Homeland Security
Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain Gao ID: GAO-05-121 February 2, 2005The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)--originally established in 1998 within the Department of Justice to help state and local first responders acquire specialized training and equipment needed to respond to terrorist incidents--was transferred to the Department of Homeland Security upon its creation in March 2003. After September 11, 2001, the scope and size of ODP's grant programs expanded. For example, from fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, ODP grants awarded to states and some urban areas grew from about $91 million to about $2.7 billion. This growth raised questions about the ability of ODP and states to ensure that the domestic preparedness grant programs--including statewide and urban area grants--are managed effectively and efficiently. GAO addressed (1) how statewide and urban area grants were administered in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning and (2) what time frames Congress and ODP established for awarding and distributing grants, and how time frames affected the grant cycle.
ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and localities to improve accountability in state preparedness planning. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines for awarding statewide and urban area grants to states and for determining how states and localities could expend funds and seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or services. ODP gave states flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were to be managed and distributed within their states. In fiscal year 2003, ODP required states to update homeland security strategies and related needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These efforts are intended to guide states and localities in targeting grant funds. ODP also took steps to improve grant oversight procedures. Finally, to help meet mandates contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting national preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first responder capabilities on a national basis. Congress and ODP have acted to expedite grant awards by setting time limits for grant application, award, and distribution processes. For fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time frame. Then, in April 2003, the supplemental appropriations act imposed new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a result, ODP reported that all states submitted grant applications within the mandated 30 days of the grant announcement, and that over 90 percent of grants were awarded within the mandated 15 days of receipt of the applications. ODP also took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere to various legal and procurement requirements. ODP is identifying best practices to help states address the issue. In reviewing a draft of the report, the Department of Homeland Security generally agreed with GAO's findings; however, it questioned whether the report's title adequately reflected the agency's progress in meeting grant management challenges.
GAO-05-121, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-121
entitled 'Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant
Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain' which was released on
March 3, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Report to the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of
Representatives:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
February 2005:
Homeland Security:
Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but
Challenges Remain:
GAO-05-121:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-05-121, a report to the Chairman, Committee on
Appropriations, House of Representatives
Why GAO Did This Study:
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)”originally established in
1998 within the Department of Justice to help state and local first
responders acquire specialized training and equipment needed to respond
to terrorist incidents”was transferred to the Department of Homeland
Security upon its creation in March 2003. After September 11, 2001, the
scope and size of ODP‘s grant programs expanded. For example, from
fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, ODP grants awarded to states
and some urban areas grew from about $91 million to about $2.7 billion.
This growth raised questions about the ability of ODP and states to
ensure that the domestic preparedness grant programs”including
statewide and urban area grants”are managed effectively and
efficiently.
GAO addressed (1) how statewide and urban area grants were administered
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds
were spent in accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness
planning and (2) what time frames Congress and ODP established for
awarding and distributing grants, and how time frames affected the
grant cycle.
What GAO Found:
ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and
localities to improve accountability in state preparedness planning.
For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines
for awarding statewide and urban area grants to states and for
determining how states and localities could expend funds and seek
reimbursement for first responder equipment or services. ODP gave
states flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were
to be managed and distributed within their states. In fiscal year 2003,
ODP required states to update homeland security strategies and related
needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These efforts are intended
to guide states and localities in targeting grant funds. ODP also took
steps to improve grant oversight procedures. Finally, to help meet
mandates contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting
national preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first
responder capabilities on a national basis.
Congress and ODP have acted to expedite grant awards by setting time
limits for grant application, award, and distribution processes. For
fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did
not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time
frame. Then, in April 2003, the supplemental appropriations act imposed
new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a result, ODP reported that all
states submitted grant applications within the mandated 30 days of the
grant announcement, and that over 90 percent of grants were awarded
within the mandated 15 days of receipt of the applications. ODP also
took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local
jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to
spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere
to various legal and procurement requirements. ODP is identifying best
practices to help states address the issue.
In reviewing a draft of the report, the Department of Homeland Security
generally agreed with GAO‘s findings; however, it questioned whether
the report‘s title adequately reflected the agency‘s progress in
meeting grant management challenges.
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-121.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr.
at (202) 512-8757 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
ODP Established Grant Award Procedures for States and Localities That
Support Efforts to Improve Accountability in State Preparedness
Planning:
Congress, ODP, States, and Localities Have Acted to Expedite Grant
Awards, but Challenges Remain:
Concluding Observations:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP and UASI Funding and
Draw Downs by State:
Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and Reimbursement Process for
Selected States and Local Jurisdictions:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
Appendix V: Related GAO Products:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: ODP Grant Program Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Table 2: Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP
and UASI I and II Grant Programs:
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP)
and Fiscal Year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP)
Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:
Table 4: Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) I and
II Grant Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:
Figures:
Figure 1: ODP and OC Grant Management and Monitoring:
Figure 2: SDPP/SHSGP and UASI II Grant Award, Distribution, and
Reimbursement Processes for First Responder Equipment:
Figure 3: State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Development
Process for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
Figure 4: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness
Program Grant Distribution for State A:
Figure 5: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness
Program Grant Distribution for State B:
Figure 6: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State B:
Figure 7: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program II Grant Distribution for State B:
Figure 8: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State C:
Abbreviations:
CBRNE: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive:
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
GAO: Government Accountability Office:
HSPD-8: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8:
IG: Inspector General:
ISIP: Initial Strategy Implementation Plans:
MOU: memorandum of understanding:
OC: Office of the Comptroller:
ODP: Office for Domestic Preparedness:
OJP: Office of Justice Programs:
SDPP: State Domestic Preparedness Program:
SHSGP: State Homeland Security Grant Program:
SLGCP: Office of State and Local Government Coordination and
Preparedness:
UASI: Urban Areas Security Initiative:
United States Government Accountability Office:
Washington, DC 20548:
February 2, 2005:
The Honorable Jerry Lewis:
Chairman:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Dear Mr. Chairman:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, placed enormous demands
upon the capacities of state and local police and fire departments,
emergency medical and public health services, and other first
responders. After the attacks, Congress, federal agencies, state and
local governments, and a range of independent research organizations
acknowledged that additional resources and intergovernmental
coordination were needed to ensure that state and local first
responders would be better prepared to respond to future domestic
terrorist threats or attacks.
The Department of Justice established the Office for Domestic
Preparedness (ODP) in 1998 within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP)
to assist state and local first responders in acquiring specialized
training and equipment needed to respond to and manage terrorist
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. ODP, which was
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) upon its
creation in March 2003,[Footnote 1] has been a principal source of
domestic preparedness grant funds.[Footnote 2] These grants are a means
of achieving an important goal--enhancing the ability of first
responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from
terrorist incidents with well-planned and well-coordinated efforts that
involve police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other
personnel from multiple jurisdictions. Since the events of September
11, the amount of grant funds awarded and managed by ODP has grown
significantly. For example, in fiscal year 2001, ODP awarded about $91
million in domestic preparedness grants. In fiscal year 2003, ODP
awarded about $2.1 billion through its State Homeland Security Grant
Programs (SHSGP) I and II and an additional $596 million for Urban
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants I and II.[Footnote 3] The scope
of ODP's grant programs expanded as well, from funding only first
responder equipment in fiscal year 2001 to funding a range of
preparedness planning activities, exercises, training, equipment
purchases, and related administrative costs in fiscal year 2003.
In your request, you raised questions about how, given the growth in
funding, ODP, states,[Footnote 4] and local jurisdictions work together
to ensure that grant funds are spent in accordance with both ODP's
grant guidance and the state and urban area homeland security
strategies that ODP required states to develop as a condition of
receiving grant funds. In response to your request, we first briefed
your office on ODP's structure and processes for program and financial
management of its grants and its monitoring policies and processes. In
this report, we address two other issues: (1) How were SHSGP and UASI
grants administered in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could
ensure that grant funds were spent in accordance with grant guidance
and state preparedness planning? (2) What time frames did Congress and
ODP establish for awarding and distributing grants, and how did these
time frames affect the grant cycle?
In addition to this work, we have recently issued other reports and
delivered congressional testimonies on issues relating to federal
funding and oversight of grants for first responders, which include ODP
grants as well as grants from other federal sources. Among other
things, we reported that a major challenge in managing first responder
grants is balancing two goals: (1) minimizing the time it takes to
distribute grant funds to state and local first responders and (2)
ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for effective use of
the funds.[Footnote 5] (See appendix V for the list of Related GAO
Products.)
To address the objectives in this report, we met with officials from
ODP and selected states and local jurisdictions to obtain information
about the grant management process.[Footnote 6] We identified 25
domestic preparedness grant programs managed by ODP in fiscal years
2002 and 2003,[Footnote 7] and for our detailed review, we selected the
five largest in terms of federal funding provided to state and local
jurisdictions. As part of our review, we also selected five states
(Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania) and 19 local
jurisdictions within those states that have received state and urban
area grants. The five states were selected on the basis of the amount
of ODP grant funding received, population size, and other factors. The
local jurisdictions were selected for a more detailed analysis of grant
administration. We collected and analyzed grant data from ODP.
Specifically, we obtained and analyzed data from ODP on the time frames
associated with the grant award and distribution processes. We reviewed
these data for obvious inconsistency errors and completeness and
compared these data for the five selected states with hard-copy
documents we obtained from these states. When we found discrepancies,
we brought them to the attention of ODP and state and local officials
and worked with them to correct the discrepancies before conducting our
analyses. In addition, we obtained and analyzed data on the number of
ODP's office-based and on-site monitoring reviews conducted in fiscal
year 2004. We also reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors
and completeness and compared these data with on-site monitoring
reports prepared and provided by ODP. From these assessments, we
determined that the grant data were sufficiently reliable for the
purposes of this report.
We also reviewed relevant reports and studies on homeland security and
domestic preparedness. We conducted our work from November 2003 through
November 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. (See appendix I for more details on our scope and
methodology.)
Results in Brief:
ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and
localities that have supported efforts to improve accountability in the
state preparedness planning process. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003,
ODP developed procedures and guidelines for awarding SHSGP and UASI
grants to states and for determining how states and localities could
expend funds and seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or
services they purchased. As part of this process, ODP gave states
flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were to be
managed and distributed within their states and whether purchases would
be made locally or at the state level. In fiscal year 2003, ODP also
required states to update homeland security strategies and related
needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These strategies are
intended to guide state and local jurisdictions in targeting grant
funds. As directed by statute, ODP required states to submit these
updated strategies to ODP for approval in order to receive fiscal year
2004 grant funds. In tandem with this effort, ODP revised its grant-
reporting method, moving away from requiring states, localities, and
urban areas to submit itemized lists of first responder equipment they
plan to purchase toward a more results-based approach, whereby grant
managers at all levels must demonstrate how grant expenditures are
linked to larger projects that support goals in the states' homeland
security strategies. ODP also took steps to improve grant oversight
procedures in part by setting new goals in fiscal year 2004 for
monitoring states' progress toward meeting preparedness goals and
objectives in their homeland security strategies. ODP planned to visit
all 56 grantees at least once a year. ODP completed 44 of 56 planned
visits to grantees in fiscal year 2004. In addition, ODP cited staffing
challenges in filling all of its authorized positions, which have
affected grant management; ODP has worked to fill federal vacancies.
