Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: State Allocations and Issues for Congressional Oversight

CRS Report for Congress
Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant
Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
Updated August 4, 2006
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division


Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program:
State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
Summary
The Office for Grants and Training, within the Department of Homeland
Security, is responsible for directing and supervising federal terrorism preparedness
grants for states and localities. Prior to FY2005, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness, now renamed the Office for Grants and Training, offered that
assistance through six separate grant programs. Some state and local officials,
however, criticized the fragmentation of homeland security assistance and
recommended streamlining the grant process. Subsequently, the Office for Domestic
Preparedness recommended and — pursuant to Section 872 of the Homeland
Security Act (P.L. 107-296), which authorizes the Department of Homeland Security
Secretary “to allocate, reallocate, and consolidate functions and organization units
within the Department” — former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom
Ridge approved consolidating the separate programs into a single Homeland Security
Grant Program. Within the consolidated program, however, the six types of
assistance continued to have their separate identities and funding allocations as “sub-
grants.” As a whole, the Homeland Security Grant Program provided assistance for
a wide range of eligible activities, among which are planning, training, equipment
acquisition, and exercises. To fund the program, Congress appropriated
approximately $2.5 billion for FY2005, roughly $600,000 less than for the programs
in FY2004.
This CRS report, which will be updated, summarizes key provisions of the
FY2005 program guidance, with special attention to differences from the FY2003
and FY2004 editions. Among those differences are the following:
!consolidation of previously separate grant programs;
!specific application requirements for the Homeland Security Grant
Program sub-grants;
!provisions for citizen and private sector involvement;
!authorization of operational overtime costs associated with
Homeland Security Advisory System threat levels;
!guidance for critical infrastructure protection and border security;
and
!streamlined grant administration based on recommendations of the
Department of Homeland Security Task Force on State and Local
Homeland Security Funding.
This report also discusses issues regarding methods used to allocate federal
homeland security assistance and authorized expenditures of homeland security
assistance programs, and it analyzes options Congress might consider for resolving
those issues. Tables included in the report present comparative data on federal
homeland security assistance to states and localities.



Contents
In troduction ..................................................1
Homeland Security Grant Program Overview........................2
State Homeland Security Grant Program........................2
Urban Area Security Initiative................................3
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program.................3
Citizen Corps Program......................................3
Emergency Management Performance Grants....................3
Metropolitan Medical Response System........................3
Program Guidance.............................................4
Funding Distribution Methods................................4
HSGP Application and Matching Requirements..................4
EMPG Applications and Matching Requirements.................5
UASI Applications and Matching Requirements..................5
Pass-through Requirements..................................5
State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies..............5
Citizen and Private Sector Involvement........................6
Operational Overtime Costs..................................6
Critical Infrastructure Protection..............................6
Border Security...........................................6
Unauthorized Homeland Security Activities.....................6
Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding
Recommendations .........................................7
Issues .......................................................8
Funding Distribution Methods................................8
Authorized Expenditures for Homeland Security Assistance
Funding ............................................11
Options .................................................12
List of Tables
Table 1. Task Force Recommendations and FY2005 HSGP Program
Guidance ....................................................8
Table 2. FY2005 HSGP State Allocations.............................13
Table 3. FY2005 UASI State and Urban Area Allocations................17
Table 4. FY2005 UASI Mass Transit Grant Allocations...................19
Table 5. UASI Intra-City Bus Systems Allocations.......................21
Table 6. FY2005 MMRS Allocation Recipients.........................23
Table 7. FY2004 and FY2005 HSGP State Allocations...................25



Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant
Program: State Allocations and Issues for
Congressional Oversight
Introduction
The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), now within the Department of
Homeland Security’s (DHS) Office for Grants and Training (G&T), is responsible
for directing and supervising federal terrorism preparedness grants for states and
localities.1 Prior to FY2005, ODP offered that assistance through six separate grant2
programs. Some state and local officials, however, criticized the fragmentation of
homeland security assistance and recommended streamlining the grant process.3
Subsequently, ODP recommended and — pursuant to Section 872 of the Homeland
Security Act (P.L. 107-296), which authorizes the DHS Secretary “to allocate,
reallocate, and consolidate functions and organization units within the Department”
— former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge approved consolidating the separate programs4
into a single Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). Within the consolidated
program, however, the six types of assistance continued to have their separate
identities and funding allocations as “sub-grants.” As a whole, the HSGP provided
assistance for a wide range of eligible activities, among which are planning, training,
equipment acquisition, and exercises. To fund the program, Congress appropriated
approximately $2.5 billion for FY2005, roughly $600,000 less than for the programs5


in FY2004.
1 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 430(c)(3), Homeland Security Act.
2 These grant programs included the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area
Security Initiative, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, Citizen Corps
Programs, Metropolitan Medical Response System, and Emergency Management
Performance Grants.
3 See U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs, 108th Cong., 1st
sess., May 1, 2003, (Washington: GPO, 2003); and U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats, and
International Relations, Combating Terrorism: Assessing Federal Assistance to Firstthst
Responders, 108 Cong., 1 sess., Sept. 15, 2003 (Washington: GPO, 2003).
4 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 872, Homeland Security Act. ODP recommendations and the
secretary’s decision reflected the work of DHS’s Task Force on State and Local Homeland
Security Funding. See U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington: Dec.

2004), p. 18.


