http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/RSS.ashxiPaper PagesTue, 03 Feb 2009 01:56:29 +0100http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=1http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=1SPECIAL SECTION: 2009 STATE AND LOCAL MANAGERS’ GUIDE TO HS GRANTS HomelandSecurityToday H O M E L A N D S E C U R I T Y I N S I G H T & A N A LY S I S February 2009 Vol. 6, No. 2 $5.95 USD ™ Could Mexico Fail? By Brian Michael Jenkins The Savage Struggle Part II Plus… Guarding the Food Front Fire: After Mumbai, the oldest terror re-emerges The search for bomb detection at a distance2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=2http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=2THE ENEMY IS UNCERTAINTY. What’s out there? What’s next? What’s around the corner? Our goal at DRS is to help defeat this common enemy, to turn questions into answers. Make the unknown known, and give your people the tools to succeed. In the field, you want answers. Which is why DRS continuously improves the technology to see more and know more within an ever-changing environment: night vision and vehicle sight enhancement products, tactical computers and communications tools that inform and enable personnel wherever they may be. Bring us your toughest challenges. We’re always looking for new enemies to conquer. www.drs.com2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=3http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=3DEPARTMENTS 3 4 Editor’s Letter Which way for FEMA? Updates & Responses • Napolitano takes the reins • US Border Patrol meets 18,000-agent goal 7 Frontlines R&D and winning the “long war” against terror BY PAUL HOMMERT Could Mexico Fail? The Savage Struggle Part II By Brian Michael Jenkins 9 Responders Today Building a better rolling information center BY PHILIP LEGGIERE 12 Nebraska Ave. The fate of FEMA BY KELLEY VLAHOS • DHS Roster The United States may discover one day that it has a failed state on its southern border. A veteran counterterror analyst looks at the possibilities and America’s options in response. 26 Guarding the Food Front By Kelley Vlahos 15 Agency Spotlight USDA: IT down on the farm BY HANK HOGAN 21 32 16 Milestone 1 The search for standoff BY LAKSHMI SANDHANA 19 Market Monitor Mergers and acquisitions in abeyance BY PHILIP FINNEGAN People don’t usually think of the US Department of Agriculture when they think of homeland security but the department is playing a vital role in protecting what we eat—and what we grow. 40 Leadership Profile Craig Coy L-3 Communications After Mumbai: Facing the Flames By Scott Sweetow One of terrorism’s oldest, deadliest and most terrifying weapons is in use again. A senior ATF agent puts it into a modern context. RESOURCES 38 Tradeshow circuit 38 Advertiser index • After Action: Mumbai Terror and the 11-Connection By SK Dogra COVER PHOTO: A Mexican marine stands guard as 26 tons of cocaine burns behind him in Manzanillo, Mexico, on Nov. 28, 2007. The drugs were seized from a ship in the port city of Manzanillo in one of the biggest drug busts on record. (AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo) From India, a seasoned police officer reports on patterns of terrorism that bear further examination. 2009 State and Local Managers’ Guide to Homeland Security Grants • Making the most of homeland security funding • Changes for 2009 • Infrastructure protection funding By Michael Paddock Read more articles online at • Cross-funding and the requirement for coordination • Interoperability funders • The 2009 HS Grant Programs www.HSToday.us2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=4http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=4When the responsibility rests on your shoulders, let the reliability rest on ours. Providing your people with tools they need to remain connected and on task is an enormous responsibility. As America’s most reliable wireless voice and data network, Verizon Wireless understands the rigorous demands of government agencies. From interoperability to supporting continuity initiatives, Verizon Wireless is providing the eld-proven solutions your agency needs today—with scalable support for tomorrow. Schedule a custom audit of your department’s wireless voice and data readiness. Click www.verizonwireless.com/gov Call 800.657.7649 America’s most reliable wireless network claim based on fewest aggregate blocked and dropped connections. See verizonwireless.com/bestnetwork for details. © 2009 Verizon Wireless. GOVHSTREST2092009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=5http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=5EDITOR’S LETTER Which way for FEMA? ONE OF THE BIGGEST ORGANIZATIONAL QUESTIONS CONFRONTING THE NEW SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) AND CONGRESS IS WHAT TO DO WITH THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) AND WHETHER IT SHOULD REMAIN WITHIN DHS. THERE ARE STRONG ARGUMENTS TO BE MADE ON BOTH SIDES BY PEOPLE WITH CREDIBILITY AND KNOWLEDGE. With considerable trepidation, we will argue for keeping FEMA within DHS. If FEMA has effective, competent leadership, cooperation from the secretary of DHS and the rest of the department, top-rate personnel and management, sufficient funding, congressional support, no political interference and a clear and open pipeline to an intelligent and engaged president determined to protect the people of the United States from natural hazards, it can do its job even under the DHS umbrella. Those are all big ifs. But this is a time for hope, and we are willing to hope that those ifs will be fulfilled. 100 percent probability of occurring at some point. An independent FEMA would again give all disasters 100 percent of its attention,” he wrote. The historical argument is based on FEMA’s woeful performance after Hurricane Katrina. Ever after there has been the sense that FEMA failed because of its inclusion in DHS, and it could get nothing right while it was a part of the department. BY DAVID SILVERBERG From history to hope Added to the more abstract arguments for keeping FEMA within DHS is the historical experience: After Hurricane Katrina, Congress was unable to break FEMA out of DHS. In fact, despite considerable debate, a majority of Congress couldn’t even vote to change FEMA’s name to something with less odium—and that was when FEMA was at its lowest ebb. Those who see FEMA as irredeemably spoiled would do well to heed President Obama’s comments in his famous Philadelphia speech about the Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Obama was then talking about race, but his view can apply to anyone who sees things—including organizations—as unchanging stereotypes rather than reality. Wright’s mistake, said Obama, was that “he spoke as if our society was static; as if no progress has been made.” However, Obama pointed out, “what we know—what we have seen—is that America can change. That is the true genius of this nation. What we have already achieved gives us hope—the audacity to hope—for what we can and must achieve tomorrow.” As it is for the nation, so it is for its government and even something as specific as an agency within a department. FEMA has proven that it can change, and so can DHS. It seems the wisest course to provide FEMA with the best possible leadership within its existing structure. However, should it fail in the future, we will be the first to call for new and radical remedies. Whatever happens, HSToday will be covering FEMA as part of America’s homeland security into the future. HST For the status quo The argument for keeping FEMA within DHS is that it’s time to end “boxology”—the moving around of organizational boxes— and that further reorganization will harm both FEMA and DHS, which have managed to integrate their operations since Hurricane Katrina.Virtually every think-tank and academic expert has made this argument, not to mention Michael Chertoff, the former DHS secretary. To that argument I would add the fact that Administrator R. David Paulison proved that FEMA, under good leadership and with cooperation from both the secretary and the president, can effectively accomplish its mission while part of DHS. On Paulison’s watch, FEMA won praise for its performance in every disaster since he assumed control—and this from some of its bitterest critics. The lesson seems to be that competent leadership makes a difference, and another competent administrator can perform similarly. Another argument is that disaster mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery are integral to the homeland security discipline as a whole. At HSToday, we have long argued that homeland security is 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=6http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=6UPDATES & RESPONSES Napolitano takes the reins ARIZONA GOV. JANET NAPOLITANO (D) was whisked through the Senate confirmation process and sworn in as the third secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) on Jan. 21, immediately following the inauguration of President Barack Obama. (HSToday provided a look at Napolitano’s time as governor last month in the article “Arizona Under Napolitano.”) The day she took the oath of office, Napolitano launched a sweeping review of DHS’ mission and operations, sending out an “action directive” ordering the offices covering critical infrastructure protection, risk analysis, state and local intelligence sharing, transportation security and state, local and tribal integration to prepare reports on the status of their efforts. The purpose of the review, Napolitano said in a department press release, was to “begin a review, evaluation and dialogue between the various functions of this department and me. I look forward to receiving the information and to working with the offices and agencies involved to make DHS a more effective and a more efficient department.” The directive is intended to answer such questions as:What is the current status of the critical infrastructure list, relations with the 18 sector security councils and the other departments that have critical infrastructure protection roles? PHONE: HSToday WWW.HSToday.US ™ P.O. Box 9789, McLean, Va. 22101-3611 800-503-6506 FAX: 866-503-5758 PUBLISHER Kimberley S. Hanson-Brown PHONE: 800-503-6506 khanson@HSToday.us EDITOR David Silverberg PHONE: 703-757-0520 editor@HSToday.US SENIOR REPORTER Anthony Kimery akimery@HSToday.us BUSINESS EDITOR Philip Leggiere Business@HSToday.us WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENTS Mickey McCarter Kelley Vlahos REGIONAL CORRESPONDENTS NORTH AMERICA What are the plans to enhance protection? How do we enhance private sector participation? What is the status of risk analysis metrics and what is the plan and time frame for setting up a full-blown system to govern the establishment of critical infrastructure programs, the priorities among national planning scenarios, and the distribution of grants to state, local, and tribal entities? More broadly, how can DHS enhance risk management as the basis of decision making? The most sweeping element of the directive orders the DHS Office of Intergovernmental Affairs to begin contacting every relevant governmental association and prepare for “an accelerated process” of gathering input from state, local and tribal jurisdictions on how to improve DHS programs and processes. Later action directives will cover preparedness, response, recovery and immigration, according to the press release. Word on the plans of former Secretary Michael Chertoff were not available. —BY DAVID SILVERBERG, EDITOR Chuck Hustmyre—New Orleans Jeff O’Neill—Boston Jana Schroeder—Mexico City Michael Peltier—Tallahassee WR Stephens—Toronto Liza Porteus Viana—New York EUROPE Matt Baglio—Rome Raffaello Pantucci—London COLUMNISTS Philip Finnegan Michael Paddock Science Correspondent Lakshmi Sandhana IT Correspondent Hank Hogan CONTRIBUTING WRITERS SK Dogra Paul Hommert Brian Michael Jenkins Scott Sweetow COPY EDITOR PROOFREADER Kelly Medina Kristen Loesch ART DIRECTOR Michelle Wandres PHONE: 301-972-2682 FAX: 301-972-2892 production@HSToday.US SUBSCRIBER SERVICES Debbie Young PHONE: 1-800-503-6506 FAX: 1-866-503-5758 subscriptions@hstoday.us HSToday is published monthly by KMD Media LLC, 6800 Fleetwood Road, Suite 1114, McLean, Va. 22101-3611. Annual subscription rates: $49.95 for 12 issues U.S. domestic mail; $69.95 Canada; $99.95 international mail. Periodicals postage paid at McLean, VA, and additional mailing offices. POSTMASTER: Send address change to HSToday, P.O. Box 292995, Dayton, OH 45429-8995. © Copyright 2009 HSToday. All rights reserved US Border Patrol meets 18,000-agent goal On Dec. 18, 2008, the Customs and Border Protection (CBP) directorate of the Department of Homeland Security and the US2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=7http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=7Additional savings for qualified federal, state, and local employees Federal employee customers stay with GEICO for an average of 12 years Created in 1936 to serve government employees 97% customer satisfaction .and counting WE DON’T OFFER FEDERAL EMPLOYEES SPECIAL TREATMENT. (Just special savings.) ® GEICO is sponsoring a program with the Council for Excellence in Government, which created a website for new, young federal employees. To find out more, visit YoungFeds.org. Customer satisfaction based on an independent study conducted by Alan Newman Research, 2008. Some discounts, coverages, payment plans and features are not available in all states or in all GEICO companies. Government Employees Insurance Co.• GEICO General Insurance Co. • GEICO Indemnity Co. • GEICO Casualty Co. These companies are subsidiaries of Berkshire Hathaway Inc. GEICO auto insurance is not available in Mass. Average tenure for GEICO policyholders in the government is based on national GEICO policyholder data as of July 2008. GEICO gecko image © 1999-2009. GEICO, Washington, DC 20076.