To view this site you need Adobe Flash Player and your browser must allow javaScripts. Go here to get the latest Flash Player. FUNDING & RESOURCES Echoes of past failures BY MICHAEL PADDOCK IF THERE IS AN OPTIMAL METHOD FOR DISTRIBUTING HOMELAND SECURITY FUNDING, THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) HASN’T HIT ON IT YET. THE AWARD PROCESS FOR THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM (HSGP), THE AGGREGATE PROGRAM THAT INCLUDES THE STATE HOMELAND SECURITY PROGRAM AND THE URBAN AREAS SECURITY INITIATIVE, HAS GONE FROM A PURELY POPULATION-BASED FORMULA TO A “QUASI-COMPETITIVE” MODEL AND BACK TO PRE-ALLOCATION BASED ON A COMBINATION OF FACTORS, WITH MINOR ADJUSTMENTS (PLUS OR MINUS 10 PERCENT) POSSIBLE BASED ON THE “ANTICIPATED EFFECTIVENESS” OF AN APPLICANT’S PROJECT. Of course, there are pros and cons to each method of distribution, and for better or worse, first responders across the country have experienced them. Purely population-based allocations don’t take into account the increased threats associated with such regional nuances as shipping centers, national monuments and other special circumstances that are likely to make a project more or less impactful. The competitive approach requires a high level of organization and planning to ensure the review process is meaningful and pushes funding out to the most needed projects— a feat which was not achieved to any significant degree during the past two years’ “quasi-competitive” grant rounds. Instead, awards in the more competitive environment look remarkably like the awards allocated in this year’s noncompetitive HSGP cycle. The combined approach of 2009 has the potential to encompass both types of problems. If DHS has the capacity to evaluate the potential effectiveness of a project, based on a set of objective criteria, to concentrate funds on projects that address a significant need or could produce significant results in advancing progress toward the National Preparedness Guidelines, why not distribute all the funding that way? Admittedly, part of the issue is the sheer size of the program. Whenever any grant program rises to the $750 million level or so, it tends to get pushed out through the states to ensure that everyone gets a piece of the funding. If most of the states aren’t at least somewhat represented in the awards, they will complain—and rightly so, because some of the money for the program has come from them. funded, rather than those who could benefit most and maximize the impact of the funding. A standard, predictable procedure is needed, followed all the way to the local distribution of funds, where the statute requires the funds go anyway. Transparency If you ask a citizen of a state where homeland security funds went, he might point you to the state’s homeland security website. However, there is no standardization in the way states communicate that information to their citizens (many are still showing information from 2004), and the federal process for tracking and reporting sub awards is moving at a glacial pace. It should be clear who received awards and for what purposes. For the sake of security, of course, some of the details may be redacted. HENEVER ANY GRANT W PROGRAM RISES TO THE $750 MILLION LEVEL OR SO, IT TENDS TO GET PUSHED OUT THROUGH THE STATES TO ENSURE THAT EVERYONE GETS A PIECE OF THE FUNDING. But it is possible to manage a large program in an open, competitive environment with clear evaluative criteria and still ensure equitable distribution of the funds. It’s being modeled from within DHS in the form of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP). In spite of the fact that the US Fire Administration distributes over $500 million through more than 6,000 grant awards each year, AFGP runs a competitive, direct program that not only monitors and tracks individual awards but also determines on a case by case basis which awards will have the greatest impact. Using what we’ve learned from the AFGP , here are several criteria you can use to determine whether the HSGP is being distributed in a way to achieve maximum impact. Consider your own homeland security funding experiences to determine how well DHS is doing. Standards For all the advances DHS has made in creating and promulgating standards and goals, there seems to be little correlation between the decision to award grants and DHS’ goals, standards and priorities. Collecting scant information up front impedes the ability of DHS and state officials to determine whether past funding was used optimally, and, more importantly, it continues to obscure a clear understanding of how impactful future awards might be. The Office of Grants and Training at DHS seems intent on finding the right method for passing out funds—that much is clear from their annual tinkering. Admittedly, the process is constrained somewhat by the authorizing statute for HSGP , the Implementing the Recommendations of the 911 Commission Act of 2007. But more can be done, and should be done, to ensure that the scarce resources being devoted by the nation to its own security are being put to the best possible use. HST Michael Paddock is CEO of Grants Office LLC. He can be reached at MPaddock@grantsoffice.com. Predictability Many first responders around the country are unaware of the best means for requesting that their projects be funded with HSGP , and the process changes from state to state and from year to year. Consequently, it is often the savviest advocates who are able to lobby effectively to get their projects Register online today for exclusive online content and eNewsletters HSToday Magazine | April 2009 9