5 P.L. 108-334 and P.L. 108-90, DHS appropriations for FY2005 and FY2004, respectively.

ODP administered the Homeland Security Grant Program through its annual
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit,6
which provided homeland security assistance information and instructions to states
and localities for such matters as developing and implementing state and local
homeland security strategies. The FY2005 program guidance was more fully
developed and offers more specificity than in previous years.
This CRS report, which will be updated, summarizes key provisions of the
FY2005 program guidance, with special attention to differences from the FY2003
and FY2004 editions. Among those differences are the following:
!consolidation of previously separate grant programs;
!specific application requirements for HSGP sub-grants;
!provisions for citizen and private sector involvement;
!authorization of operational overtime costs associated with
Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS) threat levels;
!guidance for critical infrastructure protection and border security;
and
!streamlined grant administration based on recommendations of the
DHS Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding.
This report also discusses issues regarding methods used to allocate federal
homeland security assistance and authorized expenditures of homeland security
assistance programs, and it analyzes options Congress might consider for resolving
those issues. Tables included in the report present comparative data on federal
homeland security assistance to states and localities.
Homeland Security Grant Program Overview
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) consolidated the previous grant
programs administered by the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) into the
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). It includes the following sub-grants:
!State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP);
!Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI);
!Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP);
!Citizen Corps Program (CCP);
!Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG); and
!Metropolitan Medical Response System (MMRS).
Each sub-grant is described briefly below:
State Homeland Security Grant Program. SHSGP provides homeland
security assistance funds directly to states and territories to prevent, respond to, and


6 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit.

recover from terrorist attacks. Funding from this program is meant to address state
homeland security planning, equipment acquisition, training, and exercise needs.7
Urban Area Security Initiative. UASI provides funding to address the
planning, equipment, training, and exercise needs in urban areas identified by DHS.
The program is designed to help the urban areas prevent, respond to, and recover
from terrorist attacks. Additionally, in the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-

334), Congress authorized that funds from this program be provided to nonprofit8


organizations located within the identified urban areas.
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program. LETPP assists law
enforcement agencies in conducting terrorism prevention activities. The activities
include information sharing, target hardening, threat recognition and mapping,
counter-terrorism and security planning, interoperable communications, and terrorist
interdiction.9
Citizen Corps Program. CCP, originally administered by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), provides funding for volunteers
participating in community security through personal preparedness, training, and
community service. This program supports the state’s local Citizen Corps Councils
which encourage citizens to prevent, prepare for, and respond to all hazards.10
Emergency Management Performance Grants. EMPGs, originally
administered by FEMA, support comprehensive emergency management at the state
and local levels. The program assists in mitigation, preparedness, response, and
recovery from all hazards. Funds provided from this program may also be used to
support state and local activities to manage the consequences of terrorist attacks.11
Metropolitan Medical Response System. MMRS was originally
administered by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), but was
transferred to FEMA (within the Emergency Preparedness and Response directorate
of DHS) in March 2003.12 The program helps the 124 metropolitan medical systems
identified by DHS to enhance and sustain their integrated and systematic
preparedness actions to respond to mass casualty events. The mass casualty events
can be the result of incidents ranging from chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear,
and explosive attacks to epidemic outbreaks, natural disasters, and large-scale13


hazardous materials events.
7 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit, p. 19.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
10 Ibid., p. 20.
11 Ibid.
12 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 503(5), Homeland Security Act.
13 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
(continued...)

Program Guidance
Funding Distribution Methods. In the conference report (H.Rept. 108-774)
accompanying the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed
DHS to allocate FY2005 funding for SHSGP, LETPP, EMPG, and CCP in the same
manner as the FY2004 allocations. These allocations were based on the formula of

0.75% of total appropriations guaranteed to each state, and 0.25% of total14


appropriations guaranteed to each U.S. territory. In the absence of statutes or
congressional guidance, DHS, in FY2004, allocated the remaining appropriations in
direct proportion to the ratio of the state’s population to the total national
population.15
UASI discretionary allocations were distributed using credible threat, presence
of critical infrastructure, vulnerability, population, population density, law
enforcement investigative and enforcement activity, and the existence of formal16
mutual aid agreements as funding factors. MMRS allocations guaranteed all 124
MMRS jurisdictions $227,592 in FY2005 for a total appropriation of $28.2 million,17
which is $21.8 million less than appropriated in FY2004.
HSGP Application and Matching Requirements. ODP required every
state and territory to submit its application for HSGP sub-grants (including the State
Homeland Security Grant Program, Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention
Program, and Citizen Corps Programs) by January 16, 2005. ODP stated it will
respond to each completed application no later than 15 days after receipt. With each
application, the state must provide a program narrative that describes current
management capabilities to develop, implement, and manage the HSGP sub-grants.
This narrative also included such specifics as an overview of the process by which
the state determines funding allocations to localities, and state efforts to achieve
National Incident Management System (NIMS) standards.18 There was no matching
requirement for these sub-grants.
Each application delineated the allocation of HSGP funds and state resources
in the following homeland security activities: planning; training; exercises; and
management and administration. Each state provided an explanation of challenges


13 (...continued)
Application Kit, p. 20.
14 P.L. 107-56, Sec. 1014, USA PATRIOT Act.
15 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit, p. 1.
16 Ibid.
17 FY2004 MMRS allocations are available at [http://mmrs.fema.gov], visited Dec. 8, 2004.
18 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit (Washington: Dec. 2004), p. 1.

and impediments that complicate the administration and management of the
homeland security assistance programs.19
EMPG Applications and Matching Requirements. For EMPG
allocations, applicants provided a narrative similar to the HSGP management
narrative. Additionally, states provided a list of major emergency management
initiatives and a brief overview of each initiative. EMPG was the only HSGP sub-
grant that had a matching requirement of a 50% federal share and 50% state cost-
share cash or in-kind match. American Samoa, Guam, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and
the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands did not have a matching20
requirement for their EMPG allocations.
UASI Applications and Matching Requirements. The application
process for UASI recipients has not changed from FY2004 program guidance. This
guidance, however, provided for newly identified UASI urban areas. This guidance
required newly identified urban areas to provide ODP with points of contact, a
definition of the urban area, and the establishment of an Urban Area Working Group
(UAWG).21 There was no matching requirement for UASI grants.
Pass-through Requirements. Each state obligated not less than 80% of
the State Homeland Security Grant Program, Urban Area Security Initiative, Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, and Metropolitan Medical Response
System to localities within 60 days of the grant award date. Additionally, any UASI
funds retained by the state had to be used to directly support the identified urban area.
The state was encouraged to pass-through 100% of MMRS funding to the identified
metropolitan medical system. Any funds retained by the state, however, had to be
documented in a written agreement between the state MMRS grant administering
agency and the chair of the identified MMRS recipient.
There was no minimum pass-through requirement for CCP. States, however,
were expected to work with local Citizen Corps Councils and to expend the funds to
support Citizen Corps Council education, and training. States were required to pass
through 100% of EMPG funding to designated state-level emergency management22
agencies.
State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies. DHS required
states and urban areas to develop and use their State Homeland Security Strategies
(SHSS) and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies (UAHSS) as an approved
guide for all security and preparedness activities funded through HSGP allocations.


