The Disaster Formula
DHS funding takes a risk-based approach
The 9/11 Commission questioned
Department of
Homeland Security-allocated
state and local homeland security
assistance in August 2004, arguing
that federal homeland security aid should
not remain a program for general revenue
sharing. The commission went on to state
that federal State Homeland Security
Grant Program (SHSGP) funds “should
supplement state and local resources
based on risks and vulnerabilities that
merit additional support.”
While debate has ensued on this recommendation,
certain program funds
have been distributed according to the
formula set out in the 2001 Patriot Act
that guarantees each state a minimum of
0.75 percent of total appropriations for
domestic preparedness programs. The
problem with this approach is obvious
when one considers that this formula
allowed Wyoming to get about $37.94 per
capita in 2007, while California—with
both more people and much higher risk—
received about $5 per capita in DHS
grants. In addition to the baseline
amount, the remaining SHSGP funds
were allocated based on risk and the
effectiveness of the applicants’ proposed
solutions to address identified needs.
The Bush administration requested
that fiscal 2008 funds for only the
Emergency Management Performance
Grants and Citizen Corps programs be
distributed pursuant to the Patriot Act’s
0.75-percent formula. Additionally, the
administration proposed that the SHSGP
be classified a discretionary program but
guaranteed that each state with an
approved homeland security plan will get
a minimum of 0.25 percent of total appropriations.
After years of haggling,
Congress accepted a compromise distribution
formula of 0.375 percent for 2008
that reduces to 0.35 percent over five
years and included it in legislation enacted
last August. For certain high-risk
states—like New York and California—
the minimum grant will be 0.45 percent.
“The department is investing federal
funding into our communities facing the
greatest risk and demonstrating the greatest
need in order to receive the highest
return in our nation’s security,” Homeland
Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said
in press reports. “Our nation’s preparedness
and the support of our emergency
responders on the front lines of the war
against terrorism must be a shared effort.
We will continue to champion funding on
the basis of risk and need, and we urge
Congress to do the same to ensure that our
finite resources are allocated and prioritized
successfully.”
Jackson County, Ore., emergency management
director and career firefighter Mike
Curry thinks this is one time DHS got it right.
“Even though we’ve lost funding under
the new formula, the grants are going to
where the threats are,” Curry said. “My
main concern remains that we retain a
baseline level of funding to support our
communications interoperability project.
California, New York and Washington,
D.C., are rightfully the priority, but we
have needs, as well. While not perfect,
this is a better approach.
“We need balance and must remain
ever vigilant, even in the low-threat
regions of this country; our greatest vulnerability
will be to put all our eggs in
one basket by protecting the most obvious
terrorist targets while we ignore the
least likely.”
All eligible applicants must submit an
investment justification that identifies
needs and outlines the intended security
enhancement plan to meet the target capabilities
outlined in the national preparedness
goal. Investment justifications will be
reviewed, scored and prioritized along with
risk factors to determine which investments
should be funded to best address
need and minimize risk. Factors like the
presence of international borders, population
and population density, the location of
critical infrastructure, formal mutual aid
cooperation, law enforcement investigations
and enforcement activity are considered
in correlation with the risk formula for
grant determinations.
There is a direct and practical effect of
changing the grant formula. The likely, but
not necessarily certain, targets of future
terrorism will get a larger share of federal
grant funding, while the hardest hit will be
states at less risk for terrorism. As logical
as this grant distribution appears, it is not
without its shortcomings. As with any program,
the devil is in the details.
The fundamental problem with a risk-based
approach is that not all disasters are
manmade. Hurricane Katrina demonstrated
that fact conclusively. On the other
hand, it is doubtful that Oklahoma City
would have made anyone’s list of high-risk
metropolitan targets prior to 1995.
If Hurricane Katrina, the bombing of
the Murrah Federal Office Building and
the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, are
the most-deadly disasters in recent U.S.
history, changing the SHSGP funding formula
to a risk- and vulnerabilities-based
program weighted toward terrorism means
we get it right one out of three times. That
average is unacceptable for homeland
security funding.