ODP also is addressing concerns that some states have about the
accuracy of the needs assessments upon which the fiscal year 2003 state
homeland security strategies are based, citing, among other things, a
mismatch between local jurisdictions' estimates of need and the states'
estimates. Finally, as part of a broader effort to meet mandates
contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting national
preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first responder
capabilities on a national basis.
Congress, ODP, states, and localities have acted to expedite grant
awards by setting time limits for the grant application, award, and
distribution processes and by instituting other procedures. For all of
fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did
not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time
frame. For fiscal year 2002, ODP took roughly 4 months to make
applications available to states. In April 2003, the supplemental
appropriations act imposed new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a
result, ODP made the grant application available within the mandated 15
days of the congressional appropriation for the grant cycle, and all
states returned their applications within 30 days of the grant
announcement. ODP reported that over 90 percent of grant awards were
made to the states within 14 days of receipt of state applications. ODP
also took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local
jurisdictions, allowing states, for example, to transfer grants to
localities before all required grant application documentation had been
submitted to ODP. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to
spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere
to state and local legal and procurement requirements and approval
processes, which in some cases added months to the purchasing process.
Some states have modified their procurement practices, and ODP is
identifying best practices to aid in the effort.
After reviewing a draft of this report, DHS generally agreed with our
findings and provided technical comments, which were incorporated as
appropriate. The agency also expressed the view that progress made in
addressing challenges related to managing first responder grant
programs was not appropriately reflected in the report's title. We
disagree. The agency's comments are in appendix IV.
Background:
When DHS was created in March 2003, ODP was transferred from the
Justice Department's OJP to DHS's Directorate of Border and
Transportation Security. In March 2004, the Secretary of Homeland
Security consolidated ODP with the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination to form the Office of State and Local Government
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP).[Footnote 8] In addition, other
preparedness grant programs from agencies within DHS were transferred
to SLGCP.[Footnote 9] SLGCP, which reports directly to the Secretary,
was created to provide a "one-stop shop" for the numerous federal
preparedness initiatives applicable to state and local first
responders. As shown in figure 1, while SLGCP/ODP has program
management and monitoring responsibility for domestic preparedness
grants, it relies upon the Justice Department's Office of the
Comptroller (OC) for grant fund distribution and assistance with
financial management support, which includes financial monitoring.
Figure 1: ODP and OC Grant Management and Monitoring:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Within ODP, the Preparedness Programs Division (formerly the State and
Local Program Management Division) is specifically tasked with
enhancing the capability of state and local emergency responders to
prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks
involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or
explosive (CBRNE) weapons. For these purposes, ODP provides grant funds
to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto
Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin
Islands, Guam, and selected urban areas. In addition to this grant
funding for specialized equipment and other purposes, ODP provides
direct training, exercises, technical assistance, and other
counterterrorism expertise.
Program Funding and Allocation for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP managed 25 grant programs
totaling approximately $3.5 billion. About $2.98 billion (85 percent)
of the total ODP grant funds for both years was for statewide grants--
the State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP), which is a predecessor
grant program to SHSGP, and SHSGP I and II--and grants targeted at
selected urban areas (UASI I and II). The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds
accounted for about 68 percent ($2.38 billion) and the UASI I and II
grant funds about 17 percent ($596 million). Table 1 shows the amounts
provided for these and other ODP grants.
Table 1: ODP Grant Program Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:
Dollars in thousands.
Grant program: SDPP;
2002: $315,700;
2003: [A];
Total: $315,700;
Percent of total funding: 9.1.
Grant program: SHSGP I;
2002: [A];
2003: $566,295;
Total: $
566,295;
Percent of total funding: 16.2.
Grant program: SHSGP II;
2002: [A];
2003: $1,500,000;
Total: $1,500,000;
Percent of total funding: 43.0.
Grant program: Total SDPP/SHSGP;
2002: $315, 700;
2003: $2,066,295;
Total: $2,381,995;
Percent of total funding: 68.3.
Grant program: UASI I;
2002: [A];
2003: $96,351;
Total: $96,351;
Percent of total funding: 2.8.
Grant program: UASI II;
2002: [A];
2003: $500,000;
Total: $500,000;
Percent of total funding: 14.3.
Total UASI I and II;
2002: [A];
2003: $596,351;
Total: $596,351;
Percent of total funding: 17.1.
Total SDPP/SHSGP and UASI I and II;
2002: $315,700;
2003: $2,662,646;
Total: $2,978,346;
Percent of total funding: 85.4.
Grant program: UASI-other;
2003: $190,000[C];
Total: $190,000;
Percent of total funding: 5.5.
Other grants;
2002: $119,979[B];
2003: $198,081[D];
Total: $318,060;
Percent of total funding: 9.1.
Total;
2002: $435,679;
2003: $3,050,727;
Total: $3,486,406;
Percent of total funding: 100.0.
Source: ODP.
[A] Program not funded in this year.
[B] Includes the following five grant programs: Law Enforcement
Enhancement Program, New York Equipment Replacement Program, National
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse
Program Pilot Project Support Grant, and Domestic Preparedness Training
and Technical Assistance Program-St. Petersburg College.
[C] Includes the following four grant programs: the UASI Port Security
Grant Program, UASI Transit Security Grant Program, UASI Pilot
Projects, and UASI Radiological Defense System.
[D] Includes the following 11 grant programs: Counterterrorism
Institute Grant Program, TOPOFF II, Washington Metropolitan Area
Transit Authority, Airborne Imaging in Support of Emergency Operations,
Testing and Evaluation of Emergency Response Equipment, Terrorism Early
Alert and Strategic Planning System, Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse
Program, Northern Virginia Emergency Response Coalition Grant Program,
Domestic Preparedness Equipment Training and Technical Assistance
Program, National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and Multistate Anti-
Terrorism Information Exchange Project.
[End of table]
See appendix II for the SDPP/SHSGP grant funding awarded in fiscal
years 2002 and 2003 and the UASI I and II grant funding awarded in
fiscal year 2003.
The SDPP/SHSGP grant programs expanded from funding equipment,
exercises, and administrative activities in fiscal year 2002 to
include, in fiscal year 2003, the cost of planning and training. The
SDPP generally provided funding for advanced equipment,[Footnote 10]
exercises, and administrative activities. The SHSGP I provided, among
other things, funding for specialized equipment, exercises, training,
and planning and administrative costs. From a separate appropriation,
the SHSGP II supplemented funding available through SHSGP I for
basically the same purposes, but included separate funding for critical
infrastructure protection. The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds were distributed
using a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total allocation to each
state, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico,
and 0.25 percent of the total allocation to the Commonwealth of the
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands,
with the balance being distributed on a population-share basis. The
UASI I grant funds were provided directly to seven selected urban areas
to address the unique equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs
of large high-threat urban areas and specifically, to assist in
building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond, and
recover from threats or acts of terrorism. From a separate
appropriation, UASI II provided funding through the states (not
directly) to 30 selected urban areas for basically the same
purposes.[Footnote 11] The UASI grant funds were awarded on the basis
of the following factors: population density, critical infrastructure,
and current threat estimates.[Footnote 12] (See appendix II for the
urban areas that received UASI I and II grant funds.) Table 2 shows the
funding authority for these grant programs.
Table 2: Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP
and UASI I and II Grant Programs:
Grant program: SDPP;
2002: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 107-77[A],
2002: Date enacted: Nov. 28, 2001,
2002: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 107-117b;
2002: Date enacted: Jan. 10, 2002.
Grant program: SHSGP I;
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-7[C];
2003: Date enacted: Feb. 20, 2003.
Grant program: SHSGP II;
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-11[D];
2003: Date enacted: Apr. 16, 2003.
Grant program: UASI I;
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-7[C];
2003: Date enacted: Feb. 20, 2003.
Grant program: UASI II;
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-11[D];
2003: Date enacted: Apr. 16, 2003.
Source: Congressional legislation.
[A] Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002.
[B] Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States
Act, 2002.
[C] Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.
[D] Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003.
[End of table]
ODP Established Grant Award Procedures for States and Localities That
Support Efforts to Improve Accountability in State Preparedness
Planning:
Over time, ODP has developed and modified its procedures for awarding
grants to states, governing how states distribute funds to local
jurisdictions, and facilitating reimbursements for states and
localities purchasing first responder equipment and services. ODP also
developed requirements intended to hold states and localities
accountable for how grant expenditures were planned, justified,
expended, and tracked. These accountability-related requirements
evolved over time. For instance, prior to fiscal year 2004, the states
were primarily required to provide information on the specific items
they and localities planned to purchase on the basis of ODP's evolving
authorized equipment lists. In fiscal year 2004, to better determine
the impact of expenditures on preparedness efforts, ODP began placing
more emphasis on results-based reporting of planned and actual grant
expenditures. ODP instituted new state and local reporting requirements
aimed at ensuring that grant expenditures would align with goals and
objectives contained in state and urban area homeland security
strategies. ODP also, over time, has stepped up its state grant-
monitoring activities.
ODP Gave States Flexibility in Administering and Distributing Grants:
For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines
for awarding SDPP/SHSGP and UASI grants to states that enabled states
to distribute grant funds and states and localities to expend funds and
seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or services they
purchased directly. After enactment of appropriations for the grant
programs, ODP developed and made available program guidelines including
the grant application for each grant program.[Footnote 13] With the
exception of UASI I, once a grant application was submitted to and
approved by ODP, ODP awarded grant funds directly to each state, which
was required to designate a state administrative agency to administer
the grant funds.[Footnote 14] States in turn transferred or subgranted
the funds to local jurisdictions[Footnote 15] or urban areas, with a
designated core city and county/counties. For UASI I grants, ODP
awarded grant funds directly to selected urban areas (i.e., selected
cities). Figure 2 illustrates the main steps involved in the SDPP/SHSGP
and UASI II grant cycle.
Figure 2: SDPP/SHSGP and UASI II Grant Award, Distribution, and
Reimbursement Processes for First Responder Equipment:
[See PDF for image]
Note: The term "reimbursement" as used here includes the process by
which states and localities may request and receive federal funds to
pay invoices for goods or services before payment is due. Localities
receive their funds through the states, which request the funds on
behalf of the localities.
[End of figure]
For SDPP/SHSGP grant programs, ODP allowed the states flexibility in
deciding how the grant programs were structured and implemented in
their states. In general, states were allowed to determine such things
as the following:
* the formula for distributing grant funds to local jurisdictional
units;
* the definition of what constitutes a local jurisdiction eligible to
receive funds, such as a multicounty area;
* the organization or agency that would be designated to manage the
grant program;
and:
* whether the state or local jurisdictions would purchase grant-funded
items for the local jurisdictions.
UASI I grantees, for the most part, have had flexibilities similar to
those of the states and could, in coordination with members of the
Urban Area Working Group,[Footnote 16] designate contiguous
jurisdictions to receive grant funds. For UASI II, while the states
subgranted the grant funds to selected urban areas, states retained
responsibility for administering the grant program. The core city and
county/counties worked with the state administrative agency to define
the geographic borders of the urban area and coordinated with the Urban
Area Working Group.
