http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/RSS.ashxiPaper PagesMon, 02 Feb 2009 20:54:30 +0100http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=1http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=1STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING 2009 2008 INSIDE. 2009: Making the most of homeland security funding . . . . . . . . . . . .G3 Qualifying the most desirable grants . . . . .G3 Infrastructure protection funding . . .G6 Changes for 2009 . . .G6 Cross-funding and the requirement for coordination . . . . . . . .G8 Tips for building effective collaborations . . . . . .G8 Pass-through vs. Direct funding . . . . . .G9 The 2009 Homeland Security Grant Programs . . . . . . . . .G10 10 tips for getting more grants . . . . . . .G12 Interoperability funders . . . . . . . . . . .G15 Grants Glossary . . . .G16 Acronyms . . . . . . . . .G182009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=2http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=2Meet the returning troops. All five Hardigg Military Case categories boast cases that are not only virtually indestructible as well as airtight, watertight and decontaminable – but are also reusable. Mission after mission, they can be called upon to protect, deliver and defend vital equipment under the harshest of conditions. Nothing protects like Hardigg. GSA CONTRACTS GS-15F-0019M GS-07F-9216S 800.542.7344 • MilitaryCases.com Hardigg.com BATTLE PROVEN 147 North Main Street, South Deerfield, MA 01373 • 800.542.7344 • MilitaryCases.com • Hardigg.com. For more information, visit our website or contact our GSA specialist at Military@Hardigg.com or 413-665-2163. Contracts #GS-15F-0019M, GS-07F-9216S. Hardigg accepts Government IMPAC cards and Govt. Visa cards. Trademarks owned by Hardigg Industries, Inc. ©Hardigg Industries, Inc. 20082009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=3http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=3STATE & 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 app2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=4http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=4STATE & 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 Overall2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=5http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=5what’s your mission? Detect & identify chemicals, explosives, contraband and biological agents Screen vehicles and cargo Intercept nuclear and radiological material Protect with ColPro systems in hostile environments Integrate, control and command with sensor management and surveillance Smiths Detection is proud to equip armed forces and emergency responders with the latest and most reliable detection and protection solutions worldwide. Our capabilities range from system integration to supplying advanced technologies ideal for a broad range of missions. For more information, call +1 203 207 9700, email militaryUS@smithsdetection.com Radiation Identifier Chemical Identifiers Fi re www.smithsdetection.com ho us e W or ld ,B oo V th is 55 it u 0 sa — t Fe : b 17 - NEW solutions from Smiths Detection 19 ,S an Di eg o, CA2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=6http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=6STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Infrastructure protection funding ALTHOUGH THE DEADLINES FOR THE PORT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (PSGP) AND TRANSIT SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (TSGP) PASSED IN JANUARY, THESE 2009 HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING PROGRAMS PROVIDE SOME INTERESTING INSIGHTS ON THE WIDER FUNDING PICTURE. THEY ARE ALSO THE MOST SIGNIFICANT COMPONENTS OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION PROGRAM, THE DHS PROGRAM TARGETED SPECIFICALLY AT SECURING THE NATION’S INFRASTRUCTURE, SO THEY CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE DHS PRIORITIES FOR INFRASTRUCTURE PROTECTION, FUNDING MODELS THAT WORK AND WHAT TO EXPECT FOR FUTURE INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING. Homeland Security Presidential Directive7 identifies 17 sectors that require protective actions to prepare for, protect or mitigate against a terrorist attack or other hazards. In response to the directive, DHS staff prepared and released the National Infrastructure Protection Plan (NIPP), and in May 2007, completed sector-specific plans for each of the 17 sectors that were identified in the directive. Some examples of sector-specific plans that are publicly available include: Agriculture and Food Banking and Finance Communications Defense Industrial Base Energy Information Technology National Monuments and Icons Transportation Systems Water Among these, plans related to transportation systems—ports and transit agencies in particular—have been the most heavily funded through the infrastructure protection program, while funding for other important sectors like agriculture and water security have received relatively sparse funding. Of course, not all sectors can receive all the funding they need to meet the goals set out in the sector-specific plans—there just isn’t enough to go around. Further, the NIPP doesn’t provide much guidance about Changes for 2009 Probably the most significant change in the homeland security funding landscape in 2009 is the reversion to pre-allocated funding for states and urban areas from the “quasi-competitive” approach of the past several years. This one change is intended to enable state and local areas to plan their resource allocations more effectively. The intent of DHS in making the process more competitive was to increase accountability for the funding at the state and local levels, something that was sorely lacking between 2002 and 2004. With more mature goals, standards and priorities now in place, the DHS funding team evidently feels more certain that they will be able to monitor states’ performance throughout the grants’ life cycles. Other changes include: For the Homeland Security Grants Program: Addition of two new Tier 2 UASI-eligible urban areas—Oxnard, Calif., and Tulsa, Okla.; Easing of restrictions on using funds for critical emergency supplies and personnel expenses; Elimination of the 3-year limit on funding intelligence analysts. For the Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program: Reduction in funding for the program to $50 million in the FY 2009 appropriation; Expansion of allowable uses to equipment and services related to deployment. For the Transit and Port Security Grant Program: Removal of the cash match requirement for all projects except construction projects (cost sharing is still required, but can be in-kind); Direct application to DHS, bypassing state bureaucracies (proposals must still align with state plans). For the Operation Stonegarden Grant Program: Expansion of eligibility to include states and territories with international water borders. 