This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-121 
entitled 'Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant 
Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain' which was released on 
March 3, 2005.

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately.

Report to the Chairman, Committee on Appropriations, House of 
Representatives:

United States Government Accountability Office:

GAO:

February 2005:

Homeland Security:

Management of First Responder Grant Programs Has Improved, but 
Challenges Remain:

GAO-05-121:

GAO Highlights:

Highlights of GAO-05-121, a report to the Chairman, Committee on 
Appropriations, House of Representatives

Why GAO Did This Study:

The Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP)—originally established in 
1998 within the Department of Justice to help state and local first 
responders acquire specialized training and equipment needed to respond 
to terrorist incidents—was transferred to the Department of Homeland 
Security upon its creation in March 2003. After September 11, 2001, the 
scope and size of ODP’s grant programs expanded. For example, from 
fiscal year 2001 through fiscal year 2003, ODP grants awarded to states 
and some urban areas grew from about $91 million to about $2.7 billion. 
This growth raised questions about the ability of ODP and states to 
ensure that the domestic preparedness grant programs—including 
statewide and urban area grants—are managed effectively and 
efficiently. 

GAO addressed (1) how statewide and urban area grants were administered 
in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds 
were spent in accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness 
planning and (2) what time frames Congress and ODP established for 
awarding and distributing grants, and how time frames affected the 
grant cycle.

What GAO Found:

ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and 
localities to improve accountability in state preparedness planning. 
For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines 
for awarding statewide and urban area grants to states and for 
determining how states and localities could expend funds and seek 
reimbursement for first responder equipment or services. ODP gave 
states flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were 
to be managed and distributed within their states. In fiscal year 2003, 
ODP required states to update homeland security strategies and related 
needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These efforts are intended 
to guide states and localities in targeting grant funds. ODP also took 
steps to improve grant oversight procedures. Finally, to help meet 
mandates contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting 
national preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first 
responder capabilities on a national basis.

Congress and ODP have acted to expedite grant awards by setting time 
limits for grant application, award, and distribution processes. For 
fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did 
not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time 
frame. Then, in April 2003, the supplemental appropriations act imposed 
new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a result, ODP reported that all 
states submitted grant applications within the mandated 30 days of the 
grant announcement, and that over 90 percent of grants were awarded 
within the mandated 15 days of receipt of the applications. ODP also 
took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local 
jurisdictions. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to 
spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere 
to various legal and procurement requirements. ODP is identifying best 
practices to help states address the issue. 

In reviewing a draft of the report, the Department of Homeland Security 
generally agreed with GAO’s findings; however, it questioned whether 
the report’s title adequately reflected the agency’s progress in 
meeting grant management challenges. 

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-121.

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr. 
at (202) 512-8757 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.

[End of section]

Contents:

Letter:

Results in Brief:

Background:

ODP Established Grant Award Procedures for States and Localities That 
Support Efforts to Improve Accountability in State Preparedness 
Planning:

Congress, ODP, States, and Localities Have Acted to Expedite Grant 
Awards, but Challenges Remain:

Concluding Observations:

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP and UASI Funding and 
Draw Downs by State:

Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and Reimbursement Process for 
Selected States and Local Jurisdictions:

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

Appendix V: Related GAO Products:

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

Staff Acknowledgments:

Tables:

Table 1: ODP Grant Program Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:

Table 2: Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP 
and UASI I and II Grant Programs:

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP) 
and Fiscal Year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) 
Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) I and 
II Grant Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:

Figures:

Figure 1: ODP and OC Grant Management and Monitoring:

Figure 2: SDPP/SHSGP and UASI II Grant Award, Distribution, and 
Reimbursement Processes for First Responder Equipment:

Figure 3: State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Development 
Process for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:

Figure 4: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness 
Program Grant Distribution for State A:

Figure 5: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness 
Program Grant Distribution for State B:

Figure 6: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State B:

Figure 7: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program II Grant Distribution for State B:

Figure 8: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State C:

Abbreviations:

CBRNE: chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or explosive: 
DHS: Department of Homeland Security:
GAO: Government Accountability Office: 
HSPD-8: Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8: 
IG: Inspector General: 
ISIP: Initial Strategy Implementation Plans: 
MOU: memorandum of understanding: 
OC: Office of the Comptroller: 
ODP: Office for Domestic Preparedness: 
OJP: Office of Justice Programs: 
SDPP: State Domestic Preparedness Program: 
SHSGP: State Homeland Security Grant Program: 
SLGCP: Office of State and Local Government Coordination and 
Preparedness: 
UASI: Urban Areas Security Initiative:

United States Government Accountability Office:

Washington, DC 20548:

February 2, 2005:

The Honorable Jerry Lewis: 
Chairman: 
Committee on Appropriations: 
House of Representatives:

Dear Mr. Chairman:

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, placed enormous demands 
upon the capacities of state and local police and fire departments, 
emergency medical and public health services, and other first 
responders. After the attacks, Congress, federal agencies, state and 
local governments, and a range of independent research organizations 
acknowledged that additional resources and intergovernmental 
coordination were needed to ensure that state and local first 
responders would be better prepared to respond to future domestic 
terrorist threats or attacks.

The Department of Justice established the Office for Domestic 
Preparedness (ODP) in 1998 within the Office of Justice Programs (OJP) 
to assist state and local first responders in acquiring specialized 
training and equipment needed to respond to and manage terrorist 
incidents involving weapons of mass destruction. ODP, which was 
transferred to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) upon its 
creation in March 2003,[Footnote 1] has been a principal source of 
domestic preparedness grant funds.[Footnote 2] These grants are a means 
of achieving an important goal--enhancing the ability of first 
responders to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from 
terrorist incidents with well-planned and well-coordinated efforts that 
involve police, fire, emergency medical, public health, and other 
personnel from multiple jurisdictions. Since the events of September 
11, the amount of grant funds awarded and managed by ODP has grown 
significantly. For example, in fiscal year 2001, ODP awarded about $91 
million in domestic preparedness grants. In fiscal year 2003, ODP 
awarded about $2.1 billion through its State Homeland Security Grant 
Programs (SHSGP) I and II and an additional $596 million for Urban 
Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grants I and II.[Footnote 3] The scope 
of ODP's grant programs expanded as well, from funding only first 
responder equipment in fiscal year 2001 to funding a range of 
preparedness planning activities, exercises, training, equipment 
purchases, and related administrative costs in fiscal year 2003.

In your request, you raised questions about how, given the growth in 
funding, ODP, states,[Footnote 4] and local jurisdictions work together 
to ensure that grant funds are spent in accordance with both ODP's 
grant guidance and the state and urban area homeland security 
strategies that ODP required states to develop as a condition of 
receiving grant funds. In response to your request, we first briefed 
your office on ODP's structure and processes for program and financial 
management of its grants and its monitoring policies and processes. In 
this report, we address two other issues: (1) How were SHSGP and UASI 
grants administered in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 so that ODP could 
ensure that grant funds were spent in accordance with grant guidance 
and state preparedness planning? (2) What time frames did Congress and 
ODP establish for awarding and distributing grants, and how did these 
time frames affect the grant cycle?

In addition to this work, we have recently issued other reports and 
delivered congressional testimonies on issues relating to federal 
funding and oversight of grants for first responders, which include ODP 
grants as well as grants from other federal sources. Among other 
things, we reported that a major challenge in managing first responder 
grants is balancing two goals: (1) minimizing the time it takes to 
distribute grant funds to state and local first responders and (2) 
ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for effective use of 
the funds.[Footnote 5] (See appendix V for the list of Related GAO 
Products.)

To address the objectives in this report, we met with officials from 
ODP and selected states and local jurisdictions to obtain information 
about the grant management process.[Footnote 6] We identified 25 
domestic preparedness grant programs managed by ODP in fiscal years 
2002 and 2003,[Footnote 7] and for our detailed review, we selected the 
five largest in terms of federal funding provided to state and local 
jurisdictions. As part of our review, we also selected five states 
(Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and Pennsylvania) and 19 local 
jurisdictions within those states that have received state and urban 
area grants. The five states were selected on the basis of the amount 
of ODP grant funding received, population size, and other factors. The 
local jurisdictions were selected for a more detailed analysis of grant 
administration. We collected and analyzed grant data from ODP. 
Specifically, we obtained and analyzed data from ODP on the time frames 
associated with the grant award and distribution processes. We reviewed 
these data for obvious inconsistency errors and completeness and 
compared these data for the five selected states with hard-copy 
documents we obtained from these states. When we found discrepancies, 
we brought them to the attention of ODP and state and local officials 
and worked with them to correct the discrepancies before conducting our 
analyses. In addition, we obtained and analyzed data on the number of 
ODP's office-based and on-site monitoring reviews conducted in fiscal 
year 2004. We also reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors 
and completeness and compared these data with on-site monitoring 
reports prepared and provided by ODP. From these assessments, we 
determined that the grant data were sufficiently reliable for the 
purposes of this report.

We also reviewed relevant reports and studies on homeland security and 
domestic preparedness. We conducted our work from November 2003 through 
November 2004 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 
standards. (See appendix I for more details on our scope and 
methodology.)

Results in Brief:

ODP has established and refined grant award procedures for states and 
localities that have supported efforts to improve accountability in the 
state preparedness planning process. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, 
ODP developed procedures and guidelines for awarding SHSGP and UASI 
grants to states and for determining how states and localities could 
expend funds and seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or 
services they purchased. As part of this process, ODP gave states 
flexibility by allowing them to determine how grant funds were to be 
managed and distributed within their states and whether purchases would 
be made locally or at the state level. In fiscal year 2003, ODP also 
required states to update homeland security strategies and related 
needs assessments prepared in earlier years. These strategies are 
intended to guide state and local jurisdictions in targeting grant 
funds. As directed by statute, ODP required states to submit these 
updated strategies to ODP for approval in order to receive fiscal year 
2004 grant funds. In tandem with this effort, ODP revised its grant- 
reporting method, moving away from requiring states, localities, and 
urban areas to submit itemized lists of first responder equipment they 
plan to purchase toward a more results-based approach, whereby grant 
managers at all levels must demonstrate how grant expenditures are 
linked to larger projects that support goals in the states' homeland 
security strategies. ODP also took steps to improve grant oversight 
procedures in part by setting new goals in fiscal year 2004 for 
monitoring states' progress toward meeting preparedness goals and 
objectives in their homeland security strategies. ODP planned to visit 
all 56 grantees at least once a year. ODP completed 44 of 56 planned 
visits to grantees in fiscal year 2004. In addition, ODP cited staffing 
challenges in filling all of its authorized positions, which have 
affected grant management; ODP has worked to fill federal vacancies. 
ODP also is addressing concerns that some states have about the 
accuracy of the needs assessments upon which the fiscal year 2003 state 
homeland security strategies are based, citing, among other things, a 
mismatch between local jurisdictions' estimates of need and the states' 
estimates. Finally, as part of a broader effort to meet mandates 
contained in a presidential directive, ODP has begun drafting national 
preparedness standards to identify and assess gaps in first responder 
capabilities on a national basis.

Congress, ODP, states, and localities have acted to expedite grant 
awards by setting time limits for the grant application, award, and 
distribution processes and by instituting other procedures. For all of 
fiscal year 2002 through February 2003, the appropriations statutes did 
not require ODP to award grant funds to states within a specific time 
frame. For fiscal year 2002, ODP took roughly 4 months to make 
applications available to states. In April 2003, the supplemental 
appropriations act imposed new deadlines on ODP and the states. As a 
result, ODP made the grant application available within the mandated 15 
days of the congressional appropriation for the grant cycle, and all 
states returned their applications within 30 days of the grant 
announcement. ODP reported that over 90 percent of grant awards were 
made to the states within 14 days of receipt of state applications. ODP 
also took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states to local 
jurisdictions, allowing states, for example, to transfer grants to 
localities before all required grant application documentation had been 
submitted to ODP. Nevertheless, the ability of states and localities to 
spend grant funds expeditiously was complicated by the need to adhere 
to state and local legal and procurement requirements and approval 
processes, which in some cases added months to the purchasing process. 
Some states have modified their procurement practices, and ODP is 
identifying best practices to aid in the effort.