Once the grant funds were awarded to the states and then subgranted to
the local jurisdictions or urban areas, certain legal and procurement
requirements had to be met, such as a city council needing to approve
acceptance of grant awards. Once these requirements were satisfied,
states, local jurisdictions, and urban areas could then obligate their
funds for first responder equipment, exercises, training, and services.
Generally, when a local jurisdiction or urban area directly incurred an
expenditure for first responder equipment, it submitted related
procurement documents, such as invoices, to the state. The state would
then draw down the funds from the Justice Department's OJP. According
to OJP, funds from the U.S. Treasury were usually deposited with the
states' financial institution within 48 hours. The states, in turn,
provided the funds to the local jurisdiction or urban area.[Footnote 17]
States Updated Homeland Security Strategies to Guide Grant Spending,
and ODP Revised Grant Reporting and Monitoring Procedures:
In addition to the guidelines ODP developed for the grant award,
distribution, and reimbursement process, ODP developed separate
guidance that required every state to develop a homeland security
strategy as a condition of receiving grant funds. Specifically, ODP
required states to develop homeland security strategies that would
provide a roadmap of where each state should target grant funds for
fiscal years 1999 to 2001 (subsequently extended to fiscal year 2003).
To assist the states in developing these strategies, state agencies and
local jurisdictions were directed to conduct needs assessments on the
basis of their own threat and vulnerability assessments. The needs
assessments were to include related equipment, training, exercise,
technical assistance, and research and development needs. In addition,
state and local officials were to identify current and required
capabilities of first responders to help determine gaps in capabilities.
ODP directed the states in fiscal year 2003 to update their homeland
security strategies to better reflect post-September 11 realities and
to identify progress on the priorities originally outlined in the
initial strategies.[Footnote 18] As with these initial strategies, the
updated strategies included goals and objectives the states wanted to
achieve to meet homeland security needs, such as upgrading emergency
operations centers and command posts. As directed by statute, ODP
required completion and approval of these updated strategies as a
condition for awarding fiscal year 2004 grant funds. As of July 2004,
ODP had approved or conditionally approved[Footnote 19] all state
strategies and awarded all fiscal year 2004 SHSGP funds.[Footnote 20]
Figure 3 shows an overview of the state homeland security assessment
and strategy development process in place for fiscal years 1999 through
2003.
Figure 3: State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Development
Process for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:
[See PDF for image]
[A] In fiscal year 2003, states and jurisdictions could also complete
an optional agricultural vulnerability assessment in addition to the
vulnerability assessment.
[End of figure]
In conjunction with the development of the states' updated homeland
security strategies, ODP revised its approach to how states and
localities reported on grant spending and use. Specifically, ODP took
steps to shift the emphasis away from reporting on specific items
purchased and toward results-based reporting on the impact of states'
expenditures on preparedness. ODP maintains a list of authorized items
that all states and localities were required to use as a guideline for
making purchases. This evolving list, comprising hundreds of first
responder items, is arranged by category, such as personal protection
equipment; explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment; CBRNE
search and rescue equipment; interoperable communications equipment;
and more. Under this arrangement, states and localities consulted ODP's
authorized equipment list and selected the equipment and quantity they
planned to purchase--including such diverse items as personal
protection suits for dealing with hazardous materials and
contamination, bomb response vehicles, and medical supplies. This
information is in turn listed on itemized budget detail worksheets that
localities submitted to states for their review. Prior to the fiscal
year 2004 grant cycle, states submitted the worksheets to ODP. States
also compared purchased items against these worksheets when approving
reimbursements to localities.
According to ODP, this list-based reporting method made it difficult to
track the cumulative impact of individual expenditures on the goals and
objectives in a state's and urban area's homeland security strategy.
While the budget detail worksheets reflected the number and cost of
specific items that states and localities planned to purchase, neither
states nor ODP had a reporting mechanism to specifically assess how
well these purchases would, in the aggregate, meet preparedness
planning needs or priorities, or the goals and objectives contained in
state or urban area homeland security strategies. To help remedy this
situation, ODP revised its approach for fiscal year 2004. Rather than
being required to submit budget detail worksheets to ODP,[Footnote 21]
states, urban areas, and local jurisdictions were required instead to
submit new Initial Strategy Implementation Plans (ISIP). These ISIPs
are intended to show how planned grant expenditures for all funds
received are linked to one or more larger projects, which in turn
support specific goals and objectives in either a state or urban area
homeland security strategy. The state administrative agency is
responsible for submission of all ISIPs to ODP within 60 days of the
state's grant award.[Footnote 22] The final submission is to include
one ISIP from the state administrative agency if the agency retains a
portion of the funding, and one ISIP for every local jurisdiction,
state agency, or nongovernmental organization receiving grant funds.
ODP said that almost all of the states have submitted their
ISIPs.[Footnote 23]
In addition to the ISIPs, ODP now requires the states to submit
biannual strategy implementation reports showing how the actual
expenditure of grant funds at both the state and local levels was
linked by projects to the goals and objectives in the state and urban
area strategy. According to ODP, this reporting process is intended to
better enable states and ODP to track grant expenditures from all
funding sources against state and urban area homeland security
strategies as well as collect critical project output and performance
data. The first biannual strategy implementation reports covering the 6-
month period ending December 31, 2004, were due to ODP on January 31,
2005. At the time of our review, it was too early to determine whether
the new approach would improve expenditure tracking and performance
reporting.
ODP, State, and Local Officials Expressed Concerns about the 2003 Needs
Assessments:
While progress has been made in updating state homeland security
strategies and planned improvements for reporting and tracking grant-
related expenditures are under way, some federal, state, and local
officials expressed concerns about the accuracy of the needs
assessments on which the state strategies were based. When ODP
instructed states and local jurisdictions to update their fiscal year
1999 needs assessments in fiscal year 2003, the agency told them not to
constrain their estimates of needs to a specific period of time or take
potential sources of funding into account. At the same time, ODP
instructed states to review and analyze local jurisdictions' needs
assessments and the aggregated results before submitting their needs
assessment data to ODP. The needs assessments for equipment received by
ODP from 56 states and territories as a result of this process totaled
$352.6 billion. By contrast, the funding available for SHSGP I and II
in fiscal year 2003 totaled roughly $2.1 billion.
State and local officials in three of the five states we visited cited
concerns about the accuracy of the needs assessments for their
individual states. For example, the needs assessment for one state we
reviewed amounted to about $11.8 billion--nearly 300 times the $39.5
million in total state homeland security grant funds awarded to the
state in fiscal year 2003. Grant managers in this state said that they
had reviewed the local jurisdictions' threat estimates and determined
that, because of a misinterpretation of the term "threat" by local
officials, the number of critical assets needing protection was higher
than estimated by the state. In their opinion, the local jurisdictions
included items in their needs assessments that were not needed to
protect the state's critical assets. Nevertheless, state officials did
not revise the aggregated needs assessment estimates included in their
state strategy. ODP conditionally approved the strategy for this state,
noting, among other things, a "disconnect" between the state's mission
and goals and that time lines were "too broad" and "not
realistic."[Footnote 24] Grant managers in a second state said that the
state did not base its strategy on the needs assessments prepared by
the local jurisdictions, in part, because they judged the unconstrained
assessments for equipment to be unrealistically high--approximately $13
billion over an open-ended, multiyear period. While the state submitted
the total of these local assessments to ODP; it submitted a strategy on
the basis of its own planning procedures for 1 year only, resulting in
a $92 million estimate of needs. After discussions with ODP, the state
later submitted a broader, multiyear $9.6 billion needs assessment for
equipment.
ODP has taken steps to address its concerns, and some states' concerns,
related to the estimates included in the needs assessments. In a
conference held with state officials in March 2004, ODP personnel
discussed concerns that arose from their review of aggregated needs
assessment data and identified some possible sources of the problems.
They determined that, before submitting their fiscal year 2003 needs
assessments to ODP, states might not have adequately considered such
factors as mutual aid agreements for first responder assistance within
jurisdictions or whether jurisdictions within a region could share
resources, rather than submit separate or overlapping requests for
first responder equipment.[Footnote 25] In response, ODP requested the
states to validate and revise, if necessary, the needs assessment data
to take these factors into account and to resubmit their assessments.
States were to submit their validated assessments to ODP by October 15,
2004. According to an ODP document, ODP is currently completing its
analysis of the assessment data.
ODP Has Begun Drafting National Preparedness Standards to Better Assess
First Responder Needs:
In addition to the issues raised about the accuracy of the fiscal year
2003 needs assessments, other factors may affect ODP's and states'
abilities to identify and assess first responder needs and priorities.
For example, according to some state officials we interviewed as well
as recent reports by DHS's Office of Inspector General (IG)[Footnote
26] and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security,[Footnote 27]
efforts by state and local jurisdictions to prioritize expenditures to
enhance first responder preparedness have been hindered by the lack of
clear guidance in defining the appropriate level of preparedness and
setting priorities to achieve it.
Additionally, in our recent report on the management of first responder
grants in the National Capital Region, we reported that the lack of
national preparedness standards that could be used to assess existing
first responder capacities (such as the number of persons per hour that
could be decontaminated after a chemical attack), identify gaps in
those capacities, and measure progress in achieving specific
performance goals was a challenge.[Footnote 28] We also reported that
effectively managing federal first responder grant funds requires the
ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of
public funds. This required a coordinated strategic plan for enhancing
preparedness, performance standards to guide how funds are used to
enhance first responder capacities and preparedness, and data on funds
available and spent on first responder needs.
National performance standards for assessing domestic preparedness
capabilities and identifying gaps in those capabilities that reflect
post-September 11 priorities are being developed. ODP has submitted to
the Secretary of DHS a definition of a national preparedness goal that
is intended to provide assurance of the nation's capability to prevent,
prepare for, respond to, and recover from major events, especially
terrorism. ODP plans call for achieving the full capability needed to
sustain the preparedness levels required by the new national standards
by September 2008. In order to develop performance standards that will
allow ODP to measure the nation's success in achieving this goal, ODP
is using a capabilities-based planning approach--one that defines the
capabilities required by states and local jurisdictions to respond
effectively to likely threats. These capability requirements are to
establish the minimum levels of capability required to provide a
reasonable assurance of success against a standardized set of 15
scenarios for threats and hazards of national significance.[Footnote 29]
ODP's efforts to develop national preparedness standards are, in part,
a response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8),
issued by the President in December 2003. HSPD-8 called for a new
national preparedness goal and performance measures, standards for
preparedness assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the
nation's overall preparedness.[Footnote 30] The directive required the
DHS Secretary to submit the new national preparedness goal to the
President through his Homeland Security Council for review and approval
prior to, or concurrently with, DHS's fiscal year 2006 budget
submission to the Office of Management and Budget in September
2004.[Footnote 31] HSPD-8 also requires the preparation and approval of
statewide, comprehensive all-hazards preparedness strategies in order
to receive federal preparedness assistance at all levels of government,
including grants, after fiscal year 2005.