2009 2008 which sectors should get funded first. So, the sectors that are prioritized stand out as indications of the direction in which DHS is moving. With $50 million for infrastructure security generally through the Buffer Zone Protection Program, and nearly $800 million for transit and port security through the TSGP and PSGP , the direction is clear. State priorities The Infrastructure Protection Program may be the largest funding program dedicated to infrastru2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=7http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=7STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING the best-administered and most effective homeland security grants in the country. DHS’ recent move to also make the HSGP application process less competitive—it announced preliminary allocations in the application guidance—makes it difficult to speculate about the model DHS will ultimately adopt for funding, if it adopts a single model at all. Nevertheless, the direct, competitive model is still in use because of its proven effectiveness in delivering targeted funding to priority recipients. The NIPP provides solid direction for securing the nation’s infrastructure. It provides a sector-by-sector strategy that includes involvement from public and private organizations at all levels. Unfortunately, the impact of the NIPP is going to be largely dependent on the funding Congress puts behind it. The Buffer Zone Protection Program has never gotten past the $50 million mark nationwide, probably because its expansive mandate makes the funding too diffuse and reduces the program’s impact, so it hasn’t been a priority for expansion. Focused, sector-specific funding is going to figure in the future of homeland security funding. Not only do DHS strategies like the 2009 2008 5 Top online grant research resources www.rkb.us The Responder Knowledge Base provides links to DHS program guidance and direct access to the Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program (CEDAP) program for a broad range of first responders. It also provides a database of eligible equipment and a current version of the IAB Standardized Equipment List and G&T Authorized Equipment List. www.ojp.usdoj.gov/funding/funding.htm The Funding Opportunities page hosted by the Office of Justice Programs provides a functional list of current and archived opportunities from OJP, NIJ and other public safety funding sources. It also provides reference information for a wide range of public safety issues. www.grants.gov As the Federal Electronic Grants Clearinghouse at grants.gov continues to gain traction, users are placing increasing pressure on the site to simplify its time-consuming registration process. In the meantime, if you’re planning to use the site to apply for a grant for the first time, allow yourself two weeks to get registered as an Authorized Organization Representative. www.grantsoffice.com This subscriber-service database created by the grants services firm Grants Office, LLC, captures federal, state and foundation grant programs and provides tools to manage and report on grantseeking across the organization. Associated .info sites contain information on a wide array of preparedness and response grant programs and offer free weekly newsletters on developments in the field and funding news. www.foundationcenter.org The Foundation Center’s subscriber-service database contains information on foundation giving across the country. If you don’t have a subscription, you can often find these resources at your local library. NIPP identify and parse each of the sectors that make up the landscape of homeland security but they also define a set of objectives specific to each sector. As funding continues to tighten and Congress faces difficult decisions about what to fund and what to cut, targeted, sector-specific programs will provide the greatest potential impact and also allow DHS to respond where the need and the vulnerability are greatest. HST SENSAPHONE REMOTE MONITORING SOLUTIONS ® P ROTECT Y OUR: EMERGENCY RESPONSE CENTER VACCINE STORAGE DATA CENTER COMPUTER ROOM OTHER CRITICAL FACILITIES Notification Via: Monitor For: SENSAPHONE products provide remote monitoring of critical equipment and facilities. Abnormal conditions generate immediate alarm notification along with detailed data history. www.sensaphone.com 877-373-2700 Contract GS-07F-9463S 2 00 9 Guide to Homeland Security Grants HS T o day G72009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=8http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=8STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Cross-funding and the requirement for coordination THIS YEAR’S HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING PROGRAMS EXTEND THE TREND OF ENCOURAGING COORDINATION AMONG THE VARIOUS FUNDING SOURCES SUPPORTING LOCAL REGIONS’ ACTIVITIES TO INCLUDE LOCAL COST SHARING. THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT BRINGS LOCAL FUNDING, WHICH MAY COME FROM LOCAL GOVERNMENT TAX ROLLS, BOND ISSUES OR OUTSIDE PRIVATE-SECTOR CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE PROJECT, INTO THE POOL OF RESOURCES THAT NEED TO BE COORDINATED FOR SEVERAL APPLICATIONS FOR SECURITY-RELATED FUNDING PROGRAMS. FOUNDATION AND OTHER PRIVATE-SECTOR FUNDING HAVE BEEN A MISSING COMPONENT IN THE GROWING TREND TOWARD DEMONSTRATING COORDINATION OF RESOURCES IN LOCAL PROJECTS. Requiring documentation of coordinated funding is certainly nothing new in the grantmaking world. In fact, it’s quite common for funders to ask what other resources are being leveraged to support a particular project. However, that question is normally open ended, asking for a list of other sources of funding from anywhere, with no way of determining whether the list is comprehensive, nor is there usually any way to check on the veracity of the claims of support the grantseeker is making. The homeland security funding landscape is different in that there are a set of funding sources that are known to provide funding to specific municipalities and that should be leveraged, or at least have their role defined, for regional projects. Most projects, for example, will contain a communications component, even if communications are not the primary focus of the projects. In those cases, every source that supports communications for the agencies that are participating in the projects should be brought to bear for each application. Tips for building effective collaborations Consider what agencies/sectors would benefit and could contribute to the outcomes of the project Create a clear, written vision and descriptive title for the project Explain what need the project will address Explain what approach you are planning to take Explain how you will know when you have achieved success Provide a draft timeline List who has been committed and who has been invited to participate Include a draft budget, including shared costs and costs that will be borne by each collaborator in the project Get executive buy-in to the project Form a core planning team of the most relevant collaborators Break out collective costs and participant costs (funders may support individual or collective efforts) Consider resources the group has to pursue Expect to seek funding over a 12-month period 2009 2008 Benefits of cross-funding Integrating the range of funding sources prior to launching a local security project is more than just an exercise in accounting. In fact, most high-level DHS plans, including the National