19 Ibid., p. 13.
20 Ibid., p. 12.
21 Ibid., p. 17.
22 Ibid., p. 21.

ODP certified and approved all SHSS and UAHSS. States were also encouraged to
supplement federal homeland security assistance funding with state resources.23
Citizen and Private Sector Involvement. States were required to
coordinate SHSGP and UASI citizen awareness and participation activities with the
state agencies administering CCP. In addition, states were encouraged to collaborate
with the private sector to leverage private sector homeland security initiatives,
resources, and capabilities. DHS considers private sector involvement crucial, given24
most of the nation’s critical infrastructure is privately owned and operated.
Operational Overtime Costs. States and localities were authorized to use
up to 25% of their LETPP allocation to support operational overtime costs incurred
during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level that is associated with critical
infrastructure security. Urban areas were authorized to use up to 25% of their UASI
allocations to support operational overtime costs for increased critical infrastructure
security. Of this amount, only 10% could be used for overtime costs associated with
an HSAS “elevated-yellow” or “high-orange” threat level. The remaining 15% of
UASI allocations could be used only to support overtime costs incurred during an
HSAS “high-orange” threat level.25
Critical Infrastructure Protection. DHS directed states and local
governments to consider critical infrastructure as any system or asset that if attacked
would result in catastrophic loss of life and cause catastrophic economic loss. States
and localities were required to consider specific facilities as critical infrastructure.
This included such facilities as: venues for large public celebrations and events;
water systems; chemical facilities; power generations systems; rail and highway
bridges; mass transit subway systems; and telecommunications and cyber facilities.26
Border Security. The security of the nation’s borders has become an
important aspect of homeland security since the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.
The importance of border security has resulted in DHS authorizing a portion of
HSGP funding to be used for securing the U.S. borders. States and localities were
authorized to use LETPP funding to provide enhanced law enforcement operations
for increased border security during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level. UASI
funding could be used for enhancing border security during an HSAS “elevated-
yellow” or “high-orange” threat level. Increased patrol presence at the border and
additional traffic control points were some of the enhanced law enforcement
operations authorized by DHS for border security.27
Unauthorized Homeland Security Activities. DHS did not allow states
or localities to use HSGP funding for the following activities: construction and


23 Ibid.
24 Ibid., pp. 23-24.
25 Ibid., pp. 25-26.
26 Ibid., p. 27.
27 Ibid., p. 27.

renovation of a building (unless for enhancing the security of the facility), and hiring
of personnel.28 The hiring of personnel is an issue that many state and local officials
have stated is a critical homeland security need. Former DHS Secretary Ridge,
however, stated before the Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs that it was
not the role of the federal government to pay the salaries of state and local
em pl oyees. 29
In addition to guidance on applications, homeland security strategies, citizen and
private sector involvement, operational overtime costs, critical infrastructure
protection, and border security, DHS provided information on homeland security
equipment, training, and exercises in the HSGP program guidance. This information,
however, was similar to that provided to states and localities in FY2003 and
FY2004.30
Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security
Funding Recommendations
In March 2004, former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge established the Task Force
on State and Local Homeland Security Funding. This task force comprised
governors, mayors, local government officials, and tribal officials. It was tasked to
examine the distribution of homeland security funds to states and localities, and
develop specific and objective recommendations to expedite the process by which
DHS allocates homeland security assistance funding. The task force focused on three
areas: delay of funding; best practices; and recommendations to eliminate delay in
funding.31 In June 2004, the task force published its report, A Report from the Task
Force on State and Local Funding, which provided recommendations to streamline
federal homeland security grant applications and distribution processes.32
The following table provides information on task force recommendations from
its report, and the corresponding FY2005 HSGP program guidance:


28 Ibid., p. 41.
29 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs.
30 Ibid., pp. 28-41.
31 Ibid., p. 18.
32 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Task Force on State and Local Funding, A Report
from the Task Force on State and Local Funding, (Washington: June 2004).

Table 1. Task Force Recommendations and
FY2005 HSGP Program Guidance
Task Force RecommendationFY2005 HSGP Guidance
Allow states and localities to draw downStates and localities are authorized to
grant funds from the U.S. Treasury up todraw down grant funding 120 days prior

120 days in advance of expenditure, asto expenditure.


opposed to the 3-5 days currently
allowed.
Expand the approved uses of SHSGPUASI grant recipients are authorized to
funds to allow states and localsupport operational overtime costs
governments better to address short termincurred at an HSAS “elevated-yellow”
homeland security issues.or “high-orange” threat level for critical
infrastructure security.
Enhance training and technical assistanceDHS provides grant management
available to states and localities involvedtechnical assistance to states and
in the management and distribution oflocalities to assist in the distribution of
homeland security assistance grants.HSGP funding.
Establish an Office of the ComptrollerDHS will establish the Office of Grant
within DHS to assume complete financialoperations, within SLGCP, to provide
responsibility for homeland securityadministrative and financial grants
assistance grants.management support.
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding,
and the Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Issues
Funding Distribution Methods. On July 22, 2004, the National
Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) issued
The 9/11 Commission Report recommending, among other things, that federal
homeland security assistance be distributed to state and local governments based on
risk and vulnerability. The 9/11 Commission recommended that risk and
vulnerability assessments consider population, population density, vulnerability, and33
the presence of critical infrastructure within each state.
Other critics of the FY2005 funding distribution method, including some
Members of Congress, stated that the funding distribution methods used to provide
federal homeland security assistance to states and localities were inadequate and
unfair. Additionally, these critics asserted that the present formula did not consider


33 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 22, 2004), p. 396.