As part of the HSPD-8 implementation process, ODP plans to develop a
list of capability requirements by the end of January 2005 in keeping
with the fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriations act.[Footnote 32] To help
define the capabilities that jurisdictions should set as targets, ODP
first drafted a list of tasks required to prevent or respond to
incidents of national consequence. They include such generic tasks as
integrating private-sector entities into incident response activities
or coordinating housing assistance for disaster victims. The list of
target capabilities includes the policies, procedures, personnel,
training, equipment, and mutual aid arrangements needed to perform the
tasks required to prevent or respond to the national planning
scenarios. ODP further plans to develop performance measures, on the
basis of the target capability standards that define the minimal
acceptable proficiency required in performing the tasks outlined in the
task list. ODP plans to complete initial development of the performance
measures by March 2005 and to refine them subsequently. According to
ODP's plan, the measures will allow the development of a rating
methodology that incorporates preparedness resources and information
about overall performance into a summary report that represents a
jurisdiction's or agency's ability to perform essential prevention,
response, or recovery tasks. The office acknowledges that this schedule
may result in a product that requires future incremental refinements
but has concluded that this is preferable to spending years attempting
to develop a "perfect" process. ODP held a workshop in mid-October 2004
to obtain input from representatives from states, national
associations, and other federal departments and agencies regarding the
implementation of HSPD-8. At the workshop, some participants voiced
concerns that the process, among other things, was moving too fast and
did not consider the state and local needs assessments that had already
been done. In addition, some participants believed that better
communication and a more collaborative process was needed. ODP
officials promised to address the participants' concerns and asked for
additional input on how ODP could better implement the process and work
better with state and local jurisdictions.
ODP Increased Grant Monitoring Activities for Fiscal Year 2004 but Did
Not Meet Its Monitoring Goal for All States:
ODP has taken steps to improve its oversight procedures with respect to
state, urban area, and local grantees. ODP is responsible for ensuring
administrative and programmatic compliance with relevant statutes,
regulations, policies, and guidelines of the grants it manages. ODP
also monitors the progress that states make toward the goals and
objectives contained in their homeland security strategies. Prior to
September 11, 2001, ODP formally monitored grantees through such
activities as office-based reviews at ODP of grantees' financial
reports and other documents, followed by on-site visits to state grant
officials.Office-based reviews entail a review of grant files to ensure
that all grant documentation is complete and up-to-date and that any
apparent problems are addressed through follow-up telephone or e-mail
contact with the state or urban area. Upon completion of an office-
based review, an ODP preparedness officer prepares a memorandum for the
file. This review usually takes place before an on-site visit is
scheduled, according to ODP. During an on-site visit, an ODP
preparedness officer is to discuss administrative and financial issues
and programmatic issues such as whether the state or urban area is
meeting the goals and objectives in the homeland security strategies.
The ODP preparedness officer is to prepare a monitoring report for each
on-site visit.
ODP officials told us that formal on-site monitoring visits were
temporarily discontinued after September 11, 2001, because of a high
volume of work. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP did not set formal
monitoring goals, such as a specific number of on-site visits to be
made in a given year. ODP officials said they continued to maintain
active, almost daily contact with the states by telephone, e-mail, and
regular correspondence and through informal visits to monitor
programmatic and financial aspects of the grants;
however, no memorandums or formal site-visit reports were filed during
that period. In fiscal year 2004, ODP updated its grant-monitoring
guidance and established new monitoring goals. According to the
guidance, at least one office file reviewand one on-site visit--
resulting in a monitoring visit report--should be completed for each
state (inclusive of urban area grantees) each fiscal year. As of
September 30, 2004, ODP had completed 44 office file reviews and 44 on-
site visits for the 56 states and territories. According to ODP, of the
remaining 12 reviews and visits for the fiscal year 2004 monitoring
cycle, 8 have been conducted as of December 2004. ODP officials said
that these reviews and visits were delayed, in part, because of
turnover in preparedness officer positions and scheduling problems.
These on-site monitoring visits are a principal tool for, among other
things, ascertaining a grantee's progress on its strategy
implementation, and noting problems with implementing the grant program
and the steps the grantee and ODP will take to resolve them. These on-
site visits are needed to track whether and how grantees are managing
their program funds.
ODP and Some State and Local Jurisdictions Cite Staffing Challenges:
ODP cited staffing challenges that have affected its grant management
in general. ODP has made progress in filling authorized staff
positions, but vacancies remain. ODP had 146 full-time equivalent
positions authorized for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 30 of which were
preparedness officers. As of September 2004, ODP had filled 138 of
these positions compared with 63 filled positions at the end of fiscal
year 2003. Of the eight vacancies remaining, five were preparedness
officer positions. In addition to performing office-based and scheduled
on-site monitoring, these officers serve as day-to-day liaisons to
designated states. According to ODP, the ODP preparedness officers
currently have responsibility for one to five states each, depending on
the state's population.
ODP officials told us that, in hiring staff, they face challenges
shared by other agencies. ODP has acknowledged that it experienced
significant staffing shortages in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 because of
a hiring freeze. In addition, officials cited other factors, including
staff turnover, the lack of recruitment and relocation bonuses, the
high cost of living in the Washington metropolitan area, and
competition with other DHS entities and contracting firms for high-
quality candidates. These officials also said that the lengthy federal
hiring process is further extended by the need to conduct security
clearances for job candidates. To deal with some staff shortages, ODP
has relied on outside contractors and temporary employees, but they are
not working directly with states and local jurisdictions on grants, and
none are ODP preparedness officers.[Footnote 33]
State and local officials in two of the five states visited also cited
a lack of sufficient state and local personnel to administer and manage
their grant programs. While the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 grants
provided funding that states and local jurisdictions could use to
administer the grants,[Footnote 34] these officials said that the 3
percent limit on grant management and administrative costs imposed by
ODP in the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II was not sufficient to cover the
grant administrative costs needed to administer and manage the grants.
This allowance can be used at the state and/or local levels, but the
combined allowance cannot exceed 3 percent of the total first responder
preparedness grant funds for each state.[Footnote 35] For SHSGP II
first responder preparedness grant funds, the allowable administrative
costs ranged among all states from a low of about $102,000 to a high of
about $3.1 million per state. Some officials said they have not been
able to hire the personnel necessary to administer and manage the grant
programs, in part, because of the limit on funds used for
administrative costs. DHS's IG and Homeland Security Advisory Council
Task Force[Footnote 36] also cited similar reports from state and local
officials they spoke with. In responding to DHS's IG report, ODP said
that the homeland security grant programs allow for the hiring of both
full-and part-time personnel and contractors to implement the program
and that this option could be more widely used by states to address the
issue of inadequate staffing. ODP officials recently told us that the
fiscal year 2005 grant guidelines allow states to retain 3 percent of
the total grant award and local jurisdictions to use 2.5 percent of
their grant allocation for management and administrative purposes.
According to these officials, this change should alleviate some of the
staffing issues.
Congress, ODP, States, and Localities Have Acted to Expedite Grant
Awards, but Challenges Remain:
Statutory Deadlines Were Imposed to Expedite the Grant Award and
Distribution Process:
Congress, the Conference of Mayors,[Footnote 37] some state and local
officials, and others expressed concerns about the time ODP was taking
to award grant funds to states and for states to transfer grant funds
to local jurisdictions. For SDPP and SHSGP I grants, ODP was not
required to award grant funds to states within a specific time frame.
During fiscal year 2002, ODP took 123 days to make the SDPP grant
application available to states and, on average, about 21 days to
approve states' applications after receipt. For SHSGP II, however, the
appropriations statute required that ODP make the grant application
available to states within 15 days of enactment of the appropriation
and approve or disapprove states' applications within 15 days of
receipt. According to ODP data for SHSGP II, ODP made the grant
application available to states within the required deadline and
awarded over 90 percent of the grants within 14 days of receiving the
applications. For SHSGP II, the appropriations statute also mandated
that states submit grant applications within 30 days of the grant
announcement.[Footnote 38] According to ODP data, all states met the
statutory 30-day mandate. For SHSGP II, the average number of days from
grant announcement to application submission declined from about 81
days in fiscal year 2002 to about 23 days.
To expedite the transfer of grant funds from the states to local
jurisdictions, ODP program guidelines and subsequent appropriations
acts imposed additional deadlines on states. For SDPP, there were no
mandatory deadlines or dates by which states should transfer grant
funds to localities. One of the states we visited, for example, took 91
days to transfer the SDPP grant funds to a local jurisdiction while
another state we visited took 305 days. In addition, a DHS IG report
found that for SDPP, two of the states it visited took 73 and 186 days,
respectively, to transfer funds to local jurisdictions. Beginning with
SHSGP I, ODP required in its program guidelines that states transfer
grant funds to local jurisdictions within 45 days of the grant award
date. Congress subsequently included this requirement in the
appropriations statute for SHSGP II grant funds. To ensure compliance,
ODP required states to submit a certification form indicating that all
awarded grant funds had been transferred within the required 45-day
period.[Footnote 39] States that were unable to meet the 45-day period
had to explain the reasons for not transferring the funds and indicate
when the funds would be transferred. According to ODP, for SHSGP I and
II, respectively, 33 and 31 states certified that the required 45-day
period had been met.[Footnote 40]
To further assist states in expediting the transfer of grant funds to
local jurisdictions, ODP also modified its requirements for
documentation to be submitted as part of the grant application process
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. In fiscal year 2002, ODP required
states to submit budget detail worksheets and program narratives
indicating how the grant funds would be used for equipment, exercises,
and administration--and have them approved. If a state failed to submit
the required documentation, ODP would award the grant funds, with the
special condition that the state could not transfer, expend, or draw
down any grant funds until the required documentation was submitted and
approved. In fiscal year 2002, ODP imposed special conditions on 37
states for failure to submit the required documentation and removed the
condition only after the states submitted the documentation. The time
required to remove the special conditions ranged from about 1 month to
21 months. For example, in one state we reviewed, ODP awarded SDPP
grant funds and notified the state of the special conditions on
September 13, 2002; the special conditions were removed about 6 months
later on March 18, 2003, after the state had met those conditions.
However, in fiscal year 2003, ODP allowed states to move forward more
quickly, by permitting them to transfer grant funds to local
jurisdictions before all required grant documents had been submitted.
If a state failed to submit the required documentation for SHSGP I, ODP
awarded the grant funds and allowed the state to transfer the funds to
local jurisdictions. While the state and local jurisdictions could not
expend--and the state could not draw down--the grant funds until the
required documentation was submitted and approved, they could plan
their expenditures and begin state and locally required procedures such
as obtaining approval of the state legislature or city council to use
the funds. For SHSGP I, ODP imposed special conditions on 47 states for
failure to submit the required documentation and removed the condition
only after the states submitted the documentation. The special
conditions were removed approximately 1 month to 15 months after the
grant funds were awarded to the states. For the SHSGP II grant cycle,
in order to further expedite the award process and availability of
fiscal year 2003 funds for expenditure, ODP no longer required states
to submit the budget detail worksheets and certain other documents as
part of the grant application process.[Footnote 41] Rather, these
documents could be submitted later with the state's biannual progress
report.[Footnote 42] Thus, states were able to transfer, expend, and
draw down grant funds immediately after ODP awarded the grant funds.
(See appendix III for grant award and distribution timelines for
selected state and local grantees.)