Response Framework (NRF) and the National Infrastructure Protection Plan, and even the more tactical guidelines like the NRF Emergency Support and Incident Annexes and the National Incident Management System depend on collaborative response capability, predicated on joint planning. In the 32-page Nuclear/Radiological Incident Annex alone, the word “coordinated” and related words like “coordination” appear at least 164 times. The more agencies you have involved in a project at the outset, the more likely they are to dovetail with the regional approach, rather than defecting from the rest of the group. The fewer noncompliant modules that spring up from these projects, the more failure-proof the project becomes and the more likely you will be to be able to consciously add to the project as new applications, systems and requirements become available. This emphasizes the operational benefit of coordination, but there’s also a funding benefit tied to coordinating different sources of funding. More funding is generally requested for bigger projects, and more funding is usually made available. The Assistance to Firefi2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=9http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=9STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING The result of coordinating these funding sources for the range of potential applicants can dramatically expand the pool of funding for a needed project, in addition to broadening the adoption of the project itself, as well as complying with grant requirements. 2009 2008 Pass-through vs. Direct funding Direct funding bypasses any interim step and provides funding to the recipient in a contract between the federal funder and the state local recipient end-user; for example, the Assistance to Firefighters Grants. Pass-through funding passes from the federal agency to the states, usually with a requirement that the states redistribute at least a set portion (often set at 80 percent for DHS programs) to local agencies. Pass-through can be done through formula grants, competitive grants, or in-kind distribution of equipment, or a combination of these. The federal guidelines dictate the purposes for such funds but state pass-through agencies have significant discretion in limiting the local uses of the funds to state-wide priorities. An example of this is the Emergency Management Performance Grants Program. Defenshield_HALF-ISLAND.qxd 8/19/08 5:52 PM Page 1 Programs that do and don’t require coordination Of course, not every grant program requires collaboration for every type of project. The current manifestation of this requirement began with the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). Because it encompassed five component programs (in the beginning), it was an ideal starting point for documenting coordination of those program funds, with room to add other sources as desired to demonstrate the breadth of the proposed project. It didn’t end there. The Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program requires coordination, but only for regional projects. The Hospital Preparedness Program from the Department of Health and Human Services requires that recipients certify that they have coordinated, interoperable and redundant communications with police, fire and other emergency management service providers. Several other programs encourage coordination of funding, but don’t require it. The Department of Education’s Readiness and Emergency Management for Schools program requires that memoranda of understanding (MoUs) be in place with at least three emergency management service providers and provides bonus points for additional MoUs. As noted above, the HSGP also provides additional points for multistate and multi-urban area projects. In contrast, some programs (mostly legacy programs) don’t require even a nod to coordination. The Department of Justice’s Justice Assistance Grants, for example, do not require coordination with other funding sources at all, although they certainly should appear as supplemental funding sources on other applications for funding. As with other programs in homeland security funding, when money gets tight, it is the programs and projects that can demonstrate both achievement of outcomes, a measure of project effectiveness and responsible, coordinated use of available funding (whether or not it’s specifically required by the funder) that will continue to thrive. HST Protection for Screening Officers Get 100% Coverage. Maintain Full Visibility. SafePoint Mobile Security Station™ The DS-130 series SafePoint Mobile Security Station is constructed of NIJ Level IIIA components to provide the highest level of protection against threats up to .44 Magnum handguns and is the only mobile, full coverage and field of view, bullet resistant tool on the market. Offering up to 12 square feet of viewing area and several mobility options, the DS-130 series offers protection to security personnel at a variety of locations including screening areas at courthouses, federal buildings, aviation security checkpoints, banks, correctional facilities, embassies or any secure location. SafePoints are available in four levels of protection to satisfy the ballistic threat and m2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=10http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=10STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING The 2009 Homeland Security Grant Programs All quotations are from the FY2009 Homeland Security Program Guidance. Though the deadlines for some programs have passed, next year’s deadlines for the same programs should fall in the same time frame. State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 3/20/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $861,265,000 Purpose: SHSP is a core assistance program contained within the overarching Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). SHSP provides funds to build capabilities at the state and local levels and to implement the goals and objectives included in State Homeland Security Strategies and initiatives in the State Preparedness Report. Activities implemented under SHSP must support terrorism preparedness by building or enhancing capabilities that relate to the prevention of, protection from, or response to, and recovery from terrorism in order to be considered eligible. Eligible Applicants: Eligible entities for SHSP are all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands. Available funds are distributed to each state based upon the risk and effectiveness scores associated with each application and also on a minimum allocation consistent with the statutory formula set by the Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act of 2007. All 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will receive 0.365 percent of the total funds. Four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands) will receive a minimum allocation of 0.08 percent of the total funds. State Homeland Security Program Tribal (SHSP Tribal) Funding Agency: DHS 2009 2008 Deadline: 3/20/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $1,660,000 Purpose: The purpose of this program is to provide supplemental State Homeland Security Grant