the threat of terrorist attack or vulnerability.34 Other observers noted this allegedly
unfair distribution of funds.35
Variation in the distribution of funds under the FY2005 State Homeland
Security Grant Program was seen, for example, in a comparison of Wyoming and
New York. Wyoming’s FY2005 State Homeland Security Grant Program allocation
of $9 million.36 Based on Wyoming’s 2002 estimated census population of 498,703,
the state was allocated $18.00 per capita. In contrast, New York (arguably a more
likely target for terrorist attacks) was allocated $49.4 million from the State
Homeland Security Grant Program in FY2005.37 Based on New York’s 2002
estimated census population of 19,157,532, New York was allocated $2.57 per
capita.
The 9/11 Commission Recommendation. The 9/11 Commission reported
that prior to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, no federal department had as
its first priority defending the United States from domestic terrorist attack. This38
changed with the creation of DHS in 2002. According to the report, no challenge
was more difficult for federal government decision makers “than to set priorities,39
making hard choices in allocating limited resources.”
The 9/11 Commission recommended that state and local homeland security
assistance should be allocated strictly on risk and vulnerability assessments. In 2004,
New York City and Washington, D.C., would likely be at or near the top of any threat
assessment list. The commission indicated that it understands the argument for state
and local baseline security. It stated unequivocally, however, that federal homeland
security assistance should not remain a program “for general revenue sharing.” It
suggested that federal assistance should supplement state and local resources based
on risks and vulnerabilities that merit additional support.40
Some would argue that the 9/11 Commission recommendation to distribute
federal homeland security assistance funding based on threat and vulnerability is not


34 U.S. Congress, House of Representatives, Democratic Members of the House Select
Committee on Homeland Security, America at Risk: The State of Homeland Security, Initialthnd
Findings, 108 Cong., 2 sess., Jan. 13, 2004. See also U.S. Congress, House of
Representatives, Select Committee on Homeland Security, An Analysis of First Responderthnd
Grant Funding, 108 Cong., 2 sess., May 5, 2004.
35 John Doyle, “DHS Making $2.2B in Grants Available to States, Territories,” Aviation
Week’s Homeland Security & Defense, Nov. 5, 2003, p. 6. Thomas Frank, “Minding the
Gaps: A Push for Rethinking Anti-Terror Funds,” Newsday, Oct. 30, 2003, p. A3.
36 Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and
Application Kit, p. 2.
37 Ibid.
38 P.L. 107-296, Sec. 102(c) states that the DHS Secretary is responsible for administering
grant programs for state and local homeland security.
39 The 9/11 Commission Report, p. 395.
40 Ibid., p. 396.

viable at this time. Critics pointed to the lack of DHS’s ability to determine
accurately the nation’s threats, risks, and vulnerabilities. An example of this would
be the decision by DHS to raise the Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS)
threat level from “elevated-yellow” to “high-orange” on August 1, 2004. This action,
based, in part, on terrorist threat intelligence that was reportedly pre-September 11,
2001, led to the following comment by a senior law enforcement official: “There is
nothing right now that we’re hearing that is new. Why did we go to this level? I still
don’t know that.”41 Another example would be Attorney General John Ashcroft’s
June 14, 2004 announcement that a secret cell of Al Qaeda had plotted to attack an
undisclosed Columbus, Ohio, shopping mall.42
Some arguing against the proposed risk and vulnerability criteria pointed out
that when security increases in one location, there was a possibility that terrorists
search for other, softer, targets.43 Additionally, in a letter to former DHS Secretary
Ridge, the Democrats on the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, now
the House Committee on Homeland Security, expressed concern that inconsistent
methodology for extracting data about key critical infrastructure assets around the
nation resulted in incomplete and inadequate vulnerability assessments.44
Those responding to such critics noted that risk and vulnerability assessments
based on credible and corroborated intelligence were arguably the logical method of
allocating limited homeland security assistance funding. The recommendation,
however, was based on the 9/11 Commission’s recognition of the reality of limited
funding for protecting the nation, and that risk and vulnerability assessments, based
on available intelligence, were two main criteria in determining the appropriate level
of homeland security.
It may be argued, however, that the 9/11 Commission’s recommendation did not
provide sufficient guidance for distributing homeland security assistance based on
risk and vulnerability assessments. The recommendation, however, identified the
political issues associated with homeland security funding distribution. Additionally,
the recommendation proposed such criteria as population, population density,
vulnerability, and the presence of critical infrastructure. The 9/11 Commission did
not define risk and vulnerability factors, nor did it define critical infrastructure. In
the absence of definitions for these criteria, each state could have theoretically argued
for a significant portion of homeland security funding based on its own definition of
risk, vulnerability, and critical infrastructure.
If Congress legislates the 9/11 Commission recommendation to distribute
homeland security assistance funding based on risk and vulnerability assessments,


41 Dan Eggen and Dana Priest, “Pre-9/11 Acts Led to Alerts,” The Washington Post, Aug.

3, 2004, p. A1.


42 John Futty, “Heartland Logical Target,” The Columbus Dispatch, June 16, 2004, p. A1.
43 Ibid.
44 “Democrats Criticize Homeland Security Vulnerability Assessments,” GOVEXEC.com,
Aug. 4, 2004, available at [http://www.govexec.com/dailyfed/0804/080404tdpm2.htm],
visited Dec. 6, 2004.

