44 million, $1.52 million, $1.6 million, $1.68 million, and $1.8
million.
b. In FY2007, the amounts for SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI are actual appropriated amounts,
not authorized amounts.
c. The $770 million appropriated for UASI in FY2007 was not included in the determination
of SHSGP or LETPP guaranteed minimum amounts, unlike the statutorily required inclusion
of UASI amounts in the determination of guaranteed SHSGP minimums from FY2008
through FY2012.
9/11 Commission Recommendation. Since P.L. 110-53 requires DHS to
guarantee a minimum amount of SHSGP funding to states, it could be argued that the
law does not meet the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (9/11 Commission) recommendation to allocate homeland security funding
based solely on risk. If Congress were to appropriate the authorized SHSGP and
UASI amounts in P.L. 110-53, it could be argued that this issue might be further
noticeable since guaranteed minimum dollar amounts increase (based on the statute’s
authorized appropriations), even though the guaranteed minimum percentage
decreases from FY2008 through FY2012.
30 (...continued)
Dakota, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, and Wyoming. U.S. Department of Homeland
Security, Office of Grant Programs, FY2007 Homeland Security Grant Program: Final
Awards Overview, pp. 11-13.

CRS-11
Others might contend that the statute is consistent with the 9/11 Commission’s
recommendation. While the 9/11 Commission criticized the allocation of federal
homeland security assistance and recommended that the distribution not “remain a
program for general revenue sharing,”31 commissioners acknowledged that “every
state and city needs to have some minimum infrastructure for emergency response.”32
The 9/11 Commission also recommended that state and local homeland security
assistance should “supplement state and local resources based on the risks or
vulnerabilities that merit additional support” and offered two high-risk, vulnerable
cities as examples, saying, “Now, in 2004, Washington, D.C., and New York City are
certainly at the top of any such list.”33
It could be argued, however, that if DHS were to determine during its risk and
effectiveness analysis that all grant recipients scored above the guaranteed minimum,
then the increase in guaranteed minimum dollar amounts would not affect the overall
allocation. This could result in DHS not having to reallocate funding to ensure
applicants meet the guaranteed minimum amount.
31 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
32 Ibid.
33 Ibid.