Click here to download the catalog as a PDF file. 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 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 infrastructure protection, and most aligned with the NIPP , but depending on the state’s priorities and funding, of course, security for relevant infrastructure sectors are funded through the Homeland Security Grant Program and other sources at the state and local level, as well. As an example, California alone has spent $50 million on water security in the past three years. Another interesting aspect of the TSGP and PSGP programs is their funding model. Whereas the HSGP and Emergency Management Performance Grants, to name two, are funded through the state administrative agencies, the TSGP and PSGP provide support directly to local recipients. They submit competitive applications directly to DHS, receive awards that are provided to the agencies or their selected fiduciary agents and submit reports to DHS. This model of funding is also in use for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, one of G6 HS T od ay Guide to Homeland Security Grants 2009