and critical infrastructure, it may need to give guidance to DHS on what risk and
vulnerability criteria, and critical infrastructure to consider. With this guidance,
Congress could, through statutory or conference report language, direct DHS to
weigh some risk and vulnerability criteria, and critical infrastructure more heavily
than others. Due to the diversity of the U.S. economy, the large and interconnected
nature of private and government operated critical infrastructure sectors, DHS may
not be able to conduct in-depth and complete risk and vulnerability assessments in
a short amount of time. DHS would need to establish a national vulnerability
assessment based on state vulnerability assessments. Then DHS would need to
identify the nation’s critical infrastructure and establish priorities for its protection.
Intelligence Reform Bills. In the 108th Congress, two bills passed the House
and Senate that included provisions to change the current homeland security
assistance funding formulas : S. 2845, the National Intelligence Reform Act of 2004;
and H.R. 10, the 9/11 Recommendations Implementation Act. Both bills proposed
to include threat and risk criteria in the distribution of a portion of the funds. Neither
H.R. 10 nor S. 2845, however, proposed to distribute state and local homeland
security funding strictly according to threat and risk; both bills proposed a guaranteed45
minimum amount to each state. These provisions were removed from the bill as
finally enacted.46
Authorized Expenditures for Homeland Security Assistance
Funding. Witnesses before congressional committees have testified that there is a
need at the state and local level to increase the number of homeland security
personnel.47 These personnel include firefighters, law enforcement personnel,
emergency managers, and emergency medical personnel. Additionally, these
witnesses have testified about the cost in overtime during an HSAS “high-orange”
threat level.
One could argue, that the most important homeland security asset a state and
locality possess is personnel. Without an adequate number of first responders and
other homeland security personnel, all other federal homeland security assistance is
arguably marginal at securing states and localities from terrorist attacks.
Presently, EMPG is the only HSGP program that allows states and localities to
use grant funding to pay the salaries of emergency managers. LETPP and UASI
authorize a portion of state and locality funding to be used for overtime costs during
HSAS “elevated-yellow” and “high-orange” threat levels.


45 For further information and a comparison of these bills, see CRS Report RL32634, First
Responder Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 2845 and H.R. 10,

108th Congress, by Shawn Reese.


46 S. 2845, passed by Congress and sent to the President for his signature on Dec. 8, 2004.
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs; and U.S.
Congress, House Committee on Government Reform, Subcommittee on National Security,
Emerging Threats, and International Relations, Combating Terrorism: Assessing Federal
Assistance to First Responders.

Options. In addition to EMPG providing funding for personnel, and the
LETPP and UASI overtime cost funding, there are other options for providing
assistance to states and localities with a homeland security personnel need.
Funding Personnel Costs with SHSGP Grants. If Congress were to decide
that funding state and local personnel costs was an important aspect of homeland
security, it could direct ODP to authorize states and localities to use SHSGP funds
for personnel costs. Congress could also appropriate a specific percentage within
SHSGP funding for personnel costs. This option, however, would provide funding
that, some argue, is a responsibility of state and local governments. DHS Secretary
Ridge, in testimony before the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee on May 1,

2003, stated that it was not the responsibility of the federal government to pay the48


salaries of state and local employees.
Funding Overtime Costs Associated with an HSAS “High-Orange”
Threat Level. Should Congress determine that DHS does not provide enough
assistance to states and localities during an HSAS “high-orange” threat level, it could
direct ODP, through statutory or conference report language, to authorize states and
localities to use SHSGP funding for overtime costs during this threat level. If
Congress chose not to authorize the use of SHSGP funding for overtime costs, it
could direct ODP to increase the percentage of LETPP and UASI funding it
authorizes states and localities to use for overtime costs. Some could argue that the
federal government, specifically DHS, determines when there is a need to raise the
HSAS threat level; thus the federal government should assist states and localities
when they raise their homeland security due to this threat level. This option,
however, could be compared to the funding of homeland security personnel issue,
and the discussion of the federal government’s (non) role in funding personnel at the
state and local levels could be argued as valid for overtime costs.


48 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, Investing in Homeland
Security: Streamlining and Enhancing Homeland Security Grant Programs.

CRS-13
Table 2. FY2005 HSGP State Allocations
(In millions of dollars, except per capita amounts)
StateSHSGPUASILETPPCCPEMPGMMRSTotalPer Capita
abama$17.7 $6.4$0.2$2.9$0.9$28.1$6.24
aska$9.4 $3.4$0.1$1.5$0.5$14.9$24.83
izona $20.0 $10.0 $7.3 $0.3 $3.2 $0.9 $41.7 $7.58
kansas$13.9 $5.0$0.2$2.3$0.2$21.6$8.00
iki/CRS-RL32696lifornia $84.6 $148.3 $30.8 $1.1 $13.8 $4.1 $282.7 $8.05
g/wlorado $17.8 $8.7 $6.5 $0.2 $2.9 $0.7 $36.8 $8.18
s.or
leakcticut$15.5 $5.6$0.2$2.5$0.2$24.0$6.86
://wikilaware$9.7 $3.5$0.1$1.6 $14.9$18.63
httpC.$9.2 $3.3$0.1$1.5 $14.1$23.50
ida $44.7 $30.9 $16.3 $0.6 $7.2 $1.6 $101.3 $6.07
orgia $26.7 $13.3 $9.7 $0.3 $4.3 $0.5 $54.8 $6.37
waii $10.7 $6.5 $3.9 $0.1 $1.7 $0.2 $23.1 $19.25
ho$10.9 $4.0$0.1$1.8 $16.8$12.92
$35.3 $48.0 $12.8 $0.4 $5.8 $0.2 $102.5 $8.13
n a $21.3 $5.7 $7.8 $0.3 $3.5 $0.5 $39.1 $6.31



CRS-14
StateSHSGPUASILETPPCCPEMPGMMRSTotalPer Capita
a$14.3 $5.2$0.2$2.3$0.2$22.2$7.66
nsas$13.8 $5.0$0.2$2.3$0.5$21.8$8.07
ntucky $16.9 $5.0 $6.1 $0.2 $2.8 $0.5 $31.5 $7.68
ian a $17.7 $14.5 $6.4 $0.2 $2.9 $0.9 $42.6 $9.47
ine$10.8 $3.9$0.1$1.8 $16.6$12.77
ryland $19.9 $11.4 $7.2 $0.3 $3.2 $0.2 $42.2 $7.67
iki/CRS-RL32696ss. $21.9 $28.1 $8.0 $0.2 $3.6 $0.7 $62.5 $9.77
g/w
s.orh igan $29.7 $17.6 $10.8 $0.4 $4.9 $0.7 $64.1 $6.35
leak
so ta $18.9 $5.8 $6.9 $0.2 $3.1 $0.5 $35.4 $7.08
://wikisissippi$14.2 $5.2$0.2$2.3$0.2$22.1$7.62
http
souri $20.3 $15.3 $7.4 $0.3 $3.3 $0.5 $47.1 $8.26
na$9.9 $3.6$0.1$1.6 $15.2$16.89
A $82.0 $82.0$6.12B
braska $11.7 $5.1 $4.3 $0.1 $1.9 $0.5 $23.6 $13.88
vada $12.8 $8.5 $4.7 $0.2 $2.1 $0.2 $28.5 $12.95
w Hamp.$10.7 $3.9$0.1$1.8$0.2$16.7$12.85
w Jersey$26.6$19.4$9.7$0.3$4.4$0.5$60.9$7.08