©2009 GEICO2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=8http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=82009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=9http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=9FRONT LINES R&D and winning the “long war” against terror BY PAUL HOMMERT THE EVENTS OF SEPT. 11, 2001, CREATED A SENSE OF URGENCY AND IMMEDIACY IN THIS NATION NOT SEEN SINCE THE EARLY DAYS OF THE COLD WAR. recall the role that nuclear weapons have played in the national security of this country. Since 1945, this nation has successfully developed a sustained deterrent that has served as the backbone of our military arsenal. Technological superiority with longterm investment played a critical role in winning the ColdWar. Similarly, winning the “Long War”—combating the potential use of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by terrorists—requires a comparable level of diligence and enduring vigilance. Various sectors—including private industry, national laboratories, government and academia—responded and have done a great deal to more effectively protect the nation. Airport security is much stricter than it once was. Security at our ports and borders has been bolstered. Advances in technologies aimed at detecting, deterring and responding to terrorist attacks are real and significant. Yet, out of necessity, those achievements were primarily realized within a do-it-now political and practical framework. The post9/11 period emphasized deploying nearterm solutions to perceived critical threats, and the nation effectively stepped up to that challenge. Now, the federal government’s approach to homeland security needs to come of age and should include a comprehensive, longterm, systematic and strategic approach with appropriate investments. The government must steward relevant homelandsecurity skills, capabilities and facilities, along with difficult-to-advance, high-risk, high-reward concepts that take time to mature. A long-term commitment to homeland security research and development (R&D) is essential. This shift is especially important as other emerging national priorities have taken the focus away from homeland security. With the financial crisis, energy costs and the Iraq war, terrorism seems to have taken a back seat to other pressing concerns. We should not forget, however, that the last two terrorist attacks against the United States occurred within the first year of a new administration. So it is not unreasonable to suggest, as some already have, that Al Qaeda is devising its next attack at a time when homeland security is not as prominent on our national radar screen. threats by creating trusted networks using untrusted components.What we are able to do in the first hours of an attack makes enormous differences in the consequence to our nation. The new agenda These are “game-changing” homelandsecurity capabilities. For any of these to have a chance at becoming a reality, the following needs to take place: We must establish a relevant risk-based, long-term national strategy and investment in homeland security R&D. We must maintain national vigilance to address high-consequence, low-probability threats posed by WMD. We must ensure societal resiliency to future attacks by addressing response and recovery levels and use. We must encourage the use of systems analysis, tools and methodologies to guide development and engineering solutions that operate effectively in complex and dynamic conditions. We must develop robust processes to transition promising R&D concepts into operation and into use by first responders. And finally, we must perform a comprehensive review of different governance structures to determine the best ways to integrate the national R&D community—academia, industry and national labs. A successful war on terror andWMD will require a thorough and enduring effort, one that can be expected to last decades. The level of diligence and dedication needs to be on a par with the nation’s steadfastness during the Cold War and our 50-year commitment to a nuclear deterrent. We have not witnessed a successful major terrorist event against the United States since Sept. 11, 2001—but will we be able to utter that statement 50 years2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=10http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=10Talk as one. Work as one. Introducing the next-generation Harris Unity™ XG-100 Multiband Radio—now available to federal, state, and local agencies. From the company that developed the world’s first multiband land mobile radio comes an all-new, lightweight model for joint public safety operations. With frequency band coverage from 136 to 870 MHz, extended battery life, and full P25 compliance, it enables you to connect with responders from any agency, whether they’re on analog or digital. Wherever you are, whatever the operation, carry the one radio that unites the entire team. To order, call 1-888-711-7295. For more on interoperability, visit www.talkasone.com/HST2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=11http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=11RESPONDERS TODAY Building a better rolling information center BY PHILIP LEGGIERE, BUSINESS EDITOR LT. JOSH CLOT OF THE HOMESTEAD POLICE DEPARTMENT IN HOMESTEAD, FLA., KNOWS WHAT IT’S LIKE TO BE ON THE RECEIVING END OF EMERGENCY RESPONSE AND TO FIND IT WANTING. Sixteen years ago, after Hurricane Andrew wracked Southern Florida, scores of emergency units from throughout the state converged on his hometown, which had been decimated by the storm. “We learned in a personal way just why a fully equipped operation ready emergency vehicle is critical,” Clot told HSToday. “During and after the storm, rescue and response crews from throughout the state and region converged on us. The problem was that once they got to us they were expecting us to provide them with communications infrastructure, with supplies and with logistics support. The problem, of course, was we didn’t have any of those things. From then on we vowed that when we were on the helping end of a crisis we’d be fully response ready. Our formula is: ‘If you don’t bring it, you won’t have it in an emergency.’” Over the past few years, Clot said, the kind of emergency units that he wished had existed during Hurricane Andrew— vehicles that not only transport teams to the scene of a crisis but actually provide critical communications infrastructure when normal operating systems are down—have finally begun to become available to response agencies. “The emergency vehicle has finally changed itself into a rolling information center,” he said. EMERGENCY RESPONSE VEHICLES “The challenge and innovation now is more about the software side,” Bohne added. “We’ve become dependent on restoring resiliency to areas facing disruption of communications processes. The line of innovation for us has been to create a truly resilient and flexibly scaleable communications platform that can be easily set up on the fly. If a disaster knocks down all lines and cell towers in an area, we can re-create a temporary fully functional infrastructure.” In November 2008, Verizon demonstrated its next-generation mobile command at the “Great ShakeOut Drill,” a full-scale scenario in California that simulated a catastrophic 7.8 magnitude earthquake occurring along the southern portion of the San Andreas Fault. The exercise included over 4 million citizens. Verizon deployed a 53-foot, self-contained, self-sufficient mobile communications command center to provide business continuity services for Riverside County. During the exercise, the entire Riverside County Emergency Operations Center relocated to the mobile command center. Twenty Riverside County employees connected their laptops to the command center’s Ethernet ports to access the Internet and conduct emergency response activities. The mobile command center was outfitted with standard communications features such as wired and wireless voice over Internet protocol phones and wired and wireless Ethernet access, as well as fax service. Tremendous strides A central achievement of these next-generation “rolling information centers,” according to Bob Bohne, director of technical operations forVerizon Business, Basking Ridge, NJ, is to make mobile command communications as fully functional as traditional emergency command centers in office buildings. “Back in the ’90s and even for the first years after 9/11, emergency vehicles made tremendous strides forward on what might be called the ‘hardware’ side,” Bohne recalled,“meaning the speed,the power and the flexibility of the vehicles themselves. Next steps The next communications frontier, according to Christopher Boyd, communications architect at Incident Communication Solutions, LLC, Stevensville, Md., a communications system integrator that works with many leading emergency vehicle manufacturers, is to make emergency mobile command vehicles tools for effective interagency incident response. “What Katrina made us in the mobile command, emergency vehicle space realize,” Boyd recalled, “was that the true test of an 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=12http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=12RESPONDERS TODAY THEY’LL GET THE MESSAGE. ALERT FM™ allows emergency managers to send critical information to targeted recipients like citizens, businesses and first responders in seconds. This personal alert and messaging system transmits messages using the data subcarrier of local FM stations. It’s Reliable. It’s Affordable. And it’s available right now. So don’t let another emergency strike before contacting us today to find out how you can better protect your citizens with ALERT FM. cussed wireless communications with the client,” said Boyd. “I was told they would just wait for the phone company to run lines to the vehicle. Today, our clients want real time situation reports while going down the road at 80 miles per hour, and we can do it.” The challenge beyond integrating a greater capacity for communications self-sufficiency, added Boyd, is to build a detailed concept of operations into a vehicle. “In the military, it’s long been understood that technology is a force multiplier,” he said. “Operations have become increasingly networked in the military. Recent developments have made that same goal an imperative for civilian first responders, as well, and the epicenter of that strategic shift is the mobile command unit.” The progress that’s been made toward approximating that goal, according to Boyd, could be seen in the coordinated mobile response to hurricanes Ike and Gustav. “You saw much tighter coordination between fire, police, emergency management, the National Guard and the Army’s US Northern Command (Northcom),” Boyd said. “For both the Texas and Louisiana storms, you had literally hundreds of mobile units dispatched before the incident, dispersed throughout the disaster region, all working with the same operations plan, all with a common operation picture.” “During Katrina, mobile units deployed by the Army were simply not working with a common picture with state and local emergency workers,” he added. “If you study how mobile command units were deployed in a coordinated fashion in the lead up to Gustav, you see a world of difference” Throughout that storm and its aftermath, a fleet of 33-foot trucks with 2.6-meter (7-foot) satellite dishes provided the Army North Operational Command Post with two megabytes of connectivity per second through a commercial satellite connection. The system supported connectivity for users connected to the Department of Defense’s unclassified network and a select layer of users connected to the Defense classified network supporting voice and data connections and video teleconferencing. Even as the winds from Gustav picked up, users still were able to communicate and access the Defense unclassified network at a speed of about 200 kilobits per second over a high-speed cellular network. “At the height of the storm,” Boyd said, “responders throughout the state were connected to and using NIMS [the National Incident Management System] incident command structure. Three years ago that would have been completely unthinkable.” Conclusion 1-866-869-5180 www.ALERTFM.com Getting the myriad of first response agencies to act in concert in high stress emergency situations remains an ongoing challenge. In addressing that challenge, there has been progress both in providing both a common “playbook” (NIMS) and common communications standards for public safety interoperability. As necessary as these new platforms are, a big gap has persisted in making these standards fully actionable, not only in a fixed emergency operations center environment but also in real time in the field. The newest generation of mobile command units is enabling response teams to overcome that gap for the first time. HST This month’s issue is now available online at… 10 February 2009 | www.HSToday.us2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=13http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=13All Bands. All Modes. Full Encryption. Same Size. One Radio. Thales Communications, Inc., 22605 Gateway Center Drive, Clarksburg, MD 20871, www.thalescomminc.com All Bands All Modes 136-869 MHz (136-174, 380-520, 700, 800 MHz) P25 Conventional and Trunked, Analog Equal in size and weight to a single-band portable ™ Full Encryption DES, AES, OTAR Same Size For more information, email solutions@thalescomminc.com or call 1-800-258-4420 LIBERTY is a trademark of Thales Communications, Inc.2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=14http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=14NEBRASKA AVENUE Greene, who works now for the Project on National Security Reform in Washington, echoes the concern of several people interviewed by HSToday, who say ripping FEMA out would not bring instant satisfaction—or even the “status quo” of the pre-DHS days. FEMA was folded into the mammoth new DHS in 2003, but some note that FEMA had experienced cultural and operational problems before then, too. “FEMA performed poorly in the 1990s and it performed well in the 1990s, but it also performed badly and good under DHS,” said Greene. Maybe so, but reforms passed under the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and improved performances in subsequent hurricanes and floods, has not quelled the demand for a separate FEMA by some high profile members of the House and Senate and other stakeholders. In November, “the cigar-chomping leader of Hurricane Katrina’s military relief efforts,” retired Army Lt. Gen. Russell Honore, told the Politico newspaper that it was time to make the break. “I just think we’ve had some experience that demonstrates that the best thing to do is separate it,” he said, noting that the agency needs to focus “on preparing emergency responses,” and leave the prevention efforts to DHS. This seems to be a common theme— keeping the missions separate, and clear. In late December, Rep. James Oberstar (DMinn.), chairman of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee,launched an opening salvo by sending a letter to President-elect Barack Obama, complaining that FEMA’s current home at DHS impedes its ability to serve as a “quick response” agency. Days before,Oberstar released a public statement regarding a November Government Accountability Office (GAO) assessment (http://www.gao.gov/htext/d0959r.html) of the post-Katrina reforms. The report had given both high marks and mixed reviews to the various measures. Oberstar zeroed in on the areas in need of action highlighted in the report. Those included: developing guidance to states as part of the National Response Framework (NRF), establishing a required Office of Emergency Communications and creating a broad plan for boosting “surge capacity” in human resources during emergencies. Oberstar added that he is still not satisfied with the FEMA administrator’s role, The fate of FEMA BY KELLEY VLAHOS, WASHINGTON CORRESPONDENT SINCE KATRINA’S FLOODWATERS WASHED AWAY MUCH OF ITS REPUTATION THREE YEARS AGO, THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) HAS BEEN THE CENTER OF SEVERAL REFORM EFFORTS ON CAPITOL HILL. BUT NONE HAS BEEN MORE CONTROVERSIAL THAN THE PUSH TO TAKE IT OUT OF ITS CURRENT HOME AT THE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) AND MAKE IT A SEPARATE AGENCY ONCE AGAIN. Whether or not such dramatic action is in the cards for this Congress and under a new administration facing the twin challenges of war and recession remains a question. There are parties who strongly believe FEMA won’t be able to return to its preparedness and recovery roots—effectively—without a clean break from DHS. But there seems to be a sufficient number of people on Capitol Hill and among Obama Administration insiders who are willing to say at the outset that taking the agency out of DHS should not, and will not happen this year at all. “I think moving it out precipitously would be a bad idea,” said Jeff Greene, a former subcommittee director for the House Homeland Security Committee, who also worked on the Democratic staff during the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs’ post-Katrina investigation in 2005. “I think the Congress did a good job strengthening FEMA after Katrina,” he insisted in an interview with HSToday. “There was a lot done to address the issues, but what wasn’t done was to take FEMA out [of DHS]. My personal view is we need not fight the battle. One of the things I have been acutely aware of is that reorganization itself has a huge cost. Unless we really look at this carefully … I worry about whether we will have several y2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=15http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=15NEBRASKA AVENUE which was elevated to a deputy secretary position in the 2006 Senate reforms. Though, in addition, the FEMA administrator would report directly to the president during emergencies, Oberstar complained that the current relationship between administrator, DHS secretary and executive branch is still too muddy. On Dec. 18, David Norquist announced he was leaving DHS as chief financial officer and Peggy Sherry was named acting CFO in his place. …CBP appointed Michael DeBruhl acting port director for the HidalgoPharr, Texas port of entry. …TSA named Ann Nelson federal security director for Richmond International Airport after serving as deputy director at Phoenix Sky Harbor International Airport. …Jock Scharfen resigned as acting director of CIS. …Greg Garcia resigned from DHS as assistant secretary for cybersecurity and communications. …Gregory Bovino was appointed agent in charge of the Border Patrol’s Blythe, Ariz., station. DHS ROSTER Early signals “Protecting the Homeland from Day One: A Transition Plan,” a report by the Homeland Security Presidential Transition Initiative, was released in November by two Washington-based think tanks, Third Way and the Center for American Progress (CAP). Contributors to the report included a number of Obama’s top advisors, like CAP president and Obama transition chief, John Podesta, plus key homeland security advisors like Jamie Gorelick and P .J. Crowley, who is a senior fellow and director of homeland security at CAP . The report was clear where it stood on FEMA’s fate: “A decision to remove FEMA should be deferred until the completion of the Quadrennial Homeland Security Review (QHSR) in late 2009,” the report recommendation reads. “Maintaining the status quo in the first year avoids unnecessary instability and confusion at a time of elevated risk. It also provides time for the new administration to consult with congressional leadership and build support for any major changes that may be contemplated within the QHSR process.” Perhaps these signals prompted the previous, prominent proponents of a freestanding FEMA to take a more cautious stance at the end of the year. According to a spokeswoman for Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.),who had been a strong advocate during the last Congress, the senator was “certainly interested in discussing with the Obama Administration the idea of making FEMA separate and independent.” However, “she is not saying quite yet,” whether she will actively promote the separation, said the spokeswoman. “She wants the opportunity to have time to sit with them and talk about it.” Democratic and Republican leaders of both the House and Senate homeland security committees said they would fight against any move to take FEMA out of DHS this year, and were skeptical that there would be a big struggle anyway—at least in the first 100 days. “The senator feels like the (FEMA reforms are) in the process of being implemented. The department should be given a chance to operate under these 2006 reforms before people start taking [FEMA] out—there has been enough upheaval among these 22 agencies [under DHS],” asserted Lieberman spokeswoman Leslie Phillips, in an interview with HSToday. “Let’s make it work.” One Republican House Homeland Security Committee aide said the desire to keep FEMA within DHS was “bipartisan” and complained that it was a “narrow interest group” that was stirring up the pot. “There is widespread feeling among Republican members that FEMA should stay where it is,” the aide said. “The Reform Act fixed a lot of the problems.” Still waiting As of this writing, it is not clear where DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano stands on the issue but a group of state emergency management officials did not hesitate to declare the old pre-DHS FEMA much more communicable and effective. “There has been some confusion about who is running disaster operations—DHS or FEMA,” said Russell Decker, president of the International Association of Emergency Managers and director of th2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=16http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=16© 2008 Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. All rights reserved. Mobile Radiation Detection - We Have You Covered, So You Can Cover More Area Easily and Securely Mobile detection of radiological threats is paramount in today’s security environment. Thermo Scientific Matrix Mobile ARIS provides real-time results for patrol, radiation and nuclear detection, and isotope identification while allowing for unobtrusive surveillance. Thermo Fisher Scientific is dedicated to providing innovative, top quality and efficient designs to serve the detection and interdiction community. With our extensive knowledge of radiation detection, hardware / software engineering and systems integration, we offer innovative, high performance, reliable, flexible, and cost-effective solutions that anticipate the future of emergency response applications. Integrated Solutions Thermo Scientific detectors and systems provide the full coverage needed by today’s security forces. For more information on the Matrix Mobile ARIS, ViewPoint Enterprise and the full line of Thermo Scientific radiation detection products: +1 (800) 274-4212 www.thermo.com/solutions Moving science forward2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=17http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=17AGENCY SPOTLIGHT IT down on the farm BY HANK HOGAN IF YOU ARE WHAT YOU EAT, THEN EVERY AMERICAN IS BUILT AT LEAST PARTLY UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA). AMONG A HOST OF OTHER RESPONSIBILITIES, THE AGENCY IS CHARGED WITH PROTECTING THE NATION’S AGRICULTURE AND FOOD SUPPLY. THAT TASK FALLS SQUARELY IN THE HOMELAND SECURITY ARENA. PARTLY IN RESPONSE, THE AGENCY IS ACTIVELY WORKING TO REDUCE ANY INTENTIONAL, MAN-MADE THREAT, BUT IT DOES FACE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES. USDA PHOTO/SCOTT BAUER USDA a second complete configuration within another of the USDA’s four enterprise data centers. The initial step to pulling this off involves collecting data about the existing FSIS applications and technology. That will provide information for a simulation that Unisys will run, thereby finding and fixing problems before the virtualization takes place. Collecting the data and reporting back home will be handled by a tool set that Zapfel characterized as practically noninvasive. “Is there a little bit of performance hit on the network? Probably, but it’s inconsequential,” he said. Making less more Within the USDA, the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) monitors the nation’s commercial supply of meat, poultry and processed egg products, ensuring not only that they’re safe but also that they’re correctly labeled and packaged. The agency’s strategic goal is to reduce exposure to such natural hazards as salmonella, listeria and E-coli, in addition to guarding USDA computer programmer-analyst Hailiang Fu (left) and agricultural against artificially induced engineer Dennis Flanagan discuss the design of a new computer interface being developed for department users. USDA is actively disease outbreaks. That revamping its IT to further its homeland security mission. involves periodic inspections of hundreds of sometimes small prois virtualization of the infrastructure,” he cessing plants scattered across the country, told HSToday. with reports and recommended actions Reducing the number of servers and filed as a result of those visits. Those findings replacing physical hardware with a virtual and results end up in the FSIS data center. machine running on another system will Gene Zapfel, a partner with Unisys cut costs and increase support. The former Federal Systems, Blue Bell, Pa., noted that arises because of the reduction in physical the number of servers in all the USDA data hardware. The boost in support comes centers is in the hundreds, and the sum of about because the consolidation and virtudifferent applications, legacy and otherwise alization will drive everything into a smaller running on those servers is also large. “The technological footprint. That will make it technology footprint for the department is easier for those charged with maintaining monstrous,” he said. the IT, since they’ll be responsible for perTaming that tangle is one of the reasons haps five technologies instead of 500. The why the USDA is working to reduce the smaller footprint will also be more secure, number of data centers down to just four. since the possible points of failure or attack Unisys Federal Systems is migrating the will be lessened. FSIS data center to one of those four in a There are also green benefits. Having contract scheduled to run over a two-year fewer servers will mean less electricity is period. The migration process has just consumed, both directly by the servers and begun. Zapfel noted that the problem conindirectly for such tasks as cooling. fronting FSIS in consolidating servers The setup will have a test lab to make down to a much smaller number has been sure the virtualization is working, with the seen before, and as a result, the solution is test lab becoming a development environalso known. ment once the migration is complete. For “A lot of the work that is going to go on security and disaster recovery, there will be Register online today for exclusive online content and eNewsletters Who are you? Whi2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=18http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=18MILESTONE1 Kevin Linker of Sandia National Laboratory examines the valve assembly of a device designed to sniff the air for traces of narcotics or explosives. Scientists are actively working on technology to detect ever-smaller amounts of dangerous substances at ever-greater distances. SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORIES/RANDY MONTOYA The search for standoff BY LAKSHMI SANDHANA, SCIENCE CORRESPONDENT ON JULY 27, 1996, IN ATLANTA, GA., THOUSANDS OF PEOPLE GATHERED TO ENJOY A LATE CONCERT AT THE CENTENNIAL OLYMPIC PARK DURING THE SUMMER OLYMPICS. A security guard noticed a green knapsack lying underneath a bench at the base of a concert sound tower and went over to investigate. Alerted by the shape of the bag and the feel of its contents after a tentative examination, the guard faced the daunting prospect of vacating thousands of milling people from the vicinity of what he suspected was a bomb. Though he and a second guard moved immediately to remove people from the object’s kill zone, the bomb exploded eight minutes later, killing two people and severely injuring 111 others. Said to be the largest pipe bomb in US history, the pack contained three pipe bombs—around 24 pounds of explosives packed with nails and other shrapnel to make it even deadlier. The person responsible for the crime was not found at the time. The police eventually arrested Eric Rudolph, the bomber, after he set off similar bombs in other locations, giving officials clues that tied him to the Olympic Park bombing. Rudolph was apprehended after being on the FBI’s Most Wanted List for five years. Given the complexities of the situation— an open park, a vast noisy crowd—how can officials hope to effectively safeguard thousands of innocent people from bomb threats? It’s alarming to consider how commonplace suicide bombings, mall explosions and car and truck bombs have become. Seventeen Americans died in a suicide car bombing attack against the US Embassy in Beirut in April 1983. Said to be the worst terrorist attack before Sept 11,2001,a car bomb destroyed the Murrah Federal Building on April 19, 1995, in Oklahoma City, injuring over 600 and killing 168 people. Hundreds of innocent people are at risk in crowded locations every day and at the absolute mercy of any terrorist who walks or drives in with a bomb. The only way officials can truly combat this threat is with the use of standoff explosives detection technology, and researchers around the world are working toward developing an effective solution. The answer cannot come soon enough. The standoff need “Standoff technologies are becoming more important and urgent as we attempt to protect the country (and soldiers overseas) from explosives threats,” David Atkinson, senior research scientist and explosives detection lead at the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Wash., told HSToday. “In the US, we have typically focused on the aviation threat, since the Lockerbie incident in December of 1988. However, explosives-based terrorism has not stayed captive to aviation and has spread to mass transit (e.g. London subway bombing, Madrid 2004, etc.) and vehicle-borne devices.” He continued: “We need a technology suite than can provide detection without the disruption or invasiveness of an aviation checkpoint. Part of the strategy to doing this is to layer technologies and begin the detection from a distance, before the device enters a zone of high potential impact. The same holds true for the military. It would be useful to assess someone walking toward a military instal- 16 February 2009 | www.HSToday.us This month’s issue is now available online at…2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=19http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=19MILESTONE1 lation overseas if it could first be determined if they are a possible threat from a distance, in which case additional detection or protective measures can be taken.” “In addition to the detection of vehicles containing explosives, there is also a great need for standoff identification of people carrying or wearing explosive devices,” said Eric Miller, a professor at the Electrical and Computer Engineering Department at the Tufts School of Engineering in Medford Mass. “Scenarios where such threats are of concern are as numerous, if not more so, than is the case with vehicles. Any time one encounters a crowd—sporting events, political rallies, crowded shopping malls or schools campuses—the ability to quickly identify threats from people carrying explosives or related materials is becoming more and more important. Again, these automated standoff detection systems might be helpful in possibly reducing harm in events perpetrated by an armed person, such as in the case of a threat to a school system.” Developing an effective standoff explosive detection device has been extremely complex for several reasons. A device has to either detect chemicals on a person or an object at a distance or has to have the capacity to detect suspicious packages, wires or other components of a bomb under variable environmental conditions. It has to be sensitive enough to screen a person or object from far away, perform a reliable identification within seconds (with no false positives) and detect a wide variety of explosive chemical combinations,irrespective of humidity, wind, rain, noise and any kind of background interference. “Developing physical sensing