Some States Have Revised Procurement Requirements Affecting Grant Time
Lines, and ODP Is Developing Related Best Practices:
Despite congressional and ODP efforts to expedite the award of grant
funds to states and the transfer of those funds to localities, some
states and local jurisdictions could not expend the grant funds to
purchase equipment or services until other, nonfederal requirements
were met. Some state and local officials' ability to spend grant funds
was complicated by the need to meet various state and local legal and
procurement requirements and approval processes, which could add months
to the process of purchasing equipment after grant funds had been
awarded. For example, in one state we visited, the state legislature
must approve how the grant funds will be expended. If the state
legislature is not in session when the grant funds are awarded, it
could take at least 4 months to obtain state approval to spend the
funds.[Footnote 43] In another state we visited, a city was notified on
July 17, 2003, that SHSGP I grant funds were available for use, but the
city council did not vote to accept the funds until almost 4 months
later. A 2004 report by the House Select Committee on Homeland Security
also cited instances of slowness at the state and local government
levels in approving the acceptance and expenditure of grant funds. For
example, according to the committee report, one county took about 7
months after receiving its SHSGP I grant award to get authorization to
spend the grant funds. Some state and local officials we talked with
said that complying with their normal procurement regulations could
also take months. They said that these regulations require, among other
things, competitive bidding for certain purchases--a frequently lengthy
process in their view.
Some states, in conjunction with DHS, have modified their procurement
practices to expedite the procurement of equipment and services.
Officials in two of the five states we visited told us they established
centralized purchasing systems that allow equipment and services to be
purchased by the state on behalf of local jurisdictions, freeing them
from some local legal and procurement requirements. As reported by the
House Select Committee on Homeland Security in April 2004, many states
were looking to move to a centralized purchasing system for the same
reason. In addition, the DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council Task
Force reported that several states developed statewide procurement
contracts that allow local jurisdictions to buy equipment and services
using a prenegotiated state contract. According to DHS, it has offered
options for equipment procurement, through agreements with the U.S.
Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps
Systems Command, to allow state and local jurisdictions to purchase
equipment directly from their prime vendors. DHS said that these
agreements provide an alternative to state and local procurement
processes and often result in a more rapid product delivery at a lower
cost. For example, one state we visited is using a Defense Logistics
Agency prime vendor to make equipment purchases. Local jurisdictions
can order the equipment without having to go through their own locally
based competitive bidding process.
Congress has also taken steps to address a problem that some states and
localities cited concerning a federal policy that provides
reimbursement to states and localities only after they have incurred an
obligation, such as a purchase order, to pay for goods and services.
Until fiscal year 2005, after submitting the appropriate documentation,
states and localities could receive federal funds to pay for these
goods and services several days before the payment was due so that they
did not have to use their own funds for payment. However, according to
DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force, many
municipalities and counties had difficulty participating in this
process either because they did not receive their federal funds before
payment had to be made or their local governments required funds to be
on hand before commencing the procurement process. Officials in one
city we visited said that, to solve the latter problem, the city had to
set up a new emergency operations account with its own funds. The task
force recommended that for fiscal year 2005, ODP homeland security
grants be exempt from the Cash Management Improvement Act[Footnote 44]
to allow funds to be provided to states and municipalities up to 120
days in advance of expenditures. The fiscal year 2005 DHS
appropriations legislation includes a provision that exempts formula-
based grants (SHSGP) and discretionary grants, including UASI and other
ODP grants, from the act's requirement that an agency schedule the
transfer of funds to a state so as to minimize the time elapsing
between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and the state's
disbursement of the funds for program purposes.
In addition, DHS efforts are under way to identify and disseminate best
practices, including how states and localities manage legal and
procurement issues that affect grant distribution. DHS's Homeland
Security Advisory Council Task Force stated in a June 2004 report that
some jurisdictions have been "very innovative" in developing mechanisms
to support the procurement and delivery of emergency-response-related
equipment. For example, one state cited in the report was in the
process of forming a procurement working group to address issues as
they arise. The report also cited that several states have developed
statewide procurement contracts that allow municipal government units
to buy first responder equipment and services. One state created a
password-protected Web site that allowed local jurisdictions to view
their allocation balance and place orders for equipment up to their
funding allocation limit. According to the task force, these efforts
substantially reduced the time it takes for localities to purchase and
receive their equipment. The task force recommended that, among other
things, DHS should, in coordination with state, county, and other
governments, identify, compile, and disseminate best practices to help
states address grant management issues. According to ODP, in an effort
to complement and reinforce the task force's recommendations, in
partnership with the National Criminal Justice Association,[Footnote
45] it established a new Homeland Security Preparedness Technical
Assistance Program service to enhance the grant management capabilities
of state administrative agencies. In an August 30, 2004, Information
Bulletin, ODP requested that state administrative agencies complete a
survey designed to gather information on their grant management
technical needs and best practices related to managing and accounting
for ODP grants, including the procurement of equipment and services at
the state and local levels. The information that ODP is gathering is to
serve as a foundation for the development of a tailored, on-site
assistance program for states to ensure that identified best practices
are implemented and critical grant management needs and problems are
addressed. According to ODP, this program will be operational in
December 2004.
Despite efforts to streamline local procurement practices, some
challenges remain at the state and local levels. An ODP requirement
that is based on language in the appropriations statute could delay
procurements, particularly in states that have a centralized purchasing
system. Specifically, for the fiscal 2004 grant cycle, states are
required by statute to pass through no less than 80 percent of total
grant funding to local jurisdictions within 60 days of the award. In
order for states to retain grant funds beyond the 60-day limit, ODP
requires states and local jurisdictions to sign a memorandum of
understanding (MOU) indicating that states may retain--at the local
jurisdiction's request--some or all funds in order to make purchases on
a local jurisdiction's behalf. The MOU must specify the amount of funds
to be retained by the state. A state official in one state we visited
said that, while the state's centralized purchasing system had worked
well in prior years, the state has discontinued using it because of the
MOU requirement, since establishing MOUs with every locality might take
years. The state transferred the fiscal year 2004 grant funds to local
jurisdictions so they can make their own purchases. In another state,
officials expressed concern that this requirement would negatively
affect their ability to maintain homeland security training provided to
local jurisdictions at state colleges that had been previously funded
from local jurisdictions' grant funds. In a June 23, 2004, ODP
Information Bulletin, ODP strongly recommended that states retaining
funds at the state level on behalf of local jurisdictions have the MOUs
reviewed by DHS's Office of General Counsel to ensure that the MOUs
meet the requirements of the appropriation language and ODP program
guidelines. ODP officials told us that they were assisting states to
adapt to the new requirement.
Concluding Observations:
The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, forced the nation to
reexamine its requirements for domestic safety, including the capacity
and resources that would be needed at the state and local levels to
prevent, prepare for, respond to, or recover from potential future
threats from terrorists and minimize their impact. Congress addressed
this concern in the months after the attacks, in part by increasing the
grant funds that states would receive to enhance their emergency first
responder and public health and safety capabilities to deal with
terrorist attacks involving CBRNE weapons. Not surprisingly, the
enormous effort required to bolster first responder capacity nationwide
posed challenges for government administrators at the federal, state,
and local levels. A major challenge in administering first responder
grants is balancing two goals: minimizing the time it takes to
distribute grant funds to state and local first responders, and
ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for the effective use
of grant funds. ODP's approach to striking this balance has been
evolving from experience, congressional action, and feedback from
states and local jurisdictions.
Over the last 2 years, working in concert with state governments and
others, DHS has made progress, through ODP, in managing its state
homeland security grant programs. ODP has addressed management problems
regarding how grants were awarded and funds distributed, which arose
following the dramatic increase in federal funding for first responders
after September 11. While some localities continue to face legal and
procurement challenges that can tie up access to grant funds, ODP is
taking steps to provide technical assistance that will, among other
things, give state and local officials access to best-practice
information on how other jurisdictions have successfully addressed
procurement challenges.
As ODP continues to administer its state and urban first responder
grant programs, it will likely face new challenges. In particular, as
DHS and ODP work to develop national preparedness standards, it will be
important to listen and respond fully to the concerns of states, local
jurisdictions, and other interested parties about, among other things,
the planned time frames for implementing the new standards. It will
also be important to ensure that there is adequate collaboration and
guidance for moving forward. Effective collaboration among ODP, states,
and others in developing appropriate preparedness performance goals and
measures will be essential to ensuring that the nation's emergency
response capabilities are appropriately identified, assessed, and
strengthened.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
DHS generally agreed with the report's findings. In particular, the
agency concurred that it faced a number of challenges related to
effectively managing first responder grants and highlighted the
progress it has made in addressing them. The agency expressed the view,
however, that the progress already achieved in meeting these challenges
was not appropriately reflected in the title of the report. We
disagree. As DHS notes, our report acknowledges the efforts the agency
has made in revising grant procedures to expedite awards while
maintaining accountability. Nevertheless, not all of the agency's
efforts have gone smoothly, as attested, for example, by the problems
that DHS and the states experienced in realistically defining first
responder equipment needs in 2003. In view of the concerns recently
expressed by state and other officials, DHS may, in our view, continue
to face significant challenges in meeting its time tables to develop
realistic capability requirements and performance measures for first
responders. DHS also provided further details on some grant management
issues we raised in the report. We have revised the report as
appropriate to include these and other technical comments provided.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report
to relevant congressional committees and subcommittees, the Secretary
of Homeland Security, and to other interested parties. We will also
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.
If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Key
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
William O. Jenkins, Jr.:
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:
[End of section]
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
We initially addressed our researchable questions regarding the Office
for Domestic Preparedness's (ODP) structure and processes for program
and financial management of its grants and its monitoring policies and
processes in a briefing to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the
House Committee on Appropriations. In addressing those questions, we
identified 25 domestic preparedness programs managed by ODP in fiscal
years 2002 and 2003.[Footnote 46] For this report, we selected the five
largest programs in terms of federal funding provided to state and
local jurisdictions for our detailed review. Three of the five programs
that addressed state and local preparedness issues were basically for
the same purposes but received funding from separate appropriations.
These were the fiscal year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program
(SDPP) and the fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs
(SHSGP) I and II. The other two programs were awarded to selected urban
areas. These were the fiscal year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiatives
(UASI) I and II grant programs.
We also selected Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and
Pennsylvania and 19 local jurisdictions within those states:
* The cities of Phoenix and Pima and Maricopa and Coconino Counties in
Arizona.
* The cities of Los Angeles and Sacramento and the County of Los
Angeles in California.
* The city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the Miami and Tallahassee
Regional Domestic Security Task Forces in Florida.
* The city of St. Louis, St. Louis and Franklin Counties, and the rural
cities of Jackson and Sikeston in Missouri.
* The city of Philadelphia and the Southeastern and South Central
Regional Terrorism Task Forces in Pennsylvania.
The five states were selected on the basis of the amount of ODP grant
funding received, population size, and other factors. The local
jurisdictions were selected on the basis of a mix of urban and rural
locations to include cities and counties that received UASI funding.