CRS-15
StateSHSGPUASILETPPCCPEMPGMMRSTotalPer Capita
w Mexico$12.0 $4.4$0.2$2.0 $18.6$9.79
w York$49.4$221.1$18.0$0.6$8.1$1.1$298.3$15.54
Carolina$26.1$5.5$9.5$0.3$4.3$0.9$46.6$5.61
Dakota$9.3 $3.4$0.1$1.5 $14.3$23.83
io $32.7 $26.1 $11.9 $0.4 $5.4 $1.4 $77.9 $6.83
lahoma $15.6 $5.6 $5.7 $0.2 $2.5 $0.2 $29.8 $8.51
iki/CRS-RL32696egon $15.7 $10.5 $5.7 $0.2 $2.6 $0.5 $35.2 $10.06
g/w
s.ornnsylvania $34.7 $33.8 $12.6 $0.4 $5.7 $0.5 $87.7 $7.13
leak
Island$10.3 $3.7$0.1$1.7$0.2$16.0$14.55
://wikiarolina$16.9 $6.2$0.2$2.8$0.2$26.3$6.41
http
akota$9.6 $3.5$0.1$1.6 $14.8$18.50
nnessee$20.6 $7.5$0.3$3.4$0.9$32.7$5.64
xas $55.7 $49.8 $20.3 $0.7 $9.0 $3.0 $138.5 $6.35
ah$13.0 $4.7$0.2$2.1$0.2$20.2$8.78
rmont$9.3 $3.4$0.1$1.5 $14.3$23.83
ginia$23.9 $8.7$0.3$3.9$1.4$38.2$5.23
ash ington $21.2 $12.0 $7.7 $0.3 $3.5 $0.7 $45.4 $7.44



CRS-16
StateSHSGPUASILETPPCCPEMPGMMRSTotalPer Capita
. Virginia$11.9 $4.3$0.2$1.9 $18.3$10.17
isconsin $19.8 $6.3 $7.2 $0.3 $3.2 $0.5 $37.3 $6.91
yoming$9.0 $3.3$0.1$1.5 $13.9$27.80
erto Rico$16.3 $5.9$0.2$2.7 $25.1$6.44
gin Is.$2.9 $1.1$0.04$0.6 $4.6$46.00
Samoa$2.8 $1.0$0.04$0.5 $4.3$71.67
iki/CRS-RL32696am$3.0 $1.1$0.04$0.6 $4.7$23.50
g/w
s.or Ma. Is.$2.8 $1.0$0.04$0.5 $4.3$61.43
leak C
tal $1,062.0 $854.8 $386.4 $13.26 $173.9 $28.5 $2,518.9
://wiki
http U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
hington: Dec. 2004), and CRS calculations based on the 2002 population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Census.
he National Capital Region (NCR) comprises the District of Columbia; Maryland counties of Montgomery and Prince Georges, Virginia counties of Arlington, Fairfax, Prince
, and Loudon; and the Virginia cities of Falls Church, Manassas, Manassas Park, Fairfax, and Alexandria.
his per capita amount is based on the 2002 population estimates for the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia. The 2002 U.S. Census Bureau population estimates are
lable at [http://www.census.gov/popest/estimates.php], visited December 8, 2004.
is amount does not include UASI mass transit and intra-city bus grant allocations.



Table 3. FY2005 UASI State and Urban Area Allocations
(In millions of dollars)
StateUrban AreaFY2005 UASIAllocationState Total
Arizona P ho enix $10.0 $10.0
California Anaheim $10.9 $148.3
Santa Ana$9.0
Oakland $6.2
San Francisco$21.4
San Jose$6.6
Los Angeles$65.1
Long Beach$8.0
Sacramento $6.0
San Diego$15.1
Co lo rado Denver $8.7 $8.7
National Capital RegionDistrict of Columbia;$82.0$82.0
Maryland counties of
Montgomery and Prince
Georges, Virginia counties
of Arlington, Fairfax,
Prince William, and
Loudon; Virginia cities of
Falls Church, Manassas,
Manassas Park, Fairfax,
and Alexandria
Florida J ackso nville $6.9 $30.9
Miami $16.2
T amp a $7.8
Georgia Atlanta $13.3 $13.3
Hawa ii Ho no lulu $ 6 . 5 $ 6 . 5
Illinois Chicago $48.0 $48.0
Indiana Ind ianapolis $5.7 $5.7
Kent uc ky Lo ui sville $ 5 . 0 $ 5 . 0
LouisianaBaton Rouge$5.2$14.5
New Orleans$9.3
Massachusetts Boston $28.1 $28.1
Maryland B altimore $11.4 $11.4
Michigan Detr oit $17.6 $17.6



StateUrban AreaFY2005 UASIAllocationState Total
Minneso ta Minneapolis $5.8 $5.8
MissouriKansas City$8.2$15.3
St. Louis$7.1
Nebraska Omaha $5.1 $5.1
North CarolinaCharlotte$5.5$5.5
New JerseyJersey City$6.8$19.4
Newark $12.6
New YorkBuffalo$7.2$221.1
New York City$213.9
NevadaLas Vegas$8.5$8.5
Ohio Cincinnati $5.9 $26.1
Cleveland $7.3
Co lumb us $7.6
T o ledo $5.3
OklahomaOklahoma City$5.6$5.6
Oregon Portland $10.5 $10.5
Pennsylvania P hiladelp hia $24.1
$33.8
P ittsb ur gh $ 9 . 7
T exas Arlington $5.1 $49.8
Dallas $14.1
Forth Worth$5.4
Ho usto n $19.2
San Antonio$6.0
W ashington Seattle $12.0 $12.0
Wisconsin Milwaukee $6.3 $6.3
To tal $854.8 $854.8 A
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington:
December 2004).
A. Does not include UASI mass transit and intra-city grant allocations.



Table 4. FY2005 UASI Mass Transit Grant Allocations
(All amounts in millions)
UrbanState
StateUrbanAreaAreaEligible SystemsTotal
Allocation
CaliforniaLos Angeles$4.8Southern CA Regional Rail$14.6
and SantaAuthority and LA County Metro
AnaTransportation Authority
Oakland, San$7.1Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers
Francisco,Board, SF Bay Area Rapid Transit
and San JoseDistrict, Altamont Commuter
Express Authority, Santa Clara
Valley Transportation Authority,
and SF Municipal Railway
Sacramento$0.6Sacramento Regional Transit
District
San Diego$2.1North San Diego County Transit
District and San Diego Trolley
ColoradoDenver$0.6Regional Transportation District$0.6
DC/MD/VANational$12.4Washington Metropolitan Area$12.4
CapitolTransit Authority, MD
RegionTransportation Administration, and
VA Railway Express
FloridaJacksonville$0.3Jacksonville Transportation$2.1
Autho r ity
Miami$1.8Tri-County Commuter Rail and
Miami Dade Transportation
Autho r ity
GeorgiaAtlanta$2.6Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid$2.6
Transit Authority
Illinois andChicago$11.0NE Ill Reg Commuter Rail,$11.0
IndianaChicago Transit Authority, No.
Indiana Commuter Transit District
LouisianaNew Orleans$0.5Regional Transit Authority$0.5
MassachusettsBoston$9.6Massachusetts Bay Transportation$9.6
Autho r ity
MichiganDetroit$0.4Detroit Transportation Corporation$0.4
MinnesotaMinneapolis$0.5Hiawatha Light Rail Transit$0.5
MissouriSt. Louis$0.7Bi-State Development Agency$0.7
New YorkBuffalo$0.5Niagara Frontier Transit Metro$0.5


System

UrbanState
StateUrbanAreaAreaEligible SystemsTotal
Allocation
NY/NJ/CTNew York$37.6Metropolitan Transportation$37.6
City, JerseyAuthority, Port Authority of New
City,York and New Jersey, New Jersey
Newark, andTransit Corporation, CT
New HavenDepartment of Transportation
OhioCleveland$1.2Greater Cleveland Regional$1.2
Transportation Authority
OregonPortland$1.4Tri-County Metropolitan$1.4
Transportation District
PennsylvaniaPittsburgh$1.1Cambria County Transit Authority$1.1
PA/NJPhiladelphia$7.8PA Department of Transportation,$7.8
Southeastern Pennsylvania
Transportation Authority, and Port
Authority Transit Corporation
TexasDallas$1.3Dallas Area Rapid Transit and$2.1
Trinity Railway Express
Houston$0.8Island Transit and Metropolitan
Transit Authority of Harris County
WashingtonSeattle$1.1Central Puget Sound Regional$1.1
Transportation Authority, King
County Department of
Transportation, and City of Seattle
Mono rail
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Transit Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit, (Washington: April 2005),
p. 3.



Table 5. UASI Intra-City Bus Systems Allocations
(All amounts in millions)
UrbanState
StateUrban AreaAreaEligible SystemsTotal
Allocation
CaliforniaLos Angeles and$2.2LA County Metro$4.8
Santa AnaTransportation Authority
and Orange County
Transportation Authority
Oakland, San$2.0Alameda-Contra Costa
Francisco, and SanTransit District and San
JoseFrancisco Municipal
Railway
San Diego$0.6San Diego Transit
Co rporatio n
ColoradoDenver$0.6Regional Transportation$0.6
District
DC/MD/VANational Capital$1.2Washington$1.2
RegionMetropolitan Area
Transit Authority
FloridaMiami$0.6Miami Dade$0.6
Transportation Authority
GeorgiaAtlanta$0.7Metropolitan Atlanta$0.7
Rapid Transit Authority
HawaiiHonolulu$0.7City & County of$0.7
Honolulu DOT Services
IL/INChicago$1.5Chicago Transit$1.5
Autho r ity
MassachusettsBoston$1.1Massachusetts Bay$1.1
Transportation Authority
MinnesotaMinneapolis$0.7Metropolitan Council$0.7
NevadaLas Vegas$0.5Regional Transportation$0.5
Commission of Southern
Neva d a
NY/NJNew York City,$4.5Metropolitan$4.5
Jersey City, andTransportation
NewarkAuthority, New York
City DOT, and New
Jersey Transit
Co rporatio n
OregonPortland$0.7Tri-County Metropolitan$0.7
Transportation District
PennsylvaniaPittsburgh$0.6Port Authority of$0.6


Allegheny County

UrbanState
StateUrban AreaAreaEligible SystemsTotal
Allocation
P A/NJ P hilad e lp hia $ 1 . 4 So utheaster n $1.4
P e nnsyl va ni a
Transportation Authority
TexasDallas$0.6Dallas Rapid Area$1.5
Transit
Houston$0.9Metropolitan Transit
Authority of Harris
Co unt y
WashingtonSeattle$0.9King County Department$0.9
of Transportation
WisconsinMilwaukee$0.6Milwaukee County$0.6
Transit System
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Transit Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit, (Washington: April 2005),
p. 4.