After reviewing a draft of this report, DHS generally agreed with our 
findings and provided technical comments, which were incorporated as 
appropriate. The agency also expressed the view that progress made in 
addressing challenges related to managing first responder grant 
programs was not appropriately reflected in the report's title. We 
disagree. The agency's comments are in appendix IV.

Background:

When DHS was created in March 2003, ODP was transferred from the 
Justice Department's OJP to DHS's Directorate of Border and 
Transportation Security. In March 2004, the Secretary of Homeland 
Security consolidated ODP with the Office of State and Local Government 
Coordination to form the Office of State and Local Government 
Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP).[Footnote 8] In addition, other 
preparedness grant programs from agencies within DHS were transferred 
to SLGCP.[Footnote 9] SLGCP, which reports directly to the Secretary, 
was created to provide a "one-stop shop" for the numerous federal 
preparedness initiatives applicable to state and local first 
responders. As shown in figure 1, while SLGCP/ODP has program 
management and monitoring responsibility for domestic preparedness 
grants, it relies upon the Justice Department's Office of the 
Comptroller (OC) for grant fund distribution and assistance with 
financial management support, which includes financial monitoring.

Figure 1: ODP and OC Grant Management and Monitoring:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Within ODP, the Preparedness Programs Division (formerly the State and 
Local Program Management Division) is specifically tasked with 
enhancing the capability of state and local emergency responders to 
prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks 
involving the use of chemical, biological, radiological, nuclear, or 
explosive (CBRNE) weapons. For these purposes, ODP provides grant funds 
to the 50 states, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealths of Puerto 
Rico and the Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, the Virgin 
Islands, Guam, and selected urban areas. In addition to this grant 
funding for specialized equipment and other purposes, ODP provides 
direct training, exercises, technical assistance, and other 
counterterrorism expertise.

Program Funding and Allocation for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:

During fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP managed 25 grant programs 
totaling approximately $3.5 billion. About $2.98 billion (85 percent) 
of the total ODP grant funds for both years was for statewide grants-- 
the State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP), which is a predecessor 
grant program to SHSGP, and SHSGP I and II--and grants targeted at 
selected urban areas (UASI I and II). The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds 
accounted for about 68 percent ($2.38 billion) and the UASI I and II 
grant funds about 17 percent ($596 million). Table 1 shows the amounts 
provided for these and other ODP grants.

Table 1: ODP Grant Program Funding for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003:

Dollars in thousands.

Grant program: SDPP; 
2002: $315,700; 
2003: [A]; 
Total: $315,700; 
Percent of total funding: 9.1.

Grant program: SHSGP I; 
2002: [A]; 
2003: $566,295; 
Total: $
566,295; 
Percent of total funding: 16.2.

Grant program: SHSGP II; 
2002: [A]; 
2003: $1,500,000; 
Total: $1,500,000; 
Percent of total funding: 43.0.

Grant program: Total SDPP/SHSGP; 
2002: $315, 700; 
2003: $2,066,295; 
Total: $2,381,995; 
Percent of total funding: 68.3.

Grant program: UASI I; 
2002: [A]; 
2003: $96,351; 
Total: $96,351; 
Percent of total funding: 2.8.

Grant program: UASI II; 
2002: [A]; 
2003: $500,000; 
Total: $500,000; 
Percent of total funding: 14.3.

Total UASI I and II; 
2002: [A]; 
2003: $596,351; 
Total: $596,351; 
Percent of total funding: 17.1.

Total SDPP/SHSGP and UASI I and II; 
2002: $315,700; 
2003: $2,662,646; 
Total: $2,978,346; 
Percent of total funding: 85.4.

Grant program: UASI-other; 
2003: $190,000[C]; 
Total: $190,000; 
Percent of total funding: 5.5.

Other grants; 
2002: $119,979[B]; 
2003: $198,081[D]; 
Total: $318,060; 
Percent of total funding: 9.1.

Total; 
2002: $435,679; 
2003: $3,050,727; 
Total: $3,486,406; 
Percent of total funding: 100.0.

Source: ODP.

[A] Program not funded in this year.

[B] Includes the following five grant programs: Law Enforcement 
Enhancement Program, New York Equipment Replacement Program, National 
Domestic Preparedness Consortium, Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse 
Program Pilot Project Support Grant, and Domestic Preparedness Training 
and Technical Assistance Program-St. Petersburg College.

[C] Includes the following four grant programs: the UASI Port Security 
Grant Program, UASI Transit Security Grant Program, UASI Pilot 
Projects, and UASI Radiological Defense System.

[D] Includes the following 11 grant programs: Counterterrorism 
Institute Grant Program, TOPOFF II, Washington Metropolitan Area 
Transit Authority, Airborne Imaging in Support of Emergency Operations, 
Testing and Evaluation of Emergency Response Equipment, Terrorism Early 
Alert and Strategic Planning System, Homeland Defense Equipment Reuse 
Program, Northern Virginia Emergency Response Coalition Grant Program, 
Domestic Preparedness Equipment Training and Technical Assistance 
Program, National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, and Multistate Anti-
Terrorism Information Exchange Project.

[End of table]

See appendix II for the SDPP/SHSGP grant funding awarded in fiscal 
years 2002 and 2003 and the UASI I and II grant funding awarded in 
fiscal year 2003.

The SDPP/SHSGP grant programs expanded from funding equipment, 
exercises, and administrative activities in fiscal year 2002 to 
include, in fiscal year 2003, the cost of planning and training. The 
SDPP generally provided funding for advanced equipment,[Footnote 10] 
exercises, and administrative activities. The SHSGP I provided, among 
other things, funding for specialized equipment, exercises, training, 
and planning and administrative costs. From a separate appropriation, 
the SHSGP II supplemented funding available through SHSGP I for 
basically the same purposes, but included separate funding for critical 
infrastructure protection. The SDPP/SHSGP grant funds were distributed 
using a base amount of 0.75 percent of the total allocation to each 
state, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
and 0.25 percent of the total allocation to the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, American Samoa, Guam, and the Virgin Islands, 
with the balance being distributed on a population-share basis. The 
UASI I grant funds were provided directly to seven selected urban areas 
to address the unique equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs 
of large high-threat urban areas and specifically, to assist in 
building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to prevent, respond, and 
recover from threats or acts of terrorism. From a separate 
appropriation, UASI II provided funding through the states (not 
directly) to 30 selected urban areas for basically the same 
purposes.[Footnote 11] The UASI grant funds were awarded on the basis 
of the following factors: population density, critical infrastructure, 
and current threat estimates.[Footnote 12] (See appendix II for the 
urban areas that received UASI I and II grant funds.) Table 2 shows the 
funding authority for these grant programs.

Table 2: Appropriations Acts for Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP 
and UASI I and II Grant Programs:

Grant program: SDPP; 
2002: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 107-77[A], 
2002: Date enacted: Nov. 28, 2001,
2002: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 107-117b; 
2002: Date enacted: Jan. 10, 2002.

Grant program: SHSGP I; 
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-7[C]; 
2003: Date enacted: Feb. 20, 2003.

Grant program: SHSGP II; 
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-11[D]; 
2003: Date enacted: Apr. 16, 2003.

Grant program: UASI I; 
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-7[C]; 
2003: Date enacted: Feb. 20, 2003.

Grant program: UASI II; 
2003: Appropriations acts: Pub. L. No. 108-11[D]; 
2003: Date enacted: Apr. 16, 2003.

Source: Congressional legislation.

[A] Departments of Commerce, Justice, and State, the Judiciary, and 
Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2002.

[B] Department of Defense and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for 
Recovery from and Response to Terrorist Attacks on the United States 
Act, 2002.

[C] Consolidated Appropriations Resolution, 2003.

[D] Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003.

[End of table]

ODP Established Grant Award Procedures for States and Localities That 
Support Efforts to Improve Accountability in State Preparedness 
Planning:

Over time, ODP has developed and modified its procedures for awarding 
grants to states, governing how states distribute funds to local 
jurisdictions, and facilitating reimbursements for states and 
localities purchasing first responder equipment and services. ODP also 
developed requirements intended to hold states and localities 
accountable for how grant expenditures were planned, justified, 
expended, and tracked. These accountability-related requirements 
evolved over time. For instance, prior to fiscal year 2004, the states 
were primarily required to provide information on the specific items 
they and localities planned to purchase on the basis of ODP's evolving 
authorized equipment lists. In fiscal year 2004, to better determine 
the impact of expenditures on preparedness efforts, ODP began placing 
more emphasis on results-based reporting of planned and actual grant 
expenditures. ODP instituted new state and local reporting requirements 
aimed at ensuring that grant expenditures would align with goals and 
objectives contained in state and urban area homeland security 
strategies. ODP also, over time, has stepped up its state grant- 
monitoring activities.

ODP Gave States Flexibility in Administering and Distributing Grants:

For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP developed procedures and guidelines 
for awarding SDPP/SHSGP and UASI grants to states that enabled states 
to distribute grant funds and states and localities to expend funds and 
seek reimbursement for first responder equipment or services they 
purchased directly. After enactment of appropriations for the grant 
programs, ODP developed and made available program guidelines including 
the grant application for each grant program.[Footnote 13] With the 
exception of UASI I, once a grant application was submitted to and 
approved by ODP, ODP awarded grant funds directly to each state, which 
was required to designate a state administrative agency to administer 
the grant funds.[Footnote 14] States in turn transferred or subgranted 
the funds to local jurisdictions[Footnote 15] or urban areas, with a 
designated core city and county/counties. For UASI I grants, ODP 
awarded grant funds directly to selected urban areas (i.e., selected 
cities). Figure 2 illustrates the main steps involved in the SDPP/SHSGP 
and UASI II grant cycle.

Figure 2: SDPP/SHSGP and UASI II Grant Award, Distribution, and 
Reimbursement Processes for First Responder Equipment:

[See PDF for image]

Note: The term "reimbursement" as used here includes the process by 
which states and localities may request and receive federal funds to 
pay invoices for goods or services before payment is due. Localities 
receive their funds through the states, which request the funds on 
behalf of the localities.

[End of figure]

For SDPP/SHSGP grant programs, ODP allowed the states flexibility in 
deciding how the grant programs were structured and implemented in 
their states. In general, states were allowed to determine such things 
as the following:

* the formula for distributing grant funds to local jurisdictional 
units;

* the definition of what constitutes a local jurisdiction eligible to 
receive funds, such as a multicounty area;

* the organization or agency that would be designated to manage the 
grant program; 
and:

* whether the state or local jurisdictions would purchase grant-funded 
items for the local jurisdictions.

UASI I grantees, for the most part, have had flexibilities similar to 
those of the states and could, in coordination with members of the 
Urban Area Working Group,[Footnote 16] designate contiguous 
jurisdictions to receive grant funds. For UASI II, while the states 
subgranted the grant funds to selected urban areas, states retained 
responsibility for administering the grant program. The core city and 
county/counties worked with the state administrative agency to define 
the geographic borders of the urban area and coordinated with the Urban 
Area Working Group.

Once the grant funds were awarded to the states and then subgranted to 
the local jurisdictions or urban areas, certain legal and procurement 
requirements had to be met, such as a city council needing to approve 
acceptance of grant awards. Once these requirements were satisfied, 
states, local jurisdictions, and urban areas could then obligate their 
funds for first responder equipment, exercises, training, and services. 
Generally, when a local jurisdiction or urban area directly incurred an 
expenditure for first responder equipment, it submitted related 
procurement documents, such as invoices, to the state. The state would 
then draw down the funds from the Justice Department's OJP. According 
to OJP, funds from the U.S. Treasury were usually deposited with the 
states' financial institution within 48 hours. The states, in turn, 
provided the funds to the local jurisdiction or urban area.[Footnote 17]

States Updated Homeland Security Strategies to Guide Grant Spending, 
and ODP Revised Grant Reporting and Monitoring Procedures:

In addition to the guidelines ODP developed for the grant award, 
distribution, and reimbursement process, ODP developed separate 
guidance that required every state to develop a homeland security 
strategy as a condition of receiving grant funds. Specifically, ODP 
required states to develop homeland security strategies that would 
provide a roadmap of where each state should target grant funds for 
fiscal years 1999 to 2001 (subsequently extended to fiscal year 2003). 
To assist the states in developing these strategies, state agencies and 
local jurisdictions were directed to conduct needs assessments on the 
basis of their own threat and vulnerability assessments. The needs 
assessments were to include related equipment, training, exercise, 
technical assistance, and research and development needs. In addition, 
state and local officials were to identify current and required 
capabilities of first responders to help determine gaps in capabilities.

