In Brief

Competing for DHS Funds

The Department of Homeland Security continues to improve its grant program

By Katherine Walsh

October 17, 2007 — CSO —

DHS continues to improve its grant program

The Department of Homeland Security has never been good at making friends through its grant program. In fact, the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and its allocation process have been a point of controversy for years, perhaps most notably in 2006, when Washington, D.C., and New York City received what many thought to be inadequate funding.

In July, DHS released the FY07 grant program, which experts say is improved from previous years. The Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), the grant program of greatest significance to the states, focuses on the needs of high-threat, high-density urban areas. UASI allocated $747 million to 45 urban areas this year. The areas receiving the most money include New York City, Los Angeles/Long Beach and Washington, D.C.

Chris Dixon, manager for state and local industry analysis at INPUT, a public sector market intelligence firm, says the process for determining a region's grant allocation is part formula and part competition. The formula is risk-based and accounts for two-thirds of the total score. The competitive aspect is a peer review process, which accounts for the remaining one-third of the score. That score ultimately determines how much money a specific area gets.

DHS's risk analysis methodology considers characteristics that might contribute to urban-area risk, such as population, presence of national critical infrastructure, military facilities and border crossing, says Shawn Reese, a Homeland Security analyst at the Congressional Research Service.

The peer review process, which began in 2006, requires urban areas to submit an Investment Justification, a document outlining how specific security projects will support National Preparedness Guidelines. Reviewers then evaluate each application based on six categories, including strategy, funding plan and investment challenges. New in 2007 is the ability of applicants to submit an Investment Justification draft for early review by DHS.

Reese, who has been following the Homeland Security Grant Program since FY02, says additions like the peer review process and draft applications are evidence that DHS is gradually adding efficiencies to the program. "Before, [DHS] didn't provide a lot of information on what they chose or how they chose," he says.

Reese expects the improvements to continue. Although UASI is strictly at the discretion of DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff, Congress has been vocal about identifying additional risk factors that DHS should consider. Still, "it's really up to DHS to determine how they do it, but every cycle, they are becoming more transparent."

Other stories by Katherine Walsh

• Email
• Print
• Comments
• Digg This
• SlashDot