To view this site you need Adobe Flash Player and your browser must allow javaScripts. Go here to get the latest Flash Player. STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING 2009: Making the most of homeland security funding HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING IS ANYTHING BUT A STATIONARY TARGET. THE EBB AND FLOW OF FUNDING IN AND OUT OF CERTAIN PROGRAMS ONE YEAR AND THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE SAME PROGRAMS THE NEXT IS WHAT MAKES MAXIMIZING YOUR FUNDING SO DIFFICULT. YOU MAY HAVE GOTTEN FUNDING FROM EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE IN 2007, BUT IN 2009, THE DEFINITION OF EVERY AVAILABLE SOURCE IS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. FOR EACH FUNDING SOURCE AT THE FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL LEVELS, AND IN THE PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SECTOR, REGULAR REASSESSMENT OF PRIORITIES, CAPACITY AND EXPERIENCE LEADS TO A SOMETIMES SIGNIFICANT MODIFICATION TO THE FUNDERS’ APPROACHES TO ACHIEVING THE OBJECTIVES THEY SEEK. In the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), specifically, the change is due in part to the shift in the authorizing statute that defines many of the DHS programs. Beginning in federal fiscal year 2008, the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007 (better known as the 9/11 Commission Act) took over the authorizing role from the USA-PATRIOT Act. The 9/11 CommissionAct reauthorized most of the previous homeland security programs, with the notable exception of the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and created several new programs, including the Qualifying the most desirable grants There are many elements that make a grant more or less worth the considerable time and resources it would take to pursue it. When you’re weighing two grant programs and trying to determine which one to go after, consider these characteristics: Eligibility—you or a collaborating agency must be eligible to receive funding through the program. Total amount available—this will give you an idea of the scope of the funding and how competitive the program is likely to be. Cost sharing requirements—some programs require little or no cost sharing, while others may require you to match dollar-for-dollar. Application burden—ask how many internal and/or external resources will be required to submit for this program? Scale—consider your ability to reasonably complete the project and, on the flipside, that the funds available will be sufficient to address your needs. Collaboration/partnering requirements—look for any requirements beyond the collaborations (such as mutual aid agreements) you already have in place. Lead time—shorter lead time can mean a less-competitive proposal. Track record with the funder—if they look at your history of tracking funding expenses and submitting reports on time, will they like what they see? 2009 2008 Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) and the Emergency Operations Centers (EOC) Grant Program. With the 9/11 Commission Act, minor annual adjustments were displaced by some significant programmatic shifts. The elimination of the LETPP program, along with the requirement that 25 percent of both the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) be used for law enforcement terrorism prevention, was vaguely reminiscent of the combining of Local Law Enforcement Block Grants and Byrne Formula Grants into the Justice Assistance Grants Program in 2003. In both cases, the functions were combined to eliminate redundancy, but the total funding available was also reduced. In the case of the Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program (JAG) program, it was about $100 million. In the case of the LETPP program, the increases in funding for both SHSP and UASI since 2007 have only just equaled the $400 million value of the LETPP program, despite the fact that the 9/11 Commission Act authorized $80 million and $150 million more for 2009 than 2008 for the SHSP and UASI programs, respectively. Somewhere in this convoluted math problem, real funding for homeland security is being lost. Of course, the difference between what is authorized in the authorizing statute and what is appropriated into the budget is simply the difference between what Congress intended for a program and what the practical constraints of budgeting and political capital allowed. There is often a gap between the two numbers. Another example of the gap between authorization and appropriation can be found in the IECGP . This program focuses on interoperability for first responders and extends the one-time, $1 billion Public Safety Interoperable Communications (PSIC) program through 2012. The 9/11 Commission Act created the program and defined it almost exactly as the PSIC program had been articulated, a pass-through program with an 80 percent local distribution requirement and alignment with required Statewide Communications Interoperability Plans (SCIPs). The statute also authorized $400 million each year from FY2009 through FY2012. As the budget debate for the homeland security appropri- 2 00 9 Guide to Homeland Security Grants HS T o day G3