ODP directed the states in fiscal year 2003 to update their homeland 
security strategies to better reflect post-September 11 realities and 
to identify progress on the priorities originally outlined in the 
initial strategies.[Footnote 18] As with these initial strategies, the 
updated strategies included goals and objectives the states wanted to 
achieve to meet homeland security needs, such as upgrading emergency 
operations centers and command posts. As directed by statute, ODP 
required completion and approval of these updated strategies as a 
condition for awarding fiscal year 2004 grant funds. As of July 2004, 
ODP had approved or conditionally approved[Footnote 19] all state 
strategies and awarded all fiscal year 2004 SHSGP funds.[Footnote 20] 
Figure 3 shows an overview of the state homeland security assessment 
and strategy development process in place for fiscal years 1999 through 
2003.

Figure 3: State Homeland Security Assessment and Strategy Development 
Process for Fiscal Years 1999 through 2003:

[See PDF for image]

[A] In fiscal year 2003, states and jurisdictions could also complete 
an optional agricultural vulnerability assessment in addition to the 
vulnerability assessment.

[End of figure]

In conjunction with the development of the states' updated homeland 
security strategies, ODP revised its approach to how states and 
localities reported on grant spending and use. Specifically, ODP took 
steps to shift the emphasis away from reporting on specific items 
purchased and toward results-based reporting on the impact of states' 
expenditures on preparedness. ODP maintains a list of authorized items 
that all states and localities were required to use as a guideline for 
making purchases. This evolving list, comprising hundreds of first 
responder items, is arranged by category, such as personal protection 
equipment; explosive device mitigation and remediation equipment; CBRNE 
search and rescue equipment; interoperable communications equipment; 
and more. Under this arrangement, states and localities consulted ODP's 
authorized equipment list and selected the equipment and quantity they 
planned to purchase--including such diverse items as personal 
protection suits for dealing with hazardous materials and 
contamination, bomb response vehicles, and medical supplies. This 
information is in turn listed on itemized budget detail worksheets that 
localities submitted to states for their review. Prior to the fiscal 
year 2004 grant cycle, states submitted the worksheets to ODP. States 
also compared purchased items against these worksheets when approving 
reimbursements to localities.

According to ODP, this list-based reporting method made it difficult to 
track the cumulative impact of individual expenditures on the goals and 
objectives in a state's and urban area's homeland security strategy. 
While the budget detail worksheets reflected the number and cost of 
specific items that states and localities planned to purchase, neither 
states nor ODP had a reporting mechanism to specifically assess how 
well these purchases would, in the aggregate, meet preparedness 
planning needs or priorities, or the goals and objectives contained in 
state or urban area homeland security strategies. To help remedy this 
situation, ODP revised its approach for fiscal year 2004. Rather than 
being required to submit budget detail worksheets to ODP,[Footnote 21] 
states, urban areas, and local jurisdictions were required instead to 
submit new Initial Strategy Implementation Plans (ISIP). These ISIPs 
are intended to show how planned grant expenditures for all funds 
received are linked to one or more larger projects, which in turn 
support specific goals and objectives in either a state or urban area 
homeland security strategy. The state administrative agency is 
responsible for submission of all ISIPs to ODP within 60 days of the 
state's grant award.[Footnote 22] The final submission is to include 
one ISIP from the state administrative agency if the agency retains a 
portion of the funding, and one ISIP for every local jurisdiction, 
state agency, or nongovernmental organization receiving grant funds. 
ODP said that almost all of the states have submitted their 
ISIPs.[Footnote 23]

In addition to the ISIPs, ODP now requires the states to submit 
biannual strategy implementation reports showing how the actual 
expenditure of grant funds at both the state and local levels was 
linked by projects to the goals and objectives in the state and urban 
area strategy. According to ODP, this reporting process is intended to 
better enable states and ODP to track grant expenditures from all 
funding sources against state and urban area homeland security 
strategies as well as collect critical project output and performance 
data. The first biannual strategy implementation reports covering the 6-
month period ending December 31, 2004, were due to ODP on January 31, 
2005. At the time of our review, it was too early to determine whether 
the new approach would improve expenditure tracking and performance 
reporting.

ODP, State, and Local Officials Expressed Concerns about the 2003 Needs 
Assessments:

While progress has been made in updating state homeland security 
strategies and planned improvements for reporting and tracking grant- 
related expenditures are under way, some federal, state, and local 
officials expressed concerns about the accuracy of the needs 
assessments on which the state strategies were based. When ODP 
instructed states and local jurisdictions to update their fiscal year 
1999 needs assessments in fiscal year 2003, the agency told them not to 
constrain their estimates of needs to a specific period of time or take 
potential sources of funding into account. At the same time, ODP 
instructed states to review and analyze local jurisdictions' needs 
assessments and the aggregated results before submitting their needs 
assessment data to ODP. The needs assessments for equipment received by 
ODP from 56 states and territories as a result of this process totaled 
$352.6 billion. By contrast, the funding available for SHSGP I and II 
in fiscal year 2003 totaled roughly $2.1 billion.

State and local officials in three of the five states we visited cited 
concerns about the accuracy of the needs assessments for their 
individual states. For example, the needs assessment for one state we 
reviewed amounted to about $11.8 billion--nearly 300 times the $39.5 
million in total state homeland security grant funds awarded to the 
state in fiscal year 2003. Grant managers in this state said that they 
had reviewed the local jurisdictions' threat estimates and determined 
that, because of a misinterpretation of the term "threat" by local 
officials, the number of critical assets needing protection was higher 
than estimated by the state. In their opinion, the local jurisdictions 
included items in their needs assessments that were not needed to 
protect the state's critical assets. Nevertheless, state officials did 
not revise the aggregated needs assessment estimates included in their 
state strategy. ODP conditionally approved the strategy for this state, 
noting, among other things, a "disconnect" between the state's mission 
and goals and that time lines were "too broad" and "not 
realistic."[Footnote 24] Grant managers in a second state said that the 
state did not base its strategy on the needs assessments prepared by 
the local jurisdictions, in part, because they judged the unconstrained 
assessments for equipment to be unrealistically high--approximately $13 
billion over an open-ended, multiyear period. While the state submitted 
the total of these local assessments to ODP; it submitted a strategy on 
the basis of its own planning procedures for 1 year only, resulting in 
a $92 million estimate of needs. After discussions with ODP, the state 
later submitted a broader, multiyear $9.6 billion needs assessment for 
equipment.

ODP has taken steps to address its concerns, and some states' concerns, 
related to the estimates included in the needs assessments. In a 
conference held with state officials in March 2004, ODP personnel 
discussed concerns that arose from their review of aggregated needs 
assessment data and identified some possible sources of the problems. 
They determined that, before submitting their fiscal year 2003 needs 
assessments to ODP, states might not have adequately considered such 
factors as mutual aid agreements for first responder assistance within 
jurisdictions or whether jurisdictions within a region could share 
resources, rather than submit separate or overlapping requests for 
first responder equipment.[Footnote 25] In response, ODP requested the 
states to validate and revise, if necessary, the needs assessment data 
to take these factors into account and to resubmit their assessments. 
States were to submit their validated assessments to ODP by October 15, 
2004. According to an ODP document, ODP is currently completing its 
analysis of the assessment data.

ODP Has Begun Drafting National Preparedness Standards to Better Assess 
First Responder Needs:

In addition to the issues raised about the accuracy of the fiscal year 
2003 needs assessments, other factors may affect ODP's and states' 
abilities to identify and assess first responder needs and priorities. 
For example, according to some state officials we interviewed as well 
as recent reports by DHS's Office of Inspector General (IG)[Footnote 
26] and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security,[Footnote 27] 
efforts by state and local jurisdictions to prioritize expenditures to 
enhance first responder preparedness have been hindered by the lack of 
clear guidance in defining the appropriate level of preparedness and 
setting priorities to achieve it.

Additionally, in our recent report on the management of first responder 
grants in the National Capital Region, we reported that the lack of 
national preparedness standards that could be used to assess existing 
first responder capacities (such as the number of persons per hour that 
could be decontaminated after a chemical attack), identify gaps in 
those capacities, and measure progress in achieving specific 
performance goals was a challenge.[Footnote 28] We also reported that 
effectively managing federal first responder grant funds requires the 
ability to measure progress and provide accountability for the use of 
public funds. This required a coordinated strategic plan for enhancing 
preparedness, performance standards to guide how funds are used to 
enhance first responder capacities and preparedness, and data on funds 
available and spent on first responder needs.

National performance standards for assessing domestic preparedness 
capabilities and identifying gaps in those capabilities that reflect 
post-September 11 priorities are being developed. ODP has submitted to 
the Secretary of DHS a definition of a national preparedness goal that 
is intended to provide assurance of the nation's capability to prevent, 
prepare for, respond to, and recover from major events, especially 
terrorism. ODP plans call for achieving the full capability needed to 
sustain the preparedness levels required by the new national standards 
by September 2008. In order to develop performance standards that will 
allow ODP to measure the nation's success in achieving this goal, ODP 
is using a capabilities-based planning approach--one that defines the 
capabilities required by states and local jurisdictions to respond 
effectively to likely threats. These capability requirements are to 
establish the minimum levels of capability required to provide a 
reasonable assurance of success against a standardized set of 15 
scenarios for threats and hazards of national significance.[Footnote 29]

ODP's efforts to develop national preparedness standards are, in part, 
a response to Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8), 
issued by the President in December 2003. HSPD-8 called for a new 
national preparedness goal and performance measures, standards for 
preparedness assessments and strategies, and a system for assessing the 
nation's overall preparedness.[Footnote 30] The directive required the 
DHS Secretary to submit the new national preparedness goal to the 
President through his Homeland Security Council for review and approval 
prior to, or concurrently with, DHS's fiscal year 2006 budget 
submission to the Office of Management and Budget in September 
2004.[Footnote 31] HSPD-8 also requires the preparation and approval of 
statewide, comprehensive all-hazards preparedness strategies in order 
to receive federal preparedness assistance at all levels of government, 
including grants, after fiscal year 2005.

As part of the HSPD-8 implementation process, ODP plans to develop a 
list of capability requirements by the end of January 2005 in keeping 
with the fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriations act.[Footnote 32] To help 
define the capabilities that jurisdictions should set as targets, ODP 
first drafted a list of tasks required to prevent or respond to 
incidents of national consequence. They include such generic tasks as 
integrating private-sector entities into incident response activities 
or coordinating housing assistance for disaster victims. The list of 
target capabilities includes the policies, procedures, personnel, 
training, equipment, and mutual aid arrangements needed to perform the 
tasks required to prevent or respond to the national planning 
scenarios. ODP further plans to develop performance measures, on the 
basis of the target capability standards that define the minimal 
acceptable proficiency required in performing the tasks outlined in the 
task list. ODP plans to complete initial development of the performance 
measures by March 2005 and to refine them subsequently. According to 
ODP's plan, the measures will allow the development of a rating 
methodology that incorporates preparedness resources and information 
about overall performance into a summary report that represents a 
jurisdiction's or agency's ability to perform essential prevention, 
response, or recovery tasks. The office acknowledges that this schedule 
may result in a product that requires future incremental refinements 
but has concluded that this is preferable to spending years attempting 
to develop a "perfect" process. ODP held a workshop in mid-October 2004 
to obtain input from representatives from states, national 
associations, and other federal departments and agencies regarding the 
implementation of HSPD-8. At the workshop, some participants voiced 
concerns that the process, among other things, was moving too fast and 
did not consider the state and local needs assessments that had already 
been done. In addition, some participants believed that better 
communication and a more collaborative process was needed. ODP 
officials promised to address the participants' concerns and asked for 
additional input on how ODP could better implement the process and work 
better with state and local jurisdictions.

