But that doesn’t mean they’re mandatory reading for you—yet.
Our overview of the Program Guidelines and Application Kit should get you started on the right path, however.
The HSGP package covers the following six programs:
- State Homeland Security Program (SHSP)
- Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI)
- Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP)
- Citizen Corps program (CCP)
- Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG)
- Metropolitan Medical Response System Program (MMRS).
All of these programs are now coordinated through the DHS Office ofState and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (OSLGCP).
As outlined in the 2005 Homeland SecurityAppropriations Act, the big winner this year is the UASI program, andthe big winner in the UASI program is New York City. Due in part tothis dramatic increase in New York City funding, the state of New Yorktops the list of total dollars allocated to states and territories witha grant total of $298.35 million. New York is closely followed byCalifornia, allocations for which total $282.62 million, due in part tothe nine Californian cities qualifying for FY2005 UASI dollars and thepopulation-based formula devised for the State Homeland SecurityProgram. The three other top five recipients are Texas, Illinois andFlorida.
The rules governing distribution offormula-based grants and law enforcement terrorism prevention grants donot significantly differ from those of the last fiscal year.Formula-based funds support training, equipment purchases andexercises, as recommended by the state’s Homeland Security Strategy,which must be updated.
Discretionary grant applications are judgedby the following factors: “credible threat, presence of criticalinfrastructure, population, vulnerability, cooperation of multiplejurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness plans, and theidentified needs of public agencies in determining the allocation ofthese funds.” As in the past, 80 percent of these funds must bedistributed at the local level within 60 days of the state’s receipt offunds.
The funding task force established by DHSSecretary Tom Ridge in March 2004 made a handful of recommendationsthat have impacted the FY2005 funding program. Thanks to its findings,grantees and sub-grantees will be able to draw down grant funds 120days prior to expenditure, rather than the three to five days allowedin years past. UASI funds may now be used to cover the additionalexpenses incurred through heightened security measures during yellowand orange alerts.
Additionally, DHS will make efforts to aidgrantees in their grants management. To this end, the OSLGCP willestablish the Office of Grant Operations to provide both administrativeand financial grants support. In the interim, the Office of JusticeProgram’s (OJP) Office of the Comptroller will remain the primary pointof contact for fiscal oversight of HSGP grant programs.
As in years past, only the StateAdministrative Agency (SAA) designated by a state’s governor can applyfor federal funding. It is responsible for distributing funds to thefinal recipients based on recommendations from state senior advisorycommittees.
This year, the requirements for senioradvisory committees are more rigid. In order to receive funding, statesmust establish a committee within 60 days of the HSGP award date. Thecommittee must meet at least quarterly. Membership requirements areoutlined in the HSGP application package.
This year,each SAA was required to file itsHSGP application by Jan. 16. The Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP)is required to respond within 15 days of receipt of the application. Noless than 80 percent of the funds should be dispensed to localgovernments within 60 days of the state’s receipt of funds.
If the program runs smoothly this year,sub-grantees should expect to receive funds by late April. Prior tothat, they will need to work with their SAA to complete the InitialStrategy Implementation Plan (ISIP).
SAAs must submit a program narrative withtheir application that discusses management capabilities (major playersin homeland security efforts, governance process, mechanisms forcoordination, overview of the processes to determine award allocationswithin the state and how funds will be distributed, and how the cashflow will be monitored).
According to the Program Guidelines, specific references must be made to:
1) current efforts to achieve NationalIncident Management System (NIMS) implementation across “the entirestate/territory response system in FY2005”;
2) “efforts to establish a senior advisorycommittee…during FY2005 to coordinate HSGP funding as well as withthe U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Centers forDisease Control and Prevention (CDC) Bioterrorism Cooperative Agreementand the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) NationalBioterrorism Hospital Preparedness Program”;
3) “efforts to institutionalize statewidetraining and exercise programs in support of the state homelandsecurity strategy”; and
4) “efforts to educate the public and toencourage citizen participation in prevention, preparedness, andresponse activities through Citizen Corps.”
Applications must also highlight how fundswill be allocated over the 30-month HSGP performance period (from Oct.1, 2004, through March 31, 2007) based upon a specific templateavailable in the RFP. Challenges and impediments also must be clearlyand candidly discussed, as should recommendations for services, tools,and other resources that would better enable the state to successfullypursue its state homeland security strategy.
This year there is an expectation that stateswill use HSGP funding to work toward full compliance with NIMS by 2007.First responders and state and local governments do have some time tocontinue their work toward NIMS implementation, although they shoulddemonstrate annual progress toward that goal. In FY2006, for example,grant applications must certify that applicants have met the FY2005NIMS requirements. Full compliance with NIMS will be requisite for thereceipt of homeland security grant assistance by FY2007.
For better or worse, NIMS is now afundamental part of HSGP funding. States that are not on track withNIMS compliance have a very real chance of losing HSGP funding in thefuture, and all recipients are required to coordinate with all levelsof government to advance implementation. As stated in the ProgramGuidelines, minimum compliance requirements for FY2005 include:“incorporating NIMS into existing training programs and exercises;ensuring that federal preparedness funding (including HSGP funds)support NIMS implementation at the state and local levels (inaccordance with the eligibility and allowable uses of the grant);incorporating NIMS into Emergency Operations Plans; promotingintrastate mutual aid agreements; coordinating and providing technicalassistance to local entities regarding NIMS; and institutionalizing theuse of the ICS (Incident Command System).” If these minimumrequirements are not met in FY2005, applicants will not receivepreparedness funding in FY2006.
Looking ahead again to FY2006, recipientsshould also familiarize themselves with Homeland Security PresidentialDirective (HSPD)-8, which establishes policies to strengthenpreparedness. Specifically, in FY2005, UASI recipients must develop amulti-jurisdictional prevention and response plan to threats fromimprovised explosive devices (IEDs). Plans must be tested throughexercises. Even states that do not receive UASI funding are required toconduct similar tests in urban areas. Specific compliance requirementshave not yet been released, but should be available in the NationalPlanning Guidance, to be released in March 2005. The Program Guidelinesalso state that UASI recipients must develop a plan to “achievetactical interoperable communications across jurisdictions in the urbanarea and test the plan through the cycle of exercise activity requiredfor the IED scenario.” States that do not have a UASI-eligible citymust perform similar activities in another urban area.
Allowable costs in HSGP programs are dividedinto the following categories: planning, organization, equipment,training, and exercises. Allowable equipment expenses are listed on theWeb-based Authorized Equipment List onthe Responder Knowledgebase,located at www.rkb.mipt.org. Training programs require ODP approval ifthey are not ODP courses. See the HSGP application package for furtherinformation on course eligibility.
Construction costs are not allowable unlessthey address specific security flaws that can be corrected throughimproved fencing, lighting, and monitoring and communications systemsto secure critical infrastructure facilities through the SHSP, UASI,and LETPP programs. Written approval for these expenses from the ODPmust first be acquired prior to the drawdown of funds. CCP, EMPG andMMRS funds cannot support similar expenditures. New hires are still notnormally supported by HSGP programs, with the exception of EMPG.
Management and administrative (M&A) costsare allowable, with the exception of non-profit recipients of UASIfunding. State and local units of government can build M&A costsinto their project budgets, although only 3 percent of the total fundscan be retained by the state for M&A, and only 2.5 percent of thesub-award can be used for M&A.
Program income accrued through HSGP funding should be reinvested in support of HSGP initiatives.
The UASI and LETPP programs will cover someoperational costs through grant dollars. Both state and local UASIrecipients may use up to 25 percent of their UASI funds to supportovertime costs associated with increased security at criticalinfrastructure sites in UASI jurisdictions.
Of this amount, up to 10 percent is tosupport overtime costs to secure critical infrastructure during CodeYellow and Orange alerts, and up to 15 percent is to be used to securecritical infrastructure only during Code Orange alerts. LETPP state andlocal recipients may use up to 25 percent of their funds to supportovertime costs incurred to secure critical infrastructure during CodeOrange alerts. Border areas may use LETPP funding during Orange Alertsto cover overtime expenses. UASI border areas may use their funds tocover overtime expenses during code Orange and Yellow Alerts. However,plans to secure the border in these events must be pre-determined incoordination with state, tribal and local law enforcement officials andDHS Customs and Border Protection sectors. HST
Kara Mitzel,the authorof this guide, is manager of grants development services at the GrantsOffice, LLC, in Rochester, NY, a national grants consulting firmspecializing in homeland security funding.
CBP — Customs and Border Patrol
CCP — Citizen Corps Program
CDC — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
CFP — Call for proposals
DHS — Department of Homeland Security
EMPG — Emergency Management Performance Grants
F&A — Facilities and administration
HHS — Department of Health and Human Services
HRSA — Health Resources and Services Administration
HSGP — Homeland Security Grant Program
HSPD — Homeland Security Presidential Directive
IED — Improvised explosive device
LETPP — Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program
M&A — Management and administration
MMRS — Metropolitan Medical Response System Program
NIMS — National Incident Management System
ODP — Office of Domestic Preparedness
OMB — Office of Management and Budget
OSLGCP — Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness
RFP — Request for proposals
SAA — State administrative agency
SHSP — State Homeland Security Program
UASI — Urban Areas Security Initiative
Highlights of the FY2005 HSGP Programs
State Homeland Security Program
A total of $1,062,285,226 has been allocatedfor the SHSP in FY2005. SHSP funds must be consistent with the goalsand objectives established through the State Homeland SecurityStrategy. While adhering to this principal restriction, SHSP funds canbe used for a wide array of purposes, to be determined by the stateadministrative agency. Adherence to andimplementation of HSPD-8 andNIMS standards should be integrated into the SHSP funding plan.
Urban Areas Security Initiative
Newly identified UASI applicants are requiredto provide a more comprehensive application request than pastrecipients. Check the FY2005 HSGP application package for furtherdetails. Although the state may retain up to 20 percent of the fundsallocated for UASI, those retained funds must be used to directlysupport the urban area. UASI recipients must develop an Urban AreasHomeland Security Strategy, in compliance with guidelines outlined inthe ODP’s UASI Administrator Handbook. If the recipient has receivedUASI funding in the past and, therefore, has a pre-existing strategy,funds must be used in support of the objectives, needs and goalsoutlined in it. The FY2005 budget dedicates $854.66 million to theUASI program. Of that, $25 million must be distributed to non-profitorganizations. States are responsible for determining non-profiteligibility in coordination with the appropriate Urban Area WorkingGroup. Eligible nonprofits must then submit applications directly tothe SAA. Awards of up to $100,000 will then be determined anddistributed.
Emergency Management Performance Grants
The EMPG program requires a 50-50federal-state cost-share. Matches may be in-kind. As with most federalprograms, applicants cannot use federal dollars to meet the match. EMPG-funded programs are expected to be capable of providing emergencymanagement planning, mitigation, preparedness, response and recoverycapabilities for all-hazards emergencies. Narrative applicationrequirements for EMPG are distinctly different from those of otherprograms. Please check the HSGP application package for furtherinformation. The SAA must pass 100 percent of the funds approved tothe designated state-level Emergency Management Agency (EMA). A totalof $173.83 million has been approved for the EMPG program for FY2005.
Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Grants
About $386.3 million has been designated forLETPP in FY2005. LETPP provides law enforcement with support for“information sharing to preempt terrorist attacks; target hardening toreduce vulnerability of selected high value targets; recognition andmapping of potential or developing threats; counterterrorism andsecurity planning; interoperable communications; and, interdiction ofterrorists before they can execute a threat or intervention activitiesthat prevent terrorists from executing a threat.” Allowable expensesinclude, but are not limited to, training, equipment and planning.
Metropolitan Medical Response System Programs
MMRS grants, for which only certain areas areeligible (check with the HSGP application package), provide support sothat communities can “enhance and sustain their integrated, systematicmass casualty index preparedness to respond to mass casualty eventsduring the first hours of a response…” Allowable expenses includeplanning and training. While states are encouraged to pass 100 percentof their MMRS allocations directly to the approved jurisdictions, theymay retain up to 20 percent if these funds are used to support MMRScoordination. If funds are retained by the state, their uses andexpenditure must be documented in a signed agreement between the SAAand the MMRS Steering Committee or committees. A total of $28.2million has been approved for the MMRS program.
A total of $13.5 million has been approvedfor the Citizen Corps program, which involves citizenry in all-hazardsprevention and preparedness through training and volunteer service. All SHSP and UASI recipients must work with Citizen Corps councils toengage citizens by: revising state and local plans to utilize volunteerresources; offering education programs; including citizens in trainingand exercise programs; and supporting and enhancing Citizen Corpsprograms.
Applications materials are now available at http://www. ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/ docs/fy05hsgp.pdf.