Program funding to directly eligible tribes to help strengthen the nation against risks associated with potential terrorist attacks. Eligible Applicants: A “directly eligible tribe” is defined as: (A) any Indian tribe: (i) that is located in the continental United States; (ii) that operates a law enforcement or emergency response agency with the capacity to respond to calls for law enforcement or emergency services; (iii)(I) that is located on or near an international border or a coastline bordering an ocean (including the Gulf of Mexico) or international waters; (II) that is located within 10 miles of a system or asset included on the prioritized critical infrastructure list or has such a system or asset within its territory; (III) that is located within or contiguous to one of the 50 most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the United States; or (IV) the jurisdiction of which includes not less than 1,000 square miles of Indian country, as that term is defined in section 1151 of title 18, United States Code; and (iv) that certifies to the secretary that a state has not provided funds under section 2003 or 2004 to the Indian tribe or consortium of Indian tribes for the purpose for which direct funding is sought; and (B) a consortium of Indian tribes, if each tribe satisfies the requirements of (A). sity Urban Areas and to assist them in building and sustaining capabilities to prevent, protect against, respond to and recover from threats or acts of terrorism. At least 25 percent of funds allocated from UASI must build state and local law enforcement terrorism prevention capabilities. Urban Areas must use these funds to employ regional approaches to overall preparedness. Eligible Applicants: Eligible candidates for the UASI program are determined through an analysis of relative risk of terrorism faced by the 100 most populous metropolitan statistical areas in the United States. The seven highest risk urban areas, designated Tier 1 Urban Areas, compete for approximately $432009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=11http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=11STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING possible target of terrorism; (3) Role of the applicant nonprofit organization in responding to or recovering from terrorist attacks; and/or (4) Findings from previously conducted risk assessments including threat or vulnerability. 2009 2008 RCPGP sites: Boston Urban Area (Mass., NH, RI); Honolulu Urban Area (Hawaii); Norfolk Urban Area (Va., NC); and Seattle Urban Area (Wash.). Emergency Operations Center Grant Program (EOC) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 2/27/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $34,002,500 Purpose: The Emergency Operations Center (EOC) Grant Program is intended to improve emergency management and preparedness capabilities by supporting flexible, sustainable, secure and interoperable EOCs with a focus on addressing identified deficiencies and needs. Funding is intended for construction or renovation of a state, local or tribal government’s principal Emergency Operations Center (EOC). Eligible Applicants: The State Administrative Agency (SAA) of the 56 states/territories may apply for funding for all eligible state, local and tribal EOCs. Operation Stonegarden Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 1/13/2009, 3/20/2009 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $60,000,000 Purpose: Operation Stonegarden (OPSG) provides funding to designated localities to enhance cooperation and coordination between federal, state, local and tribal law enforcement agencies in a joint mission to secure the United States borders along routes of ingress from international borders to include travel corridors in states bordering Mexico and Canada, as well as states and territories with international water borders. TruDefender FT When every second counts, reliable results are at your fingertips. Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program (RCPGP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 3/20/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $34,002,500 Purpose: RCPGP is intended to support coordination of regional all-hazard planning for catastrophic events, including the development of integrated planning communities, plans, protocols and procedures to manage a catastrophic event. Eligible Applicants: One non-competitive award will be made to each of the pre-designated 11 UASI Urban Areas within the 10 RCPGP sites that received FY08 RCPGP funding, provided their application meets the minimum standards specified for FY09. Tier 1 RCPGP sites: Bay Urban Area (Calif.); Chicago Urban Area (Ill., Ind., Wis.); Houston Urban Area (Texas); Los Angeles/ Long Beach Urban Area (Calif.); National Capital Region Urban Area (DC, Va., Md., WV, Del., Pa.); New York City and Jersey City/Newark Urban Areas (NY, Conn., NJ, Pa.). Tier 2 From the makers of FirstDefender ®, the revolutionary TruDefender™ FT handheld FTIR system enables identification of an even broader range of unknown chemicals— TruDefender | FT FTIR right in the hotzone. FirstDefender Raman • Complements FirstDefender to maximize in-the-field coverage of unidentified chemicals including TICs/TIMs, chemical weapons, explosives and more • Ground-breaking design — fits in your hand, lightweight, yet rugged enough for field use • Fast and easy to use — delivers accurate results in less than a minute, even for complex mixtures For more information: call +1.978.642.1132 or visit www.ahurascientific.com/hstoday Contact us for grant assistance. Made in the USA 2 009 Guide to Homeland Security Grants H ST o da y G112009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=12http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=12STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Eligible Applicants: Eligible applicants are local units of government at the county level and federally recognized tribal governments in the states bordering Canada (including Alaska), southern states bordering Mexico and states and territories with international water borders. 2009 2008 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $14,572,500 Purpose: The Citizen Corps mission is to bring community and government leaders together to coordinate community involvement in emergency preparedness, planning, mitigation, response and recovery. Eligible Applicants: Like SHSP , the Citizen Corps Program is open to all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the Virgin Islands. CCP allocations are determined using the USA PATRIOT Act formula, which specifies that all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will receive a minimum of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding, and that four territories will receive a minimum of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. The balance of CCP funds will be distributed on a population-share basis. Deadline: 12/19/08 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $306,022,500 Purpose: The EMPG program provides resources to assist state and local governments to sustain and enhance all-hazards emergency management capabilities. States have the opportunity to use EMPG funds to further strengthen their ability to support emergency management activities while simultaneously addressing issues of national concern as identified in the National Priorities of the National Preparedness Guidelines. Eligible Applicants: Each state administrative agency is the only agency eligible to apply for EMPG funds and is responsible for passing through those funds to the state and local emergency management agencies. The allocation methodology for FY2009 EMPG dictates that all 50 states, the District of Columbia and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico will receive a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total available grant funding. Four territories (American Samoa, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands and the US Virgin Islands) will receive a base amount of 0.25 percent of the total available grant funding. The balance of EMPG funds will be distributed on a population-share basis. Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS) Program Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 3/20/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $39,831,404 Purpose: The MMRS program supports the integration of emergency management, health and medical systems into a coordinated response to mass casualty incidents caused by any hazard. Eligible Applicants: As in past years, funding is provided on a formula basis to 124 MMRS jurisdictions. Citizen Corps Program (CCP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 3/20/08 Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program Funding Agency: DHS 10 1 2 3 4 5 Tips for Getting More Grants Make grantseeking part of your agency’s strategy—don’t put all your eggs in one basket and look for funding from only a single program. Learn as much as possible about each program to which you intend to apply. Involve others in your project but be judicious; have a purpose for their involvement. Customize each proposal to the requirements of the funder. 6 7 8 Buffer Zone Protection Program (BZPP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 1/13/2009 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $48,575,000 Purpose: The funds provided by the BZPP are provided to increase the preparedness capabilities of jurisdictions responsible for the safety and security of communities surrounding high-priority Critical Infrastructure and Key Resource (CIKR) assets through allowable planning and equipment acquisition. CIKRs include highest consequence chemical facilities, nuclear power plants, higher consequence liquefied natural gas facilities, critical water/wastewater systems, higher consequence dams, transportation system critical n2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=13http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=13STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Eligible Applicants: The SAA is the only agency eligible to apply for BZPP funds and is responsible for obligating BZPP funds to the appropriate responsible units of government or other designated recipients. The identity and location of BZPP sites are considered sensitive information and are provided only to appropriate state and local officials. 2009 2008 made directly to transit agencies; the State Administrative Agency (SAA) is no longer the grantee. Identified transit systems, including rail, intracity bus and ferry systems, are eligible to receive funding. TSGP basic eligibility is derived from UASI. Eligible transit agencies were identified using a comprehensive, empirically grounded risk analysis model. Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 1/13/2009 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $388,600,000 Purpose: As a component of the Infrastructure Protection Program (IPP), the TSGP provides funds to owners and operators of transit systems (intra-city bus, commuter bus and passenger rail) to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism, major disasters and other emergencies. Eligible Applicants: In FY09, awards will be DQE_Everybody-halfpg2.qxd 1/16/07 Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 1/13/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $388,600,000 Purpose: PSGP funds support increased port-wide risk management; enhanced domain awareness; training and exercises; and further capabilities to prevent, detect, respond to and recover from attacks involving improvised explosive devices (IEDs) and other non-conventional weapons. Eligible Applicants: Entities covered by an Area Maritime Security Plan (AMSP) may an application. However, Con9:44submit AM Page 1 gress has directed DHS to apply these funds to the highest risk ports; therefore, seven port areas have been selected as Group I (highest risk) and 48 port areas have been selected as Group II. Group I has been allocated $210,649,989, and Group II has been allocated $140,014,000. Ports not identified in Group I or II are eligible to apply as a Group III or All Other Port Areas applicant, competing for a total of $32,936,011. Ferry systems have been allocated $5,000,000. Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFG) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 4/01/09 (forecast) Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $565,000,000 Purpose: The purpose of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program is to award one-year grants directly to fire departments and nonaffiliated emergency medical services (EMS) organizations in order to enhance their abilities with respect to fire and firerelated hazards. DIGNITY IN THE MIDST OF DISASTER. The Everybody Coffin provides response organizations with an alternative for managing mass fatalities by using a recognizable and traditional solution to a nontraditional problem. This unique coffin, with its patented, all natural wood design, allows for flat storage, assembly without tools and efficient stacking.For around $200, municipalities, hospitals and others now have an option when dealing with this public, yet personal issue. TM For more information on the Everybody coffin please call 1-800-355-4628 or visit dqeready.com/everybody ® 2007 DQE, Inc. Ready now for what’s next. TM 2 009 Guide to Homeland Security Grants H ST o da y G132009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=14http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=14STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Eligible Applicants: Fire departments or nonaffiliated EMS organizations that are operating in any of the 50 states plus the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa or Puerto Rico are eligible for funding. 