To determine how SHSGP and UASI were administered in fiscal years 2002
and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in
accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning, we
interviewed ODP officials and homeland security and grant management
officials and first responders in the five selected states and from
selected local jurisdictions within those states. We also obtained and
reviewed related ODP policy guidance and program guidelines for the
SDPP/SHSGP and UASI grant programs. We also obtained and reviewed
documentation on grant awards to state and local jurisdictions. We
spoke with ODP officials about their grant monitoring and reporting
processes and obtained and reviewed related ODP grant-monitoring
guidance and monitoring reports for fiscal year 2004. We also obtained
and analyzed data on the number of office-based and on-site-monitoring
reviews conducted in fiscal year 2004. We reviewed these data for
obvious inconsistency errors and completeness and compared these data
with on-site-monitoring reports prepared by ODP. On the basis of these
efforts, we determined that the monitoring review data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In addition, we
spoke with ODP and state and local officials about staffing issues that
affect grant management. We also interviewed ODP and state and local
officials and reviewed documentation about ODP's state homeland
security needs assessment and strategy development process and the
similar needs assessment and strategy development process for selected
urban areas. In addition, we obtained and reviewed the state domestic
preparedness strategies for the selected five states. In conjunction
with this effort, we also obtained information about the steps that ODP
is taking to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8
regarding national preparedness goals and performance standards. We
also reviewed relevant reports on homeland security and domestic
preparedness that discuss the development of national performance
standards.
To determine the time frames for awarding and distributing SHSGP and
UASI grants established by ODP grant guidance or by law, and how these
time frames affected the grant cycle, we obtained and analyzed
appropriations acts and program guidelines for the grant programs. We
also met with ODP officials and state homeland security and grant
management officials, and local grant managers and first responders in
the selected states and local jurisdictions to discuss how the time
lines affected the grant cycle. We obtained and analyzed data on the
time frames associated with the grant award and distribution processes.
We reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors and
completeness and compared these data with hard-copy documents we
obtained for these states. When we found discrepancies, we brought them
to the attention of ODP and state and local officials and worked with
them to correct the discrepancies before conducting our analyses. On
the basis of these efforts, we determined that the time-frame data were
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We also obtained
information about local procurement policies and practices. In
addition, we reviewed recent reports and studies on issues related to
federal funding and oversight of grants for first responders. We also
obtained grant funding and expenditures as of July 31, 2004, for the 56
states and territories and the urban areas. Given that the grant
funding and expenditure data are used for background purposes only, we
did not assess the reliability of these data. We also obtained and
analyzed key dates associated with the grant award, distribution, and
reimbursement processes for selected states and local jurisdictions. We
conducted this work from November 2003 through November 2004 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP and UASI Funding and
Draw Downs by State:
Given that these grant-funding and drawn-down amounts are used for
background purposes only, we did not assess the reliability of these
data.
Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP)
and Fiscal Year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP)
Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:
Dollars in thousands.
State: Alabama;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,317;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,259;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,457;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $360;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,049;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,514;
Total: Funding: $39,823;
Total: Drawn down: $6,133.
State: Alaska;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,783;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $203;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,995;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $485;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,230;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $855;
Total: Funding: $21,008;
Total: Drawn down: $1,543.
Territory: American Samoa;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $828;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $714;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,482;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $3,926;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $874;
Total: Funding: $6,236;
Total: Drawn down: $1,588.
State: Arizona;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,770;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,929;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,584;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,069;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,033;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,463;
Total: Funding: $44,387;
Total: Drawn down: $13,461.
State: Arkansas;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,141;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,169;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,394;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,234;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $19,585;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,964;
Total: Funding: $31,120;
Total: Drawn down: $14,367.
State: California;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $24,831;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,403;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $45,023;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $11,903;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $119,256;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $33,262;
Total: Funding: $189,110;
Total: Drawn down: $57,568.
State: Colorado;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,220;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,776;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,480;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,068;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,111;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,249;
Total: Funding: $39,811;
Total: Drawn down: $13,093.
State: Connecticut;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,626;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,133;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,265;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,281;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $21,893;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,515;
Total: Funding: $34,784;
Total: Drawn down: $6,928.
State: Delaware;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,887;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,643;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,185;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $515;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,733;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,698;
Total: Funding: $21,805;
Total: Drawn down: $5,856.
District of Columbia;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,747;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,559;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,910;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,006;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,967;
Total: Funding: $20,663;
Total: Drawn down: $4,526.
State: Florida;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $12,967;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,967;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $23,654;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,966;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $62,655;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $12,107;
Total: Funding: $99,276;
Total: Drawn down: $35,041.
State: Georgia;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,797;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,628;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $14,188;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,319;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $37,579;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,253;
Total: Funding: $59,564;
Total: Drawn down: $16,200.
Territory: Guam;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $892;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $783;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,596;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $209;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $4,226;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $227;
Total: Funding: $6,714;
Total: Drawn down: $1,219.
State: Hawaii;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,172;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $737;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,693;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $484;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,079;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,066;
Total: Funding: $23,944;
Total: Drawn down: $3,286.
State: Idaho;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,226;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $963;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,803;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,306;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,375;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,412;
Total: Funding: $24,404;
Total: Drawn down: $7,680.
State: Illinois;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $10,604;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $7,559;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $18,879;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $10,399;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $50,005;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,478;
Total: Funding: $79,488;
Total: Drawn down: $19,435.
State: Indiana;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,400;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,834;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,399;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,844;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $30,194;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $23,327;
Total: Funding: $47,993;
Total: Drawn down: $35,005.
State: Iowa;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,308;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,307;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,657;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $725;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $20,282;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,747;
Total: Funding: $32,247;
Total: Drawn down: $6,779.
State: Kansas;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,151;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,064;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,401;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,303;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $19,603;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,401;
Total: Funding: $31,155;
Total: Drawn down: $6,767.
State: Kentucky;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,048;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,857;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,001;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,369;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,838;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,444;
Total: Funding: $37,887;
Total: Drawn down: $12,670.
State: Louisiana;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,331;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,976;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,451;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,028;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,037;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,367;
Total: Funding: $39,819;
Total: Drawn down: $10,371.
State: Maine;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,213;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,771;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,751;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,769;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,232;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,378;
Total: Funding: $24,196;
Total: Drawn down: $7,919.
State: Maryland;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,881;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,850;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,585;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,550;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,037;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,437;
Total: Funding: $44,503;
Total: Drawn down: $12,836.
State: Massachusetts;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,579;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,437;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,711;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $815;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $31,020;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $12,598;
Total: Funding: $49,310;
Total: Drawn down: $19,850.
State: Michigan;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $8,958;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,124;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $15,918;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,099;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $42,162;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,414;
Total: Funding: $67,038;
Total: Drawn down: $15,638.
State: Minnesota;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,631;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,207;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,076;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,965;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $26,690;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,374;
Total: Funding: $42,397;
Total: Drawn down: $9,546.
State: Mississippi;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,255;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $599;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,582;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,933;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $20,083;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,955;
Total: Funding: $31,920;
Total: Drawn down: $5,487.
State: Missouri;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,079;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,042;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,834;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,872;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,697;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,285;
Total: Funding: $45,610;
Total: Drawn down: $16,199.
State: Montana;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,967;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,589;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,303;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,272;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $14,047;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $730;
Total: Funding: $22,317;
Total: Drawn down: $4,591.
State: Nebraska;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,502;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,560;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,255;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,877;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,568;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,310;
Total: Funding: $26,325;
Total: Drawn down: $11,747.
State: Nevada;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,693;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,000;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,771;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,491;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $17,935;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,442;
Total: Funding: $28,399;
Total: Drawn down: $8,933.
State: New Hampshire;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,187;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $687;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,727;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,113;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,172;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,887;
Total: Funding: $24,086;
Total: Drawn down: $8,687.
State: New Jersey;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,948;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,839;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $14,222;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,470;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $37,671;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,765;
Total: Funding: $59,841;
Total: Drawn down: $11,074.
State: New Mexico;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,574;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,947;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,401;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,286;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,956;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,302;
Total: Funding: $26,931;
Total: Drawn down: $4,535.
State: New York;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $14,953;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,000;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $26,492;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $23,400;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $70,172;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $63,000;
Total: Funding: $111,617;
Total: Drawn down: $98,400.
State: North Carolina;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,706;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,322;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $13,908;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,995;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $36,840;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,337;
Total: Funding: $58,454;
Total: Drawn down: $14,654.
State: North Dakota;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,794;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,670;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,983;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,026;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,200;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,500;
Total: Funding: $20,977;
Total: Drawn down: $6,196.
Territory: Northern Mariana Islands;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $835;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $632;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,496;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $892;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $3,963;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $815;
Total: Funding: $6,294;
Total: Drawn down: $2,338.
State: Ohio;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $9,897;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,350;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $17,510;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,757;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $46,378;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $8,403;
Total: Funding: $73,785;
Total: Drawn down: $23,511.
State: Oklahoma;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,656;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $524;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,304;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $978;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $21,996;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $222;
Total: Funding: $34,956;
Total: Drawn down: $1,724.
State: Oregon;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,637;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,857;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,336;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,884;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $22,081;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,760;
Total: Funding: $35,054;
Total: Drawn down: $8,501.
State: Pennsylvania;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $10,512;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,168;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $18,570;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,906;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $49,189;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,249;
Total: Funding: $78,271;
Total: Drawn down: $17,323.
State: Puerto Rico;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,894;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $490;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,727;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,118;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $36,739;
Total: Drawn down: $490.
Territory: Rhode Island;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,063;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,171;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,489;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,899;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $14,540;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,286;
Total: Funding: $23,092;
Total: Drawn down: $12,356.
State: South Carolina;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,028;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,552;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,017;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,032;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,882;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,626;
Total: Funding: $37,927;
Total: Drawn down: $13,210.
State: South Dakota;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,868;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,745;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,131;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,265;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,591;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,027;
Total: Funding: $21,590;
Total: Drawn down: $10,036.
State: Tennessee;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,140;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,089;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,978;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,961;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $29,080;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $374;
Total: Funding: $46,198;
Total: Drawn down: $6,424.
State: Texas;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $16,196;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,878;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $29,538;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $10,324;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $78,238;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $14,078;
Total: Funding: $123,972;
Total: Drawn down: $33,280.
State: Utah;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,849;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,608;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,937;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,184;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $18,374;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,833;
Total: Funding: $29,160;
Total: Drawn down: $14,625.
State: Vermont;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,772;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,352;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,963;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,652;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,147;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,688;
Total: Funding: $20,882;
Total: Drawn down: $8,692.
Territory: Virgin Islands;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $861;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $133;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,542;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,227;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $4,085;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,409;
Total: Funding: $6,488;
Total: Drawn down: $3,770.
State: Virginia;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,062;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,226;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $12,716;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,846;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $33,683;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $22,956;
Total: Funding: $53,461;
Total: Drawn down: $37,028.
State: Washington;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,276;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,368;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,294;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,877;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $29,917;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,655;
Total: Funding: $47,487;
Total: Drawn down: $15,899.
State: West Virginia;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,567;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,567;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,340;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,758;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,792;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $8,856;
Total: Funding: $26,699;
Total: Drawn down: $18,181.
State: Wisconsin;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,925;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,238;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,565;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,545;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $27,985;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $20,800;
Total: Funding: $44,475;
Total: Drawn down: $33,584.
State: Wyoming;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,696;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,285;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,827;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,410;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $12,784;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,205;
Total: Funding: $20,307;
Total: Drawn down: $5,899.
Total;
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $315,700;
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $216,339;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $566,295;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $201,197;
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $1,500,000;
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $385,146;
Total: Funding: $2,381,995;
Total: Drawn down: $802,682.