modalities that are capable of penetrating the outer layers of cars, trucks, clothing, etc., even in ideal circumstances (no time limits, internally empty except for the explosive), is an area of intense current work in industry, government labs and academia,” said Miller. “Combined with the fact that practical circumstances of deployment are far from ideal only serves to compound the problem. Even given an instrument that is in theory sensitive to small levels of explosive, perhaps hidden in a wide array of other materials, processing the data in real time and in a manner that identifies all of the explosives with very few false alarms is a challenge that will take significant research effort to address.” The enormity of this challenge has had many researchers focusing on new pioneering technologies to achieve a breakthrough. Right now, sniffer dogs are still the best bet for detecting explosives from a few meters away. Exciting new research being done at the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL), Oak Ridge, Tenn., though, may make the goal of developing a reliable and accurate standoff explosives detector a reality quite soon. Senesac stated that the device can be made compact enough to be carried by one person and believes that it can be mass-produced at a low cost. In addition to scanning luggage and people at airports, train stations and other places of mass gatherings, it can also be used to screen the surface of cargo containers, cars and trucks. The team has demonstrated the device successfully in a lab scenario and hopes to make field demonstrations within the next two years. Experts believe that it represents a significant advancement and that its long-term benefits would arise from it being integrated into a larger system. “If it pans out to be sensitive enough at 100 meters to detect residue, it would be a solid breakthrough in standoff detection technology,” Atkinson pointed out. “It may need to have additional technologies to support it in a fielded scenario, since standoff detection is difficult by nature. However, some of these may be covered by more mature equipment or simple security operations (for example, frisking). A successful standoff detection device would be the keystone of a strong detection system. However, it is unlikely to provide perfec2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=20http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=20I N TE R O P E R A B L E COMMU N ICATIONS L-3’s MarCom® integrated voice and data hybrid router system provides critical fixed or mobile command stations with seamless interoperable communications for coordination of first responder teams. A MarCom-based command station allows agencies and departments to deploy interoperable communications with existing legacy radios. With MarCom’s high reliability, calls and messages go through. To see how L-3 is providing the mission-critical communications solutions for command and response centers, visit L-3com.com/MARCOM. C 3 ISR > GOVERNMENT SERVICES > AM&M > SPECIALIZED PRODUCTS L-3com.com Communication Systems-East2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=21http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=21MARKET MONITOR Mergers and acquisitions in abeyance BY PHILIP FINNEGAN MERGERS AND ACQUISITIONS IN HOMELAND SECURITY ARE BEING PUT ON HOLD AS COMPANIES EVALUATE THE NEW ECONOMIC AND MARKET ENVIRONMENT BEFORE GOING FORWARD. “Everything has come to a grinding halt,” Brian Ruttenbuhr, homeland security analyst with Morgan Keegan & Co., a Memphis, Tenn.-based investment firm, told HSToday. He cited a number of factors that have hit the merger and acquisition market. With economic turmoil worldwide, companies with cash are waiting to see how the market will develop. Moreover, difficult debt and equity markets are making it harder to finance new acquisitions. Companies that planned to make initial public offerings of their stock have been forced to abandon those plans. intelligence technology company based in Arlington,Va., did actual initial public offerings, while others, such as Crossmatch Technologies Inc., a Palm Beach Gardens, Fla., biometrics company, were preparing their own offerings. These have now been delayed by stock market turmoil. designs, develops, integrates and maintains automatic fingerprint identification systems. The purchase is also intended to enable SAFRAN’s French biometrics unit, Sagem Securite, to cut costs and increase US production. EADS made one of the last major transatlantic purchases before current market conditions set in. In April 2008, it made a $350 million acquisition of PlantCML, Temecula, Calif., a provider of emergency response solutions. Over the past few years,BAE Systems has been the most active European company in purchasing US defense businesses with homeland security applications. Its $4.5 billion purchase of Jacksonville, Fla.-based Armor Holdings in 2007 gave it a strong position in providing state and local police forces with mobility and protection systems, such as tactical vests, armor and helmets. Cooling but continuing Although that heated merger and acquisition environment has cooled for now, over the longer term, analysts expect the trends favoring industry consolidation and transatlantic acquisitions to continue. European activity In addition to the growing number of transatlantic homeland security acquisitions, the merger environment in Europe itself was picking up before the crisis hit. BAE Systems paid £531 million (about $770 million) in September for Detica Group plc in the UK as part of its overall drive to broaden its business base from defense into homeland security. Detica develops software to analyze large amounts of data, including information with relevance to anti-terrorist work. The company is developing programs that would identify suspicious activity. In June, SAFRAN purchased the Dutchbased passport and secure ID document maker Sdu-Identification BV, based in Haarlem, Netherlands. The business, which specializes in high security polycarbonate data page technology, reported more than € 90 million (about $128 million) of sales in 2007. Given the multiple factors that created the wave of homeland security mergers and acquisitions over the past several years, it looks likely that the confluence of trends will continue,driving more acquisitions and mergers. However, given the overall economic climate,it will be at least well into 2009, if not later, before it reemerges. HST PHILIP FINNEGAN is the director of corporate analysis at the Teal Group, a firm based in Fairfax, Va., that provides strategic and market analysis to major corporations. He can be reached at pfinnegan@tealgroup.com. A LTHOUGH THAT HEATED MERGER AND ACQUISITION ENVIRONMENT HAS COOLED FOR NOW, OVER THE LONGER TERM, ANALYSTS EXPECT THE TRENDS FAVORING INDUSTRY CONSOLIDATION AND TRANSATLANTIC ACQUISITIONS TO CONTINUE. A number of major European companies have shown a marked interest in the US homeland security market. Companies actively trying to penetrate the US defense market—such as Finmeccanica, BAE Systems and the European Aeronautic Defense and Space Co. (EADS)—reason that homeland security is2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=22http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=22Inter-Government Crisis Network from Hughes Connecting Government Leaders in a Crisis State Government National Guard/DOD DHS/FEMA State Emergency Management What will you do if your terrestrial network goes down? Local Government s a government leader, you need to coordinate decision-making among national, regional, and local levels to ensure maximum preparedness and rapid response when a crisis hits—which calls for highly reliable and resilient communications. But what happens if your terrestrial network fails? A Hughes has the ideal solution: The Inter-Government Crisis Network (IGCN). Operating over the Hughes SPACEWAY®3 satellite system—the world’s rst with on-board switching and routing, IGCN is secure, costeffective, and instantly deployable. Unaffected by events on the ground, “New network provides IGCN is immune to the vulnerabilities of the Internet and provides a true spot-to-spot links that path diverse alternative to even the most robust terrestrial networks. bypass all terrestrial Frost & Sullivan recently released a whitepaper that discusses the critical infrastructure…” issues in crisis communications, outlining a six-point summary of the key William Jackson, requirements for an ideal network to support effective decision-making Higher Level Communications among multiple levels of government agencies. GCN, Jan 9, 2009 Contact Hughes for your copy of the Frost & Sullivan whitepaper and to learn how IGCN can help support your crisis management mission. Call 1-800-416-8679 or visit gov.hughes.com. IGCN is available through SATCOM II, GSA Schedule 70, and Networx.2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=23http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=23STATE & 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 . . . . . . . . .G182009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=24http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=24Meet 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. 20082009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=25http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=25STATE & 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 app2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=26http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=26STATE & 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 Overall2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=27http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=27what’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, CA2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=28http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=28STATE & 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 infrastru2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=29http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=29STATE & 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 G72009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=30http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=30STATE & 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 Firefi2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=31http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=31STATE & 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 m2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=32http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=32STATE & 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 $432009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=33http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=33STATE & 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 G112009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=34http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=34STATE & 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 n2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=35http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=35STATE & 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 G132009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=36http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=36STATE & 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 t2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=37http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=37STATE & 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 G152009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=38http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=38STATE & 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 insti2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=39http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=39STATE & 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 ob2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=40http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=40STATE & 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 L2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=41http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=41essential 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.us2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=42http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=42Panasonic 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_FY08-22009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=43http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=43USDA/KEITH WELLER Guarding the Food Front OFFICIALS AT THE DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE ARE HOPING THAT THEIR WORK ADVANCING FOOD, ANIMAL AND PLANT SAFETY WILL CONTINUE TO ADVANCE IN THE DAYS AHEAD. By K E L L E Y V L A H O S , W A S H I N G T O N C O R R E S P O N D E N T FOR SIX YEARS, THE US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (USDA) HAS BEEN ONE OF THE TOP AGENCIES FORMING WHAT IT HOPES WILL BE A SHIELD AGAINST A CATASTROPHIC ATTACK ON THE NATION’S FOOD SUPPLY. THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO MAJOR EVENT HAS BECOME A MIXED BLESSING FOR THE MANY ACTORS INVOLVED IN SUCH A TASK, BECAUSE AS VULNERABILITIES LOOM, ATTENTION FROM THOSE WHO HOLD THE FEDERAL PURSE STRINGS THREATENS TO WANE. Transition is taking hold at USDA with a new president in the White House and recently convened Congress, but researchers and health specialists, state and local stakeholders and lawmakers themselves hope the urgency of plant and food safety is not lost in a cacophony of other concerns facing national leaders today. “In my view, the food system is as vulnerable as our financial system has been, but we just don’t realize it,” said James Roth, Register online today for exclusive online content and eNewsletters director of the Center for Food Security and Public Health at Iowa State University, which is home to one of the country’s National Veterinary Service Laboratories and is part of the National Animal Health Laboratory Network (NAHLN), established shortly after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. “The reason there has been so little investment in this is we have been blessed with plentiful, cheap food, and the USDA and other groups have been able to keep these diseases out,” he offered. “A lot of that is luck, in my view.” In the area of bio-safety—particularly where it concerns the ABOVE: Agriculture Research Service engineer Yud-Ren Chen is developing a computer-directed scanning system that could help speed inspection of the nearly 8 billion chickens processed annually through federally inspected US plants. HSToday Magazine | February 2009 212009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=44http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=44GUARDING THE FOOD FRONT threat of agroterrorism—USDA has a hefty charge: to keep safe a $66 billion agriculture industry that spans 930 million acres of farms and to protect animals and humans from deadly foreign and native diseases and pathogens that might contaminate the food supply. It must engage and educate the nation’s two million farmers and first responders at all levels and contribute to the planning and coordination of a federal response to any manmade or deliberate attack. Of course, USDA is not the only federal agency involved in agroterror prevention and recovery. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Department of Health and Human Services play critical roles, but USDA is the lead administrator of key surveillance plans, diagnostic laboratories and emergency response in the wake of an outbreak or widespread contamination of the food supply. Animal scientists like Roth say that, while globalization and the ever-present threat of terror have provided the “perfect storm” of threats, annual resources to address them have become stagnant. “I think they [USDA] have been as proactive as they can be given their very, very limited budget. They are under-funded and have a lot of positions they cannot fill,” said Roth, speaking from the veterinary side of USDA’s broad homeland security portfolio, which includes the National Veterinary Stockpile (NVS). In operation for just a few years, the stockpile is far from reaching its presidential mandate of providing enough vaccines and equipment to states and first responders. “I’m sure there are resource issues—I’m sure there are agenda issues,” said Keith Collins, who retired as USDA’s chief economist in mid-2008. In that role, he served from 1993 and through the post-9/11 shake-up that expanded USDA’s homeland security mandate. He testified extensively before Congress about the fears generated by the 2001 outbreak of hoof-and-mouth disease that resulted in the widespread depopulation of animals and To effectively prevent, detect and respond to a deadly outbreak, industry will have to rely in part on cost the United Kingdom some $20 billion the top minds and in veterinary science, health and zoonosis (the study of infectious diseases that in industry losses. can be transmitted from animals to humans). These men and women have been toiling away at pub“The biggest handicap is the scope of the lic and private laboratories throughout the United States in a climate of constant concern that a new challenge; it’s just enormous,” he added. outbreak is imminent. Not only are they studying the diseases but they are improving diagnostic capacities and opening USDA: 2009 lines of communication among each other and with the regulatory agencies and other stakeholders There was a great deal of speculation at the involved in homeland security efforts at the local and regional levels. end of 2008 over how the new Obama “I think we are better prepared than we were seven or eight years ago,” said Dan Grooms, assoadministration would steer federal homeciate professor of veterinary medicine at Michigan State University, which hosts the Diagnostic Cenland security programs through the firstter for Population and Animal Health, one of the 58 labs in the National Animal Health Laboratory ever post-9/11 executive branch transition. Network (NAHLN). For Sheryl Maddux, director of the USDA Grooms said the labs are engaging in an “all-hazards approach” in order to “increase the readiOffice of Homeland Security and a career ness among veterinarians to deal with any type of large-scale event having to do with animals. employee who spent 21 years with the For“I think it’s a mistake to put all our eggs into training and preparing for what you might think is the est Service, transitions are part of the natumost likely [event],” said Grooms. Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath in the city of New Orleans ral bureaucratic cycle. But in an interview taught them th2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=45http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=45farm to fork food safety The threat of food contamination, whether deliberate or unintentional, is real and a growing hazard. Not only can food safety affect the reputation and growth of your business, ensuring safe food delivery now has the attention of the federal government. Our advanced technologies inspect, detect, identify and verify, improving safety and QA/QC with material analysis, ingredient verification, contaminant detection, weight verification and brand protection. For years commercial enterprises, the federal government and military have looked to Smiths Detection for security solutions. Email sales@smithsdetection.com or call 1 865 379 1670 to find out how Smiths Detection can help your business with food safety security. www.smithsdetectionpid.com2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=46http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=46GUARDING THE FOOD FRONT White House and Congress hammer out the FY 2010 budget bills. According to the Office of Management and Budget, USDA received some $570 million in homeland security-related funding in FY 08. Most of the funds are concentrated in its Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative programs. The department is seeking $277 million in these funds for FY 09, an increase over the $186 million and $185 million it received the two previous years, respectively. The Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative’s latest budget request includes major increases in key areas, including the vaccine stockpile and both the NAHLN and National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN), which incorporate federal research facilities and state land-grant university labs throughout the country. They are funded through USDA’s Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service (CREES) and a patchwork of smaller grant programs at the agency. According to an official at CREES, the lab networks shared nearly $9.9 million in 2008 under the “Food and Agriculture Defense Initiative” line item in the CREES $1 billion budget. USDA is asking for a total of $14.2 million for the labs in the 2009 CREES request. USDA’s Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) also provides funding to the plant and animal lab networks. According to officials there, APHIS provided $6.6 million in FY 08, compared to $6 million in FY 07 and $9.6 million in FY 06. There is also a request for a big hike in research funding under the Agricultural Research Service—from $25 million to $39 million—and more money for biosurveillance, which includes the inspection, detection, monitoring and prevention of dangerous pathogens, diseases and pests through APHIS, from approximately $63 million to $98 million. APHIS now receives about $4 million in funding to study and develop diagnostics for specific harmful pathogens, like avian influenza (AI). The 2009 budget asks for a When a new strain of Ralstonia, considered one of the deadliest causes of plant disease in the world, $2 million increase in that funding. broke out in the United States in 2003, the young National Plant Diagnostic Network (NPDN) was on Maddux pointed out that the 2008 Farm the case. Bill passed in July is important to the Started in 2002 “to provide diagnostic capability to the nation’s agricultural system,” the network department’s resource efforts because it now boasts five regional hub laboratories in every state. It proved beneficial right away, said Ray Hammandates more than $75 million in the merschmidt, director of the NPDN and chairman of the Department of Plant Pathology at Michigan way of new competitive research grants, State University. low-interest loans and biosecurity training Among several prominent examples, he said the network gave state lab partners affected by the programs at the local level. It also recogRalstonia Solanacearum—which can kill off potato and tomato crops—unfettered communication nizes and clarifies the responsibilities of with other regions and with the Department of Agriculture (USDA) over initial screenings in 2003. Maddux’s homeland security office and “We were able to prepare for samples—the lab knew exactly what to do,” he said of his own facilestablishes a biosecurity communication ity in Michigan, pointing out that, while this was not a man-made introduction of the strain, a delibercenter within that office, according to a ate attack would have followed a similar outbreak pattern. breakdown of the bill on the USDA web“We’ve made tremendous progress in the last six-and a-half years,” he added, pointing to some of site, www.USDA.gov. the work in coordinating diagnoses of Sudden Oak Death, Soybean Rust—which is caused by a fun“We’re hoping that from the agriculture gus first discovered in the United States in 2004 — and Plum Pox virus, which attacks fruit trees. “What the network has done, in addition to providing funds to develop a stable diagnostic base, it and food 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=47http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=47GUARDING THE FOOD FRONT down assessment of their bio-security weaknesses and a comprehensive plan, including research needs and best practices, to rectify them. Teams conducted the reviews under the Strategic Partnership Program Agroterrorism Initiative (SPPA) in 27 states, engaging in site visits and employing the new “CARVER + Shock” software tool announced by the FDA in 2007. The program was developed in part by APHIS to help industries conduct risk assessments. CARVER is an acronym entailing the six attributes used to evaluate the targets for an agroterror attack: criticality, accessibility, recuperability, vulnerability, effect and recognizability. “Shock” stands for the psychological impact of an attack on a specific target. “Relationships between federal, state and local enforcement and the food and agriculture industry have been strengthened” as a result of the SPPA reviews, declared a briefing by industry leaders to the International Symposium on Agroterrorism in Kansas City in 2008. Industries that volunteered and were assessed included baby food, bottled water, dairy, frozen food, flour and feed mills, grocery stores, swine production and beef-food processing for correctional facilities. Clay Detlefsen, a vice president with the International Dairy Foods Association, told the symposium that the dairy processing industry had conducted one such assessment before SPPA was started and two afterward, and there were some positive differences. “The SPPA [vulnerability assessments] were more organized and structured than the previous effort,” with an “enhanced state/local presence,” and the government support made the process “easier.” “For most (industries) it was an eye-opener,” Maddux said, adding that USDA will ask for more resources to keep the assessments going this year if possible. Acronyms in this article AI—Avian influenza; APHIS—Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service; CARVER—Criticality, accessibility, recuperability, vulnerability, effect and recognizability; CREES—Cooperative State Research, Education and Extension Service; DHS—Department of Homeland Security; FDA—Food and Drug Administration; NAHLN—National Animal Health Laboratory Network; NPDN— National Plant Diagnostic Network; NVS—National Veterinary Stockpile; SPPA—Strategic Partnership Program Agroterrorism Initiative; USDA—US Department of Agriculture. “We took it on and were able to get the funding,” she said. “Everything we learn from all these incidents help. We become better responders and better prepared. I just hope we continue to do the planning that’s necessary to get the grants for the equipment that’s needed.” Professional development, education and outreach with industry partners can’t stop either. “Those are some of the things we’d like to expand,” Maddux added. “It’s just an enormous task,” said Keith Collins, whose years as chief economist for USDA gave him a wide view of the challenges post-9/11. “It’s an enormous responsibility to look at the whole integrated system, from the farm to the consumer, and figure out what the hazards are and the vulnerabilities are and what to do about it.” Analysis The mission at USDA’s Homeland Security Office is to try to prevent a deliberate attack on the nation’s food supply. The prevention of bioterror or agroterror has been integrated over the last eight years into the agency’s food safety and education programs. In addition, new major initiatives, including NAHLN, NPDN, NVS, the national vulnerability assessments and a batch of other responsibilities outlined under Homeland Security Presidential Directive 9 in 2004, have created challenges for the department, but also have heightened the recognition that only with coordination and strategic public and private outreach can they be achieved. But much like other federal, state and local agencies, USDA faces a budget year of uncertainty. The nation is in recession and, in times like these, priorities are often shaped around immediate urgencies. Major 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=48http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=48A Mexican marine stands guard as 26 tons of cocaine burns behind him in Manzanillo, Mexico, on Nov. 28, 2007. The drugs were seized from a ship in the port city of Manzanillo in one of the biggest drug busts on record. Could Mexico Fail? 26 February 2009 AP PHOTO/EDUARDO VERDUGO | www.HSToday.us This month’s issue is now available online at…2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=49http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=49THE LAWLESSNESS ALONG THE MEXICAN This grim assessment of the situation is not BORDER HAS GONE WAY BEYOND A some imaginative movie script extrapolated from LOCAL CRIME WAVE: THERE HAS BEEN recent headlines or a hypothetical future scenario A DRAMATIC INCREASE IN ARMED ROBto be gamed at the Pentagon. These events—the BERIES, NOT BY LONE GUNMEN BUT BY crime wave, the armed attacks, the beheadings, the HEAVILY ARMED GANGS. KIDNAPPINGS lynchings, the scheme to recover the lost territories, AND HOMICIDES ARE WAY UP—AND the deployment of much of the US Army and NOT JUST MURDERS BUT BEHEADINGS. almost the entire National Guard—actually POLICE ARE GETTING INTO SHOOTOUTS occurred in 1915 and 1916, when the Mexican WHERE THEY ARE FREQUENTLY OUTRevolution left northern Mexico in chaos. GUNNED. IT IS STARTING TO LOOK LIKE The Mexican Revolution, from 1910 to 1920, By BRIAN MICHAEL JENKINS A TERRORIST CAMPAIGN. RAIL LINES AND engulfed the entire border region. RevolutionarBRIDGES ARE BEING SABOTAGED, AND ies found sympathy and support on the US side, NOW AN ENTIRE TRAIN HAS BEEN DERAILED AND ITS raised money and recruited soldiers in the cities and towns of the PASSENGERS ASSAULTED AND ROBBED. Southwest and bought guns. Whether and how officials in WashIsolated ranches and small towns have turned into virtual garington chose to apply the US neutrality laws, which prohibited the risons. Economic activity, especially in southern Texas, has seriarming of foreign armies from US soil, made the United States a ously declined. People are frightened, and they are mean. player in the conflict. Whatever they decided in Washington, smugEveryone seems to be carrying a weapon and shooting on suspigling flourished on the border. cion. Mexicans are the targets. There have been disturbing reports The railroads were of strategic importance. Built by US investors, of summary executions and lynchings by vigilante volunteers. Mexico’s rail lines ran south from the border; the only east-west line Central government authority no longer exists in the Mexican ran just north of the frontier. If the Mexican government or one of the states along the US border. Warlords, commanding their own rebel armies wanted to rapidly redeploy or reinforce forces in northarmies, are gunning down their rivals. Except for refugees heading ern Mexico, it had to use the US line. By granting or withholding pernorth and guns being smuggled south, commerce across the fronmission, the United States could influence the outcome of battles in tier has ceased to exist. Some of the gangs are holed