2009 2008 Hospital Emergency Preparedness Program (HPP) Funding Agency: Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), HHS Deadline: 6/1/09 (forecast) Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $398,095,000 Purpose: The purpose of HPP funds is to improve surge capacity and enhance community and hospital preparedness for public health emergencies. Program priority areas include improving bed and personnel surge capacity, decontamination capabilities, isolation capacity, pharmaceutical supplies, interoperable communications and supporting training, education, and drills and exercises. Eligible Applicants: Health departments of all 50 states, the District of Columbia, the nation’s three largest municipalities (New York City, Los Angeles and Chicago), the commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, the territories of American Samoa, Guam and the US Virgin Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republics of Palau and the Marshall Islands are eligible to apply and receive funding from this cooperative agreement. Hospitals, outpatient facilities, community health centers, poison control centers, tribal health facilities and other healthcare partners should work directly with their state health departments regarding participation in HPP . Purpose: Public Health Emergency Preparedness funds are intended to upgrade state and local public health jurisdictions’ preparedness and response to bioterrorism, outbreaks of infectious disease and other public health threats and emergencies. Funds will be used to support projects that could serve as model systems or approaches for replication among other grantees. Eligible Applicants: Eligibility is limited to those recipients currently funded through a cooperative agreement under the program. This includes the 50 states, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, the Pacific Island Jurisdictions (American Samoa, Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, Guam, Republic of the Marshall Islands, Republic of Palau, and the Federated States of Micronesia) and the localities of Chicago, Los Angeles County, New York City and Washington, DC. Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program (IECGP) Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 1/13/09 Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $48,575,000 Purpose: IECGP provides governance, planning, training and exercise and equipment funding to states, territories, and local and tribal governments to carry out initiatives to improve interoperable emergency communications, including communications in collective response to natural disasters, acts of terrorism and other man-made disasters. Eligibility: The SAA is the only agency eligible to apply for IECGP funds. The SAA must obligate 80 percent of the funds awarded under IECGP to local and tribal governments within 45 days of receipt of the funds. Eligible pass-through recipients included local and tribal levels of government. Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grants Funding Agency: DHS Deadline: 12/01/09 (forecast) Total Funding Available in FY 2009: $114,000,000 Purpose: The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) program provides funds to states, territories, federally recognized Indian tribal governments and communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to the population and structures, while also reducing reliance on funding from actual disaster declarations. Eligible Applicants: The state emergency management agency or a similar office (i.e., the office that has primary emergency management or floodplain management responsibility) of t2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=15http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=15STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING S WITH ANY HOMELAND A SECURITY FUNDING Interoperability funders STRATEGY, ONCE THE FULL THE INTEROPERABLE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS GRANT PROGRAM (IECG) EXTENDED THE BILLION-DOLLAR PUBLIC SAFETY INTEROPERABLE COMMUNICATIONS PROGRAM INTO 2012, AND CONGRESS AUTHORIZED $400 MILLION FOR THE PROGRAM EACH YEAR FROM 2009 THROUGH 2012. HOWEVER, THE IECG ISN’T THE ONLY PROGRAM TO SUPPORT INTEROPERABILITY . ON THE CONTRARY , THE MAJORITY OF HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAMS WILL FUND INTEROPERABILITY IF THE APPLICANT CHOOSES TO USE HIS ALLOCATION—OR POTENTIAL AWARD, IN THE CASE OF COMPETITIVE GRANTS—FOR THAT PURPOSE. The Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) and Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program are two examples of this. The PSGP has established interoperable communications as one of its funding priorities in 2009, seeking to establish or enhance communications linkages between port officials and the wider public safety and emergency management community. The Assistance to Firefighters Grants’ Regional Projects area also commonly funds interoperability projects that are undertaken on a region-wide basis, between fire departments across a region, as well as among fire departments and law enforcement, hospitals, emergency medical agencies and others. Moreover, the Hospital Preparedness Program from the Department of Health and Human Services requires both interoperable and redundant communications systems between acute care hospitals and emergency management service providers. Funders are generally not as concerned with the method of achieving interoperability, be it bridging, Internet protocol-based solu11/18/08 8:55 AM Page 1 HSToday_CorpAd1208:HSToday-ZOLL0708 2009 2008 RANGE OF APPROPRIATE FUNDING PROGRAMS FROM THE FULL COMPLEMENT OF AGENCIES HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED, COORDINATION IS KEY TO ENSURING THAT COMMUNITIES AND REGIONS ARE ABLE TO MAXIMIZE THE AVAILABLE RESOURCES FOR INTEROPERABILITY. tions or a combination of approaches. They generally defer to local strategies and state plans (notably, the mandatory statewide communications interoperability plans) to drive implementation. As with any homeland security funding strategy, once the full range of appropriate funding programs from the full complement of agencies has been identified, coordination is key to ensuring that communities and regions are able to maximize the available resources for interoperability. HST CIRCULA TION SUSCI FLUID RE TAT I O N PA C I N G You want to improve survival rates. ZOLL® wants to help. We know code events in military-unique environments are complex. We also believe that products and solutions that encompass multiple facets of resuscitation, and work as a system, can help you improve survival rates. You can feel confident that every ZOLL product provides superior performance independently, and as part of our vision of a fully integrated resuscitation system. And with our Guidelines Guarantee, you can be sure that our products will take you into the future. We invite you to join us, to the benefit of patients, in advancing resuscitation today, both in our homeland and to the forward edge. For more information contact your ZOLL Sales Representative, call 1-800-804-4356, or visit ww.zoll.com/homelandsecurity. E Series® AutoPulse® ZOLL® Infuser R Series® V E N T I L AT I O N D E F I B R I L L AT I O N D O C U M E N TAT I O N I N F O R M AT I O N M ANAGEMENT AED Pro® AED Plus® CodeNet® M Series® CCT ©2008 ZOLL Medical Corporation, Chelmsford, MA, USA. “Advancing Resuscitation. Today.” , AED Plus, AED Pro, AutoPulse, CodeNet, E Series, M Series, R Series and ZOLL are registered trademarks of ZOLL Medical Corporation. 