Source: Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grant guidance and
Office of Justice Programs/Office of the Comptroller (OJP/OC) financial
management data.
[End of table]
Table 4: Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) I and
II Grant Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:
Dollars in thousands.
State: Arizona;
City, county: Phoenix and Maricopa County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $11,033;
UASI II: Drawn down: $471;
Total: Funding: $11,033;
Total: Drawn down: $471.
State: California;
City, county: Los Angeles[B] and Los Angeles County;
City, county: San Francisco[B] and San Francisco County;
City, county: San Diego City and San Diego County;
City, county: Sacramento and Sacramento County;
City, county: Long Beach and Los Angeles County;
UASI I: Funding: $22,771;
UASI I: Drawn down: $560;
UASI II: Funding: $62,202;
UASI II: Drawn down: $6,014;
Total: Funding: $84,973;
Total: Drawn down: $6,574.
State: Colorado;
City, county: Denver and Denver County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $15,568;
UASI II: Drawn down: $93;
Total: Funding: $15,568;
Total: Drawn down: $93.
State: Florida;
City, county: Miami and Miami-Dade County;
City, county: Tampa and Hillsborough County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $18,960;
UASI II: Drawn down: $3,296;
Total: Funding: $18,960;
Total: Drawn down: $3,296.
State: Hawaii;
City, county: Honolulu and Honolulu County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $6,871;
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,718;
Total: Funding: $6,871;
Total: Drawn down: $1,718.
State: Illinois;
City, county: Chicago[B] and Cook County;
UASI I: Funding: $10,896;
UASI I: Drawn down: $0;
UASI II: Funding: $29,976;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $40,872;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
State: Louisiana;
City, parish: New Orleans and Orleans Parish;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $6,283;
UASI II: Drawn down: $350;
Total: Funding: $6,283;
Total: Drawn down: $350.
State: Maryland;
City, county: Baltimore and Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $10,901;
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,468;
Total: Funding: $10,901;
Total: Drawn down: $1,468.
State: Michigan;
City, county: Detroit and Wayne County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $12,273;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $12,273;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
State: Missouri;
City, county: St. Louis and St. Louis County;
City, county: Kansas City and Clay, Jackson, Platte, and Cass Counties;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $19,549;
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,605;
Total: Funding: $19,549;
Total: Drawn down: $1,605.
State: Massachusetts;
City, county: Boston and Suffolk County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $16,727;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $16,727;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
National Capital Region[B];
City, county:
UASI I: Funding: $18,081;
UASI I: Drawn down: $459;
UASI II: Funding: $42,410;
UASI II: Drawn down: $186;
Total: Funding: $60,491;
Total: Drawn down: $645.
State: New Jersey;
City, county: Newark and Essex County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $11,893;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $11,893;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
State: New York;
City, county: New York City[B];
City, county: Buffalo and Erie County;
UASI I: Funding: $24,768;
UASI I: Drawn down: $2,706;
UASI II: Funding: $135,267;
UASI II: Drawn down: $103,103;
Total: Funding: $160,035;
Total: Drawn down: $105,809.
State: Ohio;
City, county: Cincinnati and Hamilton County;
City, county: Cleveland and Cuyahoga County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $13,859;
UASI II: Drawn down: $16;
Total: Funding: $13,859;
Total: Drawn down: $16.
State: Oregon;
City, county: Portland and Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas
Counties;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $6,766;
UASI II: Drawn down: $1;
Total: Funding: $6,766;
Total: Drawn down: $1.
State: Pennsylvania;
City, county: Philadelphia and Philadelphia County;
City, county: Pittsburgh and Allegheny County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $21,039;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $21,039;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
State: Tennessee;
City, county: Memphis and Shelby County;
UASI I: Funding: [A];
UASI I: Drawn down: [A];
UASI II: Funding: $6,072;
UASI II: Drawn down: $0;
Total: Funding: $6,072;
Total: Drawn down: $0.
State: Texas;
City, county: Houston[B] and Harris, Fort Bend, and Montgomery
Counties;
City, county: Dallas and Denton, Rockwell, Kaufman Collin, and Dallas
Counties;
UASI I: Funding: $8,634;
UASI I: Drawn down: $0;
UASI II: Funding: $34,165;
UASI II: Drawn down: $8;
Total: Funding: $42,799;
Total: Drawn down: $8.
State: Washington;
City, county: Seattle[B] and King County;
UASI I: Funding: $11,201;
UASI I: Drawn down: $335;
UASI II: Funding: $18,187;
UASI II: Drawn down: $24;
Total: Funding: $29,388;
Total: Drawn down: $359.
Total;
UASI I: Funding: $96,351;
UASI I: Drawn down: $4,060;
UASI II: Funding: $500,000;
UASI II: Drawn down: $118,354;
Total: Funding: $596,351;
Total: Drawn down: $122,414.
Source: ODP grant guidance and ODP and OJP/OC financial status
information.
[A] Data not applicable.
[B] Six cities and the National Capital Region also received UASI I
grant funding.
[End of table]
[End of section]
Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and Reimbursement Process for
Selected States and Local Jurisdictions:
Figure 4: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness
Program Grant Distribution for State A:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness;
SAA = state administrative agency;
SDPP = State Domestic Preparedness Program:
[End of figure]
Figure 5: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness
Program Grant Distribution for State B:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness;
SAA = state administrative agency;
SDPP = State Domestic Preparedness Program.
[End of figure]
Figure 6: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State B:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: ESO = emergency services office;
ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness;
SAA = state administrative agency;
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program.
[End of figure]
Figure 7: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program II Grant Distribution for State B:
[See PDF for image]
Notes: ESO = emergency services office;
ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness;
SAA = state administrative agency;
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program.
[End of figure]
Figure 8: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State C:
[See PDF for image]
[End of figure]
Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness;
SAA = state administrative agency;
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security:
Washington, DC 20528:
December 29, 2004:
Mr. Norman Rabkin:
Managing Director, Homeland Security & Justice Issues:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW:
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Rabkin:
RE: GAO-05-121, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant
Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain (GAO Job Code 440244):
Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. We
generally agree with the draft report's findings. The draft
acknowledges the work and progress of the Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) in establishing and refining grant award procedures for
states and localities that have supported efforts to improve
accountability in the state preparedness planning process, improving
grant oversight procedures, and expediting grant awards and the
transfer of funds from states to local jurisdictions. The draft
acknowledges efforts in identifying best practices to help states spend
grant funds expeditiously while adhering to various legal and
procurement requirements. Furthermore, DHS through its Office for
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) [now part of the Office of State and Local
Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)] began drafting
national preparedness goals in order to meet mandates contained in a
presidential directive. Issued in December 2003, Homeland Security
Presidential Directive 8 requires a national domestic all-hazards
preparedness goal, adoption of quantifiable performance measurements in
several areas related to Federal incident management and asset
preparedness, and other action. We offer a few comments for your
consideration.
We believe that the report title does not adequately reflect the work
and accomplishments of DHS managers and staff working on the first
responder grant program. Management of the program has improved to the
point where SLGCP officials are already actively working with other
parties on matters that GAO describes as remaining challenges.
GAO highlights several challenges facing the agency. One is balancing
the two goals of minimizing the time its takes to distribute grant
funds to state and local first responders with ensuring appropriate
planning and accountability for the effective use of grant funds. As
noted the Department's approach in achieving the balance has been
evolving based on experience, congressional action, and feedback from
state and local jurisdictions. DHS through SLGCP continues to bolster
first responder capacity nationwide by drawing on experience and
feedback from a variety of sources, including our stakeholders.
Another challenge relates to developing national preparedness
standards. The report discusses the importance of listening and
responding fully to the concerns of states, local jurisdictions and
other interested parties about planned timeframes for the new
standards. It also mentions the need for adequate and effective
collaboration among DHS/SLGCP, states, and others in developing
appropriate preparedness goals and measures important in ensuring that
emergency response capabilities throughout the country are
appropriately identified, assessed, and strengthened. In an effort to
ensure collaboration, DHS/SLGCP officials listened and responded to the
concerns of the stakeholders and others as noted in the draft report
and will continue to do so. For example, SLGCP allowed states to
determine how grant funds were to be managed and distributed within
their states and whether purchases would be made locally or at the
state level, took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states
to local jurisdictions, and established Initial Strategy Implementation
Plans to assess bow cumulative purchases meet preparedness planning
needs or objectives found instate or urban area homeland security
strategies. SLGCP also has taken steps to address states' concerns
related to estimates included in needs assessments as noted in the
report.
There are several other points that we want to bring to your attention.
The draft report at page 21 begins, "SLGCP officials told us that
formal onsite monitoring visits were suspended after September 11,
2001, due to a high volume of work." SLGCP did not formally suspend
onsite monitoring visits after September 11, 2001. We continued to
maintain active, almost daily contact with our grantees, which includes
the monitoring of programmatic and financial aspects of the grants. We
did update and revise monitoring protocols in FY 2004; it is common
practice to revise internal protocols. Regular correspondence between
grantees and SLGCP can include financial reports, progress reports,
emails and written requests; all of these items frequently are used in
monitoring grantee performance. In the majority of cases, SLGCP was
unable to accomplish the monitoring visits due to scheduling conflicts
with the states. It is worth noting that 8 of the 12 visits have
already been accomplished by December of this year.
The draft at page 23 notes that SLGCP officials were considering
whether or not the 3% limit on grant management and administrative
(M&A) costs should be increased. The issue of whether or not to raise
the cap has been resolved for FY 2005. SLGCP grant guidance allows for
states to keep 3% of the total amount of the award in each program, but
also allows for the local unit of government to use 2.5% of their
allocation for M&A purposes, which should alleviate some of the
staffing issues.
On page 26, the last paragraph references a state that contracted with
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). We consider this a good example of
DHS leadership; these types of agreements reflect the effort by DHS,
its stakeholders, and other parties in overcoming state or local
procurement obstacles. This agreement was set up between SLGCP and the
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), to
allow SLGCP's state and local grant recipients to take advantage of
equipment procurement services that are available through the DSCP Fire
and Emergency Prime Vendor program. State and local recipients of SLGCP
equipment grant funding may utilize DSCP prime vendors and other
logistic support programs to expedite equipment purchases using grant
funds. SLGCP has also set up a similar agreement with the Marine Corps
Systems Command, to allow for the same equipment procurement services
through their prime vendors. Both of these agreements are offered
through SLGCP's technical assistance menu.
Conversely, GAO comments at page 28 that an SLGCP requirement could
delay procurements, particularly in states that have a centralized
purchasing system. This requirement was a direct result of a change in
conference report language to ODP [SLGCP]. Previous language in FY 2003
Supplemental Conference Report noted that, "...each State shall
transfer no less than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to
local governments within 45 days of the grant award". Language in the
FY 2004 Conference report noted, "...each State shall obligate not less
than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local governments
within 60 days after the grant award". Because the wording had changed
from "transfer" to "obligate", we sought advice from our Office of
General Counsel. The opinion that we received noted that states MUST
make a subgrant to the local units of government. The only way that the
state may hold money on behalf of a local government is through the
expressed permission in a written Memorandum of Agreement initiated by
a local unit of government. Please note that this SLGCP requirement
stems from statutory language.
In addition, we are assuming GAO's incorporation of our technical
comments which were provided to your office under separate cover.