ODP Increased Grant Monitoring Activities for Fiscal Year 2004 but Did 
Not Meet Its Monitoring Goal for All States:

ODP has taken steps to improve its oversight procedures with respect to 
state, urban area, and local grantees. ODP is responsible for ensuring 
administrative and programmatic compliance with relevant statutes, 
regulations, policies, and guidelines of the grants it manages. ODP 
also monitors the progress that states make toward the goals and 
objectives contained in their homeland security strategies. Prior to 
September 11, 2001, ODP formally monitored grantees through such 
activities as office-based reviews at ODP of grantees' financial 
reports and other documents, followed by on-site visits to state grant 
officials.Office-based reviews entail a review of grant files to ensure 
that all grant documentation is complete and up-to-date and that any 
apparent problems are addressed through follow-up telephone or e-mail 
contact with the state or urban area. Upon completion of an office- 
based review, an ODP preparedness officer prepares a memorandum for the 
file. This review usually takes place before an on-site visit is 
scheduled, according to ODP. During an on-site visit, an ODP 
preparedness officer is to discuss administrative and financial issues 
and programmatic issues such as whether the state or urban area is 
meeting the goals and objectives in the homeland security strategies. 
The ODP preparedness officer is to prepare a monitoring report for each 
on-site visit.

ODP officials told us that formal on-site monitoring visits were 
temporarily discontinued after September 11, 2001, because of a high 
volume of work. For fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP did not set formal 
monitoring goals, such as a specific number of on-site visits to be 
made in a given year. ODP officials said they continued to maintain 
active, almost daily contact with the states by telephone, e-mail, and 
regular correspondence and through informal visits to monitor 
programmatic and financial aspects of the grants; 
however, no memorandums or formal site-visit reports were filed during 
that period. In fiscal year 2004, ODP updated its grant-monitoring 
guidance and established new monitoring goals. According to the 
guidance, at least one office file reviewand one on-site visit--
resulting in a monitoring visit report--should be completed for each 
state (inclusive of urban area grantees) each fiscal year. As of 
September 30, 2004, ODP had completed 44 office file reviews and 44 on-
site visits for the 56 states and territories. According to ODP, of the 
remaining 12 reviews and visits for the fiscal year 2004 monitoring 
cycle, 8 have been conducted as of December 2004. ODP officials said 
that these reviews and visits were delayed, in part, because of 
turnover in preparedness officer positions and scheduling problems. 
These on-site monitoring visits are a principal tool for, among other 
things, ascertaining a grantee's progress on its strategy 
implementation, and noting problems with implementing the grant program 
and the steps the grantee and ODP will take to resolve them. These on-
site visits are needed to track whether and how grantees are managing 
their program funds.

ODP and Some State and Local Jurisdictions Cite Staffing Challenges:

ODP cited staffing challenges that have affected its grant management 
in general. ODP has made progress in filling authorized staff 
positions, but vacancies remain. ODP had 146 full-time equivalent 
positions authorized for fiscal years 2003 and 2004, 30 of which were 
preparedness officers. As of September 2004, ODP had filled 138 of 
these positions compared with 63 filled positions at the end of fiscal 
year 2003. Of the eight vacancies remaining, five were preparedness 
officer positions. In addition to performing office-based and scheduled 
on-site monitoring, these officers serve as day-to-day liaisons to 
designated states. According to ODP, the ODP preparedness officers 
currently have responsibility for one to five states each, depending on 
the state's population.

ODP officials told us that, in hiring staff, they face challenges 
shared by other agencies. ODP has acknowledged that it experienced 
significant staffing shortages in fiscal years 2002 and 2003 because of 
a hiring freeze. In addition, officials cited other factors, including 
staff turnover, the lack of recruitment and relocation bonuses, the 
high cost of living in the Washington metropolitan area, and 
competition with other DHS entities and contracting firms for high- 
quality candidates. These officials also said that the lengthy federal 
hiring process is further extended by the need to conduct security 
clearances for job candidates. To deal with some staff shortages, ODP 
has relied on outside contractors and temporary employees, but they are 
not working directly with states and local jurisdictions on grants, and 
none are ODP preparedness officers.[Footnote 33]

State and local officials in two of the five states visited also cited 
a lack of sufficient state and local personnel to administer and manage 
their grant programs. While the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 grants 
provided funding that states and local jurisdictions could use to 
administer the grants,[Footnote 34] these officials said that the 3 
percent limit on grant management and administrative costs imposed by 
ODP in the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II was not sufficient to cover the 
grant administrative costs needed to administer and manage the grants. 
This allowance can be used at the state and/or local levels, but the 
combined allowance cannot exceed 3 percent of the total first responder 
preparedness grant funds for each state.[Footnote 35] For SHSGP II 
first responder preparedness grant funds, the allowable administrative 
costs ranged among all states from a low of about $102,000 to a high of 
about $3.1 million per state. Some officials said they have not been 
able to hire the personnel necessary to administer and manage the grant 
programs, in part, because of the limit on funds used for 
administrative costs. DHS's IG and Homeland Security Advisory Council 
Task Force[Footnote 36] also cited similar reports from state and local 
officials they spoke with. In responding to DHS's IG report, ODP said 
that the homeland security grant programs allow for the hiring of both 
full-and part-time personnel and contractors to implement the program 
and that this option could be more widely used by states to address the 
issue of inadequate staffing. ODP officials recently told us that the 
fiscal year 2005 grant guidelines allow states to retain 3 percent of 
the total grant award and local jurisdictions to use 2.5 percent of 
their grant allocation for management and administrative purposes. 
According to these officials, this change should alleviate some of the 
staffing issues.

Congress, ODP, States, and Localities Have Acted to Expedite Grant 
Awards, but Challenges Remain:

Statutory Deadlines Were Imposed to Expedite the Grant Award and 
Distribution Process:

Congress, the Conference of Mayors,[Footnote 37] some state and local 
officials, and others expressed concerns about the time ODP was taking 
to award grant funds to states and for states to transfer grant funds 
to local jurisdictions. For SDPP and SHSGP I grants, ODP was not 
required to award grant funds to states within a specific time frame. 
During fiscal year 2002, ODP took 123 days to make the SDPP grant 
application available to states and, on average, about 21 days to 
approve states' applications after receipt. For SHSGP II, however, the 
appropriations statute required that ODP make the grant application 
available to states within 15 days of enactment of the appropriation 
and approve or disapprove states' applications within 15 days of 
receipt. According to ODP data for SHSGP II, ODP made the grant 
application available to states within the required deadline and 
awarded over 90 percent of the grants within 14 days of receiving the 
applications. For SHSGP II, the appropriations statute also mandated 
that states submit grant applications within 30 days of the grant 
announcement.[Footnote 38] According to ODP data, all states met the 
statutory 30-day mandate. For SHSGP II, the average number of days from 
grant announcement to application submission declined from about 81 
days in fiscal year 2002 to about 23 days.

To expedite the transfer of grant funds from the states to local 
jurisdictions, ODP program guidelines and subsequent appropriations 
acts imposed additional deadlines on states. For SDPP, there were no 
mandatory deadlines or dates by which states should transfer grant 
funds to localities. One of the states we visited, for example, took 91 
days to transfer the SDPP grant funds to a local jurisdiction while 
another state we visited took 305 days. In addition, a DHS IG report 
found that for SDPP, two of the states it visited took 73 and 186 days, 
respectively, to transfer funds to local jurisdictions. Beginning with 
SHSGP I, ODP required in its program guidelines that states transfer 
grant funds to local jurisdictions within 45 days of the grant award 
date. Congress subsequently included this requirement in the 
appropriations statute for SHSGP II grant funds. To ensure compliance, 
ODP required states to submit a certification form indicating that all 
awarded grant funds had been transferred within the required 45-day 
period.[Footnote 39] States that were unable to meet the 45-day period 
had to explain the reasons for not transferring the funds and indicate 
when the funds would be transferred. According to ODP, for SHSGP I and 
II, respectively, 33 and 31 states certified that the required 45-day 
period had been met.[Footnote 40]

To further assist states in expediting the transfer of grant funds to 
local jurisdictions, ODP also modified its requirements for 
documentation to be submitted as part of the grant application process 
for fiscal years 2002 and 2003. In fiscal year 2002, ODP required 
states to submit budget detail worksheets and program narratives 
indicating how the grant funds would be used for equipment, exercises, 
and administration--and have them approved. If a state failed to submit 
the required documentation, ODP would award the grant funds, with the 
special condition that the state could not transfer, expend, or draw 
down any grant funds until the required documentation was submitted and 
approved. In fiscal year 2002, ODP imposed special conditions on 37 
states for failure to submit the required documentation and removed the 
condition only after the states submitted the documentation. The time 
required to remove the special conditions ranged from about 1 month to 
21 months. For example, in one state we reviewed, ODP awarded SDPP 
grant funds and notified the state of the special conditions on 
September 13, 2002; the special conditions were removed about 6 months 
later on March 18, 2003, after the state had met those conditions.

However, in fiscal year 2003, ODP allowed states to move forward more 
quickly, by permitting them to transfer grant funds to local 
jurisdictions before all required grant documents had been submitted. 
If a state failed to submit the required documentation for SHSGP I, ODP 
awarded the grant funds and allowed the state to transfer the funds to 
local jurisdictions. While the state and local jurisdictions could not 
expend--and the state could not draw down--the grant funds until the 
required documentation was submitted and approved, they could plan 
their expenditures and begin state and locally required procedures such 
as obtaining approval of the state legislature or city council to use 
the funds. For SHSGP I, ODP imposed special conditions on 47 states for 
failure to submit the required documentation and removed the condition 
only after the states submitted the documentation. The special 
conditions were removed approximately 1 month to 15 months after the 
grant funds were awarded to the states. For the SHSGP II grant cycle, 
in order to further expedite the award process and availability of 
fiscal year 2003 funds for expenditure, ODP no longer required states 
to submit the budget detail worksheets and certain other documents as 
part of the grant application process.[Footnote 41] Rather, these 
documents could be submitted later with the state's biannual progress 
report.[Footnote 42] Thus, states were able to transfer, expend, and 
draw down grant funds immediately after ODP awarded the grant funds. 
(See appendix III for grant award and distribution timelines for 
selected state and local grantees.)

Some States Have Revised Procurement Requirements Affecting Grant Time 
Lines, and ODP Is Developing Related Best Practices:

Despite congressional and ODP efforts to expedite the award of grant 
funds to states and the transfer of those funds to localities, some 
states and local jurisdictions could not expend the grant funds to 
purchase equipment or services until other, nonfederal requirements 
were met. Some state and local officials' ability to spend grant funds 
was complicated by the need to meet various state and local legal and 
procurement requirements and approval processes, which could add months 
to the process of purchasing equipment after grant funds had been 
awarded. For example, in one state we visited, the state legislature 
must approve how the grant funds will be expended. If the state 
legislature is not in session when the grant funds are awarded, it 
could take at least 4 months to obtain state approval to spend the 
funds.[Footnote 43] In another state we visited, a city was notified on 
July 17, 2003, that SHSGP I grant funds were available for use, but the 
city council did not vote to accept the funds until almost 4 months 
later. A 2004 report by the House Select Committee on Homeland Security 
also cited instances of slowness at the state and local government 
levels in approving the acceptance and expenditure of grant funds. For 
example, according to the committee report, one county took about 7 
months after receiving its SHSGP I grant award to get authorization to 
spend the grant funds. Some state and local officials we talked with 
said that complying with their normal procurement regulations could 
also take months. They said that these regulations require, among other 
things, competitive bidding for certain purchases--a frequently lengthy 
process in their view.