2 009 Guide to Homeland Security Grants H ST o da y G152009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=16http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=16STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Grants Glossary Abstract: A brief summary of the proposed project, frequently limited to one page. Abstracts should give a brief description of the applicant, should clearly state the goal or purpose to be supported by the grant and provide a statement of need. Also known as a “project summary” or “executive summary.” Audit: A formal review of a grantee’s use of grants funds. Audits can be financial or programmatic. Financial audits detail expenditures, while programmatic audits focus on projects’ successes, failures, benchmarks, milestones, etc. Audits are generally conducted by an outside reviewer or consultant. In many cases, auditing fees can be built into grant budgets. Many grant programs do not require grantees to perform audits, but almost all grant programs require some form of reporting. Authorizing agency: The agency administering the grant program. Block grants: Funds distributed on a formula basis to states, localities and municipalities, generally to address a specific issue or need. State and local governments are then able to determine the unique needs of their constituencies and distribute the funds accordingly. Bricks and mortar: Funding needed for construction or renovation of a building or other structure: i.e. wiring, concrete, plumbing, lumber, etc, exceeding $25,000. Bricks and mortar (or construction) funding is often used to change the footprint of an existing structure. Bridge awards: Grants awarded once the initial grant has expired to help grantees achieve a project-related goal or to continue the project until other funding can be secured. Broad Agency Announcement (BAA): See Call for proposals (CFP) Call for proposals (CFP): The announcement made by the authorizing agency requesting applications from potential grant recipients. CFPs generally contain program objectives, guidelines, eligibility, budget, award limitations and specific instructions for proposal submission. CFPs should always be carefully read and precisely followed. Also known as a request for proposal (RFP), notice of funds availability (NOFA), or broad agency announcement (BAA).). Central Contractor Registration (CCR): The Department of Defense created the CCR in an effort to consolidate the paperwork generated through its work with contractors. Through CCR, businesses and grant applicants are able to enter information about their organization directly into the database. CCR registration is required to register with www.grants.gov. Challenge grant: A grant that requires the grantee to raise a pre-determined amount of dollars from other sources in order to receive the grant. Challenge grants generally come with specific terms setting deadlines for raising additional dollars and limitations on purposes for which the money can be used. Competitive grants: Grants that are open to any applicant who meets the eligibility requirements. Competitive grants are generally announced through RFPs or CFPs. They are frequently reviewed by committees comprising volunteers who specialize in the subject area. The competitiveness of a grant program can frequently be determined by comparing the dollars available for expenditure through the program in that fiscal year to the award limit or ceiling, as stated in the RFP . Consortium: A cooperative arrangement entered into by like-minded organizations intent on pursuing a common goal. Many grant programs favor consortiums due to the likelihood that resource-sharing will lead to a broader impact and better “bang for the buck.” Even if the grant is to be awarded to the consortium, one organization within the group must serve as the lead agency and assume responsibility for administrative oversight of the grant. Cost-sharing: While “cost-sharing” and “matching” are often used interchangeably, many agencies and institutions make the following distinction: “Cost-sharing” means that some of the project costs must be assumed by the insti2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=17http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=17STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING ing. The FRC is responsible for coordinating timely delivery of resources to the requesting agency. Federal-to-federal support: Support that may occur when a federal department or agency responding to an incident under its own jurisdictional authorities requests Department of Homeland Security coordination to obtain additional federal assistance. As part of Federal-to-federal support, federal departments and agencies execute interagency or intra-agency reimbursable agreements, in accordance with the Economy Act or other applicable authorities. Form 990: The IRS form private foundations are required to submit to document their annual finances, including charitable giving. 990s can be an invaluable tool in identifying a foundation’s giving preferences and history. Formula grants: Grants distributed based on a calculation to address a specific issue or need. The calculations, or formulas, are frequently based at least in part on population. Other factors, depending upon the purpose of the grant, may include crime statistics or poverty indexes. Grant: An award made by a foundation, organization, corporation, governmental or non-governmental agency. Grants normally fund specific projects, initiatives or needs. They generally have a pre-specified time cycle (i.e. funding will be provided on an annual basis for one, two, three or four years). Grantee: The recipient of a grant. The grantee will be listed on the award letter or notice and may be an institution or an individual, depending upon the criteria and purpose of the grant program. Indirect costs: The costs incurred through a project that are not directly related to it, such as costs related to administrative support or the use and subsequent deterioration of an institution’s physical plant. Indirect costs can sometimes be recovered through a grant budget, often using a percentage of the direct costs. Some federal agencies refer to indirect costs as facilities and administration or F&A. Indirect costs are also known as overhead. Indirect cost rate: A negotiated percentage 2009 2008 of project costs that grant recipients are allowed to allocate from grant funds to cover indirect costs. In-kind match: Sometimes referred to as a “soft” match, in-kind matches are goods, services or other things of value that will directly support the requested project and are being provided through sources outside of the funder. If the RFP specifies that applicants must match a percentage of the grant and that they can do so through in-kind matches, the value of the in-kind services should be determined based on fair market prices and represented in the proposal budget. Investment justification: A form commonly used to exchange information about proposed projects for DHS funding. Typically exchanged in a spreadsheet format, the Investment Justification contains character limitations that constrain narrative portions of the application and a series of dropdown boxes that allow the applicant to align the proposed project with the National Preparedness Goal and Target Capabilities List. Lead agency: The agency or organization responsible for grant administrative oversight and proposal submission in a consortium. Letter