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 ation rolled on and the economy continued to constrict, the appropriation for interoperability funding was squeezed from $400 million to $50 million, significantly reducing the impact of the program. 2009 2008 Major developments Two major funding developments have also emerged this year that are likely to impact funding for at least the near term—allocation of funding on a formula basis and matching in homeland security funding. In 2006, DHS announced that it was moving to a “quasi-competitive” approach to distributing HSGP funding, meaning that awards, beyond the statutory minimum, for each state and all the awards for UASI areas would be allocated competitively based on the DHS risk assessment and the project descriptions, in the form of simple Investment Justifications (IJs), provided by the applicants. This was a dramatic move away from the population-based formula that had been used to distribute the funds in the previous four years, and in theory, the idea was sound. It required states and urban areas to articulate their plans for the funding before receiving the awards. It also allowed for a more dynamic allocation of funding to the projects that served areas of highest need or that represented the greatest potential impact or the most effective use of funds— all characteristics that ultimately give competitive funding more impact in most cases. This new “quasi-competitive” process was flawed, however, not so much because of the applicants’ unwillingness to develop and submit compliant project plans (with the possible exception of New York City in 2006), but because DHS lacked the infrastructure necessary to effectively evaluate the applications that were being submitted. The grant guidance provided detailed requirements for the projects, in terms of how they should align with emerging goals, standards and priorities, and how applicants should articulate their projects in the IJ format. But either because the IJs were not robust enough or because the scoring of so many varied types of projects made apples-to-apples comparisons difficult (in reality, a failure of the previously mentioned goals, standards and priorities) or because they lacked consultation with the local entities that would be implementing the projects, competitive allocations began to look remarkably similar to the formula sce- narios of the past, never really achieving the full potential that competitive funding approaches promised. So, in 2009, DHS has reverted to a predominantly formula-based allocation of funds. The formula is more robust, focused more on synthesized threat and readiness data, and it does allow for some tweaking of the award based on “anticipated effectiveness.” The 2009 program also goes much farther in explaining how effectiveness scores are determined. Moreover, the 2009 program does retain a modicum of competitiveness. Based on the anticipated effectiveness score of each proposal, the actual award may be increased or decreased. Given that each applicant can request up to 10 percent over their allocation, DHS appears to be expecting some fluctuation in the final awards. You might call this format “quasi-competitive,” with the stress shifted away from the “competitive.” Another factor this year is the impact of matching on the awards. Matching funds, or cost-sharing, are still only sometimes required for DHS programs, with the IECGP , PSGP and TSGP requiring cost-sharing, and HSGP programs not requiring it. This year, however, the HSGP (which never required matching funds) allows states and urban areas to increase effectiveness scores by providing a local match for their projects. Higher effectiveness scores increase the likelihood that the applicant will receive all of his or her allocation and perhaps more. The assumption is that a higher local commitment to a project will be manifested in its ability to implement the project successfully. Analysis Overall, this year’s funding outlook is a bit of a retreat from the advances of the past few years. Pass-through grants and formula-based funding strategies are the rule. States prefer pass-through formula grants because they provide administrative money to state agen- cies, they allow states to control the uses of funding downstream at the local level and they keep state plans, strategies and goals on the top of local first responders’ minds. In support of these and other benefits of the pass-through approach, states continue to lobby for significant involvement in the funding process. Ironically, when states act as simple conduits for 80 percent of over $3 billion dollars, their ability to track and report on any significant impact derived from the funding is minimal at best, nonexistent at worst—not to mention the states that resist the pass-through requirements and try to use local first responders’ money for statewide pet projects. As a result, Congress, in lean economic times, is inclined to reduce, eliminate or (at the very least) stagnate funding for these programs, because they can’t simply point to a benefit that equals the amount spent on the programs—leaving less money for the states to pass through. Direct, competitive programs like the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP), Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) and Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) allow local agencies to apply for grants they understand. When they receive awards, agencies are able to report directly to DHS, allowing DHS staff to effectively aggregate and summarize data on the impact of the programs. As a result, Congress rightly tends to view these programs more favorably in the budget, as indicated by a doubling of funding for PSGP and TSGP last year, even as funding for other programs was level or reduced. Whatever the reason—perhaps because they are more targeted, more sector-specific or more focused on the most vulnerable places—these programs, along with the AFGP , represent the longer term future of homeland security funding. That bodes well for the impact of future funding, but it’s no promise that the erstwhile moving target will ever stand still. HST MICHAEL PADDOCK, HSToday’s grants columnist, has served since 2000 as the chief executive officer of Grants Office LLC, a national grants development company serving municipal and nonprofit clients and industry partners. He is the author of all the articles in this year’s Grants Guide. Prior to 2000, Paddock served on the US Interagency Electronic Grants Committee’s State and Local Subcommittee and helped found the New York State E-Grants project, both initiatives dedicated to making grants information more accessible and streamlining the grants application process at the federal and state levels. He is a regular contributor on funding-related topics to numerous publications, and a featured speaker at seminars and conferences throughout the United States. He can be reached at mpaddock@grantsoffice.com. G4 HS T od ay Guide to Homeland Security Grants 2009