Some states, in conjunction with DHS, have modified their procurement 
practices to expedite the procurement of equipment and services. 
Officials in two of the five states we visited told us they established 
centralized purchasing systems that allow equipment and services to be 
purchased by the state on behalf of local jurisdictions, freeing them 
from some local legal and procurement requirements. As reported by the 
House Select Committee on Homeland Security in April 2004, many states 
were looking to move to a centralized purchasing system for the same 
reason. In addition, the DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council Task 
Force reported that several states developed statewide procurement 
contracts that allow local jurisdictions to buy equipment and services 
using a prenegotiated state contract. According to DHS, it has offered 
options for equipment procurement, through agreements with the U.S. 
Department of Defense's Defense Logistics Agency and the Marine Corps 
Systems Command, to allow state and local jurisdictions to purchase 
equipment directly from their prime vendors. DHS said that these 
agreements provide an alternative to state and local procurement 
processes and often result in a more rapid product delivery at a lower 
cost. For example, one state we visited is using a Defense Logistics 
Agency prime vendor to make equipment purchases. Local jurisdictions 
can order the equipment without having to go through their own locally 
based competitive bidding process.

Congress has also taken steps to address a problem that some states and 
localities cited concerning a federal policy that provides 
reimbursement to states and localities only after they have incurred an 
obligation, such as a purchase order, to pay for goods and services. 
Until fiscal year 2005, after submitting the appropriate documentation, 
states and localities could receive federal funds to pay for these 
goods and services several days before the payment was due so that they 
did not have to use their own funds for payment. However, according to 
DHS's Homeland Security Advisory Council Task Force, many 
municipalities and counties had difficulty participating in this 
process either because they did not receive their federal funds before 
payment had to be made or their local governments required funds to be 
on hand before commencing the procurement process. Officials in one 
city we visited said that, to solve the latter problem, the city had to 
set up a new emergency operations account with its own funds. The task 
force recommended that for fiscal year 2005, ODP homeland security 
grants be exempt from the Cash Management Improvement Act[Footnote 44] 
to allow funds to be provided to states and municipalities up to 120 
days in advance of expenditures. The fiscal year 2005 DHS 
appropriations legislation includes a provision that exempts formula- 
based grants (SHSGP) and discretionary grants, including UASI and other 
ODP grants, from the act's requirement that an agency schedule the 
transfer of funds to a state so as to minimize the time elapsing 
between the transfer of funds from the U.S. Treasury and the state's 
disbursement of the funds for program purposes.

In addition, DHS efforts are under way to identify and disseminate best 
practices, including how states and localities manage legal and 
procurement issues that affect grant distribution. DHS's Homeland 
Security Advisory Council Task Force stated in a June 2004 report that 
some jurisdictions have been "very innovative" in developing mechanisms 
to support the procurement and delivery of emergency-response-related 
equipment. For example, one state cited in the report was in the 
process of forming a procurement working group to address issues as 
they arise. The report also cited that several states have developed 
statewide procurement contracts that allow municipal government units 
to buy first responder equipment and services. One state created a 
password-protected Web site that allowed local jurisdictions to view 
their allocation balance and place orders for equipment up to their 
funding allocation limit. According to the task force, these efforts 
substantially reduced the time it takes for localities to purchase and 
receive their equipment. The task force recommended that, among other 
things, DHS should, in coordination with state, county, and other 
governments, identify, compile, and disseminate best practices to help 
states address grant management issues. According to ODP, in an effort 
to complement and reinforce the task force's recommendations, in 
partnership with the National Criminal Justice Association,[Footnote 
45] it established a new Homeland Security Preparedness Technical 
Assistance Program service to enhance the grant management capabilities 
of state administrative agencies. In an August 30, 2004, Information 
Bulletin, ODP requested that state administrative agencies complete a 
survey designed to gather information on their grant management 
technical needs and best practices related to managing and accounting 
for ODP grants, including the procurement of equipment and services at 
the state and local levels. The information that ODP is gathering is to 
serve as a foundation for the development of a tailored, on-site 
assistance program for states to ensure that identified best practices 
are implemented and critical grant management needs and problems are 
addressed. According to ODP, this program will be operational in 
December 2004.

Despite efforts to streamline local procurement practices, some 
challenges remain at the state and local levels. An ODP requirement 
that is based on language in the appropriations statute could delay 
procurements, particularly in states that have a centralized purchasing 
system. Specifically, for the fiscal 2004 grant cycle, states are 
required by statute to pass through no less than 80 percent of total 
grant funding to local jurisdictions within 60 days of the award. In 
order for states to retain grant funds beyond the 60-day limit, ODP 
requires states and local jurisdictions to sign a memorandum of 
understanding (MOU) indicating that states may retain--at the local 
jurisdiction's request--some or all funds in order to make purchases on 
a local jurisdiction's behalf. The MOU must specify the amount of funds 
to be retained by the state. A state official in one state we visited 
said that, while the state's centralized purchasing system had worked 
well in prior years, the state has discontinued using it because of the 
MOU requirement, since establishing MOUs with every locality might take 
years. The state transferred the fiscal year 2004 grant funds to local 
jurisdictions so they can make their own purchases. In another state, 
officials expressed concern that this requirement would negatively 
affect their ability to maintain homeland security training provided to 
local jurisdictions at state colleges that had been previously funded 
from local jurisdictions' grant funds. In a June 23, 2004, ODP 
Information Bulletin, ODP strongly recommended that states retaining 
funds at the state level on behalf of local jurisdictions have the MOUs 
reviewed by DHS's Office of General Counsel to ensure that the MOUs 
meet the requirements of the appropriation language and ODP program 
guidelines. ODP officials told us that they were assisting states to 
adapt to the new requirement.

Concluding Observations:

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, forced the nation to 
reexamine its requirements for domestic safety, including the capacity 
and resources that would be needed at the state and local levels to 
prevent, prepare for, respond to, or recover from potential future 
threats from terrorists and minimize their impact. Congress addressed 
this concern in the months after the attacks, in part by increasing the 
grant funds that states would receive to enhance their emergency first 
responder and public health and safety capabilities to deal with 
terrorist attacks involving CBRNE weapons. Not surprisingly, the 
enormous effort required to bolster first responder capacity nationwide 
posed challenges for government administrators at the federal, state, 
and local levels. A major challenge in administering first responder 
grants is balancing two goals: minimizing the time it takes to 
distribute grant funds to state and local first responders, and 
ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for the effective use 
of grant funds. ODP's approach to striking this balance has been 
evolving from experience, congressional action, and feedback from 
states and local jurisdictions.

Over the last 2 years, working in concert with state governments and 
others, DHS has made progress, through ODP, in managing its state 
homeland security grant programs. ODP has addressed management problems 
regarding how grants were awarded and funds distributed, which arose 
following the dramatic increase in federal funding for first responders 
after September 11. While some localities continue to face legal and 
procurement challenges that can tie up access to grant funds, ODP is 
taking steps to provide technical assistance that will, among other 
things, give state and local officials access to best-practice 
information on how other jurisdictions have successfully addressed 
procurement challenges.

As ODP continues to administer its state and urban first responder 
grant programs, it will likely face new challenges. In particular, as 
DHS and ODP work to develop national preparedness standards, it will be 
important to listen and respond fully to the concerns of states, local 
jurisdictions, and other interested parties about, among other things, 
the planned time frames for implementing the new standards. It will 
also be important to ensure that there is adequate collaboration and 
guidance for moving forward. Effective collaboration among ODP, states, 
and others in developing appropriate preparedness performance goals and 
measures will be essential to ensuring that the nation's emergency 
response capabilities are appropriately identified, assessed, and 
strengthened.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:

DHS generally agreed with the report's findings. In particular, the 
agency concurred that it faced a number of challenges related to 
effectively managing first responder grants and highlighted the 
progress it has made in addressing them. The agency expressed the view, 
however, that the progress already achieved in meeting these challenges 
was not appropriately reflected in the title of the report. We 
disagree. As DHS notes, our report acknowledges the efforts the agency 
has made in revising grant procedures to expedite awards while 
maintaining accountability. Nevertheless, not all of the agency's 
efforts have gone smoothly, as attested, for example, by the problems 
that DHS and the states experienced in realistically defining first 
responder equipment needs in 2003. In view of the concerns recently 
expressed by state and other officials, DHS may, in our view, continue 
to face significant challenges in meeting its time tables to develop 
realistic capability requirements and performance measures for first 
responders. DHS also provided further details on some grant management 
issues we raised in the report. We have revised the report as 
appropriate to include these and other technical comments provided.

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from its issue date. At that time, we will send copies of this report 
to relevant congressional committees and subcommittees, the Secretary 
of Homeland Security, and to other interested parties. We will also 
make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the report 
will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at http://www.gao.gov.

If you have any questions about this report or wish to discuss it 
further, please contact me at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov. Key 
contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI.

Sincerely yours,

Signed by: 

William O. Jenkins, Jr.: 
Director, Homeland Security and Justice Issues:

[End of section]

Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:

We initially addressed our researchable questions regarding the Office 
for Domestic Preparedness's (ODP) structure and processes for program 
and financial management of its grants and its monitoring policies and 
processes in a briefing to the Subcommittee on Homeland Security of the 
House Committee on Appropriations. In addressing those questions, we 
identified 25 domestic preparedness programs managed by ODP in fiscal 
years 2002 and 2003.[Footnote 46] For this report, we selected the five 
largest programs in terms of federal funding provided to state and 
local jurisdictions for our detailed review. Three of the five programs 
that addressed state and local preparedness issues were basically for 
the same purposes but received funding from separate appropriations. 
These were the fiscal year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program 
(SDPP) and the fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs 
(SHSGP) I and II. The other two programs were awarded to selected urban 
areas. These were the fiscal year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiatives 
(UASI) I and II grant programs.

We also selected Arizona, California, Florida, Missouri, and 
Pennsylvania and 19 local jurisdictions within those states:

* The cities of Phoenix and Pima and Maricopa and Coconino Counties in 
Arizona.

* The cities of Los Angeles and Sacramento and the County of Los 
Angeles in California.

* The city of Miami, Miami-Dade County, and the Miami and Tallahassee 
Regional Domestic Security Task Forces in Florida.

* The city of St. Louis, St. Louis and Franklin Counties, and the rural 
cities of Jackson and Sikeston in Missouri.

* The city of Philadelphia and the Southeastern and South Central 
Regional Terrorism Task Forces in Pennsylvania.

The five states were selected on the basis of the amount of ODP grant 
funding received, population size, and other factors. The local 
jurisdictions were selected on the basis of a mix of urban and rural 
locations to include cities and counties that received UASI funding.

To determine how SHSGP and UASI were administered in fiscal years 2002 
and 2003 so that ODP could ensure that grant funds were spent in 
accordance with grant guidance and state preparedness planning, we 
interviewed ODP officials and homeland security and grant management 
officials and first responders in the five selected states and from 
selected local jurisdictions within those states. We also obtained and 
reviewed related ODP policy guidance and program guidelines for the 
SDPP/SHSGP and UASI grant programs. We also obtained and reviewed 
documentation on grant awards to state and local jurisdictions. We 
spoke with ODP officials about their grant monitoring and reporting 
processes and obtained and reviewed related ODP grant-monitoring 
guidance and monitoring reports for fiscal year 2004. We also obtained 
and analyzed data on the number of office-based and on-site-monitoring 
reviews conducted in fiscal year 2004. We reviewed these data for 
obvious inconsistency errors and completeness and compared these data 
with on-site-monitoring reports prepared by ODP. On the basis of these 
efforts, we determined that the monitoring review data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. In addition, we 
spoke with ODP and state and local officials about staffing issues that 
affect grant management. We also interviewed ODP and state and local 
officials and reviewed documentation about ODP's state homeland 
security needs assessment and strategy development process and the 
similar needs assessment and strategy development process for selected 
urban areas. In addition, we obtained and reviewed the state domestic 
preparedness strategies for the selected five states. In conjunction 
with this effort, we also obtained information about the steps that ODP 
is taking to implement Homeland Security Presidential Directive-8 
regarding national preparedness goals and performance standards. We 
also reviewed relevant reports on homeland security and domestic 
preparedness that discuss the development of national performance 
standards.