up in their Mexico and would draw the wrath of the losing side. sanctuaries just across the border, but the government in Mexico Battles for the border towns imperiled adjacent cities on the US City cannot, or will not, bring the situation under control. side. In some cases, the defenders deployed in a way that obliged the Although much of the violence along the border appears to be attackers to shoot northward. Attackers would assault parallel to the purely criminal, evidence of a subversive political plan has been border to avoid casualties on the US side. uncovered. Mexican extremists have declared it their goal to The political turmoil in Mexico precipitated a crime wave in the recover the “lost territories”—land taken from Mexico after the United States. The distinction between combatant and bandit was sitMexican-American War in 1848. uational. Heavily armed, desperate men marauded towns on both The plan calls for enlisting Mexicans residing in California, Arisides of the frontier, but in late 1914 and 1915, the violence escalated, zona, New Mexico and Texas in a campaign to terrorize and drive especially in southern Texas, where the attacks were beginning to take out the Anglo population, thereby ending decades of what the on a political complexion. Seeking to exploit the intense nationalism planners call Yankee discrimination and tyranny. The movement, generated by the revolution, a small gro2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=50http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=50SAVAGE STRUGGLE ON THE BORDER: COULD MEXICO FAIL? law enforcement within the states. As the violence increased, Fun- press fanned these fears. So did German agents, whose objective ston did contemplate declaring martial law, but he decided it was too from 1914 on was to propel the United States into a war with Mexico, extreme. However, Army patrols were ordered to treat all armed which would keep it out of the war in Europe. bands in the area as invaders. In 1915, German agents plotted with former Mexican President The locals were terrified and increasingly took matters into their Victoriano Huerta, who had been overthrown in 1914 by revolutionown hands. As shootings and lynchings increased, a worried Funston aries with the help of the United States. The Germans offered to help called for reinforcements. Their arrival confirmed Mexico’s suspi- restore him to power, which would inevitably lead to US intervention. cions of imminent US military intervention. The commander of Mex- American officials were onto the plot, however, and they arrested ico’s garrison then called for reinforcements on his side, which Huerta as he stepped off the train in El Paso. Funston, in turn, interpreted as an ominous move. Washington was When Pancho Villa’s forces attacked Columbus in 1916, German fearful that an imprudent move on either side could precipitate a war. agents on the border became superhawks calling for immediate US While US diplomats worked to resolve the chaotic situation in Mex- military intervention. The Germans then approached President ico, the violence along the border continued. Venustiano Carranza, who deeply resented the continued presence Various solutions were proposed. The jingoist press called for the of Pershing’s forces in Mexico. They offered Carranza a deal: If the annexation of Mexico. Funston United States appeared about to suggested that the United States enter the war in Europe, Mexico negotiate an agreement with Mexcould count on German support to ico that would give US troops the wage war on the United States and right of pursuit into Mexico (as they recover the lost territories. The Gerhad had in the campaigns against mans suggested that Japan be invited the Apaches). One US senator proto participate in the alliance. These posed the construction of permaterms were laid out in a telegram nent forts along the Rio Grande. from German Foreign Minister Arthur Another official suggested that US Zimmermann to the German ambasforces occupy a strip of land 10 sador in Mexico. The infamous secret miles wide on the Mexican side of Zimmermann telegram was sent on the border. Yet another proposed Jan. 16, 1917, but was intercepted and that a strip of land 1 mile wide decoded by British intelligence, north of the border be cleared of all which promptly turned it over to the brush so that troops could monitor American ambassador in London. movements across the frontier. Here it was, the sum of all fears, a Funston added to his pursuit pro- Pancho Villa (center, in the presidential chair) surrounded by fellow German-Japanese alliance with Mexrevolutionaries. His 1916 raid on Columbus, NM prompted a US posal the mobilization of Apache expedition and nearly caused a US-Mexican war. ico to provoke an uprising in the Scouts and bloodhounds, and he United States and take back the lost requested that he be allowed to order “no quarter” during the pursuit. territories. It is not clear what troops or other military assistance GerThe secretary of war disagreed, but more troops were sent south. many might have provided Mexico in 1917 or whether or not Japan In 1916, attention shifted to the western border, where Pancho was interested in joining a war with the United States. When the Villa, outraged by his defeat at Agua Prieta, across the border from telegram was reported in the press, Zimmermann publicly admitted Douglas, Ariz., launched an attack on Columbus, NM. The Mexican that he had sent it. One suspects that, while Germany would 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=51http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=512009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=52http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=52SAVAGE STRUGGLE ON THE BORDER: COULD MEXICO FAIL? The Cold War also raised concerns about the clandestine delivery ity would still exist, and local political leaders would continue to be of nuclear weapons. After Sept. 11, 2001, the major concern was elected and make speeches. Police would continue to deal with that terrorists might smuggle weapons of mass destruction across petty crime. Commerce would continue. Superficially, northern the border. Mexico might appear normal—a failed state does not necessarily The appearance of a tiny domestic terrorist movement in Mex- have to look like Somalia, the guerrilla-infested departments of ico in the 1970s, the Zapatista insurgency in southern Mexico in Colombia or the North West province of Pakistan. But no-go areas the 1990s and the confrontations following the disputed election and untouchable crime bosses protected by heavily armed private of Felipe Calderon raised questions about Mexico’s ability to han- armies would point to the real locus of power if the central governdle internal dissent without provoking wider resistance through ment decided that rooting out the criminals was not worth the oppressive measures. blood and treasure it would require. From Mexico’s perspective, illeOf great current concern to the United States is the apparent gal immigration and drug consumption are US problems. inability of Mexico to suppress the drug Although this situation would EXICO’S GANGS COULD CARRY hardly be good news for the US war on gangs that infest the northern half of the OUT LARGE-SCALE TERRORIST drugs, the United States could live with country. They derive huge profits that BOMBINGS, AS THE NARCO enable them to corrupt Mexico’s police it. Concerns would increase only if and judiciary and have diversified into TRAFFICKERS DID IN COLOMBIA, American expatriates living in Mexico the smuggling of human beings across AS A WARNING TO AUTHORITIES became regular victims of criminal the border. violence, or especially if the violence TO BACK OFF. The level of criminal violence and were to spread across the border into corruption in Mexico has obliged Mexico’s president to increas- the United States. The expatriates could always decide to leave if ingly rely on the army to challenge the activities of the drug lords things got too dangerous. But it may be difficult to prevent the vioand their private militias. That risks corrupting the army itself. lence from spreading across the border if Mexican drug traffickers On the US side, the continuing flow of drugs and illegal immi- compete to take control of downstream distribution or decide to grants has resulted in a growing worry that the violence south of the engage in other criminal operations in the United States. border will spread north. This is a domestic law enforcement probThose, too, would be regarded as law enforcement problems if lem, but it has already prompted a significant buildup in physical and until the violence reached intolerable levels, which would border security measures and deployments of the National Guard, make it increasingly, as during the Mexican Revolution, a matter of not to mention a motley militia of volunteers. Could the border with national security. Mexico again become a national security concern? There is also the much-feared (and much exaggerated) possibility that the crime bosses might smuggle terrorists or weapons of terThe nature of the threat ror into the United States. There is no evidence of linkages between Nothing on the political horizon even vaguely indicates that Mexico Mexico’s gangs and foreign terrorist organizations, and it is to be is heading for another revolution or that its political system is on the hoped that gang leaders are smart enough not to imperil their brink of collapse (a very dubious CIA assertion in the 1980s). highly profitable businesses by doing things that would unleash an Decades of one-party rule have been transformed into a tumul- all-out US-led effort to destroy them. B2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=53http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=53SAVAGE STRUGGLE ON THE BORDER tive, but there is a national security aspect to it, as well. It is simply not in the national security interest of the United States to have a floating underworld population of 12 million people who are vulnerable to blackmail and other pressure. The security of the nation would be better served by legalizing and fully integrating them into society, however unpopular that may be with certain sectors of the American electorate. In any case, neither of these approaches seems likely to be implemented. If violence emanating from Mexico reached intolerable levels on the US side of the frontier, the United States could gradually seal the border. The Great Wall approach already has popular appeal and political traction. But it would have serious adverse consequences on both sides of the frontier, increasing unemployment in Mexico and disrupting manufacturing in the United States. (Protectionists and wall proponents will argue that unemployment in Mexico is not our problem and that sealing the border would reduce outsourcing of jobs.) As it was in 1916, military intervention is a measure of last resort. Unless Mexico were to collapse into anarchy, it is hard to envision Pershing’s columns again moving south. Yet it is not unimaginable to foresee limited interventions to rescue Americans held hostage, Special Forces captures of criminal warlords wanted in the United States or covert strikes on criminal headquarters. Any such action would stoke Mexican nationalism, which is driven mainly by antiAmerican sentiments, especially among the country’s intelligentsia. It would guarantee the hostility of the Mexican government. The United States could offer more material and technical assistance to Mexico’s underfunded law enforcement establishment. The problem here is again corruption and human rights concerns. The United States could also try to expand its cooperation with the Mexican Army, which now has the lead in tackling organized crime in northern Mexico. The Mexican army, however, is a conservative, closed establishment, usually suspicious of and generally cool to US engagement. Finally, the United States could discreetly assist Mexican authorities with intelligence that would enable them to operate more effectively against the gangs, but the problem here is the disturbing degree of penetration of Mexico’s criminal intelligence and law enforcement by the criminals themselves. Indeed, some US agencies refuse to share any intelligence with Mexican authorities. Nonetheless, US authorities should take advantage of the likelihood that the threat the gangs pose to the United States is not immediate. There will be time to gradually develop intelligence sources, which can take years, if it is made a priority now. It is possible that Mexican authorities will gradually contain the gangs and that the surge in violence seen in recent months is a spike, not a trend. The probability of Mexico becoming a failed state still seems extremely low. In such circumstances, precipitate US action might only exacerbate the situation in Mexico. But simply ignoring the danger is not an option. Nor will the security issues be resolved by the current US obsession with building a wall. HST BRIAN MICHAEL JENKINS is recognized as a leading authority on terrorism and is senior advisor to the president of RAND Corporation. His most recent book is Will Terrorists Go Nuclear? published in 2008 by Prometheus Books, New York. He is currently working on a book on Mexico. Collapsible & Reusable Containers Save Money & Resources! Reduce Waste & Damage! Ergonomic! Containers When & Where You Need Them Ship Flat! Store Flat! Stack Flat! Unique panel design and easy snap-on fasteners provide ultimate strength and durability. Designed to our customer’s specifications! Learn More! (866) 928-5710 www.versi-panelenclosures.com Knox FDC Protection Program ® 800-552-5669 5" StorzGuard™ 4" StorzGuard™ SecureCap® 2.5" Female 2.5" & 1.5" FDC Plug Knox Keywren2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=54http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=54REUTERS/ARKO DATTA (INDIA) The Taj Mahal Hotel on fire during the terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India in November 2008. 