Table 6. FY2005 MMRS Allocation Recipients
(Each metropolitan medical system is allocated $227,592)
StateMetropolitan Medical System
AlabamaBirmingham, Huntsville, Mobile, and Montgomery
AlaskaAnchorage and Southeast Alaska
ArizonaGlendale, Mesa, Phoenix, and Tucson
ArkansasLittle Rock
CaliforniaLos Angeles, San Francisco, San Diego, San Jose, Long
Beach, Oakland, Sacramento, Fresno, Santa Ana, Anaheim,
Riverside, Glendale, Huntington Beach, Stockton,
Bakersfield, Fremont, Modesto, and San Bernardino
ColoradoAurora, Colorado Springs, and Denver
Connecticut Hartford
FloridaMiami, Jacksonville, Tampa, St. Petersburg, Hialeah, Ft.
Lauderdale, and Orlando
GeorgiaAtlanta and Columbus
HawaiiHonolulu
IllinoisChicago
IndianaFt. Wayne and Indianapolis
IowaDes Moines
KansasKansas City and Wichita
KentuckyLexington and Louisville
LouisianaBaton Rouge, Jefferson Parish, New Orleans, and
Shreveport
Maryland Baltimore
MassachusettsBoston, Springfield, Worcester
MichiganDetroit, Grand Rapids, and Warran
MinnesotaMinneapolis and St. Paul
Mississippi J ackson
MissouriKansas City and St. Louis
NebraskaLincoln and Omaha
NevadaLas Vegas
New HampshireNorthern New England (also serves Maine and Vermont)
New JerseyJersey City and Newark



StateMetropolitan Medical System
New YorkBuffalo, New York City, Rochester, Syracuse, and Yonkers
North CarolinaCharlotte, Columbia, Greensboro, and Raleigh
OhioAkron, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dayton, and
Toledo
OklahomaOklahoma City and Tulsa
OregonPortland
PennsylvaniaAllegheny County and Philadelphia
Rhode IslandProvidence
South CarolinaColumbia
TennesseeChattanooga, Knoxville, Memphis, and Nashville
TexasAmarillo, Arlington, Austin, Corpus Christi, Dallas, El Paso,
Fort Worth, Garland, Houston, Irving, Lubbock, San
Antonio, and Southern Rio Grande
UtahSalt Lake City
VirginiaArlington County, Chesapeake, Newport News, Norfolk,
Richmond, and Virginia Beach
WashingtonSeattle, Spokane, and Tacoma
WisconsinMadison and Milwaukee
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington: Dec.
2004).



Table 7. FY2004 and FY2005 HSGP State Allocations
(In millions of dollars, except per capita amounts)
F Y 2004a F Y 2005a
StateAllocationPer CapitaAllocationPer Capita
AmountAmount
Alab ama $41.4 $9.20 $28.1 $6.24
Alaska $21.0 $35.00 $14.9 $24.83
Arizona $56.9 $10.35 $41.7 $7.58
Arkansas $33.1 $12.26 $21.6 $8.00
California $337.8 $9.62 $282.7 $8.05
Co lorado $49.6 $11.02 $36.8 $8.18
Connecticut $45.5 $13.00 $24.0 $6.86
Delaware $21.8 $27.25 $14.9 $18.63
District of Columbia$20.6$34.33$14.1$23.50
Florida $144.0 $8.62 $101.3 $6.07
Georgia $72.4 $8.42 $54.8 $6.37
Hawaii $24.3 $20.25 $23.1 $19.25
Id ah o $24.5 $18.85 $16.8 $12.92
Illinois $120.0 $9.52 $102.5 $8.13
Indian a $58.8 $9.48 $39.1 $6.31
Io wa $32.2 $11.10 $22.2 $7.66
Kansas $31.9 $11.81 $21.8 $8.07
Kentucky $47.5 $11.59 $31.5 $7.68
Louisian a $55.5 $12.33 $42.6 $9.47
Maine $24.2 $18.62 $16.6 $12.77
Maryland $62.6 $11.38 $42.2 $7.67
Massachusetts $73.1 $11.42 $62.5 $9.77
Mich igan $81.4 $8.06 $64.1 $6.35
Minneso ta $63.1 $12.62 $35.4 $7.08
Mississippi $32.3 $11.14 $22.1 $7.62
Missouri $70.5 $12.37 $47.1 $8.26
Montan a $22.3 $24.78 $15.2 $16.89
Nebraska $27.0 $15.88 $23.6 $13.88
Nevada $39.3 $17.86 $28.5 $12.95
New Hampshire$24.4$18.77$16.7$12.85



F Y 2004a F Y 2005a
StateAllocationPer CapitaAllocationPer Capita
AmountAmount
New Jersey$93.2$10.84$60.9$7.08
New Mexico$27.3$14.37$18.6$9.79
New York$194.4$10.13$298.3$15.54
North Carolina$67.0$8.07$46.6$5.61
North Dakota$20.9$34.83$14.3$23.83
Oh io $108.9 $9.55 $77.9 $6.83
Oklahoma $36.3 $10.37 $29.8 $8.51
Oregon $43.5 $12.43 $35.2 $10.06
P ennsylvania $117.1 $9.52 $87.7 $7.13
Rhode Island$23.0$20.91$16.0$14.55
South Carolina$38.3$9.34$26.3$6.41
South Dakota$21.6$27.00$14.8$18.50
Tennessee $57.7 $9.95 $32.7 $5.64
Texas $167.9 $7.70 $138.5 $6.35
Utah $29.5 $12.83 $20.2 $8.78
Vermont $20.9 $34.83 $14.3 $23.83
Virginia $63.5 $8.70 $38.2 $5.23
Wash ington $65.5 $10.74 $45.4 $7.44
West Virginia$26.7$14.83$18.3$10.17
Wisconsin $55.3 $10.24 $37.3 $6.91
Wyoming $20.0 $40.00 $13.9 $27.80
Puerto Rico$36.7$9.41$25.1$6.44
Virgin Islands$6.7$67.00$4.6$46.00
American Samoa$6.3$105.00$4.3$71.67
Gu am $6.8 $34.00 $4.7 $23.50
Northern Mariana$6.3$90.00$4.3$61.43
Islands
Total $3,120.3 $2,436.7
Source: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2005 Homeland
Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit (Washington: Dec. 2004), and CRS
calculations based on the 2002 population estimates from the U.S. Bureau of Census.
a. This comparison includes FY2004 and FY2005 state allocations for SHSGP, UASI, LETPP, CCP, EMPG,
and MMRS grants.