To determine the time frames for awarding and distributing SHSGP and 
UASI grants established by ODP grant guidance or by law, and how these 
time frames affected the grant cycle, we obtained and analyzed 
appropriations acts and program guidelines for the grant programs. We 
also met with ODP officials and state homeland security and grant 
management officials, and local grant managers and first responders in 
the selected states and local jurisdictions to discuss how the time 
lines affected the grant cycle. We obtained and analyzed data on the 
time frames associated with the grant award and distribution processes. 
We reviewed these data for obvious inconsistency errors and 
completeness and compared these data with hard-copy documents we 
obtained for these states. When we found discrepancies, we brought them 
to the attention of ODP and state and local officials and worked with 
them to correct the discrepancies before conducting our analyses. On 
the basis of these efforts, we determined that the time-frame data were 
sufficiently reliable for the purpose of this report. We also obtained 
information about local procurement policies and practices. In 
addition, we reviewed recent reports and studies on issues related to 
federal funding and oversight of grants for first responders. We also 
obtained grant funding and expenditures as of July 31, 2004, for the 56 
states and territories and the urban areas. Given that the grant 
funding and expenditure data are used for background purposes only, we 
did not assess the reliability of these data. We also obtained and 
analyzed key dates associated with the grant award, distribution, and 
reimbursement processes for selected states and local jurisdictions. We 
conducted this work from November 2003 through November 2004 in 
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.

[End of section]

Appendix II: Fiscal Years 2002 and 2003 SDPP/SHSGP and UASI Funding and 
Draw Downs by State:

Given that these grant-funding and drawn-down amounts are used for 
background purposes only, we did not assess the reliability of these 
data.

Table 3: Fiscal Year 2002 State Domestic Preparedness Program (SDPP) 
and Fiscal Year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs (SHSGP) 
Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:

Dollars in thousands.

State: Alabama; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,317; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,259; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,457; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $360; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,049; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,514; 
Total: Funding: $39,823; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,133.

State: Alaska; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,783; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $203; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,995; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $485; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,230; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $855; 
Total: Funding: $21,008; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,543.

Territory: American Samoa; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $828; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $714; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,482; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $3,926; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $874; 
Total: Funding: $6,236; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,588.

State: Arizona; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,770; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,929; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,584; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,069; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,033; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,463; 
Total: Funding: $44,387; 
Total: Drawn down: $13,461.

State: Arkansas; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,141; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,169; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,394; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,234; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $19,585; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,964; 
Total: Funding: $31,120; 
Total: Drawn down: $14,367.

State: California; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $24,831; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,403; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $45,023; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $11,903; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $119,256; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $33,262; 
Total: Funding: $189,110; 
Total: Drawn down: $57,568.

State: Colorado; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,220; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,776; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,480; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,068; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,111; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,249; 
Total: Funding: $39,811; 
Total: Drawn down: $13,093.

State: Connecticut; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,626; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,133; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,265; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,281; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $21,893; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,515; 
Total: Funding: $34,784; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,928.

State: Delaware; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,887; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,643; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,185; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $515; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,733; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,698; 
Total: Funding: $21,805; 
Total: Drawn down: $5,856.

District of Columbia; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,747; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,559; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,910; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,006; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,967; 
Total: Funding: $20,663; 
Total: Drawn down: $4,526.

State: Florida; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $12,967; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,967; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $23,654; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,966; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $62,655; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $12,107; 
Total: Funding: $99,276; 
Total: Drawn down: $35,041.

State: Georgia; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,797; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,628; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $14,188; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,319; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $37,579; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,253; 
Total: Funding: $59,564; 
Total: Drawn down: $16,200.

Territory: Guam; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $892; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $783; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,596; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $209; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $4,226; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $227; 
Total: Funding: $6,714; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,219.

State: Hawaii; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,172; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $737; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,693; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $484; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,079; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,066; 
Total: Funding: $23,944; 
Total: Drawn down: $3,286.

State: Idaho; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,226; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $963; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,803; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,306; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,375; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,412; 
Total: Funding: $24,404; 
Total: Drawn down: $7,680.

State: Illinois; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $10,604; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $7,559; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $18,879; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $10,399; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $50,005; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,478; 
Total: Funding: $79,488; 
Total: Drawn down: $19,435.

State: Indiana; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,400; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,834; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,399; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,844; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $30,194; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $23,327; 
Total: Funding: $47,993; 
Total: Drawn down: $35,005.

State: Iowa; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,308; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,307; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,657; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $725; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $20,282; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,747; 
Total: Funding: $32,247; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,779.

State: Kansas; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,151; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,064; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,401; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,303; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $19,603; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,401; 
Total: Funding: $31,155; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,767.

State: Kentucky; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,048; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,857; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,001; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,369; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,838; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,444; 
Total: Funding: $37,887; 
Total: Drawn down: $12,670.

State: Louisiana; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,331; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,976; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,451; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,028; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $25,037; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,367; 
Total: Funding: $39,819; 
Total: Drawn down: $10,371.

State: Maine; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,213; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,771; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,751; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,769; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,232; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,378; 
Total: Funding: $24,196; 
Total: Drawn down: $7,919.

State: Maryland; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,881; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,850; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,585; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,550; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,037; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,437; 
Total: Funding: $44,503; 
Total: Drawn down: $12,836.

State: Massachusetts; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,579; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,437; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,711; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $815; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $31,020; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $12,598; 
Total: Funding: $49,310; 
Total: Drawn down: $19,850.

State: Michigan; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $8,958; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,124; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $15,918; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,099; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $42,162; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,414; 
Total: Funding: $67,038; 
Total: Drawn down: $15,638.

State: Minnesota; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,631; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,207; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,076; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,965; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $26,690; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,374; 
Total: Funding: $42,397; 
Total: Drawn down: $9,546.

State: Mississippi; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,255; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $599; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $7,582; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,933; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $20,083; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,955; 
Total: Funding: $31,920; 
Total: Drawn down: $5,487.

State: Missouri; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,079; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,042; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,834; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,872; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $28,697; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,285; 
Total: Funding: $45,610; 
Total: Drawn down: $16,199.

State: Montana; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,967; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,589; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,303; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,272; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $14,047; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $730; 
Total: Funding: $22,317; 
Total: Drawn down: $4,591.

State: Nebraska; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,502; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,560; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,255; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,877; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,568; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,310; 
Total: Funding: $26,325; 
Total: Drawn down: $11,747.

State: Nevada; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,693; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,000; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,771; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,491; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $17,935; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,442; 
Total: Funding: $28,399; 
Total: Drawn down: $8,933.

State: New Hampshire; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,187; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $687; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,727; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,113; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $15,172; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,887; 
Total: Funding: $24,086; 
Total: Drawn down: $8,687.

State: New Jersey; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,948; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,839; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $14,222; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,470; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $37,671; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,765; 
Total: Funding: $59,841; 
Total: Drawn down: $11,074.

State: New Mexico; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,574; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,947; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,401; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,286; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,956; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,302; 
Total: Funding: $26,931; 
Total: Drawn down: $4,535.

State: New York; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $14,953; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $12,000; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $26,492; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $23,400; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $70,172; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $63,000; 
Total: Funding: $111,617; 
Total: Drawn down: $98,400.

State: North Carolina; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,706; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,322; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $13,908; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,995; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $36,840; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,337; 
Total: Funding: $58,454; 
Total: Drawn down: $14,654.

State: North Dakota; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,794; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,670; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,983; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,026; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,200; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,500; 
Total: Funding: $20,977; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,196.

Territory: Northern Mariana Islands; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $835; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $632; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,496; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $892; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $3,963; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $815; 
Total: Funding: $6,294; 
Total: Drawn down: $2,338.

State: Ohio; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $9,897; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,350; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $17,510; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,757; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $46,378; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $8,403; 
Total: Funding: $73,785; 
Total: Drawn down: $23,511.

State: Oklahoma; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,656; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $524; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,304; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $978; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $21,996; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $222; 
Total: Funding: $34,956; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,724.

State: Oregon; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,637; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,857; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,336; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,884; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $22,081; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,760; 
Total: Funding: $35,054; 
Total: Drawn down: $8,501.

State: Pennsylvania; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $10,512; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,168; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $18,570; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,906; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $49,189; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,249; 
Total: Funding: $78,271; 
Total: Drawn down: $17,323.

State: Puerto Rico; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $4,894; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $490; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $8,727; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,118; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $36,739; 
Total: Drawn down: $490.

Territory: Rhode Island; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,063; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $1,171; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,489; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,899; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $14,540; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $9,286; 
Total: Funding: $23,092; 
Total: Drawn down: $12,356.

State: South Carolina; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,028; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,552; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $9,017; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,032; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $23,882; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,626; 
Total: Funding: $37,927; 
Total: Drawn down: $13,210.

State: South Dakota; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,868; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,745; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $5,131; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,265; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,591; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,027; 
Total: Funding: $21,590; 
Total: Drawn down: $10,036.

State: Tennessee; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,140; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $4,089; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,978; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,961; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $29,080; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $374; 
Total: Funding: $46,198; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,424.

State: Texas; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $16,196; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $8,878; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $29,538; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $10,324; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $78,238; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $14,078; 
Total: Funding: $123,972; 
Total: Drawn down: $33,280.

State: Utah; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,849; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,608; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,937; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $4,184; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $18,374; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,833; 
Total: Funding: $29,160; 
Total: Drawn down: $14,625.

State: Vermont; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,772; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,352; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,963; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,652; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $13,147; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,688; 
Total: Funding: $20,882; 
Total: Drawn down: $8,692.

Territory: Virgin Islands; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $861; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $133; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $1,542; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,227; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $4,085; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,409; 
Total: Funding: $6,488; 
Total: Drawn down: $3,770.

State: Virginia; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $7,062; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $6,226; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $12,716; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,846; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $33,683; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $22,956; 
Total: Funding: $53,461; 
Total: Drawn down: $37,028.

State: Washington; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $6,276; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,368; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $11,294; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $6,877; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $29,917; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $3,655; 
Total: Funding: $47,487; 
Total: Drawn down: $15,899.

State: West Virginia; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $3,567; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $3,567; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $6,340; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $5,758; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $16,792; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $8,856; 
Total: Funding: $26,699; 
Total: Drawn down: $18,181.

State: Wisconsin; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $5,925; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $5,238; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $10,565; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $7,545; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $27,985; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $20,800; 
Total: Funding: $44,475; 
Total: Drawn down: $33,584.

State: Wyoming; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $2,696; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $2,285; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $4,827; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $1,410; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $12,784; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $2,205; 
Total: Funding: $20,307; 
Total: Drawn down: $5,899.

Total; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Funding: $315,700; 
FY 2002 SDPP: Drawn down: $216,339; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP I funding: $566,295; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $201,197; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: SHSGP II funding: $1,500,000; 
FY 2003 SHSGP: Drawn down: $385,146; 
Total: Funding: $2,381,995; 
Total: Drawn down: $802,682.

Source: Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) grant guidance and 
Office of Justice Programs/Office of the Comptroller (OJP/OC) financial 
management data.

[End of table]

Table 4: Fiscal Year 2003 Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) I and 
II Grant Funding and Draw Downs as of July 31, 2004:

Dollars in thousands.

State: Arizona; 
City, county: Phoenix and Maricopa County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $11,033; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $471; 
Total: Funding: $11,033; 
Total: Drawn down: $471.

State: California; 
City, county: Los Angeles[B] and Los Angeles County; 
City, county: San Francisco[B] and San Francisco County; 
City, county: San Diego City and San Diego County; 
City, county: Sacramento and Sacramento County; 
City, county: Long Beach and Los Angeles County; 
UASI I: Funding: $22,771; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $560; 
UASI II: Funding: $62,202; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $6,014; 
Total: Funding: $84,973; 
Total: Drawn down: $6,574.

State: Colorado; 
City, county: Denver and Denver County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $15,568; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $93; 
Total: Funding: $15,568; 
Total: Drawn down: $93.