32 February 2009 | www.HSToday.us This month’s issue is now available online at…2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=55http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=55After Mumbai: Facing the Flames By SCOTT WE’VE ALL BEEN TREATED TO TALES AND WARNINGS OF IMPROVISED EXPLOSIVE DEVICES (IEDS), “DIRTY” BOMBS, EXPLODING TRUCKS, CHEMICAL WEAPONS AND EXOTIC LIQUID PEROXIDE EXPLOSIVES, ALL OF THEM POTENTIAL THREATS WIELDED BY TERRORISTS. But there’s something simpler and equally dangerous that is being overlooked by today’s counterterrorism experts and law enforcement officers, and it’s as old as nature itself—fire. Poorly studied and rarely mentioned as a tool of terrorists, fire is a decidedly low-tech, but nevertheless reliable and deadly, weapon. Indeed, fire was used to commit the worst mass-casualty terrorist event ever; the Sept. 11, 2001, suicide airliner attacks on the World Trade Center towers and Pentagon. More recently, in late November 2008, suspected Lashkar E Taiba terrorists effectively used fire as both a weapon and a diversionary tactic in their deadly siege of the Taj Mahal and Oberoi-Trident hotels in Mumbai, according to security officials from the Indian government. While many people incorrectly refer to the 9/11 attacks in the colloquial as “bombings,” they were actually incendiary attacks combining the kinetic energy of the fast moving jets with tens of thousands of gallons of jet fuel, to devastating effect. Improvised incendiary devices (IIDs) are distinct from IEDs largely because of their destructive mechanism: fire rather than explosives. Both are classified under federal law as destructive devices, with mandatory minimum sentences of 30 years for their use in a federal crime of violence or serious drug crime. SWEETOW ONE OF HUMANKIND’S EARLIEST TOOLS IS ALSO ONE OF ITS EARLIEST THREATS AND IS PRESENTING A NEW CHALLENGE WHEN WIELDED BY THE LATEST GENERATION OF TERRORISTS Danger and response Fire causes instinctive, primal fear in people in a way that is difficult to match with other weapons. What is more, a fuel-soaked rag, a Molotov cocktail or a simple match is all the arsonist needs. To meet this threat, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives is the federal government’s lead agency in the criminal investigation of fires. It has a world class Fire Research LaboraRegister online today for exclusive online content and eNewsletters tory, National Response Teams, Fire Protection Engineers and Special Agent Certified Fire Investigators. Other federal agencies, such as the United States Fire Administration and United States Forest Service, also maintain critical expertise in fire investigation, the latter with special knowledge of wild land fires. As great as the federal government’s knowledge of fire, though, the vast majority of fire fighting and arson investigation manpower resides with state, local and tribal public safety agencies. Mumbai was not the only instance where Islamist terrorists used fire in India. On Feb. 19, 2007, the Samjhauta (“Friendship”) express train between India and Pakistan was targeted by suspected Islamist terrorists with several suitcase IIDs containing digital timers, bottles of flammable liquids and an ignition charge. Two of the devices functioned; 68 people were killed and scores were injured by the direct effects of fire and smoke inhalation. When it comes to the threat to the American homeland, consider the knowledge of fire shown by Al Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden on Nov. 9, 2001, in a videotape captured by American forces: “…We calculated in advance the number of casualties from the enemy, who would be killed based on the position of the tower. … Due to my experience in this field, I was thinking that the fire from the gas in the plane would melt the iron structure of the building and collapse the area where the plane hit and all the floors above it only. This is all we had hoped for.” On June 25, 2003, according to a story in The Arizona Republic and a subsequent story in USA Today, the Denver Field Office of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) issued a warning to area law enforcement that an Al Qaeda detainee h2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=56http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=56AFTER MUMBAI: FACING THE FLAMES Qaeda, it is the mention of the tactic that is perhaps the most intriguing, since it confirms that fire was at least being considered as a weapon. This notion resurfaced on Oct. 23, 2007, when the Fox News Channel regrettably and inaccurately stated that the 2003 FBI report had been generated just “five days ago,” i.e., 2007, implying that a set of wildfires then ravaging parts of southern California might somehow be connected to the 2003 Al Qaeda threat. A better-known case involves convicted “dirty bomb” conspirator and Al Qaeda supporter Jose Padilla, who in January 2008 was sentenced to 208 months’ imprisonment. Padilla received training in Afghanistan from an Al Qaeda explosives expert in the use of natural gas, timing devices and electronics to ignite trapped natural gas to create a fire and explosion, allowing him to destroy high rise apartment buildings in the United States. In March 2002, Padilla even met with 9/11 mastermind Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in Pakistan to further discuss the plot, identifying New York, Washington, DC, and Florida as potential targets. Fire at home There is a temptation to view the use of fire to commit acts of terrorism on American soil as a remote possibility, or the airborne 9/11 incendiary attacks as a “one-off,” impossible to be repeated; this view has deleterious implications for homeland security. As the old adage goes, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Right here at home it is also worth considering the activities of the Animal Liberation Front (ALF) and Earth Liberation Front (ELF), two groups that began as different organizations with different motives but that have of late seemingly become fellow travelers with similar ideologies advocating action against those who would harm “any animal, human and nonhuman.” Often referred to by law enforcement agencies as “domestic terrorist” groups, as distinct from international or state-sponsored terrorists, ALF/ELF have perfected the use of arson as a prime tactic in what they euphemistically refer to as “direct action,” principally as a means of economic revenge targeting those against whom they feel aggrieved in the United States and United Kingdom. Their tactics range from the more prosaic techniques of putting an open flame to available combustibles and/or accelerant pours, to sophisticated time-delay incendiary devices, the use of which is thoroughly described and available to those willing to undertake a bit of online research. Although the arson crimes committed by ALF/ELF are often limited and committed with more of an eye toward media impact than human injury or property damage, this is not always the case. An October 1998 attack against a Vail, Colo., ski resort caused an estimated $12 million in damage. Similarly, an August 2003 arson attack targeting a San Diego area condominium complex caused $50 million in damage. On Aug. 2, 2008, two biomedical research employees of the University of California Santa Cruz (UCSC) were targeted with Molotov cocktail attacks that damaged one researcher’s home and destroyed another’s car. Just days before the attacks, animal rights pamphlets identifying persons suspected of being UCSC animal researchers appeared in a local coffee shop. The deliberate targeting of an occupied structure might represent a tactical escalation by animal extremist groups. Continued on p. 37 34 February 2009 | www.HSToday.us This month’s issue is now available online at…2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=57http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=57A history of tragedy Over the past century both accidental and intentional fires have resulted in instances of high casualties: • 1903: The worst single-structure fire in US history took place at the Iroquois Theater in Chicago, Ill., killing 602 people. A defective light was blamed for setting stage curtains on fire, with locked exit doors playing a role. • 1942: The Coconut Grove nightclub fire in Boston, Mass., resulted in 492 killed and hundreds more injured; it was thought to have been accidentally caused by a busboy using a match for a light to replace a burned out light bulb. • 1980: The MGM Grand Hotel fire in Las Vegas, Nev., killed 85 and caused in excess of 650 injuries. Investigators pinpointed the blaze as having started in The Deli, a hotel restaurant, due to an electrical short circuit inside a wall soffit. • 1986: The DuPont Plaza Hotel fire in San Juan, Puerto Rico, killed 97 and injured 140. Four men were eventually arrested, with one confessing to using Sterno to ignite cardboard boxes containing furniture. • 1990: The Happy Land Social Club fire in New York City, NY, resulted in 87 killed at the illegal club. A Cuban refugee, angry at being thrown out of the club after a fight with his girlfriend, a club employee, poured gasoline at the front entrance and ignited it. • 2000: A dance hall fire in Luoyang, China, left 309 dead, largely from suffocation; an investigation blamed sub-standard fire suppression and alarm systems. • 2003: “The Station” nightclub fire in Warwick, RI, killed 100 and injured 200; pyrotechnics ignited available combustibles, and panicked patrons were unable to escape. • 2003: A fire at Jungang-ro train station in Taegu, South Korea, left 198 dead and 147 injured; the suspect used a lighter and two milk cartons of flammable liquid. • 2004: A Paraguay supermarket fire left 464 dead and 409 injured; the exits were locked to prevent shoplifting, trapping customers. • 2004: A fire at the Republica de la Cromagnon disco in Buenos Aires, Argentina, left 175 dead and 714 injured. Investigators determined that a pyrotechnic item—possibly a flare—thrown by somebody in the crowd ignited a foam ceiling; the exit doors were locked, stranding people inside. This fire was eerily similar to the ignition method for “The Station” nightclub fire. • 2006: On the water off the coast of Egypt, the al-Salam Boccaccio ‘98 ferry caught fire and sank, killing 1,000 passengers. The fire is thought to have started in a vehicle on the parking deck. These tragedies beg a further examination of more common fires around the country where scores of people are killed or injured when exits are blocked. We need to ask if building and mass transit fire safety codes are sufficiently robust, or if we are facing a strategic vulnerability. Get Breaking DHS Transition News… …plus the latest homeland security headlines, analysis and business news, each day in the HSToday Daily Briefing enewsletter. Go to www.hstoday.us and sign up for your Daily Briefing. DAVID BRODY FOR HSTODAY Hudson Yards is a 42 block area on Manhattan’s Far West Side that will become a mixed-use neighborhood and extension of the Midtown central business district thanks to a 2005 rezoning for millions of square feet of new office and residential development, an extension of the #7 subway, and several major public projects such as Moynihan Station and development over the MTA’s West Side Rail Yards. Hudson Yards Development Corporation was established by the City of New York to spearhead redevelopment of the Hudson Yards area. HYDC is seeking proposals to provide security consulting services to develop a set of security operations, policies, and procedures for a Master Security Plan for the Hudson Yards area. The New York Police Department and other City and State agencies will participate in development of the Master Security Plan. The RFP will be available on February 2, 2009. Download from www.hydc.org/html/procurement/procurement.shtml or contact Corinne2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=58http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=58AFTER ACTION Mumbai Terror and the 11-Connection NOTHING IN RECENT SPATES OF TERRORISM HAS SHAKEN UP MY COUNTRY AS MUCH AS THE ATTACK ON MUMBAI LAST NOVEMBER. Even the 2001 attack on the Indian parliament, although it was intended to be a much more severe symbolic blow, did not draw the same type of mass reaction as the Mumbai attack. Perhaps this is because in Mumbai the terrorists literally went on a rampage that killed 164 people and wounded 308. Also, the media provided minute-tominute coverage as the drama unfolded over three days. One positive aspect of widespread emotional involvement of the public in such incidents is that it creates awareness and helps to prepare a country for facing challenges and crises together as a nation. E-mails and instant messages make the rounds, creating an atmosphere of ideas, reactions and information. One such e-mail circulating in India showed how recent terrorist attacks in India occurred during alternate months on the 13th or the 26th. Widespread awareness about such overlap can make the public more watchful in the future. There is one more overlap of details that is even more significant. This is the fascination of Al Qaeda with number 11. bombing in Casablanca in Morocco. One Zougam, who was a keysuspect in the Madrid bombings and was a follower of Al Qaeda, was linked to this bombing. On April 11, 2007, two car bombs exploded in the Algerian capital of Algiers, targeting the prime minister’s office. Al Qaeda claimed responsibility for the attack. Another car bomb attack occurred in Algiers on Dec. 11, 2007, and killed 31 people, including 17 UN employees. Again, Al Qaeda claimed responsibility. So many incidents of terror involving Al Qaeda after 9/11 have occurred on the 11th that Al Qaeda’s love for this number cannot be dismissed as mere coincidence. Eleven has almost become the brand mark of Al Qaeda. Therefore, every time the number 11 is associated with a major terror attack, the investigators can add the tracking of Al Qaeda links to their list of tasks. Even if the group that is immediately involved is not a part of hard-core Al Qaeda, its link to the organization cannot be ruled out. Does the fact that the terror attack in Mumbai occurred in the eleventh month of the year link it to an Al Qaeda “11-connection?” When a number of other details of the attack are combined with the 11-connection, the fact does become significant. The ruthlessness of the massacre, the high level of training, the firepower and the attempt to hit the economy of the O MANY INCIDENTS OF Terrorist numerology country bespeak an organization with roots TERROR INVOLVING AL After the successful demolition of the World beyond the nation. QAEDA AFTER 9/11 HAVE Trade Center (WTC), Al Qaeda seems to have News stories spoke of evidence that the terOCCURRED ON THE 11TH been enamored of the number 11. I am not rorist groups that devastated Mumbai had links THAT AL QAEDA’S LOVE able to find any religious significance of this with Karachi in Pakistan. The 11-connection is FOR THIS NUMBER number for Muslims. Al Qaeda’s fascination not unknown to Pakistan. On April 11, 2006, a CANNOT BE DISMISSED with the number seems to be connected with suicide bomber exploded himself near Karachi the success of the 9/11 mission. and killed 57 Sunni worshippers. The same year, AS MERE COINCIDENCE. A couple of years ago, I wrote about this on May 11, five bombs exploded in the Police in some detail in my editorial response to an Academy at Quetta, killing six policemen. article in Crisis Response Journal, a professional journal for disasterNor is the 11-connection new to India. We must remember that the management published in the UK. The article was about the Mumbai bomb blasts in Mumbai trains, which killed more than 200 passengers, train blasts of July 11, 2006, by PS Pasricha, the then-director general occurred on July 11, 2006. of police for Maharashtra state. It is likely that Al Qaeda chose the date 11 for hitting the 11-sha2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=59http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=59AFTER MUMBAI: FACING THE FLAMES Continued from p. 34 set fires offer a would-be terrorist virtually unlimited target selection and the chance to inflict both mass casualties and severe economic damage, all with very little technological prowess or cost—a disturbingly high return on investment. Worse still, while many arson attacks occur at night under cover of darkness, an individual or individuals bent on a one-way mission need not wait if they’re willing to perish during commission of the act. While Americans would consider this a bizarre course of action, it is worth noting that Al Qaeda and other violent Islamist extremists are not deterred by the thought of dying with their victims in a suicide attack. Law enforcement continues to grapple with a response to suicide attackers and active shooters, and the answers to an additional tactical problem will not be easy. The fire service has an advantage in that most modern buildings are well-protected by strong