of intent: A letter submitted prior to a proposal stating an organization’s intent to apply to a grant program. Requirements for letters of intent vary, but many federal agencies require only a statement of intent. Letters of intent help authorizing agencies to finetune their review process prior to the proposal deadline. Matching costs: See Cost-sharing. Minor renovations: Modifications to an existing facility that are required to effectively implement a funded project. Funds for minor renovations are usually capped at $25,000 (See Bricks and Mortar). Mutual Aid and Assistance Agreement: Written or oral agreement between and among agencies/organizations and/or jurisdictions that provides a mechanism to quickly ob2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=18http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=18STATE & LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO Homeland Security GRANTS & GRANTS FUNDING Operating support: Support for the basic needs of a project or organization to maintain its activities. Also known as general support. Pass-through grants: Grants awarded to a grantee, such as a state administrative agency, with the requirement that the majority, if not all, the funds then be distributed to other, generally smaller organizations or agencies. Program/project director: The individual responsible for oversight of the grant-funded initiative. In some cases, grants are awarded directly to the individual directing the project, but they are frequently awarded to the individual’s agency or organization. Program directors are generally charged with reporting responsibilities. Research grant programs generally refer to the program director as the principal investigator or PI. 2009 2008 Program officer: The individual at the authorizing agency responsible for administrative oversight of the grant program. Program officers are often extremely helpful throughout the grant application process, if applicants have thoroughly read the RFP and all other available materials yet still have additional questions. Proposal: The document(s) submitted by a grant applicant, generally in response to an RFP . While proposals vary in length and content depending upon the requirements of the grant program, they generally include a proposal narrative, explaining the needs, goals, implementation plan and evaluation plan for the proposed initiative, a budget and a budget narrative, which provides a clear and concise description of every line item on the budget. Request for proposals: See Call for proposals (CFP). Reports: Most grant programs require recipients to submit annual and final reports throughout the life of the grant. Annual reports generally include a narrative explaining successes, benchmarks achieved, the progress of the grant-funded initiative and a financial report outlining expenditures to date. Final reports generally include evaluative information from all years of the grant’s life, as well as plans for continuation and dissemination and a final budget outlining all expenses year-by-year. Seed money: The money required to launch a new project or initiative. Also known as “start-up funds.” State administrative agency (SAA): In passthrough grants, the agency responsible for accepting federal dollars and distributing them to localities and municipalities. HST Grants acronyms AFG AEL ASPR Assistance to Firefighters Grants Authorized Equipment List HHS Assistant Secretary for Preparedness and Response BAA Broad agency announcement BTCDP Bioterrorism Training and Curriculum Development Program BZPP Buffer Zone Protection Program CBP Customs and Border Protection CBRNE Chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear and explosive CCP Citizen Corps Program CCR Central Contractor Registration CDC Centers for Disease Control and Prevention CFP Call for proposals CTOP Cooperative Training Outreach Program DHS Department of Homeland Security EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grants EMS Emergency medical services EOC Emergency operations center/also the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program F&A Facilities and administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FY Fiscal year G&T Office of Grants and Training HHS Department of Health and Human Services HMEP Hazardous Materials Emergency Preparedness Grant Program HRSA Health Resources and Services Administration HSARPA Homeland Security Advanced Research Projects Agency HSGP Homeland Security Grant Program HSPD Homeland Security Presidential Directive IAB Interagency Board IECGP Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program IED Improvised explosive device IBSGP Intercity Bus Security Grant Program ICS Incident Command System IED Improvised explosive device IECG Interoperable Emergency Communications Grant Program IJ Investment justification JAG Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program L2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=19http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=19essential reading “I have to again compliment you on a fine magazine. .Yours is one of only two or three magazines/journals that I religiously read cover to cover.As an Instructor for the NYPD Emergency Service Unit, I find that my time is limited. I do however, make the time to read HSToday and keep all the issues for reference.” Detective Karl E. Duenzl New York City Police Department Emergency Service Unit Specialized Training School Subscribe today at www.HSToday.us2009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=20http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/2009StateLocalManagersGuidetoHomelandSecurityGrantsFunding/?Page=20Panasonic recommends Windows Vista® Business. LEGALLY , WE CANNOT SAY YOU DECIDE WHEN IT’S TIME TO STOP WORKING. INTRODUCING THE NEW PANASONIC TOUGHBOOK F8. At just 3.7 lbs., the business-rugged Panasonic Toughbook® F8 is the world’s lightest notebook with a 14.1- inch widescreen LCD and DVD drive. But don’t be fooled by appearances, this laptop is no lightweight. With a magnesium alloy case, shock-mounted hard drive and spill-resistant design, the Toughbook F8 is engineered to withstand inevitable drops, spills and bangs. Wi-Fi plus optional embedded GobiTM 3G global mobile Internet (WWAN) and up to 6-hour battery life keep you connected and productive no matter how long it takes to get the job done. The reliable Panasonic Toughbook F8 is ready to work when you are—anytime, anywhere. panasonic.com/toughbook/state&local 1.888.357.1126 THE RUGGED ORIGINAL. Intel, Intel logo, Intel Centrino, Intel Centrino logo, Intel Inside, Intel Inside logo and Pentium are trademarks or registered trademarks of Intel Corporation or its subsidiaries in the United States and other countries. Toughbook notebook PCs are covered by a 3-year limited warranty, parts and labor. To view the full text of the warranty, log on to panasonic.com/business/toughbook/support.asp. Please consult your Panasonic representative prior to purchase. ©2009 Panasonic Corporation of North America. All rights reserved. QUALCOMM is a registered trademark of QUALCOMM Incorporated. Gobi is a trademark of QUALCOMM Incorporated. StopWorking_SL_FY08-22009-02-02T20:54:30+01:00