Sincerely,
Signed for:
Anna F. Dixon:
Director:
Departmental GAOIOIG Liaison Office:
[End of section]
Appendix V: Related GAO Products:
Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance
Emergency Preparedness. GAO-04-1009. Washington, D.C.: September 15,
2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate
Interoperable Communications between First Responders. GAO-04-1057T.
Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation
Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-
04-740. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation
Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-
04-963T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.
Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better
Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region. GAO-04-
904T. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004.
Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the National
Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and
Performance Goals. GAO-04-433. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First Responders. GAO-04-
788T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004.
Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications
for First Responders. GAO-04-231T. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.
Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding
Needs. GAO-03-1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.
[End of section]
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
GAO Contacts:
William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8757;
Robert White (202) 512-5463.
Staff Acknowledgments:
In addition to those persons mentioned above, David Alexander, Leo
Barbour, Amy Bernstein, Mona Nichols Blake, Laura Helm, Carlos Garcia,
Jessica Kaczmarek, and Katrina Moss made key contributions to this
report.
FOOTNOTES
[1] Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 403(5), 6 U.S.C. § 203(5) (Supp.
2002).
[2] Grant funds for domestic preparedness programs for state and local
governments are also provided by other DHS components and other
agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Health and Human
Services.
[3] SHSGP I and II grants are formula grants that provide each state a
minimum base amount plus an additional amount based on the state's
population. UASI I and II grants are awarded to selected urban areas
across the nation on the basis of such factors as population density,
critical infrastructure, and current threat estimates. In fiscal year
2003, SHSGP and UASI grant programs were designated as I or II because
they were funded by different appropriations in the same fiscal year.
[4] For this report, the term "states" refers to the 50 states; the
District of Columbia; the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern
Mariana Islands; American Samoa; Guam; and the U.S. Virgin Islands.
[5] See GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First
Responders, GAO-04-788T (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004).
[6] In this report, the terms "local jurisdictions" and "localities"
are used interchangeably to refer to diverse political and governmental
entities, such as counties, cities, towns, municipalities, Indian
tribes, and others.
[7] In addition to SDPP and SHSGP and UASI I and II grant programs,
some of the other grant programs are for the same or similar purposes
and are counted as separate grants because they are funded by separate
appropriations in different years.
[8] For the purpose of this report, we cite ODP in discussing the first
responder grant management functions of SLGCP.
[9] Among the grant programs transferred were the following: Assistance
to Firefighters Grant Program, Citizen Corps Program, and Emergency
Management Performance Grants from the Federal Emergency Management
Agency within the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate; and
Port Security Grant Program from the Transportation Security
Administration within the Border and Transportation Security
Directorate. In addition, a new program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism
Prevention Program, was initiated in SLGCP.
[10] For the fiscal year 2002 SDPP, states and local jurisdictions were
allowed to acquire advanced levels of first responder equipment,
including bomb mitigation and remediation gear, remote sensing devices,
and mass casualty decontamination equipment.
[11] In fiscal year 2004, 50 urban areas received UASI grant funding.
[12] Each of these factors was weighted in a linear formula; the
results were ranked and used to calculate a proportional allocation of
grant funds.
[13] The applications are posted and must be submitted in OJP's Web-
based Grants Management System.
[14] For UASI I, the Chief Executive of each city was required to
designate a program administering agency to administer the grant funds.
[15] For SDPP and SHSGP I, states were required to provide 80 percent
of their funding allocations for equipment to local jurisdictions.
States were permitted to retain 20 percent of the equipment funds, and
the pass-through requirement did not apply to other components of the
grants. For SHSGP II and UASI II, states were required to provide at
least 80 percent of the total grant funding for all permissible
purposes (equipment, exercises, training, and planning and
administrative costs) to local jurisdictions. States were permitted to
retain up to 20 percent of their total funding. For SHSGP II and UASI
II, 3 percent of the total grant award could be used for administrative
purposes.
[16] The Urban Area Working Group consists of points of contact from
jurisdictions within the defined urban area. The working group is
responsible for coordinating development and implementation of all
program elements within the area.
[17] According to ODP officials, this process for the transfer of funds
is intended to allow for the use of federal monies to pay the bill,
rather than state or local funds. (For further discussion of steps
taken by ODP to expedite grant funding and remaining challenges, see
pp. 23-30.)
[18] In fiscal year 2003, the urban area grantees were required to
prepare jurisdictional needs assessments that would support the
development of urban area homeland security strategies. Twenty-five
percent of the fiscal year 2003 UASI I and II grant funds could be used
prior to the submission and approval of the urban area strategies to
assist jurisdictions in developing their strategies as well as for
other purposes.
[19] According to ODP, it conditionally approved some state strategies,
provided that all issues were addressed within a set time period.
States with conditionally approved strategies received their grant
award but could not draw down grant funds until their strategies were
approved. Among the reasons that ODP provided for conditional approvals
were time lines that were vague, missing, or too broad and not
realistic; objectives that did not tie in with the goals; and goals
that were not well defined.
[20] As part of ODP's fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security
Assessment and Strategy Program, states were instructed to prepare new
homeland security strategies using an electronic template provided by
ODP. The aggregated results from the local jurisdiction needs
assessment were automatically populated in data fields in the state
homeland security strategy template. These data fields included, for
example, the total number of potential threat elements in the state,
the number of jurisdictions facing vulnerabilities from various hazards
and their grouped ranking from low to high risk, and the total
equipment needs for nine categories of equipment. State program
managers completed the other sections of the strategy template that
described the state's vision, focus, goals and objectives,
jurisdictional prioritizations, and implementation steps.
[21] The budget detail worksheets are to be maintained by the state
administrative agency.
[22] The agency is also responsible for reviewing all completed ISIPs
prior to submitting them to ODP.
[23] According to ODP, as of September 30, 2004, 19 states and
territories submitted their ISIPs by the due date, 35 were submitted
late, and 2 had not been submitted. Of the two that had not been
submitted, one was late, and one was not due to be submitted as of that
date.
[24] ODP approved the state strategy in August 2004.
[25] See GAO, U.S. Infrastructure: Agencies' Approaches to Developing
Investment Estimates Vary, GAO-01-835 (Washington, D.C.: July 20,
2001). This report describes best practices followed by agencies in
performing needs assessments in the area of public infrastructure, such
as considering alternatives ways to address needs.
[26] Department of Homeland Security: Office of Inspector General, An
Audit of Distributing and Spending "First Responder" Grant Funds, OIG-
04-15 (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).
[27] House Select Committee on Homeland Security, An Analysis of First
Responder Grant Funding (Washington, D.C.: April 2004).
[28] See GAO, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants
in the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated
Planning and Performance Goals, GAO-04-443 (Washington, D.C.: May 28,
2004).
[29] The interagency working group under the direction of the White
House Homeland Security Council developed these scenarios. They involve
a variety of potential emergencies, including four chemical (including
both chemical warfare and toxic industrial chemicals), three biological
(including both contagious and noncontagious agents and pandemic
influenza), two agricultural (including food safety and animal
disease), two natural disasters (a catastrophic earthquake and major
hurricane), one radiological, one nuclear, one improvised explosive
device, and one cyber attack.
[30] HSPD-8 also requires that the preparedness goal pertain to "all
hazards," addressing the nation's readiness to respond to all major
events, including natural disasters as well as acts of terrorism.
[31] The recently enacted fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriation
legislation, Pub. L. No. 108-334 (2004), included other deadlines
relative to HSPD-8, such as the requirement that final guidance on the
implementation of the national preparedness goal be issued by March 31,
2005.
[32] The act requires ODP to provide state and local jurisdictions with
nationally accepted first responder preparedness levels no later than
January 31, 2005.
[33] As of the end of fiscal year 2003, ODP had 72 contract employees
and as of July 2004, 147.
[34] The fiscal year 2002 SDPP included up to $150,000 or up to 2.5
percent of each state's total award (whichever was greater) for
administrative costs associated with implementing the state strategies.
For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP I, the amount of grant funds that each
state could use for planning and administrative costs was specified in
the program guidelines. The amount ranged from $104,000 to about $3.2
million.
[35] For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II, states received separate
funding for both first responder preparedness and the cost incurred for
protecting critical infrastructure.
[36] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Homeland Security
Advisory Council, A Report from the Task Force on State and Local
Homeland Security Funding (June 2004).
[37] The United States Conference of Mayors Homeland Security
Monitoring Center, First Mayors' Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal
Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments (Washington,
D.C.: September 2003).
[38] In fiscal year 2002, ODP required that states submit their grant
application by July 31, 2002 (79 days after the grant application was
made available to the states). For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP I, ODP
required that the application be submitted in 45 days from the release
of the grant application.
[39] For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II, states had to certify that they
had met the statutory requirement to transfer 80 percent of the awarded
funds for first responder preparedness and 50 percent of the awarded
funds for critical infrastructure protection to local jurisdictions
within the required 45-day period.
[40] According to ODP, follow-up letters were distributed to states
that had not submitted the certification form or were not certified,
followed by a series of phone calls to collect the pertinent
information.
[41] For the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program, Congress
required states to obligate grant funds to localities within 60 days of
the grant award date. States did not have to submit budget detail
worksheets and program narratives as part of the grant application
process. However, states were expected to maintain complete and
accurate accounting records and make those records available to DHS
upon request. In addition, states were to provide information on how
the expenditure of grant funds will support the goals and objectives
included in the state homeland security strategy in the Initial
Strategy Implementation Plan report due no later than 60 days after the
grant award date.
[42] The Categorical Assistance Progress Report for the period ending
June 30, 2003, was due July 30, 2003. This report describes, among
other things, the total amount of funds expended and the progress made
to date in achieving the state's overall goals and objectives
identified in the state homeland security strategy.
[43] When the state legislature is not in session, changes of over $1
million in the budget must be reviewed and approved by the Legislative
Budget Commission, which generally meets quarterly.
[44] Pub. L. No. 101-453, 104 Stat. 1058 (1990). The purpose of the law
is to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and equity in the exchange of
funds between the federal government and the states. The Cash
Management Improvement Act responded to previously alleged instances in
which either the states drew cash advances well before federal funds
were needed to make payment or states used their own funds to satisfy
federal program needs and were not reimbursed in a timely manner by the
federal agencies. The act provided that states would pay interest to
the federal government if they draw funds in advance of need and that
the federal government would pay interest to states if the federal
program agency does not reimburse the states in a timely manner when
states use their own funds.
[45] The National Criminal Justice Association represents state,
tribal, and local criminal and juvenile justice system concerns to the
federal government. Among other things, it promotes the development of
justice systems in states, tribal nations, and units of local
government that enhance public safety.
[46] Even though some of the grant programs were basically for the same
or similar purposes, they are counted as separate grants in part
because of separate appropriations in the same and different years and
name changes.
GAO's Mission:
The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability,
integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other
graphics.
Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order
GAO Products" heading.
Order by Mail or Phone:
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent.
Orders should be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office
441 G Street NW, Room LM
Washington, D.C. 20548:
To order by Phone:
Voice: (202) 512-6000:
TDD: (202) 512-2537:
Fax: (202) 512-6061:
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm
E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Public Affairs:
Jeff Nelligan, managing director,
NelliganJ@gao.gov
(202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office,
441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