building, safety and fire protection codes, and the availability of suppression systems to mitigate the effects of an arson attack could go far in saving lives. It is also worth examining through cost benefit analyses if the controls for fire suppression systems, particularly those in high occupancy structures, can be made more tamper resistant while permitting their rapid access and use by first responders. As we march forward in “the long war” against terrorism, it is worth examining more closely such asymmetric threats as the use of fire as a tool for terror and mass casualties and then asking ourselves, “Are we prepared for these scenarios?” HST Scott Sweetow is assistant special agent in charge of the Atlanta Field Division of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. What can be done? It would be the height of hubris to think terrorists aren’t savvy enough to look back at history and derive some lessons. Al Qaeda has demonstrated a heuristic ability to learn from mistakes and make course corrections. One of the hallmarks of asymmetric warfare, a tactic commonly employed by many extremist or terrorist groups, is to strike at weak points in the system where the criminals believe their adversaries are either unprepared or unaware. A growing body of evidence seems to indicate fire has been both studied and included in the terrorist’s bag of tricks, so tactics must be developed and practiced to counter this threat Consider that in the recent Virginia Tech massacre, a single mentally disturbed individual was able to inflict mass casualties when he chained shut available exits, presumably to prevent the escape of victims, as well as to impede law enforcement. Switching now to fire, how long would it take a few determined people to chain and lock exit doors in a theater, mall, hotel or other business and then set fires with ignitable fluids, perhaps remaining inside to shoot at fleeing, panicked crowds? How difficult would it be to shut down a fire suppression system and immediately thereafter set a fire? In some of the worst mass-casualty fires in the past, locked exit doors were significant causal or aggravating factors in the high number of casualties. Even with the advent of advanced fire suppression systems and fire codes requiring sprinklers, intentionally Smarter, Faster, Cost-Effective Response. Deploy fire, hazmat and decontamination foams from a single system. Attain faster results and work smarter with Intelagard equipment. Our systems are easy to use and to maintain, it’s like buying three systems in one. Whether you need 350 or 20,000 gallons of finished foam, Intelagard has a system to fit your needs. Call us today to learn more about Intelagard’s wide range of systems. Intelagard systems were used to decontaminate the New Orleans Arena following hurricanes Katrina and Rita, while the military uses them for decon and fires in Iraq. HAZMAT DECON FIRE Contact us today for options and details at 303.309.6309 or info@intelagard.com www.intelagard.com Reg2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=60http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=60HSToday HOMELAND SECURITY INSIGHT & ANALYSIS ™ ADVERTISER INDEX G11 Ahura Scientific www.ahura.com/hstoday Combat Medical Systems www.combatmedicalsystems.co m Defenshield Inc. www.defenshield.com DHS Technologies, LLC www.DHSTechnologiesLLC.com DRS Technologies www.drs.com DQE www.dqeready.com/everybody GEICO www.geico.com Global Security Systems www.ALERTFM.com GovSec/U.S. Law www.govsecinfo.com 20 37 31 18 29 G16 G2 8 35 G9 6 C2 G13 5 10 39 Hardigg Industries www.militarycases.com Harris RF Communications www.talkasone.com/HST Hudson Yards Development Corp. www.hydc.org/html/procurement/ procurement.shtml Hughes www.gov.hughes.com Intelagard www.intelagard.com Knox www.knoxbox.com L-3 Communications www.l-3com.com/MARCOM Northrop Grumman www.northropgrumman.com Panasonic Toughbook www.panasonic.com/toughbook/ state&local G7 23 G5 C4 11 Sensaphone www.sensaphone.com Smiths Detection www.smithsdetectionpid.com Smiths Detection www.smithsdetection.com Technical Communities www.technicalcommunities.com Thales Communications, Inc. www.thalescomminc.com Thermo Scientific www.thermo.com/solutions Verizon www.verizonwireless.com/gov Versi-Panel Enclosures www.versi-panelenclosures.com ZOLL Medical Corp. www.zoll.com/homelandsecurity 34 Publisher Kimberley S. Hanson-Brown khanson@HSToday.US Associate Publisher/Sales Director Linda Andersen landersen@HSToday.US Director, Interactive Media Sales Assistant Shannon Webb 1-800-503-6506 swebb@HSToday.US Public Relations & Marketing Director Sue Stott 1-800-503-6506 sstott@HSToday.US Tradeshow Manager Lynn Perciasepe PHONE: 772-708-4649 FAX: 772-334-4271 lynnp@HSToday.US ADVERTISING REPRESENTATIVES National Accounts Linda Andersen PHONE: 978-448-3932 FAX: 978-448-5745 landersen@HSToday.US Southern US Karen Gaconnier PHONE: 631-793-0182 FAX: 866-503-5758 kgaconnier@HSToday.US Northern US Lisa Pavlock PHONE: 540-349-9794 FAX: 540-349-9791 lpavlock@HSToday.US Israel Dan Erlich PHONE: 972-9-9586 245 FAX: 972-9-9585 685 d_erlich@netvision.net.il © Copyright 2009 HSToday All rights reserved 14 2 31 G15 TRADESHOW CIRCUIT February 9-11 CBRNE Defense Washington, DC www.idga.org/us/cbrne MEDIA PARTNER Find more events and details online at www.HSToday.us 11-12 GovSec 2009 Washington Convention Center www.govsecinfo.com MEDIA SPONSOR 19-22 GITA’s 2009 Geospatial Dimensions of Emergency Response Symposium Tampa, Florida www.gita.org/ers MEDIA PARTNER 9-11 Biometrics for National Security Washington, DC www.idga.org/us/biometrics MEDIA PARTNER 16-20 IWCE Expo Las Vegas, NV www.iwceexpo.com MEDIA PARTNER 27-28 Tools & Templates to Develop a Framework to Execute Crisis Care Chicago, IL www.worldrg.com/soc 23-24 2009 Homeland Security S&T Stakeholders Conference Bellevue, Washington www.ndia.org 31LogiChem Europe 2009 April 3 Dusseldorf, Germany www.logichemeurope.com 27-30 Maritime Homeland Security Jacksonville, FL www.maritimehssummit.com MEDIA PARTNER April 5-7 Disaster Response & Recovery Exposition Dallas, TX www.drrexpo.com MEDIA PARTNER 25-26 AFCEA Homeland Security Conference Washington, DC www.afcea.org/events/ homeland MEDIA PARTNER May 13-14 Border Security Conference and Expo Phoenix, AZ www.bordersecurityexpo.com 8 March 2-5 Winter 2009 Biometrics Summit Miami, FL www.aliconferences.com/conf/ biometricsforgov_0708/pre.htm Spring 2009 Telework Exchange Town Hall Meeting Ronald Reagan Building, Washington, DC www.teleworkexchange.com/ townhallmeeting June 8-10 NFPA Conference & Expo Chicago, IL www.nfpa.org/conference SHOW ENDORSER 14-16 World Health Care Congress Washington, DC www.worldhealthcarecongress. com 3-5 44th Annual Governor’s Homeland Security and Emergency Management Conference Brooklyn Park, Minnesota www.hsem.state.mn.us 2007 2007 CentralCentralSoutheast Southeast Region Region 2007 2007 CentralCentral2005 2005 CentralCentralSoutheast Southeast Region Region Southeast Southeast Region Region 2005 2005 CentralCentralSoutheast Southeast Region Region Bronze Bronze Special Special 2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=61http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=61The Insight to Secure Our Nation GovSec and U.S. Law: the one place to see and experience it all! From a solutions-based Conference, insightful Briefings, expert Keynotes, a host of Special Features, and Exhibitors offering cutting-edge security products, no other event offers such a comprehensive approach to securing our country and ensuring the public safety. All that expertise is translated into action right on the exhibit floor where you’ll see, touch, and test solutions that turn theory into reality. Products include: Access Control Systems Biometric Control Systems CBRNE Detection & Mitigation Data & Voice Communications Disaster Preparedness & Recovery Intrusion Detection IT Security & Software Lethal and Less-Lethal Weapons Military Equipment Mobile Command Centers Perimeter Security Personal Protection Equipment RFID Systems Specialty & Security Services Surveillance Systems Tactical Products Training & Education … AND MUCH MORE! As an added bonus, your registration will admit you to FOSE, which is co-locating with GovSec and U.S. Law. You and your colleagues will be immersed in the convergence of IT and physical security, expanding your arsenal of tools for accomplishing your mission. Products. Strategies. Tactics. Education. Networking. Join your colleagues from this focused and highly qualified community at GovSec and U.S. Law. Register today for COMPLIMENTARY* expo admission. MARCH 11–12, 2009 Walter E. Washington Convention Center WASHINGTON, DC Produced by: www.govsecinfo.com Questions, or to exhibit — contact us today: govsec@1105govinfo.com or 800.746.0099. *Government employees, military, law enforcement, and qualified professionals attend the exhibits at GovSec and U.S. Law 2009 at no charge.2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=62http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=62LEADERSHIP PROFILE BY DAVID SILVERBERG On Sept. 11, 2001, 10 of the 19 Al Qaeda hijackers took off on two of the targeted flights from Logan International Airport in Boston, Mass. Though Logan followed standard security procedures, after the attacks there was a deep sensitivity to the fact that so much of the 9/11 hijacking had its origins there. A new start needed to be made. “In the aftermath of 9/11, I got a call asking if I’d be interested in going up to be the CEO of the Massachusetts Port Authority,” recalled Craig Coy, president and chief operating officer of the Homeland Security Group for L-3 Corp., New York, NY. “Logan was beat up pretty badly as a result of half those bastards coming through Logan. As it turns out, Logan didn’t do anything different than Newark or Dulles, but there was a lot of angst about that, so I went up and did a turnaround of the port authority and Logan, in particular.” Launching right into his new responsibilities, Coy related, “We set up Massport [the Massachusetts Port Authority] and Logan as a center of excellence. We were the first [to have] initiatives in transportation security. For example, we were the first airport to install an automated, in-line screening system by the deadline. We were the first airport on our own to employ behavior pattern recognition for law enforcement. We set up our own antiterrorism team among the state police and deployed there. We were the first to issue MP-5 submachine guns with the state police. We integrated perimeter security for the first time. We tested air cargo for the first time. We piloted facial recognition. We piloted all sorts of initiatives to push the envelope of transportation security.” It was not the first time Coy had been on the frontlines of a crisis in America’s long war with Islamist terrorism. Libya and the hijacking of the cruise ship Achille Lauro. He also worked with the attorney general on the US war on drugs. Coy returned to the private sector and served as president and chief executive officer of HR Logic Inc., a California-based $1.7 billion business outsourcing services company, but not for long. Massport and L-3 It was while he was CEO of Massport that Coy got to know Frank Lanza, president of L-3, who asked him to join the company, which he did in July 2006. Today, L-3, a diversified technology and communications company, is deeply involved in a wide variety of homeland security activities. In addition to making whole body scans and security portals, as well as video recording products for law enforcement vehicles, L-3 is a contractor on the US Coast Guard’s Deepwater project, where it is providing interoperable communications. It is also a contractor on the Secure Border Initiative Network. One of L-3’s newest and most innovative products is the MarCom Interoperable Communications System, which has been installed in the Burlington County, NJ, emergency operations center. The system allows officials in a wide variety of agencies to wirelessly connect to each other quickly and easily. As for homeland security and its associated industry, Coy thinks it’s still in its early stages, but the momentum is there. “The homeland security industry is still evolving; it is still a relatively new industry—there’s still learning on both sides,” he reflected. “One of the things that I talk about frequently is that there is a fundamental difference between doing ‘national security’ and doing ‘homeland security.’ It is one thing to secure the Baghdad airport in a war situation versus the Boston airport, and those differences constitute the fundamental challenge that we have in homeland security. When you add the need to keep commerce flowing, the flow of people, civil liberties, privacy—those types of issues that don’t really raise their heads from a national security or a military standpoint—then I think that as we refine that balance and refine technologies and the systems that help us, we’ll make even more progress,” he said. HST CRAIG C2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=63http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=63why we write Visit us at GovSec and pick up your free March issue of Homeland Security Today to provide insight and provoke discussions that bring about change and a safe & secure homeland We started Homeland Security Today to deliver objective, non-partisan insight and analysis on the topics of critical importance to those securing our homeland. Homeland Security Today has evolved into the premier homeland security media provider, creating a forum in which government leaders and HS professionals share their knowledge. With a first class team of editors and international correspondents, we provide award-winning journalism—in print and online—that has changed our industry. We put homeland security news at your fingertips through our print magazine, new digital publication, website and e-newsletters. Turn to Homeland Security Today for the information you need. 2007 2007 CentralCentralSoutheast Southeast Region Region 2005 Central2007 2007 CentralCentral2005 CentralRegion Southeast Southeast Region Region Southeast Southeast Region 2005 Central2005 CentralSoutheast Region Southeast Region Bronze Bronze Special Special Section Section Bronze Bronze Special Supplement Special Supplement Silver Silver Special Section Special Section Bronze Bronze Regular Department Regular Department www.HSToday.us The homeland security information you need at your fingertips View digital publication Sign up for e-newsletters Subscribe to magazine Visit our website2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=64http://ipaperus.ipaperus.com/HomelandSecurityToday/February2009/?Page=64GSA Sales: The Door Is Wide Open. Companies who sell to the government rely on Technical Communities for proven go-to-market solutions to grow sales, lower costs and reduce risk. Increase Sales. We have over a decade of experience growing sales for our customers. Our proven record includes successful management of multiple GSA schedules and exceptional relationships with more than 100 companies and thousands of buying centers. Experience Channel-Friendly. We help you successfully grow your GSA schedule sales — all in a channel-friendly environment. Let Us Help. To see how you can increase sales, go to www.technicalcommunities.com. And while you’re there, find out how, in a down economy, Technical Communities made 2008 our best year yet. Then call us at 1-888-665-3454. Increase sales. Lower costs. Channel-friendly.2009-02-03T01:56:29+01:00