State: Florida; 
City, county: Miami and Miami-Dade County; 
City, county: Tampa and Hillsborough County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $18,960; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $3,296; 
Total: Funding: $18,960; 
Total: Drawn down: $3,296.

State: Hawaii; 
City, county: Honolulu and Honolulu County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $6,871; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,718; 
Total: Funding: $6,871; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,718.

State: Illinois; 
City, county: Chicago[B] and Cook County; 
UASI I: Funding: $10,896; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $0; 
UASI II: Funding: $29,976; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $40,872; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

State: Louisiana; 
City, parish: New Orleans and Orleans Parish; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $6,283; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $350; 
Total: Funding: $6,283; 
Total: Drawn down: $350.

State: Maryland; 
City, county: Baltimore and Anne Arundel and Baltimore Counties; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $10,901; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,468; 
Total: Funding: $10,901; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,468.

State: Michigan; 
City, county: Detroit and Wayne County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $12,273; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $12,273; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

State: Missouri; 
City, county: St. Louis and St. Louis County; 
City, county: Kansas City and Clay, Jackson, Platte, and Cass Counties; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $19,549; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $1,605; 
Total: Funding: $19,549; 
Total: Drawn down: $1,605.

State: Massachusetts; 
City, county: Boston and Suffolk County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $16,727; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $16,727; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

National Capital Region[B]; 
City, county: 
UASI I: Funding: $18,081; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $459; 
UASI II: Funding: $42,410; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $186; 
Total: Funding: $60,491; 
Total: Drawn down: $645.

State: New Jersey; 
City, county: Newark and Essex County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $11,893; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $11,893; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

State: New York; 
City, county: New York City[B]; 
City, county: Buffalo and Erie County; 
UASI I: Funding: $24,768; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $2,706; 
UASI II: Funding: $135,267; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $103,103; 
Total: Funding: $160,035; 
Total: Drawn down: $105,809.

State: Ohio; 
City, county: Cincinnati and Hamilton County; 
City, county: Cleveland and Cuyahoga County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $13,859; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $16; 
Total: Funding: $13,859; 
Total: Drawn down: $16.

State: Oregon; 
City, county: Portland and Washington, Multnomah, and Clackamas 
Counties; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $6,766; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $1; 
Total: Funding: $6,766; 
Total: Drawn down: $1.

State: Pennsylvania; 
City, county: Philadelphia and Philadelphia County; 
City, county: Pittsburgh and Allegheny County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $21,039; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $21,039; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

State: Tennessee; 
City, county: Memphis and Shelby County; 
UASI I: Funding: [A]; 
UASI I: Drawn down: [A]; 
UASI II: Funding: $6,072; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $0; 
Total: Funding: $6,072; 
Total: Drawn down: $0.

State: Texas; 
City, county: Houston[B] and Harris, Fort Bend, and Montgomery 
Counties; 
City, county: Dallas and Denton, Rockwell, Kaufman Collin, and Dallas 
Counties; 
UASI I: Funding: $8,634; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $0; 
UASI II: Funding: $34,165; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $8; 
Total: Funding: $42,799; 
Total: Drawn down: $8.

State: Washington; 
City, county: Seattle[B] and King County; 
UASI I: Funding: $11,201; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $335; 
UASI II: Funding: $18,187; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $24; 
Total: Funding: $29,388; 
Total: Drawn down: $359.

Total; 
UASI I: Funding: $96,351; 
UASI I: Drawn down: $4,060; 
UASI II: Funding: $500,000; 
UASI II: Drawn down: $118,354; 
Total: Funding: $596,351; 
Total: Drawn down: $122,414.

Source: ODP grant guidance and ODP and OJP/OC financial status 
information.

[A] Data not applicable. 

[B] Six cities and the National Capital Region also received UASI I 
grant funding.

[End of table]

[End of section]

Appendix III: Grant Award, Distribution, and Reimbursement Process for 
Selected States and Local Jurisdictions:

Figure 4: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness 
Program Grant Distribution for State A:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
SAA = state administrative agency; 
SDPP = State Domestic Preparedness Program:

[End of figure]

Figure 5: Key Dates Associated with FY 2002 State Domestic Preparedness 
Program Grant Distribution for State B:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
SAA = state administrative agency; 
SDPP = State Domestic Preparedness Program.

[End of figure]

Figure 6: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State B:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: ESO = emergency services office; 
ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
SAA = state administrative agency; 
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program. 

[End of figure]

Figure 7: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program II Grant Distribution for State B:

[See PDF for image]

Notes: ESO = emergency services office; 
ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
SAA = state administrative agency; 
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program. 

[End of figure]

Figure 8: Key Dates Associated with FY 2003 State Homeland Security 
Grant Program I Grant Distribution for State C:

[See PDF for image]

[End of figure]

Notes: ODP = Office for Domestic Preparedness; 
SAA = state administrative agency; 
SHSGP = State Homeland Security Grant Program. 

[End of section]

Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Homeland Security:

U.S. Department of Homeland Security: 
Washington, DC 20528:

December 29, 2004:

Mr. Norman Rabkin:
Managing Director, Homeland Security & Justice Issues: 
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, NW: 
Washington, DC 20548:

Dear Mr. Rabkin:

RE: GAO-05-121, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grant 
Programs Has Improved, but Challenges Remain (GAO Job Code 440244):

Thank you for the opportunity to review the subject draft report. We 
generally agree with the draft report's findings. The draft 
acknowledges the work and progress of the Department of Homeland 
Security (DHS) in establishing and refining grant award procedures for 
states and localities that have supported efforts to improve 
accountability in the state preparedness planning process, improving 
grant oversight procedures, and expediting grant awards and the 
transfer of funds from states to local jurisdictions. The draft 
acknowledges efforts in identifying best practices to help states spend 
grant funds expeditiously while adhering to various legal and 
procurement requirements. Furthermore, DHS through its Office for 
Domestic Preparedness (ODP) [now part of the Office of State and Local 
Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)] began drafting 
national preparedness goals in order to meet mandates contained in a 
presidential directive. Issued in December 2003, Homeland Security 
Presidential Directive 8 requires a national domestic all-hazards 
preparedness goal, adoption of quantifiable performance measurements in 
several areas related to Federal incident management and asset 
preparedness, and other action. We offer a few comments for your 
consideration.

We believe that the report title does not adequately reflect the work 
and accomplishments of DHS managers and staff working on the first 
responder grant program. Management of the program has improved to the 
point where SLGCP officials are already actively working with other 
parties on matters that GAO describes as remaining challenges.

GAO highlights several challenges facing the agency. One is balancing 
the two goals of minimizing the time its takes to distribute grant 
funds to state and local first responders with ensuring appropriate 
planning and accountability for the effective use of grant funds. As 
noted the Department's approach in achieving the balance has been 
evolving based on experience, congressional action, and feedback from 
state and local jurisdictions. DHS through SLGCP continues to bolster 
first responder capacity nationwide by drawing on experience and 
feedback from a variety of sources, including our stakeholders.

Another challenge relates to developing national preparedness 
standards. The report discusses the importance of listening and 
responding fully to the concerns of states, local jurisdictions and 
other interested parties about planned timeframes for the new 
standards. It also mentions the need for adequate and effective 
collaboration among DHS/SLGCP, states, and others in developing 
appropriate preparedness goals and measures important in ensuring that 
emergency response capabilities throughout the country are 
appropriately identified, assessed, and strengthened. In an effort to 
ensure collaboration, DHS/SLGCP officials listened and responded to the 
concerns of the stakeholders and others as noted in the draft report 
and will continue to do so. For example, SLGCP allowed states to 
determine how grant funds were to be managed and distributed within 
their states and whether purchases would be made locally or at the 
state level, took steps to expedite the transfer of funds from states 
to local jurisdictions, and established Initial Strategy Implementation 
Plans to assess bow cumulative purchases meet preparedness planning 
needs or objectives found instate or urban area homeland security 
strategies. SLGCP also has taken steps to address states' concerns 
related to estimates included in needs assessments as noted in the 
report.

There are several other points that we want to bring to your attention.

The draft report at page 21 begins, "SLGCP officials told us that 
formal onsite monitoring visits were suspended after September 11, 
2001, due to a high volume of work." SLGCP did not formally suspend 
onsite monitoring visits after September 11, 2001. We continued to 
maintain active, almost daily contact with our grantees, which includes 
the monitoring of programmatic and financial aspects of the grants. We 
did update and revise monitoring protocols in FY 2004; it is common 
practice to revise internal protocols. Regular correspondence between 
grantees and SLGCP can include financial reports, progress reports, 
emails and written requests; all of these items frequently are used in 
monitoring grantee performance. In the majority of cases, SLGCP was 
unable to accomplish the monitoring visits due to scheduling conflicts 
with the states. It is worth noting that 8 of the 12 visits have 
already been accomplished by December of this year.

The draft at page 23 notes that SLGCP officials were considering 
whether or not the 3% limit on grant management and administrative 
(M&A) costs should be increased. The issue of whether or not to raise 
the cap has been resolved for FY 2005. SLGCP grant guidance allows for 
states to keep 3% of the total amount of the award in each program, but 
also allows for the local unit of government to use 2.5% of their 
allocation for M&A purposes, which should alleviate some of the 
staffing issues.

On page 26, the last paragraph references a state that contracted with 
the Defense Logistics Agency (DLA). We consider this a good example of 
DHS leadership; these types of agreements reflect the effort by DHS, 
its stakeholders, and other parties in overcoming state or local 
procurement obstacles. This agreement was set up between SLGCP and the 
Defense Logistics Agency, Defense Supply Center Philadelphia (DSCP), to 
allow SLGCP's state and local grant recipients to take advantage of 
equipment procurement services that are available through the DSCP Fire 
and Emergency Prime Vendor program. State and local recipients of SLGCP 
equipment grant funding may utilize DSCP prime vendors and other 
logistic support programs to expedite equipment purchases using grant 
funds. SLGCP has also set up a similar agreement with the Marine Corps 
Systems Command, to allow for the same equipment procurement services 
through their prime vendors. Both of these agreements are offered 
through SLGCP's technical assistance menu.

Conversely, GAO comments at page 28 that an SLGCP requirement could 
delay procurements, particularly in states that have a centralized 
purchasing system. This requirement was a direct result of a change in 
conference report language to ODP [SLGCP]. Previous language in FY 2003 
Supplemental Conference Report noted that, "...each State shall 
transfer no less than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to 
local governments within 45 days of the grant award". Language in the 
FY 2004 Conference report noted, "...each State shall obligate not less 
than 80 percent of the total amount of the grant to local governments 
within 60 days after the grant award". Because the wording had changed 
from "transfer" to "obligate", we sought advice from our Office of 
General Counsel. The opinion that we received noted that states MUST 
make a subgrant to the local units of government. The only way that the 
state may hold money on behalf of a local government is through the 
expressed permission in a written Memorandum of Agreement initiated by 
a local unit of government. Please note that this SLGCP requirement 
stems from statutory language.

In addition, we are assuming GAO's incorporation of our technical 
comments which were provided to your office under separate cover.

Sincerely,

Signed for: 

Anna F. Dixon: 
Director: 
Departmental GAOIOIG Liaison Office: 

[End of section]

Appendix V: Related GAO Products:

Homeland Security: Effective Regional Coordination Can Enhance 
Emergency Preparedness. GAO-04-1009. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 
2004.

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership Needed to Facilitate 
Interoperable Communications between First Responders. GAO-04-1057T. 
Washington, D.C.: September 8, 2004.

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation 
Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-
04-740. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Homeland Security: Federal Leadership and Intergovernmental Cooperation 
Required to Achieve First Responder Interoperable Communications. GAO-
04-963T. Washington, D.C.: July 20, 2004.

Homeland Security: Coordinated Planning and Standards Needed to Better 
Manage First Responder Grants in the National Capital Region. GAO-04- 
904T. Washington, D.C.: June 24, 2004.

Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants in the National 
Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated Planning and 
Performance Goals. GAO-04-433. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.

Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First Responders. GAO-04- 
788T. Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004.

Homeland Security: Challenges in Achieving Interoperable Communications 
for First Responders. GAO-04-231T. Washington, D.C.: November 6, 2003.

Homeland Security: Reforming Federal Grants to Better Meet Outstanding 
Needs. GAO-03-1146T. Washington, D.C.: September 3, 2003.

[End of section]

Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:

GAO Contacts:

William O. Jenkins, Jr., (202) 512-8757; 
Robert White (202) 512-5463.

Staff Acknowledgments:

In addition to those persons mentioned above, David Alexander, Leo 
Barbour, Amy Bernstein, Mona Nichols Blake, Laura Helm, Carlos Garcia, 
Jessica Kaczmarek, and Katrina Moss made key contributions to this 
report.

FOOTNOTES

[1] Homeland Security Act of 2002 § 403(5), 6 U.S.C. § 203(5) (Supp. 
2002).

[2] Grant funds for domestic preparedness programs for state and local 
governments are also provided by other DHS components and other 
agencies, including the Departments of Justice and Health and Human 
Services.

[3] SHSGP I and II grants are formula grants that provide each state a 
minimum base amount plus an additional amount based on the state's 
population. UASI I and II grants are awarded to selected urban areas 
across the nation on the basis of such factors as population density, 
critical infrastructure, and current threat estimates. In fiscal year 
2003, SHSGP and UASI grant programs were designated as I or II because 
they were funded by different appropriations in the same fiscal year.

[4] For this report, the term "states" refers to the 50 states; the 
District of Columbia; the Commonwealths of Puerto Rico and the Northern 
Mariana Islands; American Samoa; Guam; and the U.S. Virgin Islands.

[5] See GAO, Emergency Preparedness: Federal Funds for First 
Responders, GAO-04-788T (Washington, D.C.: May 13, 2004).

[6] In this report, the terms "local jurisdictions" and "localities" 
are used interchangeably to refer to diverse political and governmental 
entities, such as counties, cities, towns, municipalities, Indian 
tribes, and others.

[7] In addition to SDPP and SHSGP and UASI I and II grant programs, 
some of the other grant programs are for the same or similar purposes 
and are counted as separate grants because they are funded by separate 
appropriations in different years.

[8] For the purpose of this report, we cite ODP in discussing the first 
responder grant management functions of SLGCP.

[9] Among the grant programs transferred were the following: Assistance 
to Firefighters Grant Program, Citizen Corps Program, and Emergency 
Management Performance Grants from the Federal Emergency Management 
Agency within the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate; and 
Port Security Grant Program from the Transportation Security 
Administration within the Border and Transportation Security 
Directorate. In addition, a new program, the Law Enforcement Terrorism 
Prevention Program, was initiated in SLGCP.

[10] For the fiscal year 2002 SDPP, states and local jurisdictions were 
allowed to acquire advanced levels of first responder equipment, 
including bomb mitigation and remediation gear, remote sensing devices, 
and mass casualty decontamination equipment. 

[11] In fiscal year 2004, 50 urban areas received UASI grant funding.

[12] Each of these factors was weighted in a linear formula; the 
results were ranked and used to calculate a proportional allocation of 
grant funds.

[13] The applications are posted and must be submitted in OJP's Web- 
based Grants Management System.

[14] For UASI I, the Chief Executive of each city was required to 
designate a program administering agency to administer the grant funds. 

[15] For SDPP and SHSGP I, states were required to provide 80 percent 
of their funding allocations for equipment to local jurisdictions. 
States were permitted to retain 20 percent of the equipment funds, and 
the pass-through requirement did not apply to other components of the 
grants. For SHSGP II and UASI II, states were required to provide at 
least 80 percent of the total grant funding for all permissible 
purposes (equipment, exercises, training, and planning and 
administrative costs) to local jurisdictions. States were permitted to 
retain up to 20 percent of their total funding. For SHSGP II and UASI 
II, 3 percent of the total grant award could be used for administrative 
purposes.

[16] The Urban Area Working Group consists of points of contact from 
jurisdictions within the defined urban area. The working group is 
responsible for coordinating development and implementation of all 
program elements within the area.

[17] According to ODP officials, this process for the transfer of funds 
is intended to allow for the use of federal monies to pay the bill, 
rather than state or local funds. (For further discussion of steps 
taken by ODP to expedite grant funding and remaining challenges, see 
pp. 23-30.)

[18] In fiscal year 2003, the urban area grantees were required to 
prepare jurisdictional needs assessments that would support the 
development of urban area homeland security strategies. Twenty-five 
percent of the fiscal year 2003 UASI I and II grant funds could be used 
prior to the submission and approval of the urban area strategies to 
assist jurisdictions in developing their strategies as well as for 
other purposes.

[19] According to ODP, it conditionally approved some state strategies, 
provided that all issues were addressed within a set time period. 
States with conditionally approved strategies received their grant 
award but could not draw down grant funds until their strategies were 
approved. Among the reasons that ODP provided for conditional approvals 
were time lines that were vague, missing, or too broad and not 
realistic; objectives that did not tie in with the goals; and goals 
that were not well defined. 

[20] As part of ODP's fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security 
Assessment and Strategy Program, states were instructed to prepare new 
homeland security strategies using an electronic template provided by 
ODP. The aggregated results from the local jurisdiction needs 
assessment were automatically populated in data fields in the state 
homeland security strategy template. These data fields included, for 
example, the total number of potential threat elements in the state, 
the number of jurisdictions facing vulnerabilities from various hazards 
and their grouped ranking from low to high risk, and the total 
equipment needs for nine categories of equipment. State program 
managers completed the other sections of the strategy template that 
described the state's vision, focus, goals and objectives, 
jurisdictional prioritizations, and implementation steps.

[21] The budget detail worksheets are to be maintained by the state 
administrative agency.

[22] The agency is also responsible for reviewing all completed ISIPs 
prior to submitting them to ODP.

[23] According to ODP, as of September 30, 2004, 19 states and 
territories submitted their ISIPs by the due date, 35 were submitted 
late, and 2 had not been submitted. Of the two that had not been 
submitted, one was late, and one was not due to be submitted as of that 
date. 

[24] ODP approved the state strategy in August 2004.

[25] See GAO, U.S. Infrastructure: Agencies' Approaches to Developing 
Investment Estimates Vary, GAO-01-835 (Washington, D.C.: July 20, 
2001). This report describes best practices followed by agencies in 
performing needs assessments in the area of public infrastructure, such 
as considering alternatives ways to address needs.

[26] Department of Homeland Security: Office of Inspector General, An 
Audit of Distributing and Spending "First Responder" Grant Funds, OIG- 
04-15 (Washington, D.C.: March 2004).

[27] House Select Committee on Homeland Security, An Analysis of First 
Responder Grant Funding (Washington, D.C.: April 2004).

[28] See GAO, Homeland Security: Management of First Responder Grants 
in the National Capital Region Reflects the Need for Coordinated 
Planning and Performance Goals, GAO-04-443 (Washington, D.C.: May 28, 
2004).

[29] The interagency working group under the direction of the White 
House Homeland Security Council developed these scenarios. They involve 
a variety of potential emergencies, including four chemical (including 
both chemical warfare and toxic industrial chemicals), three biological 
(including both contagious and noncontagious agents and pandemic 
influenza), two agricultural (including food safety and animal 
disease), two natural disasters (a catastrophic earthquake and major 
hurricane), one radiological, one nuclear, one improvised explosive 
device, and one cyber attack. 

[30] HSPD-8 also requires that the preparedness goal pertain to "all 
hazards," addressing the nation's readiness to respond to all major 
events, including natural disasters as well as acts of terrorism.

[31] The recently enacted fiscal year 2005 DHS appropriation 
legislation, Pub. L. No. 108-334 (2004), included other deadlines 
relative to HSPD-8, such as the requirement that final guidance on the 
implementation of the national preparedness goal be issued by March 31, 
2005. 

[32] The act requires ODP to provide state and local jurisdictions with 
nationally accepted first responder preparedness levels no later than 
January 31, 2005.

[33] As of the end of fiscal year 2003, ODP had 72 contract employees 
and as of July 2004, 147. 

[34] The fiscal year 2002 SDPP included up to $150,000 or up to 2.5 
percent of each state's total award (whichever was greater) for 
administrative costs associated with implementing the state strategies. 
For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP I, the amount of grant funds that each 
state could use for planning and administrative costs was specified in 
the program guidelines. The amount ranged from $104,000 to about $3.2 
million. 

[35] For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II, states received separate 
funding for both first responder preparedness and the cost incurred for 
protecting critical infrastructure.

[36] U.S. Department of Homeland Security, The Homeland Security 
Advisory Council, A Report from the Task Force on State and Local 
Homeland Security Funding (June 2004).

[37] The United States Conference of Mayors Homeland Security 
Monitoring Center, First Mayors' Report to the Nation: Tracking Federal 
Homeland Security Funds Sent to the 50 State Governments (Washington, 
D.C.: September 2003).

[38] In fiscal year 2002, ODP required that states submit their grant 
application by July 31, 2002 (79 days after the grant application was 
made available to the states). For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP I, ODP 
required that the application be submitted in 45 days from the release 
of the grant application.

[39] For the fiscal year 2003 SHSGP II, states had to certify that they 
had met the statutory requirement to transfer 80 percent of the awarded 
funds for first responder preparedness and 50 percent of the awarded 
funds for critical infrastructure protection to local jurisdictions 
within the required 45-day period.

[40] According to ODP, follow-up letters were distributed to states 
that had not submitted the certification form or were not certified, 
followed by a series of phone calls to collect the pertinent 
information. 

[41] For the fiscal year 2004 Homeland Security Grant Program, Congress 
required states to obligate grant funds to localities within 60 days of 
the grant award date. States did not have to submit budget detail 
worksheets and program narratives as part of the grant application 
process. However, states were expected to maintain complete and 
accurate accounting records and make those records available to DHS 
upon request. In addition, states were to provide information on how 
the expenditure of grant funds will support the goals and objectives 
included in the state homeland security strategy in the Initial 
Strategy Implementation Plan report due no later than 60 days after the 
grant award date.

[42] The Categorical Assistance Progress Report for the period ending 
June 30, 2003, was due July 30, 2003. This report describes, among 
other things, the total amount of funds expended and the progress made 
to date in achieving the state's overall goals and objectives 
identified in the state homeland security strategy.

[43] When the state legislature is not in session, changes of over $1 
million in the budget must be reviewed and approved by the Legislative 
Budget Commission, which generally meets quarterly. 

[44] Pub. L. No. 101-453, 104 Stat. 1058 (1990). The purpose of the law 
is to ensure efficiency, effectiveness, and equity in the exchange of 
funds between the federal government and the states. The Cash 
Management Improvement Act responded to previously alleged instances in 
which either the states drew cash advances well before federal funds 
were needed to make payment or states used their own funds to satisfy 
federal program needs and were not reimbursed in a timely manner by the 
federal agencies. The act provided that states would pay interest to 
the federal government if they draw funds in advance of need and that 
the federal government would pay interest to states if the federal 
program agency does not reimburse the states in a timely manner when 
states use their own funds.

[45] The National Criminal Justice Association represents state, 
tribal, and local criminal and juvenile justice system concerns to the 
federal government. Among other things, it promotes the development of 
justice systems in states, tribal nations, and units of local 
government that enhance public safety. 

[46] Even though some of the grant programs were basically for the same 
or similar purposes, they are counted as separate grants in part 
because of separate appropriations in the same and different years and 
name changes.

GAO's Mission:

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides 
analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make 
informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's commitment to 
good government is reflected in its core values of accountability, 
integrity, and reliability.

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony:

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics.

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading.

Order by Mail or Phone:

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to:

U.S. Government Accountability Office

441 G Street NW, Room LM

Washington, D.C. 20548:

To order by Phone:

	

Voice: (202) 512-6000:

TDD: (202) 512-2537:

Fax: (202) 512-6061:

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs:

Contact:

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:

Public Affairs:

Jeff Nelligan, managing director,

NelliganJ@gao.gov

(202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office,

441 G Street NW, Room 7149

Washington, D.C. 20548: