Donate
Independent, objective, nonpartisan research

FF 104TRFF

Authors

FF 104TRFF

Tagged with:

Publication PDFs

Database

This is the content currently stored in the post and postmeta tables.

View live version

object(Timber\Post)#3742 (44) { ["ImageClass"]=> string(12) "Timber\Image" ["PostClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Post" ["TermClass"]=> string(11) "Timber\Term" ["object_type"]=> string(4) "post" ["custom"]=> array(5) { ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "FF_104TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "976290" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(250066) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Homeland Security Tim Ransdell The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2004 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute more than $400 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Homeland Security Tim Ransdell January 2004 Overview On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became operational as a federal agency.1 Among its charges is the allocation of federal grant funds to help state and local governments and other eligible entities support the activities of the nation’s first responders. Funding from DHS and related agencies has increased more than tenfold over a two-year period. Much about federal homeland security policy is new. DHS itself is less than a year old. The Select Committee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives held its first organizational meeting on March 5, 2003.2 In early 2003, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees each spliced a Homeland Security Subcommittee into their organizational structure by transferring various functions from eight other subcommittees.3 On the other hand, many of the federal programs that deliver homeland security grant funds to state and local service providers predate these developments, and some critics question whether these programs—and the statutory language and funding formulas that govern them—are up to their new and vastly expanded task. Despite patriotic rhetoric about setting aside partisanship and uniting for the greater good of the nation’s safety and homeland defense, the debate over funding for state and local homeland security activities, and the mechanisms thereby created, devolved into a geographic scramble for federal cash. The end For valuable advice and assistance during the drafting of this report, the author would like to acknowledge Mark Tajima with the State and Federal Legislative Policy and Governmental Affairs Division of Los Angeles County’s Chief Administrative Office. 1DHS was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002. 2By the end of fiscal year 2004, the House is expected to decide whether the House Select Committee on Homeland Security will become a permanent authorizing committee. Despite some pressure to do so, the U.S. Senate has not elected to create a parallel authorizing committee with jurisdiction over homeland security topics; the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee handles most homeland security matters. 3Both Appropriations Committees kept their total number of subcommittees at 13 by consolidating two other panels (Transportation and Treasury-Postal) into one new one (Transportation-Treasury). result is a funding distribution system that—at the expense of highly populated areas with tempting terror targets such as ports, economic focal points, and national icons—sends a disproportionate share of federal dollars to states and localities that are not as likely to be attacked. California, home to more than 12 percent of the nation’s population, receives less than 8 percent of funds distributed according to a politically drawn formula with a minimum guarantee that doles nearly half of its more than $2 billion in equal amounts to every state, regardless of size, with remaining funds distributed by population. As a result, California received $5 per person to distribute to first responders in the state, whereas Wyoming received more than $35 per person in 2003 and $38 per capita in 2004. Partly as a political compromise to quell critics of the formula, Congress provided discretionary funding to specifically aid urban areas. California’s share of these funds was somewhat larger than its share of formula grants, but the state’s total funding for homeland security grants remained well below its share of the nation’s population. In response to ongoing concern about the fairness and effectiveness of the existing funding stream, Congress has begun considering several bills. In typical fashion, bills in the Senate would make few changes to the fiscal favoritism shown smaller states. In the House, two bills—one sponsored by Democrats, the other by the Republican Chair of the Homeland Security Committee—were combined into a single package that would revamp the formula funding structure and base funding on threats, vulnerabilities, and needs. The compromise bill received unanimous support in its first legislative test. This report reviews most of the primary formula and discretionary grant programs that delivered federal financial assistance for homeland security activities to state and local governments and other entities during fiscal year 2003. It provides detailed information regarding grants to California and other states during that year and estimates how grant amounts might have changed if the administering agency had employed alternative formula scenarios. It then discusses preliminary prospects for future-year funding and also notes current legislative activity and possible formula changes. Background DHS is composed primarily of 22 existing federal agencies, programs, and offices that were pieced together from other departments. Most homeland security grant assistance for state and local governments flows through the 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),4 which was moved from the Department of Justice to DHS upon the latter’s creation. Other sources of homeland security grant funds include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), both of which were also merged into DHS upon its creation, as well as offices of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).5 Domestic Preparedness Before September 11, 2001 In 1998, responding to Congressional concerns about the potential for domestic terrorism and Congress’s initial appropriation of $12 million, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs established ODP to develop and administer training and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies. In 1999, ODP implemented a State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program. It was to be a three-year program to provide grants to all 50 states for the acquisition of equipment, as well as for the development of a needs assessment and three-year statewide domestic preparedness strategy. Awards for the domestic preparedness program provided each state a base amount of $250,000 for equipment and $75,000 for planning, and any remaining funds were distributed on the basis of state population. Using a combination of funds that Congress appropriated in 1998 and 1999, ODP distributed $66 million6 to state and local government agencies during 1999, including $44 million to the 157 largest cities and localities and $22 million to the 50 states.7 In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the state program aggregated appropriations and distributed combined grant funding of $145 million in 2000 and 2001. The funds were made available for equipment acquisition only (not for planning) and were available for 2000 to the 50 states only, and for 2001 to the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.8 4The office is occasionally still referred to as the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, its name before 2001. 5HHS continued to administer some homeland security grant funding for fiscal year 2003, despite the fact that responsibility for the funding distribution transferred to DHS on March 1. 6ODP combined $53.8 million appropriated in fiscal year 1999 with $12 million that had been appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to reach the $66 million total. 7Beginning in fiscal year 2000, ODP initiated a two-year program for the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. The program provided $3 million for equipment acquisition and planning in 2000. (In 2001, funds for these jurisdictions were blended with those of the 50 states.) 8Despite their omission from this definition of “state” before 2001, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico generally would be treated as states for subsequent homeland security funding distribution and are referred to as states in the remainder of this report. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 The USA Patriot Act—An Urgent Response to a Changed World As fiscal year 2001 neared its end, the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and rural Pennsylvania fundamentally altered the nation’s concept of domestic preparedness and introduced the term homeland security into the common vernacular. For several weeks following September 11, Congress extensively debated legislative responses to the terrorist acts. On October 24, less than six weeks after the attacks, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, a 342-page bill making sweeping changes to a wide array of federal laws.9 President Bush signed the bill two days later on October 26. Throughout their writing of the USA Patriot Act, the House and Senate altered and added various provisions. Based substantially on a Bush administration proposal made one week after the attacks, the legislation began in the House as H. R. 2975 (the PATRIOT Act) and in the Senate as S.1510 (the USA Act). The Senate approved its bill on October 11. On October 12, the House passed its bill, after substituting the text of H. R. 3108—which was similar in many respects to the Senate bill. Finally, on October 23, the House introduced a new bill that incorporated both the House and Senate provisions and added a few new elements. Thus, the bill that ultimately passed Congress was introduced—and thus was first seen by most legislators—just one day before final approval. One provision that did not exist until the October 23 version was Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act, entitled “Grant Program for State and Local Preparedness Support.” This section codified elements of the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program formula that had been used until that time by ODP to allocate previous grants, and it authorized grants from 2002 through 2007.10 The act did not specify funding amounts for any fiscal year. In addition, the act provided little formula direction, except to specify that no state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) could receive less than 0.75 percent of total appropriations for any fiscal year, and that none of the four territories could receive less than 0.25 percent of funds appropriated. The net effect of this small-state minimum provision is to allocate 40 percent of funds (39 percent to the 52 states and 1 percent to the territories) equally among states, 9The act’s full title was Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. It is often referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act or, simply, the Patriot Act. 10The act states, “The Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support of the Office of Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of local government, to enhance the capability of State and local jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to terrorist acts including events of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction and biological, nuclear, radiological, incendiary, chemical, and explosive devices”(see Section 1014). 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California regardless of size, leaving only 60 percent to be allocated by any subsequent formula provisions. Thus, it is sometimes referred to as a 40/60 formula. The law is silent regarding how ODP should allocate the remaining 60 percent of funding once the small-state minimum is deducted. However, ODP to date has continued to use the population-only method that had been employed previously to allocate State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program funds—dividing the remainder according to each state’s percentage of the national population relative to the U.S. total population. The 40/60 Formula: A 0.75 Percent Small-State Minimum A small-state minimum of 0.75 percent is unusually large. During 2002, the federal government distributed more than $400 billion in total grant funding by formula, and most of those funds were free from any small-state minimum or minimum threshold whatsoever.11 When a state-focused minimum was included in a program’s formula, the percentage share was much lower, typically 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent, or else a dollar amount that effectively translated to a minimum of less than 0.5 percent. One of the few parallels to the ODP formula is a Congressionally mandated formula that requires that the Federal Highway Administration allot half of appropriated funds ($49 million in 2002) for the Recreational Trails Program12 equally among states, with the balance allotted according to off-road recreational fuel usage (a 50/50 formula). A second grant program with a large (1 percent) small-state minimum is the Department of Interior’s $265 million Sport Fish Restoration program.13 In addition to the unusual size of the minimum percentage, the allocation method used by DHS diverges from that used by other agencies as they implement small-state minimums. Most formula grant minimum percentages are applied after the administering agency has already made an initial allocation of funds. Typically, the formula is run, the initial state totals are examined, and funding is added for any state whose initial allocation is below the minimum share. Any funds required to implement the minimum are then subtracted pro rata from the states that are not increased by the minimum. (The process is repeated to ensure that the redistribution does not cause any previously aboveminimum state to fall below the threshold.) 11See Tim Ransdell, Federal Formula Grants and California: Overview, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002, http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=470. 12See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/rec-trl.htm. 13See http://federalaid.fws.gov/. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 As a result, states benefiting from a small-state minimum in most education, social services, or transportation programs receive only the minimum amount. In contrast, DHS begins by allocating each state the minimum amount, after which it distributes remaining funds on a population basis to all states, including those that already received considerably more than their population share because of the small-state minimum. As a result, the least populous state, Wyoming, receives more than 0.85 percent of the nation’s total, rather than the 0.75 percent it would receive if the minimum were applied after DHS had already made its initial allocations.14 Similarly, Nevada also would receive 0.75 percent of total funding under a traditional minimum approach,15 yet it receives 1.2 percent of the total using the DHS allocation approach. As the nation’s largest state, California is not surprisingly at the opposite end of the spectrum, and its funding total is thus the most reduced by the small-state minimum. Home to 12 percent of the nation’s population,16 California receives just 7.95 percent of homeland security formula grant allocations after the minimum allotment is applied in the aforementioned atypical fashion. Under a more traditional method of applying a 0.75 percent small-state minimum, California would receive 11.1 percent of total funds. Fiscal Year 2003 Grant Funding On February 13, 2003, more than 15 months after enactment of the USA Patriot Act and after protracted debate over federal spending priorities, Congress passed and the president signed H. J. Res. 2, a fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill providing funding for most agencies of the federal government and consolidating the 11 then-unfinished appropriations bills into a single package.17 The omnibus bill provided 2003 funding for various federal agencies and offices that two weeks later would be merged into the newly formed DHS,18 including ODP. Soon thereafter, on April 12, 2003, Congress provided 14Wyoming housed 0.17 percent of the nation’s population on July 1, 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002). To compare per capita funding to California with that of other states, this report references allocations to Wyoming on a number of occasions. 15Nevada housed 0.74 percent of the nation’s population on July 1, 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. 16U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. 17The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. 18Other DHS components had previously been part of the Department of Defense, which was funded by the 2003 defense appropriations bill, one of the two spending bills Congress was able to complete before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2002. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California a second large infusion of funds for homeland security programs as part of a fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill.19 The section below discusses 2003 funding for state and local service providers from several major sources. It is not intended to represent an exhaustive discussion. For some programs, the administering agency has yet to announce some or all final allocations. For others, the total allocable funds are relatively small or the program’s scope is too narrow to warrant meaningful examination on a geographic basis. In addition, funding for some programs supports activities that are partially or minimally related to homeland security. The primary administrative source of homeland security grant funding, ODP, provided a total of $2.8 billion in grants to state and local governments for fiscal year 2003, as shown in Table 1. California received $266 million or 9.4 percent of this amount. Table 1 ODP Grants to State and Local Recipients, Fiscal Year 2003, California and U.S. ODP programs using USA Patriot Act 40/60 formula ODP formula grants, round 1 (4/8/2003—omnibus) ODP formula grants, round 2 (5/21/2003—supplemental) Critical infrastructure protection grants (5/14/2003) Subtotal Discretionary grants for high-threat urban areas under UASI UASI, Round 1 (4/8/2003—omnibus) UASI, Round 2 (5/21/2003— supplemental) ODP port security (5/14/2003) Mass transit security (5/14/2003) Radiological defense (5/14/2003) Subtotal California California as U.S. a % of U.S. 45,023,000 566,295,000 103,354,880 1,300,000,000 15,900,796 200,000,000 164,278,676 2,066,295,000 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.95 22,930,000 62,190,000 9,076,700 7,965,493 0 102,162,193 97,070,000 499,910,000 75,000,000 65,000,000 35,000,000 771,980,000 23.62 12.44 12.10 12.25 0.00 13.23 Total 266,440,869 2,838,275,000 9.39 19Among other things, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2003, Public Law 108-11, April 16, 2003, provided funding to underwrite expanded U.S. military activities in Iraq. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 ODP Formula Grants, 2003 State and Local First Responder Grants: Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The February 2003 omnibus bill appropriated $566 million (a multifold increase from the prior year’s amount) for ODP first responder preparedness grants to state and local governments. The bill required that the states distribute 80 percent of the funds to local governments. ODP calculated state allocations using its historical formula method, and it announced funding amounts on March 7.20 California received $45 million, or 7.95 percent of the U.S. total. (ODP specified amounts to be used for equipment, exercises, training, and planning,21 with the same formula used to allocate funds for all states.) California received $1.28 per capita, the lowest amount of any state. This amount was well below the $1.94 per capita national average and far below the $9.68 per capita that Wyoming received. Appendix Table B.1 shows each state’s funding allocation from this initial appropriation, with actual per capita amounts for each state. The table also shows each state’s grant amount if ODP had instead employed the more typical method of applying the small-state minimum after, rather than before, the formula allocation. As shown, such a change would have increased California’s allocation from $45 million to $63 million, and California’s per capita amount would have increased to $1.79, still below the $1.94 national average. The state’s per capita allotment under a typical small-state minimum approach would still have been well below that of Wyoming ($8.52), which would have had its total grant reduced from $4.8 million to $4.2 million. State and Local First Responder Grants: Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The April 2003 supplemental appropriations bill added $1.3 billion to the $566 million previously appropriated for first responder grants, and—despite growing protests from large states that the 0.75 percent small-state minimum was excessive—ODP on June 19 announced that it had again used the same formula method to determine allocations. As shown in Appendix Table B.2, which shows funding totals and per capita amounts for each state, California received $103 million from this pot of supplemental funding, or $2.94 per capita. Again, the amount represented 7.95 percent of the national total. The national per capita total was $4.44, and Wyoming received $22.21 per capita. A more typical application of a 0.75 20The funds were distributed to states on May 7, 2003. 21The breakdown was as follows: 70 percent for equipment, 18 percent for exercises, 5 percent for training, and 7 percent for planning. The bill initially provided $570 million—$400 million for equipment, $100 million for exercises, $30 million for training, and $40 million for planning—but each total was reduced by 0.65 percent to comply with an acrossthe-board spending reduction applied to most discretionary programs in the omnibus bill to reach spending targets—in this case $566 million. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California percent small-state minimum would have increased California’s allocation to $144 million, or $4.11 per capita, and it would have reduced Wyoming’s allocation to $18.39 per capita. Appendix Table B.3 shows fiscal year 2003 state totals for the combined allocation of state and local homeland security grant funding for first responders from both the omnibus and supplemental appropriations bills. Again, the states were to distribute 80 percent of the funds received to local governments. A list of California grantees and grant amounts in fiscal year 2003 appears in Appendix Table E.1. Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants. The supplemental appropriations bill also provided $200 million for critical infrastructure preparedness grants.22 These funds were primarily used to reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for overtime costs associated with increased security to protect significant infrastructure assets from potential terrorist threats. The bill expressly required that ODP distribute those funds using the same 40/60 formula as for the state and local grants. Appendix Table B.4 shows grant totals and per capita amounts for each state. California’s critical infrastructure allocation was $15.9 million, or 45 cents per capita. The national per capita average was 68 cents, and Wyoming’s $1.7 million allocation represented $3.42 per capita for that state. If DHS had used a more traditional minimum, California’s allocation would have been $22.2 million (63 cents per capita), and Wyoming’s would have been $1.5 million ($3.01 per capita). Unlike the state and local grants, the bill required that the state distribute only 50 percent of funds to local governments. A list of California grantees and grant amounts is given in Appendix Table E.2. Total 2003 ODP Grants Using USA Patriot Act Formula. In sum, ODP allocated $2.1 billion in accordance with the formula contained in Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act—$566 million in state and local grants from the omnibus bill, $1.3 billion in state and local grants from the supplemental appropriations bill, and $200 million for critical infrastructure protection from the supplemental appropriations bill. As shown in Figure 1, California received a combined total of $164 million of these funds, or $4.68 per capita. The national per capita amount was $7.06. Wyoming’s total was $17.6 million, or $35.31 per capita. Other states 22DHS alternately uses the terms critical infrastructure preparedness and critical infrastructure protection. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey Georgia North Carolina Virginia Massachusetts Indiana Washington Tennessee Missouri U.S. average Maryland Arizona Wisconsin Minnesota Colorado Alabama Louisiana South Carolina Kentucky Puerto Rico Oregon Oklahoma Connecticut Iowa Mississippi Kansas Arkansas Utah Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire Hawaii Rhode Island Montana Delaware South Dakota Alaska North Dakota Vermont District of Columbia Wyoming 4.68 4.95 5.05 5.16 5.47 5.49 5.59 5.78 6.04 6.05 6.10 6.36 6.65 6.75 6.79 6.91 6.97 7.06 7.08 7.08 7.08 7.32 7.68 7.69 7.69 8.01 8.02 8.25 8.64 8.67 8.72 9.51 9.63 9.94 9.96 10.93 11.37 12.59 12.84 13.20 15.79 16.21 16.39 16.69 18.72 21.28 23.43 24.60 28.31 28.68 29.37 31.38 35.31 Fiscal year 2003 dollars per capita, by state Figure 1—ODP State and Local Grants for First Responders and Critical Infrastructure Grants (Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula) per Capita Allocation, by State, 2003 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California receiving large amounts per capita included Vermont ($29.37), North Dakota ($28.68), Alaska ($28.31), Delaware ($23.43), and Montana ($21.28). As shown in Appendix Table B.5, a more typical application of a 0.75 percent small-state minimum would have increased California’s grants to $229 million, or $6.53 per capita, and Wyoming’s grants would have declined to $15.5 million, or $31.08 per capita. Thus, a more typical small-state minimum approach would have yielded California $229 million, or $65 million more than the state actually received. ODP Discretionary Grants for High-Threat Urban Areas In addition to ODP formula grant funds, Congress provided additional federal homeland security support to state and local governments and other entities during fiscal year 2003, including $800 million—$100 million initially and $700 million subsequently—for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), Round 1: Omnibus Appropriations Bill Funds. The February 2003 omnibus appropriations bill provided $100 million for discretionary grants to local governments to address equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs of selected large, high-threat urban areas. A conference report on the omnibus appropriations bill stated, “conferees recognize that certain large urban areas remain high threat targets and are inadequately prepared to respond to a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) event.” To distribute funds, Congress directed DHS to take into account “credible threat; vulnerability; the presence of infrastructure of national importance; population; and identified needs of the jurisdiction’s public safety agencies.”23 DHS made seven grants from this initial appropriation, including one to Los Angeles for $12.4 million and one to San Francisco for $10.3 million.24 California thus received $22.9 million, or 23.6 percent, of the $97.1 million total distributed nationwide in this first funding round. The total amount available for grants was lessened by the omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent acrossthe-board discretionary spending reduction, and ODP ultimately distributed $97.1 million to states. UASI, Round 2: Supplemental Appropriations Bill Funds. Two months later, the April 2003 supplemental appropriations bill provided $700 million for discretionary grants for high-density urban areas, high-threat areas, and the 23The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. 24On April 8, 2003, DHS allocated $12,422,000 from the Urban Area Security Initiative to the Los Angeles area. On May 14, DHS allocated $10,349,000 for the San Francisco area. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 protection of critical infrastructure.25 The bill did not explicitly specify how funds should be distributed, but Congress directed DHS “to take into consideration credible threat, vulnerability, the presence of infrastructure of national importance, population, and identified needs of public agencies.”26 (The criteria differed slightly from those for the $100 million in high-threat urban area grants provided by the omnibus appropriations bill.) DHS elected to distribute $500 million of the $700 million total according to an internally developed formula, details of which the agency did not fully disclose. Again, Congress required that states pass through no less than 80 percent of any funds they received to local governments. The agency distributed $175 million of the remaining $200 million via discretionary grants for port security ($75 million), mass transit security ($65 million), and radiological defense ($35 million). By the end of fiscal year 2003, DHS had not announced how it would allocate $15 million in pilot project funding, and it had elected to use $10 million to provide technical assistance to state and local jurisdictions receiving funding. The DHS “Discretionary Formula” for UASI Grants. To distribute $500 million of the $700 million total, DHS reported that it had developed a formula using a weighted linear combination of three factors—threat, critical assets, and population density—to determine grant amounts for each eligible urban area. The department offered a limited outline of the formula criteria it employed, but, citing national security, elected not to provide full details regarding the first two criteria. A few details are known or have been reported. For threat level, the department stated that it averaged unspecified inputs from three sources: an assessment of likely targets from the Central Intelligence Agency, a similar analysis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and information from “a DHS ‘Red Team’ of knowledgeable people who assume the roles and practice the modes of operation of terrorist groups.” To identify critical infrastructure assets, DHS stated that it used three criteria: “1) those assets whose loss would produce the social or economic effect comparable to use of a weapon of mass destruction, 2) those assets that would have a significant impact but from which recovery would be less traumatic, and 3) federal assets including memorials and other sites of cultural iconic value.” For population density, the department reported that it used 2000 Census population estimates for the 65 most densely populated cities. 25These discretionary grants were separate from critical infrastructure protection formula grants, described above. Detailed allocation information is available at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=755. 26Conference report (H. Rept. 108-76) on the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, Public Law 108-11, April 16, 2003. 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California During questioning at a hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee,27 ODP Director Suzanne Mencer appeared to confirm that the DHS used factor weights as follows: population density was weighted at 9, presence of critical infrastructure assets was weighted at 6, and credible threats was weighted at 3. Five urban areas in California received grants from the second round of UASI funding, for a statewide total of $62.2 million, 12.4 percent of the $500 million national total. Both Los Angeles ($18.9 million) and San Francisco ($18.6 million) received grants to supplement those received under the UASI first round. The other recipient areas in California were San Diego ($11.4 million), Sacramento ($6.9 million), and Long Beach ($6.5 million). Port Security Grants. ODP used $75 million of the remaining $200 million in 2003 discretionary funding from the supplemental appropriations bill to provide port security grants directly to recipient jurisdictions. Recipients could use the funds for various activities, including paying for increased operations during heightened states of terror alert, critical infrastructure security, security enhancements, training, exercises, equipment, planning, and information sharing. One of the 14 urban areas receiving grant funds was in California—the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach received four grants totaling $9.1 million28—and the state thus received 12.1 percent of ODP’s total port security funding distributed nationwide.29 Mass Transit Security Grants. ODP distributed $65 million for grants through states to the nation’s 20 highest-risk transit systems for various uses, including installation of physical barricades, area monitoring systems,30 integrated communications systems, prevention planning, training, exercises, and operational cost increases during times of heightened terror alerts. Three transit agencies in California were among the 20 recipients: The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) received $4.6 million, San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) received $2.4 million, and San 27Homeland Security—The Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals), Hearing, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, November 20, 2003. 28California recipients included the Harbor Department of Los Angeles ($2.5 million), Seaside Transportation Services in Los Angeles ($2.4 million), and the Harbor Department of Long Beach (two grants of $3 million and $1.1 million). 29In addition to these ODP port security grants, which are focused on urban areas, TSA provided a separate $170 million port security grant allocation stream to 198 jurisdictions of varying sizes. 30Area monitoring systems include video surveillance, motion detectors, thermal/IR imagery and chemical/radiological material detection systems. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) received $977,000. California’s $8 million in grants represented 12.1 percent of the nation’s total. Other ODP Funds for High-Threat Urban Areas. To date, California has not received funds from the three remaining portions of high-threat urban area funds. ODP allocated $35 million in radiological defense funds to New York/New Jersey ($30 million) and South Carolina ($5 million); California received no funding. Eventually, ODP is expected to allocate funds for a $15 million pilot program on a geographic basis. ODP was to retain the remaining $10 million to provide technical assistance to state and local recipients, funds that would not be allocable geographically. ODP Funds: Combined Formula and Discretionary Funds. The nation’s combined grant funds from ODP—including formula funds for state and local homeland security grants and critical infrastructure protection grants, plus discretionary funds for the UASI, port security, mass transit security, and radiological defense grants—totaled $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, California received combined funding of $266 million, which (as shown in Appendix Table C.1) represents 9.4 percent of total grants distributed nationwide.31 As shown in Figure 2, California received $7.59 per capita from these grants, whereas the national per capita amount was $9.71. With ODP formula and discretionary spending combined, the District of Columbia passes Wyoming as the “state” receiving the largest amount per capita. The national capital’s $64.3 million in discretionary grants, when combined with its $17.9 million from the state and local formula grants program, results in a remarkable $144 per capita for the District. However, many of the ODP discretionary funds assigned herein to the District of Columbia are actually intended for the greater Washington area, which includes substantial portions of Maryland and Virginia. If those funds were parceled among the three jurisdictions, the actual 2003 ODP per capita amount for the District of Columbia would be considerably lower and those of the other two considerably higher. Nevertheless, the District would rank first among states in ODP grant receipts per capita. TSA Discretionary Homeland Security Grant Funds The TSA administers several homeland security grant programs that assist state and local governments and other service providers. 31This percentage calculation omits from the denominator the $15 million that ODP intends to distribute in the future for pilot projects, as well as the $10 million retained for technical assistance. 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California North Carolina Georgia Indiana Ohio Michigan Florida Wisconsin Virginia Minnesota Texas California Alabama New Jersey Tennessee Kentucky Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Oklahoma Connecticut Arizona Illinois Maryland Iowa Mississippi U.S. average Massachusetts Kansas Arkansas Missouri South Carolina Louisiana Oregon Utah Colorado Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Washington Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Montana Hawaii Delaware South Dakota North Dakota Alaska Vermont Wyoming District of Columbia 6.10 6.26 6.75 6.81 7.00 7.01 7.08 7.27 7.32 7.52 7.59 7.69 7.70 7.96 8.02 8.06 8.67 8.67 8.72 9.10 9.12 9.30 9.51 9.63 9.71 9.84 9.94 9.96 10.41 10.48 10.58 10.82 10.93 11.31 11.37 12.59 12.84 12.94 13.20 15.79 16.21 16.39 17.04 18.72 21.28 22.20 23.43 24.60 28.68 28.70 29.37 144.05 35.31 Fiscal year 2003 dollars per capita, by state Figure 2—All ODP Grants (Formula and Discretionary), per Capita Allocation, by State, 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 TSA Port Security Grants and Operation Safe Commerce. In the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress provided $150 million for TSA port security grants, and it provided an additional $20 million in the supplemental appropriations bill. The funds were separate from the $75 million distributed by ODP under the Urban Area Security Initiative. On June 12, 2003, DHS announced that it would distribute $169 million in port security grants intended for security upgrades, such as new harbor patrol boats, surveillance equipment at roads and bridges, and construction of new command and control facilities. 32 TSA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration jointly selected the grantees, which included state and local governments and private companies. Among the 198 total TSA port security grants nationwide, California recipients won 25 grants, for total funding to the state of $28.5 million—16.9 percent of the U.S. total. A list of California grantees and grant amounts is shown in Appendix Table E.3. A joint effort of DHS and the Department of Transportation, Operation Safe Commerce is a pilot program administered by TSA that seeks to “bring together private business, ports, local, state, and federal representatives to analyze current security procedures for cargo entering the country.”33 The program would employ satellites to track and monitor cargo containers from their points of origin through their arrival at major U.S. ports. In 2003, DHS made three grants under Operation Safe Commerce, including one to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for $8.3 million.34 California thus received 29.2 percent of the $28.3 million in nationwide pilot project funds.35 TSA Funds for Integrating Airport Baggage Explosives Screening Equipment. During fiscal year 2003, TSA signed agreements with six of the nation’s largest airports to distribute $776 million in federal funds to help defray the costs of installing systems to detect explosives in passenger baggage.36 Some 32DHS Secretary Tom Ridge’s announcement of the TSA port security grants is available at http://www.tsa.gov/public/ display?content=85. 33See http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=85. 34The Southern California ports received $8,250,356; the other Operation Safe Commerce grantees were the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma ($13,302,791) and the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey ($6,747,227). 35In May 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy informed the Senate Government Affairs Committee of his desire to use these funds for other purposes; Senator Patty Murray (WA), the primary proponent of Operation Safe Commerce, held up the nomination of a White House appointee to the Office of Management and Budget until the funding diversion was abandoned. Murray and other Democratic senators have urged greater administration emphasis on port security issues and program funding. 36For TSA’s announcement of this funding on July 7, 2003, see 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California of the funds will be provided from future-year appropriations. Under the agreements with the six airports, secured via letters of intent (LOIs), TSA will pay 75 percent of allowable costs over a three- to four-year period.37 Whereas screening equipment is in use at various airports, the agreements seek to ensure that 100 percent of baggage is screened for explosives at the selected airports. Los Angeles was one of the six designees, with funds intended for Los Angeles International Airport ($235 million) and Ontario International ($21.4 million). The combined LOI amount was the largest announced to date.38 TSA will reimburse Los Angeles World Airports $55 million for fiscal year 2004, and $67.2 million for each of the three subsequent years. With this single announcement, California became the destination for 34 percent of LOI funding announced by the end of 2003. On September 30, 2003, TSA indicated its intent to enter into similar financial arrangements with “several more airports” in the near future.39 Congress also provided TSA a total of $248 million to enter into reimbursable agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to help defray the costs of providing security services and presence at commercial airports. TSA Intercity Bus Grants. On August 15, 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy announced distribution of $20 million in security improvements for intercity bus operators.40 The 67 grants were intended to provide for driver protection, tracking and communications, passenger and baggage screening, security assessments and planning, personnel training, and physical security enhancements such as fencing, lighting, and surveillance equipment. The four grantees based in California41 received a combined total of $117,116, or slightly less than 1 percent of total funding distributed nationwide. http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=571 and for the September 2, 2003, announcement see http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=678. TSA will provide the explosive detection equipment, but airports will incur expenses as they integrate the equipment with their checked-baggage conveyer systems. 37TSA plans to enter into similar agreements with at least four more airports using funds appropriated for 2004. On October 16, 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy reported that four of these six airports are expected to miss the Congressionally mandated deadline of December 31, 2003, for ensuring that all baggage be electronically screened. 38Joining Los Angeles International Airport as second-round recipients of TSA funds were Denver International ($67.5 million) and Las Vegas McCarran International ($93.8 million); first-round recipients were Seattle/Tacoma International ($159 million), Dallas/Fort Worth International ($104 million), and Boston Logan International ($87 million). 39See TSA’s September 30, 2003, press release at http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=716. In the release, TSA notes that it had purchased an additional 43 in-line baggage screening machines to be used in these airports in conjunction with the 100 percent screening LOIs. The machines were to be in addition to the 440 such machines already in use at various airports across the country. 40See http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=658. 41The California-based grantees were Antelope Valley Bus of Long Beach ($25,473), Storer Transportation Service of Modesto ($44,434), Grosvenor Bus Lines of San Francisco ($76,004), and Orange Belt Stages of Visalia ($31,205). FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 FEMA Grants for Preparedness In fiscal year 2003, FEMA distributed funds from two grant programs to state and local governments for homeland security enhancements. In addition, the U.S. Fire Administration at FEMA was charged with distributing grants to fire departments under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. FEMA also distributed grants to improve the interoperability of first responder emergency communications equipment and another set of grants to enhance telecommunications capabilities of emergency operations centers. FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants. In the fiscal year 2003 omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $165 million for FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) program, used to help states develop, maintain, and improve state and local emergency management activities.42 The scope of the program permits a wide array of state and local preparedness activities, and it consolidated a number of smaller disaster preparedness and management programs. FEMA allocated EMPG funds using the 0.75 percent small-state minimum (40/60) method outlined in Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act, the formula used to allocate state and local first responder grants. FEMA did so despite language in the conference report to accompany the omnibus appropriations bill stating that “FEMA should consider an allocation system for these funds that takes into consideration not only population, but also risk and vulnerability assessments.”43 California received $13.1 million from the EMPG program in 2003, 7.93 percent of the total distributed nationwide. FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams. From the $20 million that Congress appropriated for the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) formula grant program for 2003, FEMA allocated $18.8 million to states to be used by state and local governments to support the formation, oversight, and outreach of “Citizen Corps” councils and to expand CERT training across the country.44 CERT training funds are part of an effort to develop a volunteer response force that can supplement emergency and disaster response capabilities within communities.45 42The EMPG program is sometimes referred to as the all-hazards emergency management system. 43H. Rept. 108-10, February 13, 2003, p. 1473. 44See http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_123.shtm. 45According to FEMA, “The CERT concept was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles City Fire Department in 1985. FEMA made this training available nationally in 1993.” The CERT training program is a 20-hour disaster preparedness and recovery course. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California The formula for CERT grant distribution again relies on the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 method that allocates to California less than 8 percent of appropriated funds. California’s $1.5 million allocation was 7.9 percent of the total distributed nationwide for fiscal year 2003. FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $750 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP).46 After rescissions and set-asides,47 FEMA announced that approximately $680 million would be made available to fire departments on a discretionary, competitive basis. Larger fire departments, and the local government agencies that run them, have charged that the program was not designed to distribute as much money as Congress now appropriates for it, and that its primary focus is on smaller, often rural, volunteer fire departments.48 The program was initially authorized in 2000, 49 and maximum authorized funding was $100 million for 2001 and $300 million for 2002. (After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress increased the authorized funding level to $900 million.50) In fiscal year 2001, FEMA awarded $96.6 million via 1,886 grants to fire departments; rural departments received 1,379 grants (74 percent of all grants) totaling $55.4 million (57 percent of all funds awarded). The program’s authorizing language limits any single recipient fire department to one grant per fiscal year of no more than $750,000. It further requires that volunteer fire departments receive at least their proportionate share of all grants awarded, and it requires that applicants who protect a population of 50,000 or less provide 10 percent nonfederal 46FEMA refers to the program as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, whereas Congressional documents refer to Firefighter Assistance Grants. 47The omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent across-the-board reduction left FEMA $745.1 million to carry out the AFGP, and the bill also authorized FEMA to spend up to 5 percent of total funds for administration of the program. In addition, FEMA was authorized to set aside as much as $27,500,000 of the funds for fire prevention and injury prevention programs. On October 14, 2003, FEMA announced the opening of an application period for $27.5 million in 2003 Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, with particular focus on death and injury rates for young children, seniors, and the firefighters called to respond to fires. See http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/2003grants/03-prevgrants.shtm. 48FEMA estimates that there are approximately 32,000 fire departments in the nation, whereas the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) database counts 26,354 fire departments nationwide. The NFPA estimates that 76 percent of the nation’s fire departments are staffed entirely by volunteers, yet these departments provide fire protection services to only 26 percent of the nation’s population. On the other hand, the 6 percent of fire departments that are staffed entirely by career employees protect 40 percent of the nation’s population. 49Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 106-398, October 30, 2000. 50Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law. 107-107, December 28, 2001. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 matching funds, whereas applicants who protect a population in excess of 50,000 must provide at least a 30 percent match. By the end of fiscal year 2003, FEMA had announced a total of $293 million in Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program awards to 4,491 grantees nationwide. In California, 103 grantees had received $11.7 million, approximately 4 percent of the U.S. total.51 As of the end of the fiscal year, 18 states had received a larger total number of grants than California. The Orange County Fire Authority was one of four departments in the nation that received a maximum grant of $750,000. 52 A list of California grantees and grant amounts appears in Appendix Table E.4. Interoperable Communications Grants. On September 25, 2003, DHS announced the allocation of $79.6 million in discretionary grants to help communities develop interoperable communications systems for public safety agencies.53 The grant program, jointly run by FEMA and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), provides funding through a competitive grant process for demonstration projects to explore uses of equipment and technologies to increase communications interoperability among fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical service agencies. The maximum federal share for a grant award was $6 million, with a non-federal cost share of 25 percent. Eligible applicants included the nation’s 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), the largest MSA from each state, and one local jurisdiction nominated by the governor of each state. No California jurisdiction was among the 17 recipients selected nationwide. FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants. On September 25, 2003, FEMA announced the allocation of $74.8 million via 19 grants to help states develop and improve Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs). 54 EOCs are secure command and control centers for use in the event of major emergencies. The grants were provided using a mixture of funds appropriated in fiscal years 2002 ($56 million) and 2003 ($25 million). EOC grants are designed to help ensure that state and local EOCs have “the support and telecommunications capabilities that provide flexibility, sustainability, security, survivability, and interoperability.” FEMA noted that the funds were distributed “to address the most immediate EOC deficiencies nationwide.” 51For an updated count, see http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/2003grants/03awards.shtm. 52The other three fire departments receiving a $750,000 maximum grant by the end of fiscal year 2003 were the City of Miami Department of Fire and Rescue, the Fire Department of New York, and the Columbus (OH) Division of Fire. 53For details, see http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0266.xml. 54For details, see http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1737. 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California In an earlier phase of EOC funding, using only funds appropriated during fiscal year 2002, all states (regardless of size) were allocated an equal, fixed amount of $50,000 to conduct an initial assessment of the hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks to the existing EOC. Total funding from this first phase, completed in December 2002, was $2.8 million. FEMA awarded states an additional $4.3 million in 2002 funding (in grants up to $150,000 per state) to make physical modifications to EOCs to accommodate a secure communications equipment suite, including secure video teleconferencing, facsimile, and telephone systems. (Using a $7 million appropriation, FEMA separately provided secure equipment directly to state EOCs; the state grants were to be used only to modify facilities to incorporate the new equipment.)55 HHS Grants: Bioterrorism Preparedness Formula Funding Although DHS assumed responsibility for several homeland security functions in March 2003, HHS continued to administer fiscal year 2003 funding for some programs, including bioterrorism preparedness grants.56 On September 2, 2003, HHS announced allocation of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2003 bioterrorism preparedness aid to states, territories, and three municipalities (Los Angeles County and the cities of New York and Chicago).57 HHS made grants totaling $870 million from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for public health systems preparedness and $498 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for hospital preparedness.58 Appropriated totals for the programs, including unallocated funds for program administration, were $940 million to CDC for state and local preparedness and $518 million to HRSA for hospital preparedness.59 55Because EOC assessment and EOC secure communications grants were funded entirely from 2002 appropriations, state totals for the programs are not reflected in this report’s appendix tables or in agency grant totals for 2003. However, this report’s tables and totals do include the $74.8 million in EOC grants. 56This report does not examine funds for the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems program that help metropolitan areas prepare and plan for mass-casualty disasters. The multiyear program was expected to terminate after 2003. 57See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html. Aid was available for the period from August 31, 2003, through August 30, 2004. See also Continuation Guidance for Cooperative Agreement on Public Health Preparedness and Response for Bioterrorism—Budget Year Four, Centers for Disease Control, Washington, D.C., http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/continuationguidance/index.asp. 58CDC stated that, in addition to these funds, $100 million of special appropriation smallpox funds and $65 million of Strategic National Stockpile funds would be distributed on the basis of 2001 census data, despite the fact that 2002 data were available at the time of allocation. See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html, http:// www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/continuationguidance/guidance-qa.asp?type=qdate. 59From a separate funding source, HRSA awarded 31 grants to universities totalling $26.6 million in 2003 for bioterrorism training and curriculum development, including $1.5 million to the University of California, San Francisco, and $313,430 to the University of California, Los Angeles. HHS News Release, September 12, 2003, http://www.hhs. gov/news/press/2003pres/20030912d.html. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Bioterrorism preparedness funds were provided pursuant to cooperative agreements between the administering agency and the recipient jurisdiction. Although DHS was given responsibility for these grant funds, CDC and HRSA continued to administer the funds for fiscal year 2003; funding in future years may be provided by DHS, although the source of funds may continue to be the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. To distribute the $870 million in public health system preparedness funding not retained at the national level, HHS initially allocated each of the 55 primary recipients (the 52 states and the three municipalities) $5 million per recipient—the District of Columbia received a doubled base allocation of $10 million.60 HHS then allocated the $586 million remaining (after the initial allocation and set-aside for territories) to the 55 recipients proportional to their relative share of the total population in 2001. The seven eligible territories61 received a total of $4 million, with each territory receiving $500,000 initially; the remaining $500,000 was divided on the basis of each territory’s population relative to the total for all seven territories. To distribute the $498 million62 in HRSA hospital preparedness grant funding, HHS employed a similar method. Each of the 55 jurisdictions received $1 million initially (with a doubled allocation of $2 million to the District of Columbia). After also setting aside $4.5 million for territories, HHS allocated the remaining $438.5 million proportional to the population of the entire nation, including the territories. In a slight change from the CDC formula method, the seven territories were each allocated $500,000 per awardee plus a population-based allocation, with no cap on the territories’ combined total allocation. Because California received one base allocation and Los Angeles County received a second, the state’s total allocation from both programs is larger than it would have been without the double counting. Nevertheless, because the state’s large population resulted in a population-count funding share that eclipsed the base allocation, the change in California’s total allocation was not as dramatic as it would have been for a state with fewer residents (such as the District of 60In effect, Washington, D.C., was treated as a fourth municipal recipient, with the state-level base amount and the municipal base amount allocated to the same governmental entity. 61For these programs, eligible territories included American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. (The inclusion of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau is at variance with other grants examined in this report.) 62HRSA retained $20 million for administration. In fiscal year 2002, the total appropriation for the HRSA program was $135 million. 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Columbia). California received a total of $80.1 million from the CDC grant program ($24.5 million for Los Angeles County and $55.6 million for the state). The state received a total of $54.4 million in HRSA grants ($15.6 million for Los Angeles County and $38.8 million for the state). As shown in Appendix Table C.4, California’s $134.5 million combined total from the HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants represented 9.8 percent of the U.S. total. California received $3.83 per capita in fiscal year 2003; the national amount per capita that year was $4.68. Among all states, California tied with Florida for “second-to-last” ranking for per capita receipts. With per capita receipts of $3.75, Texas ranked lowest, eight cents below the per capita level of Florida and California. No other state received less than $4 per capita. As is the case for ODP formula grant funds, the HHS technique of providing a base allocation and then allocating the remainder according to population results in per capita variations that sharply increase funding in small states.63 The doubling of the base allocation to the District of Columbia gave it the largest per capita allocation among states ($24.58), but other small states received large per capita formula allocations, including Wyoming ($15.54), Vermont ($13.25), North Dakota ($13.02), and Alaska ($12.80). Ultimately, when compared to the 40/60 method for distributing DHS formula grant dollars, the allocation scheme for HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants was somewhat less skewed to the benefit of small states. Nevertheless, the “four-to-one” funding discrepancy between top-ranked Wyoming64 and bottomranked Texas was still very large. Fiscal Year 2004 Funding On September 24, 2003, the House and Senate each approved the conference report to accompany H. R. 2555, 65 which made appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies and purposes, and President Bush signed the measure into law one week later.66 Total 2004 appropriated funding in the conference agreement provided $29.4 63The HHS formula differed from the USA Patriot Act’s formula for ODP state and local grants in that the latter specifies a percentage (0.75 percent) of funds for each state, whereas HHS uses a specified dollar amount. 64For this comparison, the District of Columbia is set aside as aberrant for two reasons: The jurisdiction received a doubled allocation and many of the dollars were to be used in neighboring Virginia and Maryland. 65H. Rept. 108-280, September 23, 2003. 66Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 billion for DHS operations and activities, an increase of $535.8 million above the level enacted in fiscal year 2003.67 The measure that ultimately became law included various compromises between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The House version had proposed spending several hundred million dollars more than did the Senate for first responder grants. Per Congressional custom, DHS was directed to comply with language and allocation amounts contained in the House report68 and Senate report69 that were not addressed to the contrary in the final conference report. As this report goes to print, the House has passed and the Senate will soon consider the conference report (H. Rept. 108-401) on H. R. 2673, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill funding various federal agencies.70 In addition to a 0.59 percent across-the-board cut in spending for all programs the bill funds, the bill—if enacted—would retroactively apply a similar 0.59 percent reduction to previously enacted non-defense appropriations amounts, including those contained in the 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. House Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 On June 24, 2003, the House passed its version of the bill, which would have provided $30.4 billion in total spending,71 including $3.5 billion for ODP, $5.2 billion for TSA, and $5.1 billion for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate that includes FEMA. The House bill included $1.9 billion72 for formula grants to state and local governments that are allocated according to the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, plus $200 million for critical infrastructure protection grants (the same amount as in 2003) allocated using the same formula.73 The House bill allotted $510 million for a new state and local law 67Combined DHS budget authority for 2004 totals $37.4 billion, including $31.3 billion in discretionary funding provided by Congress (mostly from the conference report) and an additional $6.1 billion in mandatory spending (primarily funded from fees). 68H. Rept. 108-169, June 23, 2003. 69S. Rept. 108-86, July 10, 2003. 70Formally titled A Bill Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, H. R. 2673 is also known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 or, simply, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. 71The total spending amount did not include $4.7 billion in advance appropriations from future fiscal years to provide for biological defense activities. 72The amount represented an increase of $34 million over the fiscal year 2003 amount, restoring funds cut by the omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent across-the-board reduction applied to most domestic discretionary spending. 73In a change from the 50 percent pass-through requirement for 2003 critical infrastructure protection grant funding, the bill proposed that 80 percent of those grants be transferred from states to local governments. 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California enforcement terrorism prevention grant program also using the 40/60 formula. For discretionary grants, the House bill proposed $500 million for grants to high-threat urban areas and $760 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.74 House bill language would have prohibited DHS from using the 40/60 formula to allocate high-threat urban area grant funds, fixing a problem that did not exist—the formula has not been used to allocate those programs’ funds in previous years. When allocating high-threat urban area funds, House report language urged DHS to take into account “credible threat, presence of critical infrastructure, population, vulnerability, and the identified needs of public agencies.” Remaining ODP funding was to be used for national programs.75 For TSA, the House bill proposed $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for Operation Safe Commerce, $25 million for trucking industry grants, and $10 million for intercity bus security. It proposed $1.3 billion for continued enhancements of baggage screening technology at the nation’s airports, of which $235 million would be provided for LOIs to help airports integrate screening systems with existing baggage conveyor systems.76 From FEMA funds, the House bill proposed $168 million for the EMPG program,77 and $45 million in Citizen Corps funding, of which $20 million would be used to provide grants for CERT training.78 The House bill also proposed a new $35 million appropriation for competitive grants for Centers for Emergency Preparedness, and language implied that universities were to be the intended grant recipients.79 The bill expressly required that the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula not be used to allocate those funds. 74The amounts included an increase of $10 million each for the terrorism prevention grants and the firefighters assistance grants added by a floor amendment, offered by Rep. Lee Terry (NE), that reduced funding for TSA by $20 million to offset the increased grant funding. 75This was to include $45 million for the Citizen Corps, $32 million for Grant Administration and Planning, $125 million for a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $35 million for Centers for Emergency Preparedness, $67 million for technical assistance, $50 million for a National Exercise Program, $12 million for standards and testing, $5 million for equipment caches, $21 million for management and administration, and $11 million for contractor support. 76In addition, the House bill proposed $160 million for reimbursable agreements between TSA and state and local law enforcement agencies to defray the cost of providing security presence at airports. 77EMPG funds were to be available via the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. 78The House bill directed that the FEMA function at DHS continue to administer the Citizen Corps/CERT program, although ODP was to become the program’s funding source for fiscal year 2003. 79Other university-focused funds in the House bill included $35 million for “University Programs/Fellowship Programs,” and $25 million for university-based centers of excellence. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 On July 24, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H. R. 2555, providing $29.3 billion for DHS and related functions at other federal agencies.80 The Senate bill proposed $3.6 billion for ODP, including $2.9 billion for state and local programs and $750 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants. The bulk of state and local grant funding was to be composed of $1.25 billion for state and local formula grants (after a deduction, this amount was $700 million less than the House proposed) and $500 million for a new state and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grant program ($10 million less than proposed in the House bill). Funds from both accounts were to be allocated using the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. Of the $1.25 billion, $50 million was to be used for Citizen Corps, part of which has been used in the past to provide CERT training. (Thus, the Senate actually proposed $1.2 billion for the basic, formula-based grants.) In addition, the Senate proposed $750 million for high-threat urban area discretionary grants ($250 million more than the House version), with an express prohibition on the use of the 40/60 formula to allocate funds—language with little effect because the formula had not been used to determine allocations in prior years. The Senate bill would have provided $358 million for national programs.81 The Senate’s bill did not propose funds for ODP critical infrastructure grants.82 During Senate floor debate, Sen. Carl Levin (MI) had been expected to introduce an amendment to change or eliminate the 0.75 percent small-state minimum. Believing he lacked the votes for passage, he elected not to do so, but he and several colleagues from larger states spoke on the floor, calling the program’s small-state minimum “overreaching and almost unprecedented,” and “a departure from typical small-state minimums that are one half of one percent or less.” The bill included non-binding “sense of the Senate” language urging that DHS take into account tourist population as a factor when allocating discretionary and formula grant funds—language that later would be deleted in conference. 80A major difference in total funding between the two chambers’ versions was that the House’s provided $890 million for President Bush’s biological weapons defense initiative, Project Bioshield, whereas the Senate bill did not, because the program lacked authorizing legislation. The House had approved a program authorization bill (H. R. 2122, the Project Bioshield Act of 2003, passed on July 16); the Senate had not done so. 81For national programs, the Senate bill proposed $60 million for the Center for Domestic Preparedness, $80 million for the existing members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $28 million for the continuation of core training programs, $60 million for competitive grants for emerging training, $50 million for exercises, $40 million for equipment support, $10 million for technical assistance, and $30 million for management and administration. 82However, in separate language, the bill proposed $294 million from the analysis and infrastructure account for FEMA for critical infrastructure identification, assessments, and protection, as well as $72 million from the science and technology account for critical infrastructure systems modeling, simulation, and analysis for critical infrastructure protection. 26 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California From a total of $5.4 billion for TSA, the Senate bill proposed $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for Operation Safe Commerce, $25 million for trucking industry grants, and $10 million for intercity bus security—amounts that paralleled the House-passed version of the bill.83 From a total of $1.4 billion proposed for explosives detection systems, the Senate also proposed spending $309 million for LOIs for funds to help airports install baggage explosive screening systems.84 (Both amounts were below the House-passed funding level.) From a total of $3.6 billion for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate,85 the Senate bill proposed $165 million for EMPGs ($3 million less than the House proposal). Final Homeland Security Appropriations Totals for Fiscal Year 2004 The conference agreement86 on fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations provided $1.7 billion for ODP state and local formula grants ($200 million less than the House proposed and $500 million more than the Senate proposed). The agreement also provided $500 million (the Senateproposed amount) for a new law enforcement terrorism prevention grants program, to be allocated using the same 40/60 formula. Providing no 2004 funds for critical infrastructure protection grants, the conference agreement thus appropriated $2.2 billion for ODP grants to be allocated according to the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. The appropriated amount would represent a $134 million increase from the $2.066 billion in 2003 ODP grant appropriations. However, if the Senate approves the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report that is currently under consideration, the total allocated nationwide would be subject to a 0.59 percent reduction, yielding a total allocation of $2.207 billion (rescinding approximately $13 million from the amount initially enacted for 2004). For discretionary grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas, the agreement provided $725 million ($225 million more than the House proposed, $25 million less than the Senate proposed, and $75 million less than Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2003).87 The conference report retained language 83In addition, the bill proposed $170 million for TSA state and local reimbursement agreements for local law enforcement officers for airport support and enforcement presence. 84A separate $45 million appropriation would have provided funds for research and development of next-generation explosive detection systems. 85Most of the $1.5 billion difference between House and Senate spending for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate represented funds for Project Bioshield. 86Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. 87If the 0.59 percent across-the-board reduction in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, it will rescind $4.3 million from this U.S. total. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 originally included in the House report directing DHS to consider threat, population, vulnerability, critical infrastructure, and need as it allocated grants, and it added the additional requirement that DHS also consider “cooperation of multiple jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness plans.”88 In other ODP funding areas, the conference agreement also included $40 million ($5 million less than the House proposed and $10 million less than the Senate proposed) for ODP Citizen Corps grants,89 $135 million for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (of which $55 million is to be used for the Center for Domestic Preparedness), $30 million for technical assistance, $50 million for a National Exercise Program, $60 million for competitive training grants (somewhat similar to the $35 million proposed by the House under Centers for Emergency Preparedness), $17 million for equipment and testing, and $30 million for management and administration. The agreement provides $750 million (the same amount as appropriated for 2003) for Firefighter Assistance Grants, which will continue to be administered by ODP (not moved to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate as had been recommended by the Senate).90 The fiscal year 2004 conference agreement appropriated $3.7 billion for TSA, including $125 million for port security grants ($25 million less than proposed in both the House and Senate bills and $45 million less than the 2003 appropriation) to fund security planning and projects to improve dockside and perimeter security at the nation’s ports.91 In addition, the agreement included several other port security measures. Congress provided $14 million for “Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism,” which provides training and technical assistance to foreign manufacturers and importers to help them meet U.S. standards for repelling potential terrorist attempts to use shipments for introducing weapons of mass destruction into U.S. ports. The agreement also provided $62 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI), to deploy teams of inspectors, special agents, and intelligence analysts to 20 foreign “mega-ports” and approximately ten other strategic ports to inspect containerized cargo for weapons of mass destruction before shipment to the United States. Congress also provided $64 million for technology to support non-intrusive inspection of cargo. 88H. Rept. 108-280, September 23, 2003, p. 46. 89The conference report provides no direction regarding the share to be used for CERT training grants. Because the House required $20 million for this purpose and the Senate bill was silent, DHS may still follow the House report’s direction. The 2003 funding level was $20 million. 90Firefighter Assistance Grants for 2004 are to be available for allocation until September 30, 2005. If the 0.59 percent across-the-board reduction in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, it will rescind $4.4 million from this U.S. total. 91The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would rescind $737,500 of this amount. 28 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California For other TSA accounts, Congress appropriated $250 million ($15 million more than the House proposal and $59 million less than the Senate proposal) for installation of explosive detection systems for checked baggage at airports (from a $1.3 billion total appropriation for explosive detection systems),92 $85 million for air cargo security, $17 million for Operation Safe Commerce ($13 million less than in both the House and Senate bills and in 2003), $22 million for trucking security ($3 million less than in both the House and Senate bills), and $10 million for intercity bus security (the same as in the House and Senate bills and half of the 2003 appropriation). For EMPGs, allocated using the 40/60 formula, the agreement included $180 million (an increase of $12 million from the House proposal and $15 million from the Senate proposal).93 The 2003 appropriation for EMPG had been $165 million. The agreement also provides $60 million for Urban Search and Rescue, $50 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System, $70 million for scholarships and university-based centers of excellence,94 and $66.5 million for critical infrastructure protection.95 92In addition, Congress provided $150 million for TSA to use to procure additional explosive detection equipment for installation in airports with which the agency has established cooperative agreements, as well as in other airports. 93The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would rescind $1.1 million of this amount. 94The $70 million for homeland security university programs, funded from the science and technology account, was intended to provide scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees including physical, biological, social, and behavioral sciences (priority homeland security areas), and to create a Homeland Security Centers of Excellence (HS-Centers) program at universities to provide “a dedicated capability that will enhance our ability to anticipate, prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks.” Although it gave DHS flexibility to make changes, Congress (in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill) required that criteria for designation include expertise in various areas: first responder training; incident response; emergency and diagnostic medical services; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures or detection; animal and plant health and diagnostics; food safety; water and wastewater operations; port and waterway security; transportation; information security and information engineering; engineering; border transportation and security; and the public policy implications and public dissemination of homeland security-related research and development. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002, as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. DHS was expected to provide between $2 million and $4 million annually for three years to selected universities to establish HS-Centers with a mission of “providing tools to model the risks and vulnerabilities of terrorism and assessing the economic impact and consequences of terrorist countermeasures and responses.” DHS established the Office of University Programs to administer the funds. See DHS Office of University Programs Fact Sheet, November 17, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2245. On November 25, 2003, DHS announced that the nation’s first HS-Center would be established at the University of Southern California (USC) and that the department would provide $12 million over three years to underwrite its establishment. The USC center, named the Homeland Security Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, will examine targets and means of terrorism and emphasize protecting critical infrastructure systems as well as “tools for planning responses to emergencies, to minimize the threat to human lives and reduce the economic impact in the event of an attack.” To develop and operate the center, USC will partner with the University of Wisconsin at Madison; New York University; and the University of California, Berkeley. See DHS press release, November 25, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2387. 95Of the critical infrastructure funds, $60 million is provided for the research, development, testing, and evaluation of an FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 29 The conference agreement revises the funding structure for TSA’s aviation security account entitled Security Direction and Enforcement. In fiscal year 2003 and in the House and Senate versions of the 2004 appropriations bills, funding to reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for stepped-up security at airports was available as a separate line item ($248 million in 2003, $160 million in the 2004 House bill, and $170 million in the 2004 Senate bill). The conference agreement provides a total of $703.3 million for the Security Direction and Enforcement account, a reduction of $18.4 million from the House bill, but a precise comparison of programs is difficult. Resolving the largest funding discrepancy between the House and Senate versions, the conference agreement included a House plan to provide $5.6 billion over several fiscal years for bioterrorism response. Up to $890 million is provided for fiscal year 2004, and up to a total of $3.4 billion is provided for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.96 House- and Senate-Proposed Bioterrorism Grant Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004 Grants for bioterrorism preparedness are provided from appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. As this report went to print, the House and Senate each had passed a Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, and the conference committee on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill had prepared compromise language.97 The House-passed bill proposed $940 million to CDC for state and local bioterrorism preparedness and $588 million to HRSA for bioterrorism preparedness and response activities,98 including $518 million for hospital preparedness. The Senate bill99 also proposed $940 million to CDC for upgrading state and local capacity,100 with $578 million to HRSA for bioterrorism activities, including $518 million for hospital preparedness and antimissile device for commercial aircraft. Ibid. These critical infrastructure protection funds are distinct from the 2003 critical infrastructure protection grants, which received no 2004 funds. 96All but $890 million of the $5.6 billion constitutes advance appropriations from future-year budgets and does not count against the budget total for 2004. 97The House approved H. R. 2660 on July 10, 2003; the Senate approved S. 1356 on September 10, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the committee of conference working to resolve differences between the two bills filed the conference report (H. Rept. 108-401) on the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. The House approved the conference report on December 8, 2003. 98H. Rept. 108-188, June 25, 2003. The total was to include $41.7 million from HRSA’s regular appropriation and $545.9 million from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. 99S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. 100Within this total, the Senate bill sought to reserve $40 million for the Health Alert Network. S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. 30 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California infrastructure improvements related to bioterrorism. The 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report proposes to retain the $518 million amount for hospital preparedness, but it would divide the $940 million for state and local preparedness by specifically directing DHS to use $847 million for state cooperative agreements, $29.8 million for public health preparedness centers, and $5.5 million for advanced local public health practice.101 In addition, the 2004 amounts would be reduced by the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission applied to all programs, resulting in total appropriations of $842.5 million for CDC preparedness grants and $495 million for HRSA grants. The Senate committee report also included language recommending that formula allocations to states be based on a number of threat factors: organizational headquarters, financial markets, internationally recognized icons, ports, transit systems, population density, and past international terrorism.102 The House bill did not include comparable language, and the conference committee omitted the Senate language from the omnibus appropriations conference report. In addition, both House and Senate reports expressed concern and disapproval about reports that some grant recipients are supplanting state and local funds with federal funds. Future Formula Funding Outcomes Many homeland security grants are made on a discretionary basis, and it is difficult to predict future funding outcomes with accuracy. Formula grant funds are a different matter. Although on some occasions administering agencies have latitude to alter formula distributions—by selecting data sources and applying set-aside amounts, for example, and sometimes by developing the formula itself—the distribution of funds by formula is more predictable than that by competitive grant or agency discretion. The following discusses prospective funding amounts under different funding scenarios and notes announced allocations for fiscal year 2004. 101The report states that funds for public health preparedness centers should be used “to establish collaborative programs with State and local public health agencies, enhance practice-based training of students, and to increase participation of public health practitioners in the Centers’ education and training activities.” H. Rept. 108-401, November 25, 2003, p. 803. 102Senate report language recommended that funds be distributed using a formula that includes terrorism risk factors, including “(1) Site of headquarters or major offices of multinational organizations; (2) site of major financial markets; (3) site of previous incidents of international terrorism; (4) some measure of population density versus just population; (5) internationally recognized icons; (6) percent of national daily mass transit riders; (7) proximity to a major port, including major port ranked on number of cargo containers arriving at the port per year.” See S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 31 Table 2 shows total 2003 and 2004 appropriations for a number of formula and discretionary programs discussed in this report.103 Total 2003 spending by formula was $3.6 billion, including $2.25 billion allocated pursuant to the provisions of the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula (ODP’s state and local grants for first responders and critical infrastructure protection grants, plus FEMA’s EMPG and CERT grants) and $1.4 billion for HHS bioterrorism preparedness allocated pursuant to a different formula. The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would spend amounts that are similar, although not identical, to 2003 amounts for bioterrorism preparedness amounts. Whereas funds administered by the Department of Homeland Security were not subject to an across-the-board reduction in 2003, HHS funds were cut by 0.65 percent in 2003; the 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report’s reduction of 0.59 percent on all programs represents a small change from the prior year’s rescission. The fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations conference report provided amounts more substantially different from 2003 totals for programs subject to the 40/60 formula. Thus, this report examines future funding outcomes under them. For fiscal year 2004, the conference agreement provided total combined funding of $2.4 billion for the ODP and FEMA programs that employ the 40/60 formula. As shown in Appendix Table D.1, California received $179 million (7.95 percent) of the $2.25 billion in total 2003 grants for programs dependent on the 40/60 formula. California received $5.09 per capita from these grants, below the $7.69 national per capita amount and well below Wyoming’s $38.45 per capita grant. Of the $2.4 billion provided for by the fiscal year 2004 conference agreement for all homeland security programs employing the 40/60 formula (including the ODP grants just discussed), California will likely receive $190 million (again 7.95 percent), assuming neither Congress nor the administration changes the formula before allocations are made. This amount would be $5.40 per capita, which is below the $8.15 national per capita amount and well below the $40.77 per capita received by Wyoming. If DHS were to distribute grants using a traditional 0.75 percent small-state minimum approach rather than the 40/60 approach it used in 2003, California would receive $265 million (11.1 percent) for these programs in 2004—$75 million more than under the existing formula. Such a scenario would increase California’s per capita grants amount from $5.40 to $7.54, still below the nation’s unchanged $8.15 per capita amount and 103It shows two final totals for 2004—one if the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending reduction in the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill is enacted, another if it is not. 32 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 2 Homeland Security Grants for Fiscal Year 2003 and Proposed and Enacted Amounts for Fiscal Year 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA USA Patriot Act formula grant programs State and local grants for first responders Critical infrastructure grants State and local law enforcement grants Emergency management performance grants CERT/Citizen Corpsb Subtotal Other formula grants CDC bioterrorism preparednessc HRSA hospital preparednessc Subtotal Total Discretionary programs Assistance to Firefighters Grants High-threat urban area grants TSA port security grants Operation safe commerce Intercity bus grants Airport security baggage screeningd Subtotal Grand total 2003 Actual House Proposed 2004 1,866,295,000 200,000,000 0 165,140,000 18,800,000 2,250,235,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 3,618,235,000 745,125,100 771,980,000 169,055,136 28,300,374 19,800,007 500,000,000 1,734,260,617 5,352,495,617 1,900,000,000 200,000,000 510,000,000 168,000,000 20,000,000 2,798,000,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 4,166,000,000 760,000,000 500,000,000 150,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 235,000,000 1,450,000,000 5,616,000,000 Senate Proposed 2004 Conference Agreement 2004 1,200,000,000 0 500,000,000 165,000,000 20,000,000 1,885,000,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 3,253,000,000 750,000,000 750,000,000 150,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 309,000,000 1,690,000,000 4,943,000,000 1,685,000,000 0 500,000,000 180,000,000 35,000,000 2,400,000,000 847,456,000 498,000,000 1,345,456,000 3,745,456,000 750,000,000 725,000,000 125,000,000 17,000,000 10,000,000 250,000,000 1,627,000,000 5,372,456,000 Conference Agreement 2004, Reduceda 1,675,058,500 0 497,050,000 178,938,000 34,793,500 2,385,840,000 842,456,010 495,061,800 1,337,517,810 3,723,357,810 745,575,000 720,722,500 124,262,500 16,899,700 9,941,000 248,525,000 1,617,400,700 5,340,758,510 Amount of Reduction, 2004a –9,941,500 0 –2,950,000 –1,062,000 –206,500 –14,160,000 –4,999,990 –2,938,200 –7,938,190 –22,098,190 –4,425,000 –4,277,500 –737,500 –100,300 –59,000 –1,475,000 –9,599,300 –31,697,490 aThe fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would subject all non-defense spending to a 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission. bThe Senate bill and conference agreement did not specify what share of Citizen Corps funding would be used for CERT training grants. The House specified $20 million for CERT training. DHS applied $35 million for 2004. cAs this report went to print, Congress had not finalized fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education, which provides funding for the CDC and HRSA bioterrorism preparedness grants. Before its 0.59 percent reduction, the omnibus appropriations conference report includes $847,456,000 for CDC grants and $498,000 for HRSA grants. dFunds for airport security baggage screening will be provided from amounts appropriated for several future fiscal years. The amount is listed here for reference, but it is not included in totals for 2003. 33 Wyoming’s $35.88 per capita amount. (For reference, if funds were distributed solely on the basis of population, with no small-state minimum whatsoever, California would receive $288 million, or 12 percent of the nation’s total.) If the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut is applied to these amounts, California’s total will decline by $1 million, to $189 million, or $5.37 per capita. State and Local Homeland Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 On November 3, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge announced fiscal year 2004 allocations of homeland security grant funding. As expected, California again will receive the fewest grant dollars per capita of any state. The grants104 are provided via three programs: State homeland security grants will provide $1.7 billion, a new Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) will distribute $500 million, and the Citizen Corps program will provide $35 million in grants. (The grant awards were announced before a conference agreement was reached on the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, so they did not reflect the 0.59 percent rescission that would apply retroactively to these funds.) California was slated to receive $176.5 million from these three ODP grants, including $134 million in state grants, $39.8 million in LETPP grants, and $2.8 million in Citizen Corps grants. In each case, the state’s share will again be 7.95 percent. As shown in Figure 3, for every person in California, the formula will provide the state $5.03 in 2004 homeland security grant funding; for every person in Wyoming, the formula will provide that state $37.94. For a table detailing 2004 state allocations from these ODP grant programs, see Appendix Table D.2.a, and for a similar table that shows the effect of the omnibus appropriations conference report’s proposed 0.59 percent rescission, see Appendix Table D.2.b. Some organizations have expressed concern that the new $500 million law enforcement grant program may displace funds from the Department of Justice’s COPS program. The House-passed version of the 2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bills would reduce COPS grant funding by $295 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee bill would reduce that program’s funds by $322 million. UASI Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 On November 13, 2003, DHS released its distribution plan for $725 million in fiscal year 2004 Urban Area Security Initiative funding, to be distributed in two pots: $675 million for general urban area grants and $50 million for urban mass transit security grants. DHS selected 50 urban areas and 104Funds appropriated pursuant to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. 34 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey Georgia North Carolina Virginia Massachusetts Indiana Washington Tennessee Missouri U.S. average Maryland Arizona Wisconsin Minnesota Colorado Alabama Louisiana South Carolina Kentucky Puerto Rico Oregon Oklahoma Connecticut Iowa Mississippi Kansas Arkansas Utah Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire Hawaii Rhode Island Montana Delaware South Dakota Alaska North Dakota Vermont District of Columbia Wyoming 5.03 5.32 5.42 5.55 5.87 5.90 6.01 6.21 6.49 6.50 6.55 6.83 7.14 7.26 7.30 7.42 7.49 7.59 7.60 7.60 7.61 7.87 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.61 8.62 8.87 9.28 9.32 9.36 10.22 10.35 10.68 10.70 11.74 12.21 13.53 13.79 14.18 16.97 17.41 17.61 17.93 20.12 22.86 25.17 26.43 30.42 30.81 31.56 37.94 33.72 Fiscal year 2004 dollars per capita, by state (without 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut) Figure 3—ODP State and Local Grants for First Responders, Law Enforcement Terrorism Preparedness Program Grants, and Citizen Corps Grants, per Capita Allocation, by State, 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 35 30 urban mass transit systems for 2004 funding. Again, the totals do not reflect the 0.59 percent funding rescission proposed by the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. California was slated to receive $142.5 million, or 19.7 percent, of the total funds before rescissions. When combined with the 7.95 percent share of state grant funds (discussed above), the state’s large share of UASI funding is still insufficient to increase California’s per capita 2004 homeland security grant funding for 2004 to the national average, although it does manage to raise the state out of its last-place position in funding per person. California’s share of 2004 ODP grants announced through the date this report went to print is approximately $9 per capita, still below the $10 per capita national average and far below the $38 per capita to be received by top-ranked Wyoming. With the addition of urban area grant funding, Texas displaces California as the lowest per capita funded state, and California also moves above Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Virginia in per capita receipts. Without applying any rescissions, California is expected to receive $135.7 million or 20.1 percent of the nation’s total urban area formula grants in 2004, with grants going to Los Angeles ($28.3 million), San Francisco ($26.5 million), Santa Ana ($15.1 million), Long Beach ($12.1 million), San Diego ($10.5 million), Anaheim ($10.3 million), San Jose ($10 million), Sacramento ($8 million), Oakland ($7.9 million), and Fresno ($7.1 million). Funds will be allocated to states, which must award 80 percent to the designated cities and contiguous counties within the designated urban area and use the remaining 20 percent for security enhancements within the urban area. Before rescissions, California was expected to receive $6.8 million, or 13.6 percent, of the nation’s $50 million in mass transit security grants in 2004, with $2 million slated for Los Angeles Metrolink, $1.6 million for San Francisco’s BART, and $800,000 each for the San Francisco area’s Caltrain, the San Jose area’s Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Los Angeles County’s MTA, and the San Diego Coaster. The $50 million for metropolitan rail transit authorities will also be distributed via states, with recipients reportedly selected on the basis of the number of annual riders and overall track mileage. Allowable uses of funds include physical barricades, area monitoring systems such as video surveillance and motion detectors, thermal/infrared imagery and chemical/radiological material detection systems, integrated communications systems, and prevention planning, training, and exercises. On December 10, 2003, DHS announced its plan for distributing $179 million in UASI port security grants for 442 projects to 235 applicant 36 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California organizations nationwide.105 With the funds, intended for security planning and projects to improve dockside and perimeter security, ports were to purchase new harbor patrol boats and surveillance equipment, construct new command and control facilities, and undertake similar activities. DHS allocated $33.7 million (18.8 percent of the total U.S. grants) to fund 70 projects to be operated by 31 California grantees (including ports, oil refineries, chemical plants, and shipping companies) located in Benicia, Carson, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Martinez, Oakland, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Pedro, Stockton, and Wilmington. A list of 2004 California grantees and grant amounts is given in Appendix Table E.5. Appendix Table D.3.a shows state allocations of 2004 ODP formula, urban area, mass transit, and port security grants as enacted by the homeland security appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004. Appendix Table D.3.b shows similar amounts if the grants were to be reduced by the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission proposed by the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. Criticism of the Grant Process DHS has been criticized since before its creation. The Bush administration initially opposed a separate department, arguing that the functions could be handled by existing agencies; once Congress was on the verge of creating it anyway, the administration backed the proposal and devoted considerable resources to the development of a new department. A report entitled Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, prepared by an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, criticized as inadequate the level of funding the federal government has committed to homeland security activities—stating that “America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs over the next five years”—and lamented the nation’s insufficient standards and guidelines for emergency preparedness.106 105Press release, Department of Homeland Security Announces $179 Million in Grants to Secure America’s Ports, Department of Homeland Security, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_ Sopreadsheet.xls. Of the $179 million total, $75 million was funded by the fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations conference report, and $104 million represented unused port security funds from fiscal year 2002. If the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, grants will be reduced pursuant to a 0.59 across-the-board spending rescission. However, it is likely that only the portion of grants that represents the 2004 appropriation will be subject to this reduction. 106Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 37 The homeland security grant allocation process has been embattled as well. The news media has cited a number of examples of formula-based grants being made to small jurisdictions that have little idea what to do with the unexpected windfall. When the Oak Bluffs Steamship Authority of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, was awarded $909,000 to upgrade port security, harbormaster Todd Alexander told a reporter, “Quite honestly, I don't know what we're going to do, but you don’t turn down grant money.”107 And officials in Colchester, Vermont, a rural town with a population of approximately 17,000 residents, used an unexpected grant to purchase a search and rescue vehicle capable of boring through concrete and equipped with a camera to search for victims in collapsed buildings.108 Fairness of the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 Formula Much of the criticism of federal funding allocation for state and local homeland security activities has been leveled at the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, both for its fiscal favoritism toward smaller states and its omission of threat as an allocation factor. The Council on Foreign Relations report stated that one of the two major obstacles hampering America’s emergency preparedness efforts was that “funding for emergency responders has been sidetracked and stalled due to a politicized appropriations process,” and added, “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”109 Specifically addressing the small-state minimum issue, the report notes, “the state and population-driven approach has led to highly uneven funding outcomes,” and—citing as an example the unusually large per capita allocation to Wyoming versus that to larger states—adds, “While this approach may have political appeal, it unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority.” On April 24, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge appeared in California and stated that one of the first orders of business for the new department was to Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6085. The report is often referred to as the Rudman Report. 107Vineyard Gazette, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, June 13, 2003, http://www.mvgazette.com/news/ 2003/06/13/homeland_security_grants.php. 108USA Today, Washington, D.C., July 13, 2003, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-antiterrorfunding-usat_x.htm. 109Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication. php?id=6085. 38 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California ensure that homeland security funds are “channeled to communities based on not only density of population but threat, vulnerability, and critical infrastructure, both public and private,” adding, “We are going to be working on a new funding formula, and I feel very confident that the next round of federal dollars going out to the country will include significant dollars . . . to California.”110 (Despite these comments, DHS later released fiscal year 2003 funds based on the 40/60 formula.) On June 24, 2003, Rep. Christopher Cox (Newport Beach), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, announced that he planned to introduce a bill to change the current formula and require threat-based funding decisions.111 At a July 17 hearing of the committee, Chairman Cox commented that the method for distributing state and local homeland security grants “must be threat-based instead of political formulas,” adding, “Nearly two years after the attacks of September 11th, grants are still being distributed to states using formulas that take no account of whether the recipient is, based on our best intelligence, at risk.”112 In a letter to Congress, a bipartisan group of California state and local leaders wrote that grant funding “is skewed to states where the threat of a terrorist attack is low, and states and localities where the threat is high do not get the help they need,” and added, “The only sensible policy is for the great majority of the Homeland Security Block Grant funds to be distributed to the states and localities where the threat of terrorism is greatest.”113 A number of critics charge that processes for distributing funds to state and local recipients for many programs were devised initially—in many cases before the September 11 attacks—to provide far fewer dollars than is the case now. Chairman Cox said, “Careful scrutiny of the process suggests that it was established to handle a stream, not a flood, of new revenue.”114 For example, the 110California Capitol Hill Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 11, California Institute for Federal Policy Research, Washington, D.C., April 25, 2003, http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/b1011.htm. 111Press release, Cox Announces Legislation To Reform First Responder Grant Process, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, June 24, 2003, http://homeland.house.gov/release.cfm?id=42. 112First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Are Working Together To Make America Safer, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 17, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/ release.cfm?id=57. 113The signatories to the letter included California Governor Gray Davis, Senate President pro tempore John Burton, Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte, Assembly Speaker Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Assembly Minority Leader Dave Cox, California State Association of Counties President and Sonoma County Supervisor Tim Smith, and League of California Cities President and Oakland City Attorney John Russo. 114First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Are Working Together To Make America Safer, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 17, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/ release.cfm?id=57. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 39 state domestic preparedness equipment support program provided grants of $15.7 million in fiscal year 2001, $526 million in 2002, and $1.9 billion in 2003.115 As discussed above, California is the state most disadvantaged on a per capita basis by the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, which gives California less than 8 percent of grants despite the fact that the state houses more than 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some California advocates further note that the state’s vast port complexes, major military bases, and coastal and border location might justify an even greater share of homeland security funds when compared to states located farther inland, and that the state has a number of large tourist attractions and internationally recognized icons that could warrant further enhancement in the state’s security response. Issues with High-Threat Urban Area Funding Some observers have criticized allocations to urban areas under the Urban Area Security Initiative. One target of criticism has been the fact that DHS (for national security reasons) has elected not to disclose details of its distribution formula, and recipient jurisdictions are dissatisfied with their allocations. In addition, some argue that these grants place excessive emphasis on the density of population as a distributional factor and that the metrics used to define density may be flawed.116 The rationale for using population density is the number of lives that could be lost in the event of an act of terrorism. However, the geographic boundaries within which those lives are counted significantly influence the level of density or sparseness within the subject universe and thus affect funding outcomes. For example, in addition to housing nearly 4 million people, many in crowded neighborhoods, the city limits of Los Angeles contain numerous uninhabitable mountainous areas. The political boundaries of the County of Los Angeles contain an even larger proportion of uninhabitable land. Thus, the population density of these areas is considerably lower than the population density of such areas as San Francisco and New York, which have fewer natural obstacles.117 Despite housing a population five times larger, Los 115Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., http://www.cfda.gov/ public/viewprog.asp?progid=486. 116The $700 million for the UASI provided by the 2003 supplemental appropriations bill required that DHS use the funds “for discretionary grants for use in high-density urban areas, high-threat areas, and for protection of critical infrastructure.” Population density as a distributional factor has been endorsed by a number of critics, such as the authors of the Council on Foreign Relations report. Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6085. 117In 2002, New York’s 8.1 million people lived 26,655 per square mile, San Francisco’s 764,000 people lived 16,381 per square mile, and Los Angeles’s 3.8 million people lived 8,098 per square mile. Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office, FY 2003 High-Threat Urban Area Grants, internal analysis, July 2003. 40 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Angeles received almost the same amount ($18.9 million) as San Francisco ($18.6 million) in urban area discretionary formula grants.118 Likewise, although it is not presently a factor in any formula, any change that incorporated statelevel population density rather than state population counts might theoretically disadvantage California, which has the third largest land area among states. The artificial political boundaries that define state and municipal jurisdictions also influence how population is counted, raising questions about the usage of either density or population itself as a formula factor. Population data typically reflect the location of an individual’s residence rather than his or her place of employment; the “daytime population” of a downtown area—as well as a port, airport, shopping mall, theme park, or other point of congregation—may vastly exceed what is represented by population data alone. Others have criticized the particular factor-weighting mix used by DHS to distribute funds. At a Congressional hearing, 119 Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (NY) argued that by weighting population density at 9, critical infrastructure assets at 6, and credible threats at 3, the formula undervalued intelligence regarding actual threats. Noting that New York, the Washington area, and Los Angeles International Airport have been known Al Qaeda targets, whereas population centers and infrastructure assets represent merely speculative factors, Weiner argued that credible threat information should count for more than the one-sixth of total funds intended for high-threat, high-density urban areas. He also criticized the increasing dilution of these grants, noting that DHS made seven grants from the first round of UASI funding, 30 from the second round, and 50 from the third. Doubting the appropriateness of providing high-threat urban area funding to Fresno and San Antonio, Weiner commented, “Once you add Fresno, it becomes very difficult for you next year to take Fresno off.” Some have also criticized the allocation of port security funding. California ports transshipped 42 percent of the nation’s total containerized cargo in 2002, and an even greater share (48 percent) of the nation’s imported containers, which pose a far more significant threat of terrorist activity than U.S. cargo destined for export.120 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach represent the largest and 118Analogous to the Los Angeles experience, the 1.3 million-person population of the City of San Diego is spread over a relatively large land area (324 square miles), and the city received considerably less ($11.4 million) than did smaller-sized San Francisco. 119Homeland Security—The Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals), Hearing, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, November 20, 2003. 120 Percentage listed are shares of the nation’s 2002 cargo traffic measured in twenty-foot equivalent units or TEUs (an industry standard for cargo volume) at the 30 largest U.S. ports, which transship 99 percent of the nation’s total traffic. Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), Journal of Commerce, as cited by Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, http://www.bts.gov. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 41 second-largest container ports by volume, respectively, and the Port of Oakland ranks seventh. Although federal port security funding to California has been substantial—the state received 17 percent ($28.5 million) of TSA port security grants and 12.1 percent ($9 million) of the ODP port security grants in fiscal year 2003—neither grant share comes close to the state’s share of containerized cargo volume. Proposals for Change Changing any federal funding distribution formula is a politically thorny process, but devising a single viable formulaic alternative to the 40/60 scheme may prove particularly problematic because of the wide array of concerns and factors in play. Even supporters of large states acknowledge the existence of some economies of scale in some functional areas, such as planning and training, which argues for some form of minimum guarantee, and it stands to reason that it is more costly on a per capita basis to patrol and protect a sparsely populated area than a densely populated area. On the other hand, other functions, including relatively costly areas such as equipment acquisition and critical infrastructure protection, are less subject to such economies and arguably inappropriate for minimum funding guarantees. Many critics, both within Congress and without, argue for adding threat levels to the distributive mix. However, some question the feasibility of developing a functioning matrix that treats fairly the entire nation. Despite obstacles, members of Congress have proposed and begun to consider alternatives for modifying the existing funding structure. House Bills Two major homeland security authorization bills were recently introduced in the House of Representatives, and initial legislative action commenced with a bipartisan blending of the two bills during a November 20, 2003, subcommittee markup session. Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003. At a news conference on October 9, 2003, Chairman Cox announced the introduction of H. R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003. 121 In addition to streamlining and expediting the process for shifting federal grant funding for the nation’s first responders (e.g., reducing the number of application steps from 12 to 2), the initial bill proposed to change the formula allocation 121News release, Cox Introduces Bill For Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, October 9, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=94. 42 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California process by basing grants in part on an assessment of threats faced by recipient jurisdictions and consolidating existing first responder grant programs (except for several that are specifically excluded)122 into a single, uniform program under the DHS Office of State and Local Government Coordination. The legislation required that the formula for awarding money be based predominantly on the threat of terrorism to each locality, with responsibility for creating the formula given to the DHS Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The bill delineated various criteria, including threats to population, economic interests, critical infrastructure (energy, communications, or governmental), food or water supply safety, and national icons.123 DHS was further directed to prioritize the threats on the basis of first specificity and immediacy and second risk of human life, disruption of food and water supply, and economic effect, with the distributional scheme updated annually. Funding, which requires a 25 percent state or local match124 and an 80 percent passthrough to local governments, could be used only for buying or upgrading equipment, emergency response exercises, equipment training, and attack prevention training; use for construction activities would be expressly prohibited. The bill permitted multiple jurisdictions to join together to apply for and administer a regional grant. At the event announcing his bill’s introduction, Cox said, “Terrorists have no regard for state lines. The post 9-11 reality requires us to think beyond traditional boundaries because we can be certain that if we don’t, terrorists will.” At a hearing held on October 16 to examine the bill, Cox commented that the country’s artificial political boundaries do not necessarily reflect terrorist threat 122Exempted programs include the Fire Grant Program, EMPG Program, Urban Search and Rescue Grants Program, DOJ Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program, Public Safety Partnership and COPS Program, bioterrorism preparedness-related grant programs under the Public Health Service Act, and the emergency response assistance program. 123As introduced, the Cox bill required that the DHS risk analysis consider specific threats as well as various potential threats, including the following: “(A) Threats to the population of the State or region, including military and tourist populations. (B) Threats to specific economic sectors or private sector facilities. (C) Threats to major communications nodes, including cyber and telephonic nodes. (D) Threats to specific elements of the Nation’s food supply. (E) Threats to the water supply. (F) Threats to the energy supply, including to electrical, petroleum, and nuclear sources. (G) Threats to civic infrastructure and emergency response capabilities, including threats that would – (i) substantially eliminate the government of the State or region; (ii) materially degrade the ability of first responders serving the State or region to communicate or to provide assistance during and in the aftermath of an act of terrorism, including a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack; and (iii) curtail the availability or effectiveness of emergency medical services, including hospital-based services, needed to serve the population of the State or region during such a terrorist-induced mass-medical emergency. (H) Threats to specific national monuments or structures of symbolic national importance, particularly those that routinely attract large numbers of tourist visitors. (I) Threats to significant concentrations of natural resources on which major economic sectors or population centers depend. (J) Threats to major transportation systems or nodes.” H. R. 3266, 108th Congress, 1st Session, October 8, 2003. 124The matching requirement was postponed until two years after the bill’s enactment. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 43 levels. 125 Under his bill, he said, Los Angeles and Orange Counties could continue to build their existing partnership and apply for one regional grant instead of multiple grants, thereby ameliorating inefficiencies in the current grant-making process. Rather than the current “political formula” that sometimes sends grants to jurisdictions that in some cases don't know what to do with them, Chairman Cox commented that the nation instead needs “a threatbased formula that eliminates this waste and the potential for abuse.” At an October 21 hearing of the full House Select Committee on Homeland Security,126 Chairman Cox said, “Our country needs a new formula for distributing funds based on rigorous authoritative risk assessments that match threat with vulnerability—the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security.” Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003—The PREPARE Act. Led by Ranking Minority Member Rep. Jim Turner (TX), Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee and a number of colleagues introduced H. R. 3158 (the Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003, dubbed the PREPARE Act) to accomplish many of the same goals as the Cox bill. The bill sought to alter the grant formula as well, but it placed more emphasis on a prioritized assessment of first responder funding needs than on threat levels. The PREPARE Act designed a 27-member task force,127 appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to identify the essential capabilities for which every state and local government should have access to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. (The bill suggested factors the task force might include when examining threat vulnerability,128 but final determination of need and capability standards was left to the task force.) The bill required that state and local governments compare their individual capabilities against the task force’s guidelines and submit to DHS a funding request that the state prioritized. DHS would then prepare an extensive, prioritized list of the disaster and emergency preparedness and response needs of the nation’s state and local governments, as 125Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, October 16, 2003. 126Full Committee Hearing on H. R. 3266: Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, October, 21, 2003. 127The task force would include three DHS officials (in an ex-officio capacity), two state-level elected officials, two locallevel elected officials, five members representing specified agencies or organizations, and 15 members representing specified functional sectors, including fire protection (2), law enforcement (2), emergency medical services (2), public health (2), emergency management (2), public works (2), hospitals and other medical services (2), and hazardous materials response (1). 128Suggested vulnerability factors include proximity to critical infrastructure and international borders, the presence of national icons or national assets that may be terrorist targets, population (including tourist, military, and commuting population), and population density. 44 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California well as an assessment of which jurisdictions have and have not yet met their individual, jurisdictionally specific needs. Using its prioritization, DHS would then submit to Congress an allocation scheme—with percentage shares for each state—for distributing funds in fiscal years 2006 through 2011.129 Congressional Review of House Proposals. At the October 16 hearing, Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson (MS) advocated the Democrats’ bill, arguing against basing funds on “ever-changing threat assessments.” Rep. Ben Cardin (MD) suggested that a funding formula should be sensitive to risk but also should provide predictable funding. At the October 21 hearing, Rep. Turner commented that, “expanded capabilities must be determined in a bottom-up process involving local responders and must be based on the understanding of the likely threats and vulnerabilities that exist in our communities. To base preparedness funding exclusively on a snapshot of the threat faced by a community or region applying for the grant, as proposed by the majority, ignores the reality that threat information is often vague, inconsistent and ever-changing.” During the October 16 hearing, Chairman Cox assured Democrats that the committee would work together in a bipartisan fashion to develop a consensus bill, and he noted that there are many complementary portions of the two bills. A number of subcommittee hearing participants echoed Cox’s comments regarding the complementary nature of the bills. PREPARE Act author Turner commented that the bills “have parallel goals,” and Rep. William Pascrell (NJ) said, “I see no contradictions between these two pieces of legislation.” In addition to the two primary bills, Rep. John Sweeney (NY) introduced a one-page bill with the sole purpose of amending the USA Patriot Act to reduce the small-state minimum from 0.75 percent to 0.5 percent. The Sweeney bill would also add a sentence to the act to require that grants be awarded “based on a quantitative assessment of risk for three categories: threat, vulnerability, and consequences.” 130 129Like the Cox bill, the PREPARE Act would require a minimum 25 percent state and local match (which could be reduced to 10 percent at the discretion of DHS) and would exclude a number of programs, including the Assistance to Firefighters Grants program, EMPG, the COPS grant program, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, and the Byrne Formula Grant Program. It would also authorize new grants for state and local governments, including one to compensate for additional personnel costs incurred as a result of elevated threat-level designations, and another to provide equipment and facilities necessary to receive, transmit, handle, and store classified information. An additional grant would authorize DHS and the Department of Education to make grants to develop and implement programs at public elementary schools and secondary schools to instruct students regarding age-appropriate skills that may be used to prepare for and respond to a man-made emergency or a natural disaster. 130H. R. 2512, the First Responders Funding Reform Act of 2003, 108th Congress, First Session, June 18, 2003, referred to the House Judiciary Committee. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 45 Compromise Bill Approved by Homeland Security Subcommittee. On November 20, 2003, Chairman Cox and Ranking Democrat Turner made good on vows to collaborate toward common solutions, unveiling a compromise bill that merged the elements of H. R. 3266 and H. R. 3158.131 At a markup session of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, Chairman John Shadegg (AZ) proposed the compromise version as an amendment in the nature of the substitute to H. R. 3266, which the members approved by voice vote without dissent. Applauding “the bipartisan spirit and the teamwork of this committee,” Cox called the markup a defining moment for the panel.132 Under the compromise bill, no geographic area would receive specific funding guarantees, DHS would allocate funding pursuant to its comprehensive assessment of the threats facing the nation, and states and regions would apply to DHS for funding based on the extent of state, regional, and local preparedness needs. The compromise bill expressly does not affect Assistance to Firefighters Grants, Emergency Management Performance Grants, Urban Search and Rescue Grants, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, COPS grants, Byrne grants, or HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants. Incorporating language from the PREPARE Act, the bill requires that DHS establish and regularly update a specific, flexible, and measurable list of “essential capabilities” for state and local government emergency preparedness and response that considers variables of “threat, vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the Nation’s population (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure.”133 The bill would require that state and regional134 grant applications be based on building essential capabilities, and DHS would prioritize funding applications on the basis of the extent to which they build essential capabilities. It requires that a 25-member “Task Force on Essential Capabilities for First Responders” assist DHS in developing assessment standards, 131In addition, the compromise bill incorporates allocation criteria language (although not the 0.5 percent small-state minimum proposal) from H. R. 2512. 132See press release, Committee Votes Unanimously In Favor Of First Responder Legislation, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, November 21, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=114. 133The bill specifies that a DHS assessment of critical infrastructure should examine the protection of agriculture, banking and finance, chemical industries, the defense industrial base, emergency services, energy, food, government, postal and shipping, public health, information and telecommunications networks, transportation, and water. It lists specific threat areas listed in prior bills and adds cyber threats to the list. H. R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, as amended by the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, November 20, 2003. 134The bill defines eligible regions as those encompassing an area of not less than 20,000 square miles, or housing a population of at least 1.65 million, or others approved by DHS and the appropriate state or states and incorporated jurisdictions. 46 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California prioritization, and implementation methodology.135 States then would be required to submit to DHS a three-year plan detailing the extent to which state and local first responders have and have not achieved the essential capabilities applicable to the state and prioritizing outstanding needs. DHS would evaluate and annually prioritize grant applications on the basis of the degree to which they would, “by improving applicants’ essential capabilities, advance the Nation’s achievement of the essential capabilities.”136 The bill includes the 80 percent state pass-through requirements contained in predecessor bills, and it requires 25 percent cost-sharing by recipients beginning two years after enactment, with inkind contributions allowable to satisfy the match.137 The bill would also move ODP from the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security to the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness, which now houses FEMA. The full Select Committee on Homeland Security is expected to consider H. R. 3266 after Congress reconvenes for the 108th Congress’s second session in early 2004. Senate Bills On the other side of the Capitol, there has been limited action on relevant Senate bills. On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, the Senate Committee on Government Affairs unanimously approved S. 1245, which would coordinate federal homeland security grants but which also would retain and codify the 40/60 allocation formula. The bill, authored by Government Affairs Committee Chair Susan Collins (ME) and entitled the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, would designate criteria for DHS to use to allocate formula funds that remain after the small-state minimum is applied—population, threat, and border and coastline locations.138 The Collins bill would specify that 10 percent of grants be used for discretionary grants to local governments in high-threat areas (a smaller percentage than was 135The compromise bill differs from the PREPARE Act in that it does not delineate specific fields which a specific number of task force members must represent, allowing DHS greater flexibility in determining membership within set guidelines. See H. R. 3266. 136See H. R. 3266. 137In-kind contributions may include personnel overtime, contractor services, administrative costs, equipment fuel and maintenance, and rental space. See H. R. 3266. 138The bill would require that every state receive an equal share of the first 39 percent of funds (0.75 percent each), with the four territories receiving 0.25 percent each. The remaining 60 percent would then be allocated according to “(A) population, including tourist and military populations, and population density; (B) threat, risk, and vulnerability of critical infrastructure or key national assets, or other factors identified in a State homeland security plan; (C) an international border with Canada or Mexico, or coastline bordering international waters of Canada, Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean; or (D) other factors specified in writing by the Secretary [of Homeland Security].” S. 1245, The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, 108th Congress, 1st Session, June 12, 2003, as reported by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 47 appropriated and allocated for the Urban Area Security Initiative in fiscal year 2003), and it would more explicitly direct DHS allocation of those discretionary funds by specifying criteria similar to those for formula grant awards.139 The bill would also require that states forward at least 80 percent of funding to first responders, and that the state or local government (except those in economically distressed areas) provide at least a 25 percent match (effective two years after enactment), and prohibit federal funds from supplanting existing state and local expenditures. On July 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved S. 930, entitled the Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003 and introduced by Committee Chairman James Inhofe (OK). It would authorize $3.3 billion for first responder grants for fiscal year 2004 and $3.5 billion for the ensuing three fiscal years. Like the Collins bill, it would largely codify the 40/60 formula, and it would base grants after the minimum amount on population, critical infrastructure, public buildings, and national icons in determining a state or local area’s funding allocation. (Rather than set a minimum share of 0.75 percent, the Inhofe bill would accomplish a similar result by providing each state a set minimum of $15 million. In fiscal year 2003, each state effectively received $15.5 million as a base allocation from ODP programs using the 40/60 formula.) The Inhofe bill would also provide funding for urban search and rescue task forces. As this report went to print, none of these authorizing bills in either the House or Senate had been scheduled for floor action. Conclusion To date, most federal funding to help states and localities counter terrorism has been distributed without regard to threat levels or other similar metrics. In fact, funds are not even distributed on the basis of population. Instead, DHS and HHS have allocated funds on a modified population basis that vastly favors smaller and more rural states over larger and more urbanized states. The formula that distributes most homeland security funds to state and local governments delivers more than $6 per resident to five small states for every $1 per resident it provides to California. Grants from ODP, as well as two FEMA grants, are allocated according to a 40/60 formula that previously had been used to distribute only a few million dollars—in 2003, that same formula allocated $2.25 billion. Despite housing more than 12 percent of the nation’s population, 139The Collins bill would require that every locality meeting any one of the preceding criteria receive an award. 48 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California California receives less than 8 percent of the grants distributed according to this formula. As a result, some portions of the nation with little likelihood of becoming terror targets are flush with federal revenue, whereas other areas—many of which have a known history of terror threats or house an array of seemingly attractive targets—must find security funding on their own or go without. The Secretary of DHS commented that the 40/60 formula should be changed to reflect threat levels and concentrate funding in areas most likely to be subject to a terrorist attack. Ultimately, the formula grants were allocated using the existing formula. To a large extent, the department’s hands were tied by Congress, which created the 40/60 allocation scheme by inserting a last-minute amendment into the USA Patriot Act. In distributing funds to states, however, DHS went still further beyond that law’s directives, granting extra funds to small states that already received a disproportionate windfall. An additional $1.4 billion in bioterrorism preparedness grants from HHS yielded fiscal results that were somewhat less stark, owing to the smaller size of the minimum amount guaranteed to each recipient, but that were nevertheless similar in their favoritism toward small states. DHS did allocate some of the high-threat urban area funds using an unpublished formula that took into account threat levels. California received a larger share of grants intended to aid high-threat urban areas with high population density levels, but the total funds for these grants was small relative to the amount distributed by formula. Discretionary spending for other DHS homeland security activities compensated somewhat for the formula funding shortfall. A single airport security funding agreement, reached in 2003 but to be allocated over several future fiscal years, will provide California more funding than did the entire 2003 formula allotment. Critics decry the existing grant funding scheme for distributing most homeland security grant dollars with no regard for threat or vulnerability, and for employing an allocation formula that arbitrarily favors one group of artificial political jurisdictions over another. However, calls for a funding stream linked to known or likely threats and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities draws attention to the challenging task of devising an appropriate, comprehensive formula, as well as to the thorny issue of who—Congress, the administration, or state and local first responder representatives—should draft an allocation method. Pending legislative proposals may eventually result in formula changes. Two competing House bills were merged into a single compromise measure employing a threat-based formula, although it exempts various existing grant FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 49 programs and entrusts final formula design to other decisionmakers. As is often the case, legislative proposals in the Senate are less likely to repair discrepancies that favor small states. Divining a politically acceptable and functionally successful formula is always a major challenge. Although the nature and scope of change is uncertain at this time, California would likely benefit financially from almost any significant alteration in the existing distribution formulas. 50 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix A Methodology Some funds attributed to one fiscal year may be spent in other fiscal years. For example, federal funds to Los Angeles International Airport to help defray the cost of integrating federally purchased explosive detection systems were announced in fiscal year 2003 but will be distributed between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. To determine per capita allocations, this report used 2002 population figures. An exception was that 2000 decennial Census population totals were deemed unchanged for four territories, as no intercensal estimates have been published. Some discretionary grants listed for Washington D.C. were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. This report applied the totals only to the District of Columbia. DHS awarded a port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this report applies all of these funds to the state of New York. Similarly, a transit grant of $877,356 to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is also applied to New York. Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states. The four U.S. territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) are allocated 1 percent of funding from the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. The two bioterrorism response grant programs funded via HHS provide funding to seven territories and outlying areas: the four territories listed above, as well as the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix B Homeland Security: State and Local First Responder Grant Funding Distributed by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table B.1 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $566 Million First Responder Grants from 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on March 7, 2003) 54 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Calculated Reproduction of DHS Release, Using Model Based on 0.75% Initial Allocation per State, Followed by 2002 Population $ % $ per Capita 566,295,000 100.00 1.94 9,456,787 1.67 2.11 4,994,754 0.88 7.76 10,583,052 1.87 1.94 7,394,060 1.31 2.73 45,022,706 7.95 1.28 9,480,049 1.67 2.10 8,265,426 1.46 2.39 5,184,719 0.92 6.42 4,910,119 0.87 8.60 23,653,929 4.18 1.42 14,187,141 2.51 1.66 5,692,744 1.01 4.57 5,804,486 1.02 4.33 18,878,606 3.33 1.50 11,398,904 2.01 1.85 7,657,274 1.35 2.61 7,400,801 1.31 2.73 8,999,733 1.59 2.20 9,452,302 1.67 2.11 5,750,298 1.02 4.44 10,585,008 1.87 1.94 11,710,947 2.07 1.82 15,917,434 2.81 1.58 10,075,934 1.78 2.01 7,581,824 1.34 2.64 10,834,010 1.91 1.91 5,303,237 0.94 5.83 6,255,075 1.10 3.62 6,770,993 1.20 3.12 5,727,762 1.01 4.49 Estimate of How Omnibus Funds Would Have Been Allocated, Using Traditional 0.75% as a Small-State Minimum Only $ % $ per Capita 566,295,000 100.00 1.94 8,025,167 1.42 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 6.60 9,760,140 1.72 1.79 4,847,609 0.86 1.79 62,813,225 11.09 1.79 8,061,003 1.42 1.79 6,189,918 1.09 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 5.26 4,247,213 0.75 7.44 29,895,370 5.28 1.79 15,312,113 2.70 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.41 4,247,213 0.75 3.17 22,539,151 3.98 1.79 11,016,931 1.95 1.79 5,253,081 0.93 1.79 4,857,993 0.86 1.79 7,321,091 1.29 1.79 8,018,259 1.42 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.28 9,763,153 1.72 1.79 11,497,623 2.03 1.79 17,977,570 3.17 1.79 8,978,941 1.59 1.79 5,136,853 0.91 1.79 10,146,732 1.79 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 4.67 4,247,213 0.75 2.46 4,247,213 0.75 1.95 4,247,213 0.75 3.33 Table B.1 (continued) 55 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Calculated Reproduction of DHS Release, Using Model Based on 0.75% Initial Allocation per State, Followed by 2002 Population $ % $ per Capita 14,221,965 2.51 1.66 6,401,241 1.13 3.45 26,492,260 4.68 1.38 13,908,271 2.46 1.67 4,983,519 0.88 7.86 17,509,183 3.09 1.53 8,303,989 1.47 2.38 8,336,271 1.47 2.37 18,570,283 3.28 1.51 8,727,921 1.54 2.26 5,489,339 0.97 5.13 9,016,328 1.59 2.20 5,130,932 0.91 6.74 10,978,819 1.94 1.89 29,537,253 5.22 1.36 6,936,767 1.22 2.99 4,963,177 0.88 8.05 12,716,215 2.25 1.74 11,294,316 1.99 1.86 6,339,484 1.12 3.52 10,565,337 1.87 1.94 4,826,289 0.85 9.68 1,482,262 0.26 25.87 1,595,492 0.28 10.31 1,496,114 0.26 21.61 1,541,854 0.27 14.20 Estimate of How Omnibus Funds Would Have Been Allocated, Using Traditional 0.75% as a Small-State Minimum Only $ % $ per Capita 15,365,758 2.71 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 2.29 34,267,720 6.05 1.79 14,882,524 2.63 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 6.70 20,429,603 3.61 1.79 6,249,323 1.10 1.79 6,299,052 1.11 1.79 22,064,191 3.90 1.79 6,902,376 1.22 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.97 7,346,656 1.30 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 5.58 10,369,805 1.83 1.79 38,958,425 6.88 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 1.83 4,247,213 0.75 6.89 13,046,203 2.30 1.79 10,855,817 1.92 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 2.36 9,732,850 1.72 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 8.52 1,415,738 0.25 24.71 1,415,738 0.25 9.15 1,415,738 0.25 20.45 1,415,738 0.25 13.03 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.2 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $1.3 Billion First Responder Grants from 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill 56 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Supplemental Share with DHS Repeating Same Formula Used for Omnibus Funds (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 21,709,007 4.84 11,465,828 17.81 24,293,754 4.45 16,974,037 6.26 103,354,880 2.94 21,762,672 4.83 18,974,731 5.48 11,901,882 14.74 11,271,903 19.74 54,300,440 3.25 32,567,474 3.80 13,068,140 10.50 13,326,400 9.94 43,337,775 3.44 26,167,494 4.25 17,578,991 5.99 16,989,252 6.26 20,658,728 5.05 21,700,228 4.84 13,199,817 10.20 24,299,199 4.45 26,883,871 4.18 36,539,868 3.64 23,130,482 4.61 17,404,836 6.06 24,870,817 4.38 12,174,472 13.39 14,359,871 8.30 15,543,643 7.15 13,149,547 10.31 Supplemental Share with DHS Allocating Only the Supplemental Money via Standard Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 18,422,761 4.11 9,750,000 15.14 22,405,606 4.11 11,128,285 4.11 144,195,504 4.11 18,505,026 4.11 14,209,719 4.11 9,750,000 12.08 9,750,000 17.08 68,628,508 4.11 35,150,844 4.11 9,750,000 7.83 9,750,000 7.27 51,741,401 4.11 25,290,724 4.11 12,059,095 4.11 11,152,121 4.11 16,806,468 4.11 18,406,903 4.11 9,750,000 7.53 22,412,521 4.11 26,394,212 4.11 41,269,728 4.11 20,612,267 4.11 11,792,279 4.11 23,293,075 4.11 9,750,000 10.72 9,750,000 5.64 9,750,000 4.49 9,750,000 7.65 Supplemental Share with DHS Using Supplement to Reallocate Funds So Entire $1.8 Billion Was Based on Standard Small- State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 16,990,928 3.79 9,002,213 13.98 21,581,746 3.96 8,581,894 3.17 161,985,729 4.61 17,086,028 3.79 12,134,637 3.51 8,812,213 10.91 9,087,213 15.92 74,869,877 4.48 36,274,958 4.24 8,304,213 6.67 8,194,213 6.11 55,401,552 4.40 24,908,656 4.04 9,655,676 3.29 8,609,114 3.17 15,126,559 3.70 16,974,162 3.79 8,246,213 6.37 21,590,673 3.96 26,180,835 4.07 43,329,297 4.31 19,515,209 3.89 9,347,132 3.25 22,605,807 3.99 8,694,213 9.56 7,742,713 4.48 7,226,213 3.32 8,270,213 6.49 Table B.2 (continued) 57 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Supplemental Share with DHS Repeating Same Formula Used for Omnibus Funds (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 32,648,238 3.80 14,695,080 7.92 60,816,510 3.17 31,928,423 3.84 11,440,800 18.04 40,193,672 3.52 19,062,821 5.46 19,137,209 5.43 42,630,658 3.46 20,036,941 5.19 12,601,794 11.78 20,697,420 5.04 11,778,619 15.48 25,204,052 4.35 67,805,659 3.11 15,923,971 6.87 11,393,763 18.48 29,191,855 4.00 25,927,810 4.27 14,552,550 8.08 24,254,370 4.46 11,078,630 22.21 3,402,976 59.40 3,662,139 23.66 3,434,630 49.62 3,539,370 32.59 Supplemental Share with DHS Allocating Only the Supplemental Money via Standard Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 35,273,991 4.11 9,750,000 5.26 78,665,776 4.11 34,164,669 4.11 9,750,000 15.38 46,898,673 4.11 14,346,092 4.11 14,460,250 4.11 50,651,070 4.11 15,845,254 4.11 9,750,000 9.11 16,865,154 4.11 9,750,000 12.81 23,805,166 4.11 89,433,868 4.11 9,750,000 4.21 9,750,000 15.81 29,949,168 4.11 24,920,866 4.11 9,750,000 5.41 22,342,957 4.11 9,750,000 19.55 3,250,000 56.73 3,250,000 20.99 3,250,000 46.95 3,250,000 29.92 Supplemental Share with DHS Using Supplement to Reallocate Funds So Entire $1.8 Billion Was Based on Standard Small- State Minimum $ $ per Capita 36,417,749 4.24 7,596,213 4.09 86,441,495 4.51 35,139,193 4.22 9,014,213 14.22 49,818,276 4.36 12,291,416 3.52 12,423,302 3.53 54,145,261 4.39 14,020,630 3.63 8,508,213 7.95 15,194,810 3.70 8,866,213 11.65 23,196,972 4.00 98,854,292 4.54 7,060,213 3.05 9,034,213 14.65 30,279,371 4.15 24,482,682 4.03 7,657,213 4.25 21,510,806 3.95 9,170,213 18.39 3,183,738 55.57 3,069,738 19.83 3,169,738 45.79 3,123,738 28.76 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.3 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Combined Allocation of $1.866 Billion First Responder Grants for 2003, from 2003 Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations Bills ($566 million omnibus, plus $1.3 billion supplemental) 58 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Share with DHS Allocating All Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) for Both Supplemental and Omnibus $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 31,166,007 6.95 16,460,828 25.57 34,877,754 6.39 24,368,037 8.99 148,377,880 4.23 31,242,672 6.93 27,239,731 7.87 17,086,882 21.16 16,181,903 28.34 77,954,440 4.66 46,755,474 5.46 18,761,140 15.07 19,129,400 14.26 62,216,775 4.94 37,566,494 6.10 25,235,491 8.59 24,390,252 8.98 29,659,728 7.25 31,151,228 6.95 18,950,817 14.64 34,884,199 6.39 38,594,871 6.00 52,457,868 5.22 33,206,482 6.62 24,986,836 8.70 35,704,817 6.29 17,477,472 19.22 20,614,371 11.92 22,314,643 10.27 18,876,547 14.80 Share with DHS Allocating Supplemental Based on Population with 0.75% Small-State Minimum, But with Omnibus Allocation Unchanged $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 27,879,761 6.21 14,745,000 22.90 32,989,606 6.05 18,522,285 6.83 189,218,504 5.39 27,985,026 6.21 22,474,719 6.49 14,935,000 18.50 14,660,000 25.68 92,282,508 5.52 49,338,844 5.76 15,443,000 12.41 15,553,000 11.60 70,620,401 5.60 36,689,724 5.96 19,715,595 6.71 18,553,121 6.83 25,807,468 6.31 27,857,903 6.21 15,501,000 11.97 32,997,521 6.05 38,105,212 5.93 57,187,728 5.69 30,688,267 6.11 19,374,279 6.75 34,127,075 6.02 15,053,000 16.55 16,004,500 9.26 16,521,000 7.60 15,477,000 12.14 Share with DHS Allocating All Funds with 0.75% Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 26,447,928 5.89 13,997,213 21.74 32,165,746 5.89 15,975,894 5.89 207,008,729 5.89 26,566,028 5.89 20,399,637 5.89 13,997,213 17.34 13,997,213 24.52 98,523,877 5.89 50,462,958 5.89 13,997,213 11.24 13,997,213 10.44 74,280,552 5.89 36,307,656 5.89 17,312,176 5.89 16,010,114 5.89 24,127,559 5.89 26,425,162 5.89 13,997,213 10.81 32,175,673 5.89 37,891,835 5.89 59,247,297 5.89 29,591,209 5.89 16,929,132 5.89 33,439,807 5.89 13,997,213 15.39 13,997,213 8.09 13,997,213 6.44 13,997,213 10.98 Table B.3 (continued) 59 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Share with DHS Allocating All Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) for Both Supplemental and Omnibus $ $ per Capita 46,870,238 5.46 21,096,080 11.37 87,308,510 4.56 45,836,423 5.51 16,423,800 25.90 57,703,672 5.05 27,366,821 7.83 27,473,209 7.80 61,200,658 4.96 28,763,941 7.45 18,090,794 16.91 29,714,420 7.23 16,909,619 22.22 36,182,052 6.24 97,343,659 4.47 22,860,971 9.87 16,356,763 26.53 41,907,855 5.75 37,221,810 6.13 20,892,550 11.59 34,819,370 6.40 15,905,630 31.89 4,884,976 85.27 5,258,139 33.97 4,930,630 71.23 5,081,370 46.78 Share with DHS Allocating Supplemental Based on Population with 0.75% Small-State Minimum, But with Omnibus Allocation Unchanged $ $ per Capita 49,495,991 5.76 16,151,000 8.71 105,157,776 5.49 48,072,669 5.78 14,733,000 23.23 64,408,673 5.64 22,650,092 6.48 22,796,250 6.47 69,221,070 5.61 24,572,254 6.37 15,239,000 14.25 25,882,154 6.30 14,881,000 19.55 34,783,166 6.00 118,971,868 5.46 16,687,000 7.20 14,713,000 23.86 42,665,168 5.85 36,214,866 5.97 16,090,000 8.93 32,907,957 6.05 14,577,000 29.23 4,732,000 82.60 4,846,000 31.30 4,746,000 68.56 4,792,000 44.12 Share with DHS Allocating All Funds with 0.75% Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 50,639,749 5.89 13,997,213 7.55 112,933,495 5.89 49,047,193 5.89 13,997,213 22.07 67,328,276 5.89 20,595,416 5.89 20,759,302 5.89 72,715,261 5.89 22,747,630 5.89 13,997,213 13.08 24,211,810 5.89 13,997,213 18.39 34,174,972 5.89 128,392,292 5.89 13,997,213 6.04 13,997,213 22.70 42,995,371 5.89 35,776,682 5.89 13,997,213 7.77 32,075,806 5.89 13,997,213 28.07 4,665,738 81.44 4,665,738 30.14 4,665,738 67.40 4,665,738 42.96 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 , October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.4 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $200 Million in Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants from the 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill 60 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 200,000,000 0.68 3,339,880 0.74 1,764,011 2.74 3,737,646 0.68 2,611,381 0.96 15,900,796 0.45 3,348,096 0.74 2,919,124 0.84 1,831,102 2.27 1,734,121 3.04 8,353,925 0.50 5,010,513 0.59 2,010,522 1.62 2,049,987 1.53 6,667,411 0.53 4,025,783 0.65 2,704,341 0.92 2,613,762 0.96 3,178,461 0.78 3,338,296 0.74 2,030,849 1.57 3,738,337 0.68 4,135,988 0.64 5,621,605 0.56 3,558,546 0.71 2,677,694 0.93 3,826,278 0.67 1,872,959 2.06 2,209,122 1.28 2,391,331 1.10 2,022,890 1.59 Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 200,000,000 0.68 2,834,271 0.63 1,500,000 2.33 3,447,016 0.63 1,712,044 0.63 22,183,924 0.63 2,846,927 0.63 2,186,111 0.63 1,500,000 1.86 1,500,000 2.63 10,558,232 0.63 5,407,822 0.63 1,500,000 1.20 1,500,000 1.12 7,960,216 0.63 3,890,881 0.63 1,855,245 0.63 1,715,711 0.63 2,585,610 0.63 2,831,831 0.63 1,500,000 1.16 3,448,080 0.63 4,060,648 0.63 6,349,189 0.63 3,171,118 0.63 1,814,197 0.63 3,583,550 0.63 1,500,000 1.65 1,500,000 0.87 1,500,000 0.69 1,500,000 1.18 Table B.4 (continued) 61 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 5,022,811 0.58 2,260,744 1.22 9,356,346 0.49 4,912,023 0.59 1,760,043 2.78 6,183,768 0.54 2,932,743 0.84 2,944,144 0.84 6,558,519 0.53 3,082,465 0.80 1,938,685 1.81 3,184,322 0.78 1,812,106 2.38 3,877,420 0.67 10,431,755 0.48 2,449,878 1.06 1,752,859 2.84 4,491,022 0.62 3,988,845 0.66 2,238,933 1.24 3,731,390 0.69 1,704,514 3.42 523,495 9.14 563,484 3.64 528,387 7.63 544,541 5.01 Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 5,426,768 0.63 1,500,000 0.81 12,102,427 0.63 5,256,103 0.63 1,500,000 2.37 7,215,180 0.63 2,207,091 0.63 2,224,654 0.63 7,792,472 0.63 2,437,731 0.63 1,500,000 1.40 2,594,639 0.63 1,500,000 1.97 3,662,333 0.63 13,759,057 0.63 1,500,000 0.65 1,500,000 2.43 4,607,564 0.63 3,833,979 0.63 1,500,000 0.83 3,437,378 0.63 1,500,000 3.01 500,000 8.73 500,000 3.23 500,000 7.22 500,000 4.60 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. U.S. Census Bureau, Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.5 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Total ODP 2003 Grant Allocations of $2.066 Billion, Including First Responder Grants and Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants, from 2003 Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations Bills ($1.8 billion plus $200 million for critical infrastructure) 62 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Share of Grand Total Funding with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Remainder Based on Population) $ $ per Capita 2,066,295,000 7.06 34,505,887 7.69 18,224,839 28.31 38,615,401 7.08 26,979,418 9.96 164,278,676 4.68 34,590,768 7.68 30,158,854 8.72 18,917,984 23.43 17,916,023 31.38 86,308,365 5.16 51,765,986 6.05 20,771,662 16.69 21,179,387 15.79 68,884,185 5.47 41,592,277 6.75 27,939,832 9.51 27,004,013 9.94 32,838,189 8.02 34,489,524 7.69 20,981,666 16.21 38,622,536 7.08 42,730,859 6.65 58,079,473 5.78 36,765,027 7.32 27,664,530 9.63 39,531,095 6.97 19,350,431 21.28 22,823,494 13.20 24,705,974 11.37 20,899,437 16.39 Share of Grand Total with Funds Allocated Based on Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 2,066,295,000 7.06 29,282,199 6.53 15,497,213 24.07 35,612,762 6.53 17,687,937 6.53 229,192,653 6.53 29,412,955 6.53 22,585,748 6.53 15,497,213 19.19 15,497,213 27.15 109,082,109 6.53 55,870,780 6.53 15,497,213 12.45 15,497,213 11.56 82,240,768 6.53 40,198,536 6.53 19,167,422 6.53 17,725,825 6.53 26,713,170 6.53 29,256,993 6.53 15,497,213 11.97 35,623,753 6.53 41,952,483 6.53 65,596,486 6.53 32,762,327 6.53 18,743,328 6.53 37,023,357 6.53 15,497,213 17.04 15,497,213 8.96 15,497,213 7.13 15,497,213 12.15 Table B.5 (continued) 63 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Share of Grand Total Funding with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Remainder Based on Population) $ $ per Capita 51,893,049 6.04 23,356,824 12.59 96,664,856 5.05 50,748,447 6.10 18,183,843 28.68 63,887,440 5.59 30,299,565 8.67 30,417,353 8.64 67,759,178 5.49 31,846,406 8.25 20,029,480 18.72 32,898,742 8.01 18,721,724 24.60 40,059,473 6.91 107,775,414 4.95 25,310,848 10.93 18,109,622 29.37 46,398,877 6.36 41,210,655 6.79 23,131,483 12.84 38,550,759 7.08 17,610,144 35.31 5,408,471 94.40 5,821,624 37.61 5,459,017 78.86 5,625,911 51.80 Share of Grand Total with Funds Allocated Based on Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 56,066,517 6.53 15,497,213 8.35 125,035,922 6.53 54,303,296 6.53 15,497,213 24.44 74,543,457 6.53 22,802,507 6.53 22,983,956 6.53 80,507,734 6.53 25,185,361 6.53 15,497,213 14.49 26,806,450 6.53 15,497,213 20.36 37,837,305 6.53 142,151,349 6.53 15,497,213 6.69 15,497,213 25.13 47,602,935 6.53 39,610,661 6.53 15,497,213 8.60 35,513,184 6.53 15,497,213 31.08 5,165,738 90.17 5,165,738 33.37 5,165,738 74.63 5,165,738 47.56 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Appendix C Homeland Security: Total Grants Distributed by the Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table C.1 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2003 66 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey ODP Formula Urban Area Security Urban Area Security ODP Grants Under Initiative, Round 1 Initiative, Round 2 ODP Port Mass Transit Radiological Grants USA Patriot (4/8/2003 Omnibus) (5/14/2003 Security Grants Security Grants Defense Grants Total ODP per Act ($) ($) Supplemental) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) Grants ($) % of U.S. Total Capita ($) 2,066,295,000 97,070,000 499,910,000 75,000,000 65,000,000 35,000,000 2,838,275,000 100.00 9.71 34,505,887 34,505,887 1.22 7.69 18,224,839 250,000 18,474,839 0.65 28.70 38,615,401 11,030,000 49,645,401 1.75 9.10 26,979,418 26,979,418 0.95 9.96 164,278,676 22,930,000 62,190,000 9,076,700 7,965,493 266,440,869 9.39 7.59 34,590,768 15,570,000 825,119 50,985,887 1.80 11.31 30,158,854 30,158,854 1.06 8.72 18,917,984 18,917,984 0.67 23.43 17,916,023 18,200,000 42,400,000 3,709,839 82,225,862 2.90 144.03 86,308,365 18,950,000 10,947,378 896,544 117,102,287 4.13 7.01 51,765,986 1,781,362 53,547,348 1.89 6.26 20,771,662 6,870,000 27,641,662 0.97 22.20 21,179,387 21,179,387 0.75 15.79 68,884,185 10,970,000 29,970,000 5,117,019 114,941,204 4.05 9.12 41,592,277 41,592,277 1.47 6.75 27,939,832 27,939,832 0.98 9.51 27,004,013 27,004,013 0.95 9.94 32,838,189 32,838,189 1.16 8.02 34,489,524 6,280,000 6,650,200 47,419,724 1.67 10.58 20,981,666 20,981,666 0.74 16.21 38,622,536 10,900,000 1,225,952 50,748,488 1.79 9.30 42,730,859 16,720,000 3,783,396 63,234,255 2.23 9.84 58,079,473 12,270,000 70,349,473 2.48 7.00 36,765,027 36,765,027 1.30 7.32 27,664,530 27,664,530 0.97 9.63 39,531,095 19,540,000 59,071,095 2.08 10.41 19,350,431 19,350,431 0.68 21.28 22,823,494 22,823,494 0.80 13.20 24,705,974 24,705,974 0.87 11.37 20,899,437 20,899,437 0.74 16.39 51,893,049 11,890,000 2,346,366 66,129,415 2.33 7.70 Table C.1 (continued) 67 ODP Formula Urban Area Security Urban Area Security Grants Under Initiative, Round 1 Initiative, Round 2 ODP Port Mass Transit Radiological USA Patriot (4/8/2003 Omnibus) (5/14/2003 Security Grants Security Grants Defense Grants Act ($) ($) Supplemental) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) Total ODP Grants ($) ODP Grants per % of U.S. Total Capita ($) New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands 23,356,824 96,664,856 50,748,447 18,183,843 63,887,440 30,299,565 30,417,353 67,759,178 31,846,406 20,029,480 32,898,742 18,721,724 40,059,473 107,775,414 25,310,848 18,109,622 46,398,877 41,210,655 23,131,483 38,550,759 17,610,144 5,408,471 5,821,624 5,459,017 0 5,625,911 25,000,000 8,690,000 11,280,000 135,270,000 9,371,218 30,049,694 30,000,000 13,850,000 6,770,000 21,030,000 6,070,000 34,160,000 6,450,211 1,605,958 5,124,554 12,158,057 926,394 4,211,946 1,062,847 5,000,000 18,180,000 6,600,000 6,765,724 1,098,027 23,356,824 326,355,768 50,748,447 18,183,843 77,737,440 30,299,565 38,113,747 99,451,335 33,452,364 20,029,480 43,023,296 18,721,724 46,129,473 163,846,318 25,310,848 18,109,622 52,998,877 78,534,406 23,131,483 38,550,759 17,610,144 5,408,471 5,821,624 5,459,017 0 5,625,911 0.82 11.50 1.79 0.64 2.74 1.07 1.34 3.50 1.18 0.71 1.52 0.66 1.63 5.77 0.89 0.64 1.87 2.77 0.81 1.36 0.62 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.20 12.59 17.04 6.10 28.68 6.81 8.67 10.82 8.06 8.67 18.72 10.48 24.60 7.96 7.52 10.93 29.37 7.27 12.94 12.84 7.08 35.31 94.40 37.61 78.86 0.00 51.80 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=755; http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=552; http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_ Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 2, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and thus are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable. Decennial census 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Discretionary grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. DHS awarded a $9,371,218 port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this table applies all funds to New York. Similarly, an $877,356 transit grant to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is applied to New York. Table C.2 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2003 68 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico TSA Port Security Grants (6/12/2003) ($) 169,055,136 948,000 3,971,255 0 0 28,511,178 0 2,356,397 290,400 58,485 17,636,925 2,629,643 7,005,561 0 575,000 68,800 0 0 55,136 20,823,098 1,928,880 4,340,532 4,458,771 161,000 0 705,444 125,000 0 0 0 80,000 4,867,107 0 DHS/DOT Operation Safe Commerce (6/12/2003) ($) 28,300,374 8,250,356 TSA Intercity Bus Grants (8/15/2003) ($) 19,800,007 0 0 99,950 0 177,116 0 0 0 773,614 141,580 265,003 0 0 51,278 113,813 226,272 0 0 0 0 338,482 1,173,875 0 335,102 0 0 0 0 320,791 73,182 2,454,224 0 TSA Airport Security Letters of Agreement Announcements (7/7/ 2003 and 9/2/2003) ($) 775,650,000 264,400,000 67,500,000 87,000,000 93,750,000 Total TSA Discretionary Grants ($) 992,805,517 948,000 3,971,255 99,950 0 301,338,650 67,500,000 2,356,397 290,400 832,099 17,778,505 2,894,646 7,005,561 0 626,278 182,613 226,272 0 55,136 20,823,098 1,928,880 4,679,014 92,632,646 161,000 335,102 705,444 125,000 0 0 94,070,791 153,182 7,321,331 0 % of U.S. Total 100.00 0.10 0.40 0.01 0.00 30.35 6.80 0.24 0.03 0.08 1.79 0.29 0.71 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 2.10 0.19 0.47 9.33 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.48 0.02 0.74 0.00 TSA Grants per Capita ($) 3.40 0.21 6.17 0.02 0.00 8.58 14.98 0.68 0.36 1.46 1.06 0.34 5.63 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.01 4.65 1.49 0.86 14.41 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 43.28 0.12 0.85 0.00 Table C.2 (continued) 69 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands TSA Port Security Grants (6/12/2003) ($) 10,072,663 4,870,000 0 777,000 725,000 1,185,000 5,151,969 562,000 355,000 1,827,889 0 639,655 17,743,010 0 0 5,050,858 16,103,235 522,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,873,245 DHS/DOT Operation Safe Commerce (6/12/2003) ($) 6,747,227 13,302,791 TSA Intercity Bus Grants (8/15/2003) ($) 172,130 566,591 0 44,408 0 9,900 342,765 0 0 35,263 0 123,375 10,755,141 0 217,542 841,330 26,407 0 120,873 0 0 0 0 0 0 TSA Airport Security Letters of Agreement Announcements (7/7/ 2003 and 9/2/2003) ($) 104,000,000 159,000,000 Total TSA Discretionary Grants ($) 16,992,020 5,436,591 0 821,408 725,000 1,194,900 5,494,734 562,000 355,000 1,863,152 0 763,030 132,498,151 0 217,542 5,892,188 188,432,433 522,000 120,873 0 0 0 0 0 1,873,245 % of U.S. Total 1.71 0.55 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.55 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.00 0.08 13.35 0.00 0.02 0.59 18.98 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 TSA Grants per Capita ($) 0.89 0.65 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.34 0.45 0.15 0.33 0.45 0.00 0.13 6.08 0.00 0.35 0.81 31.05 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.25 SOURCES: TSA Port http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=85, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_Press_Kit_DHS.pdf (6-12-2003); Bus: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=658 (8-15-2003); Airport 1: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=678 (9-2-2003); Airport 2: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=571 (7-7-2003). NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states. Discretionary grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Viginia. DHS awarded a $9,371,218 port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this table applies all funds to New York. Similarly, an $877,356 transit grant to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is applied to New York. Table C.3 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 70 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants (4/16/2003) ($) 165,140,000 2,752,864 1,454,479 3,076,171 2,151,922 13,094,650 2,756,043 2,407,428 1,508,348 1,425,190 6,870,000 4,123,419 1,658,937 1,689,064 5,483,731 3,313,688 2,227,865 2,152,490 2,616,272 2,751,260 1,674,771 3,076,637 3,407,781 4,630,575 2,929,118 2,205,660 3,151,469 1,542,988 1,820,480 1,968,780 1,667,748 4,139,084 1,862,907 FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (5/29/2003) ($) 18,800,000 313,949 165,817 351,339 245,470 1,494,675 314,721 274,398 172,124 163,007 785,269 470,988 188,989 192,699 626,737 378,424 254,208 245,694 298,775 313,800 190,900 351,404 388,783 528,431 334,503 251,703 359,670 176,058 207,657 224,785 190,152 472,144 212,510 FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (as of 10/3/2003) ($) 293,969,462 10,469,577 1,778,775 2,133,382 5,098,624 11,733,952 2,797,460 3,131,139 516,268 0 4,498,985 6,757,146 0 2,721,793 12,079,454 8,823,008 8,349,514 6,201,255 8,710,737 5,714,904 4,954,770 1,625,307 3,465,711 5,648,656 9,818,214 8,510,814 10,651,581 5,031,073 4,800,547 761,005 1,531,473 4,532,832 2,330,858 FEMA/DOJ Communications Interoperability Grants (9/25/ 2003) ($) 79,570,300 0 0 0 2,082,385 0 0 0 2,406,284 0 0 0 0 0 6,000,000 0 5,995,822 0 0 0 0 5,629,013 0 6,000,000 6,000,000 0 5,496,750 4,475,916 0 0 2,176,168 0 0 FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants (9/25/2003) ($) 73,764,887 0 0 0 12,375,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,125,000 0 9,335,572 0 434,171 0 0 232,118 0 0 0 0 0 6,662,370 494,168 0 1,924,875 4,783,995 9,164,503 0 0 Total FEMA Grants ($) 631,244,649 13,536,390 3,399,071 5,560,892 21,953,401 26,323,277 5,868,224 5,812,965 4,603,024 1,588,197 12,154,254 11,351,553 2,972,926 4,603,556 33,525,494 12,515,120 17,261,580 8,599,439 11,625,784 9,012,082 6,820,441 10,682,361 7,262,275 16,807,662 19,081,835 17,630,547 20,153,638 11,226,035 8,753,559 7,738,565 14,730,044 9,144,060 4,406,275 % of U.S. Total FEMA Grants 100.00 2.14 0.54 0.88 3.48 4.17 0.93 0.92 0.73 0.25 1.93 1.80 0.47 0.73 5.31 1.98 2.73 1.36 1.84 1.43 1.08 1.69 1.15 2.66 3.02 2.79 3.19 1.78 1.39 1.23 2.33 1.45 0.70 FEMA Grants per Capita ($) 2.16 3.02 5.28 1.02 8.10 0.75 1.30 1.68 5.70 2.78 0.73 1.33 2.39 3.43 2.66 2.03 5.88 3.17 2.84 2.01 5.27 1.96 1.13 1.67 3.80 6.14 3.55 12.34 5.06 3.56 11.55 1.06 2.38 Table C.3 (continued) 71 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands FEMA Emergency FEMA Management Community Performance Emergency Grants Response Teams (4/16/2003) ($) (5/29/2003) ($) 7,703,460 879,497 4,045,543 461,730 1,450,633 165,444 5,095,337 581,274 2,415,000 275,678 2,424,176 276,750 5,401,194 616,501 2,536,400 289,752 1,599,677 182,236 2,624,831 299,326 1,491,467 170,338 3,191,728 364,477 8,580,534 980,585 2,018,685 230,288 1,443,442 164,769 3,698,780 422,156 3,282,282 374,951 1,842,282 210,460 3,071,833 350,751 1,405,455 160,224 431,942 49,208 589,350 52,967 571,340 49,668 00 632,810 51,187 FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (as of 10/3/2003) ($) 16,605,888 8,435,832 3,148,459 10,540,697 4,507,310 4,755,931 13,557,151 374,981 554,605 4,787,382 3,594,215 10,227,538 12,169,976 2,189,534 1,647,016 9,723,659 8,560,565 2,669,335 9,676,003 1,064,571 0 0 0 0 0 FEMA/DOJ Communications Interoperability Grants (9/25/ 2003) ($) 6,000,000 0 0 0 846,263 0 5,964,973 0 3,041,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000,000 5,765,100 5,689,684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants (9/25/2003) ($) 2,818,105 0 0 0 1,959,294 0 0 0 0 2,062,294 3,433,500 0 0 442,365 0 5,137,452 0 0 0 0 4,112,270 3,221,708 4,046,127 0 0 Total FEMA Grants ($) 34,006,950 12,943,105 4,764,536 16,217,308 10,003,545 7,456,857 25,539,819 3,201,133 5,378,460 9,773,833 8,689,520 13,783,743 21,731,095 4,880,872 3,255,227 24,982,047 17,982,898 10,411,761 13,098,587 2,630,250 4,593,420 3,864,025 4,667,135 0 683,997 % of U.S. Total FEMA Grants 5.39 2.05 0.75 2.57 1.58 1.18 4.05 0.51 0.85 1.55 1.38 2.18 3.44 0.77 0.52 3.96 2.85 1.65 2.08 0.42 0.73 0.61 0.74 0.00 0.11 FEMA Grants per Capita ($) 1.78 1.56 7.51 1.42 2.86 2.12 2.07 0.83 5.03 2.38 11.42 2.38 1.00 2.11 5.28 3.43 2.96 5.78 2.41 5.27 80.18 24.96 67.42 0.00 6.30 SOURCES: EMPG: http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_empg2.shtm (4-16-2003); CERT: http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_123b.shtm (5-29-2003); firefighter grants: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/xls/grants/fy03total.xls; interoperability grants: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0266.xml; EOC grants: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1737; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Awards for Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program are being made on an ongoing basis. Total appropriation for 2003 was $750 million. The above total represents grants made as of the date of this publication. Table C.4 Homeland Security: Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants to State and Local Governments from the Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2003 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin CDC Public Health Systems Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 870,000,000 14,056,645 6,284,107 15,755,035 10,461,043 80,120,894 13,979,790 11,960,524 6,614,378 11,162,901 38,181,999 22,034,847 7,486,672 7,676,282 35,373,345 17,416,386 10,941,890 10,476,095 13,245,815 14,059,595 7,603,092 15,915,365 17,972,524 25,278,581 15,101,600 10,795,501 16,424,504 6,834,837 8,485,811 9,251,219 7,552,202 22,248,528 8,710,551 48,676,120 21,630,396 6,290,025 28,082,405 12,031,404 12,039,235 29,933,326 12,778,777 7,147,493 13,232,255 6,536,811 16,651,663 48,310,184 9,618,011 6,242,254 19,584,849 17,146,134 8,649,835 15,955,629 HRSA Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 498,000,000 7,762,315 1,958,803 9,030,450 5,077,591 54,357,090 7,704,930 6,197,207 2,205,406 2,868,302 25,775,967 13,719,390 2,856,721 2,998,297 20,945,488 10,270,929 5,436,624 5,088,830 7,156,894 7,764,518 2,943,648 9,150,163 10,686,180 16,141,386 8,542,551 5,327,321 9,530,322 2,370,015 3,602,747 4,174,253 2,905,650 13,878,940 3,770,553 30,878,256 13,417,400 1,963,221 18,234,914 6,250,131 6,255,978 19,616,940 6,808,171 2,603,466 7,146,769 2,147,489 9,699,934 33,338,368 4,448,125 1,927,552 11,890,053 10,069,141 3,725,218 9,180,227 Total HHS Grants ($) 1,368,000,000 21,818,960 8,242,910 24,785,485 15,538,634 134,477,984 21,684,720 18,157,731 8,819,784 14,031,203 63,957,966 35,754,237 10,343,393 10,674,579 56,318,833 27,687,315 16,378,514 15,564,925 20,402,709 21,824,113 10,546,740 25,065,528 28,658,704 41,419,967 23,644,151 16,122,822 25,954,826 9,204,852 12,088,558 13,425,472 10,457,852 36,127,468 12,481,104 79,554,376 35,047,796 8,253,246 46,317,319 18,281,535 18,295,213 49,550,266 19,586,948 9,750,959 20,379,024 8,684,300 26,351,597 81,648,552 14,066,136 8,169,806 31,474,902 27,215,275 12,375,053 25,135,856 % of U.S. Total HHS Grants 100.00 1.59 0.60 1.81 1.14 9.83 1.59 1.33 0.64 1.03 4.68 2.61 0.76 0.78 4.12 2.02 1.20 1.14 1.49 1.60 0.77 1.83 2.09 3.03 1.73 1.18 1.90 0.67 0.88 0.98 0.76 2.64 0.91 5.82 2.56 0.60 3.39 1.34 1.34 3.62 1.43 0.71 1.49 0.63 1.93 5.97 1.03 0.60 2.30 1.99 0.90 1.84 HHS Grants per Capita ($) 4.68 4.86 12.80 4.54 5.73 3.83 4.81 5.25 10.92 24.58 3.83 4.18 8.31 7.96 4.47 4.50 5.58 5.73 4.98 4.87 8.15 4.59 4.46 4.12 4.71 5.61 4.58 10.12 6.99 6.18 8.20 4.21 6.73 4.15 4.21 13.02 4.06 5.23 5.20 4.02 5.08 9.12 4.96 11.41 4.55 3.75 6.07 13.25 4.32 4.48 6.87 4.62 72 Table C.4 (continued) Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands CDC Public Health Systems Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 6,000,636 553,313 625,215 559,296 1,665,052 597,124 HRSA Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 1,747,144 601,511 738,414 612,902 1,814,266 684,929 Total HHS Grants ($) 7,747,780 1,154,824 1,363,629 1,172,198 3,479,318 1,282,053 % of U.S. Total HHS Grants 0.57 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.25 0.09 HHS Grants per Capita ($) 15.54 20.16 8.81 16.93 16.98 11.80 SOURCES: CDC: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html; HRSA: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/ planning/continuationguidance/pdf/annex_b_funding.pdf; Population: U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: The formula for both programs uses a base allocation for each state followed by population distribution of any remainder. The base allocation for the CDC bioterrorism response program is $5 million and for the HRSA hospital preparedness program is $1 million. (District of Columbia receives doubled base allocation—$10 million for CDC, $2 million for HRSA). Grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. Outlying areas include the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau. 73 Table C.5 Homeland Security: Total Grants by Agency to State and Local Governments, Total Formula Grants, and All Grants Grand Total for All Agencies, Fiscal Year 2003 74 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Total ODP Grants ($) Total TSA Total FEMA Grants ($) Grants ($) Total HHS Grants ($) Grand Total Total Total Formula Homeland Grand Grand Total Homeland Formula Grants per Security Grants: Total as Total per Security Formula Grants as % Capita 2003 ODP, TSA, % of Capita Grants ($) of U.S. ($) FEMA, HHS ($) U.S. 2003 ($) 2,838,274,998 992,805,517 631,244,649 1,368,000,000 3,618,235,000 100.00 12.38 5,830,325,164 100.00 19.95 34,505,887 948,000 13,536,390 21,818,960 59,391,660 1.64 13.24 70,809,237 1.21 15.78 18,474,839 3,971,255 3,399,071 8,242,910 28,088,045 0.78 43.63 34,088,075 0.58 52.95 49,645,401 99,950 5,560,892 24,785,485 66,828,396 1.85 12.25 80,091,728 1.37 14.68 26,979,418 0 21,953,401 15,538,634 44,915,444 1.24 16.57 64,471,453 1.11 23.79 266,440,869 301,338,650 26,323,277 134,477,984 313,345,985 8.66 8.92 728,580,780 12.50 20.75 50,985,887 67,500,000 5,868,224 21,684,720 59,346,252 1.64 13.17 146,038,831 2.50 32.41 30,158,854 2,356,397 5,812,965 18,157,731 50,998,411 1.41 14.74 56,485,947 0.97 16.32 18,917,984 290,400 4,603,024 8,819,784 29,418,240 0.81 36.44 32,631,192 0.56 40.42 82,225,862 832,099 1,588,197 14,031,203 33,535,423 0.93 58.74 98,677,361 1.69 172.85 117,102,287 17,778,505 12,154,254 63,957,966 157,921,600 4.36 9.45 210,993,012 3.62 12.62 53,547,348 2,894,646 11,351,553 35,754,237 92,114,630 2.55 10.76 103,547,784 1.78 12.10 27,641,662 7,005,561 2,972,926 10,343,393 32,962,981 0.91 26.48 47,963,542 0.82 38.53 21,179,387 0 4,603,556 10,674,579 33,735,729 0.93 25.15 36,457,522 0.63 27.18 114,941,204 626,278 33,525,494 56,318,833 131,313,486 3.63 10.42 205,411,809 3.52 16.30 41,592,277 182,613 12,515,120 27,687,315 72,971,704 2.02 11.85 81,977,325 1.41 13.31 27,939,832 226,272 17,261,580 16,378,514 46,800,419 1.29 15.94 61,806,198 1.06 21.05 27,004,013 0 8,599,439 15,564,925 44,967,122 1.24 16.56 51,168,377 0.88 18.84 32,838,189 55,136 11,625,784 20,402,709 56,155,945 1.55 13.72 64,921,818 1.11 15.86 47,419,724 20,823,098 9,012,082 21,824,113 59,378,697 1.64 13.25 99,079,017 1.70 22.10 20,981,666 1,928,880 6,820,441 10,546,740 33,394,077 0.92 25.80 40,277,727 0.69 31.12 50,748,488 4,679,014 10,682,361 25,065,528 67,116,105 1.85 12.30 91,175,391 1.56 16.70 63,234,255 92,632,646 7,262,275 28,658,704 75,186,127 2.08 11.70 191,787,880 3.29 29.84 70,349,473 161,000 16,807,662 41,419,967 104,658,446 2.89 10.41 128,738,102 2.21 12.81 36,765,027 335,102 19,081,835 23,644,151 63,672,799 1.76 12.68 79,826,115 1.37 15.90 27,664,530 705,444 17,630,547 16,122,822 46,244,715 1.28 16.10 62,123,343 1.07 21.63 59,071,095 125,000 20,153,638 25,954,826 68,997,060 1.91 12.16 105,304,559 1.81 18.56 19,350,431 0 11,226,035 9,204,852 30,274,329 0.84 33.29 39,781,318 0.68 43.74 22,823,494 0 8,753,559 12,088,558 36,940,189 1.02 21.36 43,665,611 0.75 25.25 24,705,974 94,070,791 7,738,565 13,425,472 40,325,011 1.11 18.55 139,940,802 2.40 64.39 Table C.5 (continued) 75 Total ODP Grants ($) Total TSA Total FEMA Grants ($) Grants ($) Total HHS Grants ($) Grand Total Total Total Formula Homeland Grand Grand Total Homeland Formula Grants per Security Grants: Total as Total per Security Formula Grants as % Capita 2003 ODP, TSA, % of Capita Grants ($) of U.S. ($) FEMA, HHS ($) U.S. 2003 ($) New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands 20,899,437 153,182 66,129,415 7,321,331 23,356,824 0 326,355,768 16,992,020 50,748,447 5,436,591 18,183,843 0 77,737,440 821,408 30,299,565 725,000 38,113,747 1,194,900 99,451,335 5,494,734 33,452,364 562,000 20,029,480 355,000 43,023,296 1,863,152 18,721,724 0 46,129,473 763,030 163,846,318 132,498,151 25,310,848 0 18,109,622 217,542 52,998,877 5,892,188 78,534,406 188,432,433 23,131,483 522,000 38,550,759 120,873 17,610,144 0 5,408,471 0 5,821,624 0 5,459,017 0 00 5,625,911 1,873,245 14,730,044 9,144,060 4,406,275 34,006,950 12,943,105 4,764,536 16,217,308 10,003,545 7,456,857 25,539,819 3,201,133 5,378,460 9,773,833 8,689,520 13,783,743 21,731,095 4,880,872 3,255,227 24,982,047 17,982,898 10,411,761 13,098,587 2,630,250 4,593,420 3,864,025 4,667,135 0 683,997 10,457,852 36,127,468 12,481,104 79,554,376 35,047,796 8,253,246 46,317,319 18,281,535 18,295,213 49,550,266 19,586,948 9,750,959 20,379,024 8,684,300 26,351,597 81,648,552 14,066,136 8,169,806 31,474,902 27,215,275 12,375,053 25,135,856 7,747,780 1,154,824 1,363,629 1,172,198 3,479,318 1,282,053 33,215,189 92,631,745 37,913,345 184,802,189 90,303,516 28,053,166 115,881,370 51,271,778 51,413,492 123,327,139 54,259,506 31,562,352 56,201,923 29,067,829 69,967,275 198,985,085 41,625,957 27,887,639 81,994,715 72,083,163 37,559,278 67,109,199 26,923,603 7,044,445 7,827,570 7,252,223 3,479,318 7,591,961 0.92 2.56 1.05 5.11 2.50 0.78 3.20 1.42 1.42 3.41 1.50 0.87 1.55 0.80 1.93 5.50 1.15 0.77 2.27 1.99 1.04 1.85 0.74 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.10 0.21 26.05 10.78 20.44 9.65 10.85 44.24 10.15 14.68 14.60 10.00 14.06 29.51 13.68 38.19 12.07 9.14 17.97 45.23 11.24 11.88 20.84 12.33 53.99 122.96 50.56 104.77 16.98 69.90 46,240,515 118,722,274 40,244,203 456,909,114 104,175,939 31,201,625 141,093,475 59,309,645 65,060,717 180,036,154 56,802,445 35,513,899 75,039,305 36,095,544 87,027,843 399,724,116 44,257,856 29,752,197 115,348,014 312,165,012 46,440,297 76,906,075 27,988,174 11,156,715 11,049,278 11,298,350 3,479,318 9,465,206 0.79 36.27 2.04 13.82 0.69 21.69 7.84 23.85 1.79 12.52 0.54 49.21 2.42 12.35 1.02 16.98 1.12 18.48 3.09 14.60 0.97 14.72 0.61 33.20 1.29 18.27 0.62 47.43 1.49 15.01 6.86 18.35 0.76 19.11 0.51 48.25 1.98 15.82 5.35 51.44 0.80 25.77 1.32 14.13 0.48 56.12 0.19 194.74 0.19 71.38 0.19 163.22 0.06 16.98 0.16 87.15 NOTES: Formula grants include ODP state and local grants, critical infrastructure grants, EMPGs, CERT/Citizen Corps grants, CDC bioterrorism response grants, and HRSA hospital preparedness grants. The formula for all programs uses a base allocation for each state followed by population distribution of any remaining funds. Base allocation for the CDC bioterrorism response program is $5 million and for the HRSA hospital preparedness program is $1 million. (District of Columbia receives doubled base allocation—$10 million for CDC, $2 million for HRSA). Grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. Outlying aeas include the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau. Grant total includes formula and discretionary grants. Appendix D Homeland Security: State and Local First Responder Grant Funding, Formula and Discretionary, Distributed by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2004, Including Estimated Rescissions FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table D.1 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula Found in USA Patriot Act, Fiscal Year 2003 Actual and Fiscal Year 2004 Predictions Based on Appropriations Conference Report 78 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Actual Allocations, Fiscal Year 2003, All Homeland Security Grants Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 2,250,235,000 100.00 7.69 37,572,700 1.67 8.37 19,845,135 0.88 30.83 42,042,911 1.87 7.71 29,376,810 1.31 10.84 178,868,001 7.95 5.09 37,661,532 1.67 8.36 32,840,680 1.46 9.49 20,598,456 0.92 25.51 19,504,220 0.87 34.16 93,963,634 4.18 5.62 56,360,393 2.50 6.58 22,619,588 1.01 18.17 23,061,150 1.02 17.20 74,994,653 3.33 5.95 45,284,389 2.01 7.35 30,421,905 1.35 10.36 29,402,197 1.31 10.83 35,753,236 1.59 8.74 37,554,584 1.67 8.38 22,847,337 1.02 17.65 42,050,577 1.87 7.70 46,527,423 2.07 7.24 63,238,479 2.81 6.29 40,028,648 1.78 7.97 30,121,893 1.34 10.49 43,042,234 1.91 7.59 21,069,477 0.94 23.17 24,851,631 1.10 14.37 26,899,539 1.20 12.38 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, All Homeland Security Grants, Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 2,385,840,000 100.00 8.15 39,842,096 1.67 8.88 21,043,244 0.88 32.69 44,587,132 1.87 8.17 31,151,687 1.31 11.49 189,683,776 7.95 5.40 39,940,104 1.67 8.86 34,822,811 1.46 10.06 21,843,581 0.92 27.05 20,686,671 0.87 36.24 99,655,640 4.18 5.96 59,771,407 2.51 6.98 23,983,924 1.01 19.27 24,454,702 1.02 18.23 79,536,874 3.33 6.31 48,024,371 2.01 7.80 32,260,626 1.35 10.99 31,180,086 1.31 11.48 37,916,496 1.59 9.26 39,823,203 1.67 8.88 24,226,404 1.02 18.72 44,595,370 1.87 8.17 49,339,031 2.07 7.68 67,061,252 2.81 6.67 42,450,605 1.78 8.46 31,942,749 1.34 11.12 45,644,435 1.91 8.05 22,342,905 0.94 24.57 26,353,064 1.10 15.24 28,526,663 1.20 13.12 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, Hypothetical Alternative Allocations of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula, Same Grants, Fiscal Year 2004, Using Reduced by 0.59% Reduction from 0.75% as Small-State Minimum Only Omnibus Appropriations Bill $ per $ per $ % Capita $ % Capita 2,385,840,000 100.00 8.15 2,371,763,544 100.00 8.11 33,810,585 1.42 7.54 39,607,028 1.67 8.83 17,893,800 0.75 27.79 20,919,089 0.88 32.49 41,120,146 1.72 7.54 44,324,068 1.87 8.12 20,423,313 0.86 7.54 30,967,892 1.31 11.43 264,636,462 11.09 7.54 188,564,641 7.95 5.37 33,961,562 1.42 7.54 39,704,457 1.67 8.81 26,078,551 1.09 7.54 34,617,357 1.46 10.00 17,893,800 0.75 22.16 21,714,704 0.92 26.90 17,893,800 0.75 31.34 20,564,620 0.87 36.02 125,951,261 5.28 7.54 99,067,671 4.18 5.93 64,510,993 2.70 7.54 59,418,756 2.51 6.94 17,893,800 0.75 14.37 23,842,419 1.01 19.15 17,893,800 0.75 13.34 24,310,420 1.02 18.13 94,959,003 3.98 7.54 79,067,606 3.33 6.27 46,415,094 1.95 7.54 47,741,028 2.01 7.75 22,131,594 0.93 7.54 32,070,288 1.35 10.92 20,467,059 0.86 7.54 30,996,123 1.31 11.41 30,844,264 1.29 7.54 37,692,788 1.59 9.21 33,781,480 1.42 7.54 39,588,246 1.67 8.83 17,893,800 0.75 13.82 24,083,468 1.02 18.60 41,132,837 1.72 7.54 44,332,258 1.87 8.12 48,440,281 2.03 7.54 49,047,931 2.07 7.63 75,740,744 3.17 7.54 66,665,591 2.81 6.63 37,828,901 1.59 7.54 42,200,146 1.78 8.41 21,641,916 0.91 7.54 31,754,287 1.34 11.06 42,748,884 1.79 7.54 45,375,133 1.91 8.00 17,893,800 0.75 19.68 22,211,082 0.94 24.42 17,893,800 0.75 10.35 26,197,581 1.10 15.15 17,893,800 0.75 8.23 28,358,356 1.20 13.05 Table D.1 (continued) 79 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Actual Allocations, Fiscal Year 2003, All Homeland Security Grants Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 22,757,337 1.01 17.85 56,504,277 2.51 6.58 25,432,241 1.13 13.71 105,247,813 4.68 5.49 55,255,720 2.46 6.64 19,799,920 0.88 31.22 69,564,051 3.09 6.09 32,990,243 1.47 9.44 33,118,279 1.47 9.40 73,776,873 3.28 5.98 34,672,558 1.54 8.99 21,811,393 0.97 20.39 35,822,899 1.59 8.72 20,383,529 0.91 26.78 43,615,678 1.94 7.52 117,336,533 5.21 5.39 27,559,821 1.22 11.90 19,717,833 0.88 31.98 50,519,813 2.25 6.93 44,867,888 1.99 7.39 25,184,225 1.12 13.98 41,973,343 1.87 7.71 19,175,823 0.85 38.45 5,889,621 0.26 102.80 6,463,941 0.29 41.76 6,080,025 0.27 87.83 6,309,908 0.28 58.10 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, All Homeland Security Grants, Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 24,131,459 1.01 18.93 59,918,121 2.51 6.98 26,968,872 1.13 14.54 111,613,724 4.68 5.83 58,596,509 2.46 7.04 20,995,908 0.88 33.11 73,767,400 3.09 6.46 34,985,282 1.47 10.01 35,121,286 1.47 9.97 78,237,888 3.28 6.34 36,771,336 1.54 9.53 23,126,966 0.97 21.62 37,986,413 1.59 9.25 21,616,971 0.91 28.40 46,254,524 1.94 7.98 124,442,489 5.22 5.71 29,225,079 1.22 12.62 20,910,209 0.88 33.91 53,574,294 2.25 7.35 47,583,733 1.99 7.84 26,708,683 1.12 14.82 44,512,494 1.87 8.18 20,333,488 0.85 40.77 6,244,871 0.26 109.00 6,721,916 0.28 43.42 6,303,234 0.26 91.06 6,495,937 0.27 59.81 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, Hypothetical Alternative Allocations of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula, Same Grants, Fiscal Year 2004, Using Reduced by 0.59% Reduction from 0.75% as Small-State Minimum Only Omnibus Appropriations Bill $ per $ per $ % Capita $ % Capita 17,893,800 0.75 14.03 23,989,083 1.01 18.81 64,736,999 2.71 7.54 59,564,604 2.51 6.93 17,893,800 0.75 9.65 26,809,756 1.13 14.45 144,372,273 6.05 7.54 110,955,203 4.68 5.79 62,701,103 2.63 7.54 58,250,790 2.46 7.00 17,893,800 0.75 28.22 20,872,033 0.88 32.92 86,071,331 3.61 7.54 73,332,172 3.09 6.42 26,328,831 1.10 7.54 34,778,869 1.47 9.95 26,538,341 1.11 7.54 34,914,071 1.47 9.91 92,957,961 3.90 7.54 77,776,284 3.28 6.31 29,080,186 1.22 7.54 36,554,385 1.54 9.47 17,893,800 0.75 16.73 22,990,517 0.97 21.49 30,951,969 1.30 7.54 37,762,293 1.59 9.19 17,893,800 0.75 23.51 21,489,431 0.91 28.24 43,688,706 1.83 7.54 45,981,623 1.94 7.93 164,134,537 6.88 7.54 123,708,279 5.22 5.68 17,893,800 0.75 7.73 29,052,651 1.22 12.54 17,893,800 0.75 29.02 20,786,839 0.88 33.71 54,964,556 2.30 7.54 53,258,206 2.25 7.30 45,736,306 1.92 7.54 47,302,989 1.99 7.79 17,893,800 0.75 9.93 26,551,102 1.12 14.74 41,005,169 1.72 7.54 44,249,870 1.87 8.13 17,893,800 0.75 35.88 20,213,521 0.85 40.53 5,964,600 0.25 104.11 18,066,844 0.76 315.35 5,964,600 0.25 38.53 18,541,075 0.78 119.77 5,964,600 0.25 86.17 18,124,862 0.76 261.84 5,964,600 0.25 54.92 18,316,429 0.77 168.64 SOURCES: Conference report to accompany the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2004 (H. Rept. 108-280); conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) are allocated 1 percent of funding. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Right columns show allocations after 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut if the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted. Table D.2a Homeland Security: ODP Grant Allocations Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula, Fiscal Year 2004, as Enacted by 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on November 3, 2003) 80 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Law Enforcement State Grants ($) ($) 1,685,000,000 500,000,000 28,138,000 8,350,000 14,862,000 4,410,000 31,490,000 9,344,000 22,001,000 6,529,000 133,964,000 39,752,000 28,208,000 8,370,000 24,594,000 7,298,000 15,427,000 4,578,000 14,610,000 4,335,000 70,382,000 20,885,000 42,214,000 12,526,000 16,939,000 5,026,000 17,271,000 5,125,000 56,173,000 16,669,000 33,917,000 10,065,000 22,784,000 6,761,000 22,021,000 6,534,000 26,779,000 7,946,000 28,125,000 8,346,000 17,110,000 5,077,000 31,495,000 9,346,000 34,846,000 10,340,000 47,362,000 14,054,000 29,981,000 8,896,000 22,560,000 6,694,000 32,236,000 9,556,000 15,780,000 4,682,000 18,612,000 5,523,000 20,147,000 5,978,000 17,043,000 5,057,000 42,317,000 12,557,000 19,047,000 5,652,000 78,827,000 23,391,000 41,384,000 12,280,000 Citizen Corps ($) 35,000,000 584,000 309,000 654,000 457,000 2,783,000 586,000 511,000 320,000 303,000 1,462,000 877,000 352,000 359,000 1,167,000 704,000 473,000 457,000 556,000 584,000 355,000 654,000 724,000 984,000 623,000 469,000 670,000 328,000 387,000 418,000 354,000 879,000 396,000 1,637,000 860,000 Total Grants ($) 2,220,000,000 37,072,000 19,581,000 41,488,000 28,987,000 176,499,000 37,164,000 32,403,000 20,325,000 19,248,000 92,729,000 55,617,000 22,317,000 22,755,000 74,009,000 44,686,000 30,018,000 29,012,000 35,281,000 37,055,000 22,542,000 41,495,000 45,910,000 62,400,000 39,500,000 29,723,000 42,472,000 20,790,000 24,522,000 26,543,000 22,454,000 55,753,000 25,095,000 103,855,000 54,524,000 Grants per Capita ($) 7.59 8.26 30.42 7.60 10.70 5.03 8.25 9.36 25.17 33.72 5.55 6.50 17.93 16.97 5.87 7.26 10.22 10.68 8.62 8.27 17.41 7.60 7.14 6.21 7.87 10.35 7.49 22.86 14.18 12.21 17.61 6.49 13.53 5.42 6.55 % of Grants 100.00 1.67 0.88 1.87 1.31 7.95 1.67 1.46 0.92 0.87 4.18 2.51 1.01 1.03 3.33 2.01 1.35 1.31 1.59 1.67 1.02 1.87 2.07 2.81 1.78 1.34 1.91 0.94 1.10 1.20 1.01 2.51 1.13 4.68 2.46 % of Population 100.00 1.53 0.22 1.86 0.93 12.00 1.54 1.18 0.28 0.20 5.71 2.93 0.43 0.46 4.31 2.10 1.00 0.93 1.40 1.53 0.44 1.87 2.20 3.43 1.72 0.98 1.94 0.31 0.59 0.74 0.44 2.94 0.63 6.55 2.84 Population (7/1/2002) 292,617,433 4,486,508 643,786 5,456,453 2,710,079 35,116,033 4,506,542 3,460,503 807,385 570,898 16,713,149 8,560,310 1,244,898 1,341,131 12,600,620 6,159,068 2,936,760 2,715,884 4,092,891 4,482,646 1,294,464 5,458,137 6,427,801 10,050,446 5,019,720 2,871,782 5,672,579 909,453 1,729,180 2,173,491 1,275,056 8,590,300 1,855,059 19,157,532 8,320,146 Table D.2a (continued) 81 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Law Enforcement State Grants ($) ($) 14,828,000 4,400,000 52,098,000 15,459,000 24,708,000 7,332,000 24,804,000 7,360,000 55,255,000 16,396,000 25,970,000 7,706,000 16,333,000 4,847,000 26,828,000 7,961,000 15,267,000 4,530,000 32,667,000 9,694,000 87,888,000 26,079,000 20,640,000 6,125,000 14,768,000 4,382,000 37,837,000 11,228,000 33,606,000 9,972,000 18,863,000 5,597,000 31,437,000 9,329,000 14,360,000 4,261,000 4,410,000 1,309,000 4,747,000 1,409,000 4,452,000 1,321,000 4,588,000 1,361,000 Citizen Corps ($) 308,000 1,082,000 513,000 515,000 1,148,000 539,000 339,000 557,000 317,000 679,000 1,826,000 429,000 307,000 786,000 698,000 392,000 653,000 298,000 92,000 99,000 92,000 95,000 Total Grants ($) 19,536,000 68,639,000 32,553,000 32,679,000 72,799,000 34,215,000 21,519,000 35,346,000 20,114,000 43,040,000 115,793,000 27,194,000 19,457,000 49,851,000 44,276,000 24,852,000 41,419,000 18,919,000 5,811,000 6,255,000 5,865,000 6,044,000 Grants per Capita ($) % of Grants 30.81 0.88 6.01 3.09 9.32 1.47 9.28 1.47 5.90 3.28 8.87 1.54 20.12 0.97 8.61 1.59 26.43 0.91 7.42 1.94 5.32 5.22 11.74 1.22 31.56 0.88 6.83 2.25 7.30 1.99 13.79 1.12 7.61 1.87 37.94 0.85 37.54 0.26 90.36 0.28 54.00 0.26 105.50 0.27 % of Population 0.22 3.90 1.19 1.20 4.22 1.32 0.37 1.40 0.26 1.98 7.44 0.79 0.21 2.49 2.07 0.62 1.86 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 Population (7/1/2002) 634,110 11,421,267 3,493,714 3,521,515 12,335,091 3,858,806 1,069,725 4,107,183 761,063 5,797,289 21,779,893 2,316,256 616,592 7,293,542 6,068,996 1,801,873 5,441,196 498,703 154,805 69,221 108,612 57,291 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Table D.2b Homeland Security: ODP Grant Allocations Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula, Fiscal Year 2004, If Reduced by 0.59 Percent Across-the-Board Spending Cut Proposed in 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report (as announced by DHS on November 3, 2003) 82 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire State Grants ($) 1,675,058,500 27,971,986 14,774,314 31,304,209 21,871,194 133,173,612 28,041,573 24,448,895 15,335,981 14,523,801 69,966,746 41,964,937 16,839,060 17,169,101 55,841,579 33,716,890 22,649,574 21,891,076 26,621,004 27,959,063 17,009,051 31,309,180 34,640,409 47,082,564 29,804,112 22,426,896 32,045,808 15,686,898 18,502,189 20,028,133 16,942,446 Law Envorcement Grants ($) 497,050,000 8,300,735 4,383,981 9,288,870 6,490,479 39,517,463 8,320,617 7,254,942 4,550,990 4,309,424 20,761,779 12,452,097 4,996,347 5,094,763 16,570,653 10,005,617 6,721,110 6,495,449 7,899,119 8,296,759 5,047,046 9,290,859 10,278,994 13,971,081 8,843,514 6,654,505 9,499,620 4,654,376 5,490,414 5,942,730 5,027,164 Citizen Corps Grants ($) 34,793,500 580,554 307,177 650,141 454,304 2,766,580 582,543 507,985 318,112 301,212 1,453,374 871,826 349,923 356,882 1,160,115 699,846 470,209 454,304 552,720 580,554 352,906 650,141 719,728 978,194 619,324 466,233 666,047 326,065 384,717 415,534 351,911 Total Grants ($) 2,206,902,000 36,853,275 19,465,472 41,243,221 28,815,977 175,457,656 36,944,732 32,211,822 20,205,083 19,134,437 92,181,899 55,288,860 22,185,330 22,620,746 73,572,347 44,422,353 29,840,894 28,840,829 35,072,842 36,836,376 22,409,002 41,250,180 45,639,131 62,031,840 39,266,950 29,547,634 42,221,415 20,667,339 24,377,320 26,386,396 22,321,521 $ per Capita 7.54 8.21 30.24 7.56 10.63 5.00 8.20 9.31 25.03 33.52 5.52 6.46 17.82 16.87 5.84 7.21 10.16 10.62 8.57 8.22 17.31 7.56 7.10 6.17 7.82 10.29 7.44 22.73 14.10 12.14 17.51 % of Grants 100.00 1.67 0.88 1.87 1.31 7.95 1.67 1.46 0.92 0.87 4.18 2.51 1.01 1.03 3.33 2.01 1.35 1.31 1.59 1.67 1.02 1.87 2.07 2.81 1.78 1.34 1.91 0.94 1.10 1.20 1.01 % of Population 100.00 1.53 0.22 1.86 0.93 12.00 1.54 1.18 0.28 0.20 5.71 2.93 0.43 0.46 4.31 2.10 1.00 0.93 1.40 1.53 0.44 1.87 2.20 3.43 1.72 0.98 1.94 0.31 0.59 0.74 0.44 Population (7/1/2002) 292,617,433 4,486,508 643,786 5,456,453 2,710,079 35,116,033 4,506,542 3,460,503 807,385 570,898 16,713,149 8,560,310 1,244,898 1,341,131 12,600,620 6,159,068 2,936,760 2,715,884 4,092,891 4,482,646 1,294,464 5,458,137 6,427,801 10,050,446 5,019,720 2,871,782 5,672,579 909,453 1,729,180 2,173,491 1,275,056 Table D.2b (continued) 83 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands State Grants ($) 42,067,330 18,934,623 78,361,921 41,139,834 14,740,515 51,790,622 24,562,223 24,657,656 54,928,996 25,816,777 16,236,635 26,669,715 15,176,925 32,474,265 87,369,461 20,518,224 14,680,869 37,613,762 33,407,725 18,751,708 31,251,522 14,275,276 4,383,981 4,718,993 4,425,733 4,560,931 Law Envorcement Grants ($) 12,482,914 5,618,653 23,252,993 12,207,548 4,374,040 15,367,792 7,288,741 7,316,576 16,299,264 7,660,535 4,818,403 7,914,030 4,503,273 9,636,805 25,925,134 6,088,863 4,356,146 11,161,755 9,913,165 5,563,978 9,273,959 4,235,860 1,301,277 1,400,687 1,313,206 1,352,970 Citizen Corps Grants ($) 873,814 393,664 1,627,342 854,926 306,183 1,075,616 509,973 511,962 1,141,227 535,820 337,000 553,714 315,130 674,994 1,815,227 426,469 305,189 781,363 693,882 389,687 649,147 296,242 91,457 98,416 91,457 94,440 Total Grants ($) 55,424,057 24,946,940 103,242,256 54,202,308 19,420,738 68,234,030 32,360,937 32,486,194 72,369,486 34,013,132 21,392,038 35,137,459 19,995,327 42,786,064 115,109,821 27,033,555 19,342,204 49,556,879 44,014,772 24,705,373 41,174,628 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,218,096 5,830,397 6,008,340 $ per Capita 6.45 13.45 5.39 6.51 30.63 5.97 9.26 9.23 5.87 8.81 20.00 8.56 26.27 7.38 5.29 11.67 31.37 6.79 7.25 13.71 7.57 37.71 37.32 89.83 53.68 104.87 % of Grants 2.51 1.13 4.68 2.46 0.88 3.09 1.47 1.47 3.28 1.54 0.97 1.59 0.91 1.94 5.22 1.22 0.88 2.25 1.99 1.12 1.87 0.85 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.27 % of Population 2.94 0.63 6.55 2.84 0.22 3.90 1.19 1.20 4.22 1.32 0.37 1.40 0.26 1.98 7.44 0.79 0.21 2.49 2.07 0.62 1.86 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 Population (7/1/2002) 8,590,300 1,855,059 19,157,532 8,320,146 634,110 11,421,267 3,493,714 3,521,515 12,335,091 3,858,806 1,069,725 4,107,183 761,063 5,797,289 21,779,893 2,316,256 616,592 7,293,542 6,068,996 1,801,873 5,441,196 498,703 154,805 69,221 108,612 57,291 SOURCES: Department of Homeland Security, funding announcement, November 3, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Table D.3a Homeland Security: ODP Formula, High-Threat Urban, Mass Transit, and Port Security Grant Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, As Enacted by 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on November 3, November 13, and December 10, 2003) 84 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Formula Grants $ per Formula Grants ($) Capita 2,220,000,000 7.59 37,072,000 8.26 19,581,000 30.42 41,488,000 7.60 28,987,000 10.70 176,499,000 5.03 37,164,000 8.25 32,403,000 9.36 20,325,000 25.17 19,248,000 33.72 92,729,000 5.55 55,617,000 6.50 22,317,000 17.93 22,755,000 16.97 74,009,000 5.87 44,686,000 7.26 30,018,000 10.22 29,012,000 10.68 35,281,000 8.62 37,055,000 8.27 22,542,000 17.41 41,495,000 7.60 45,910,000 7.14 62,400,000 6.21 39,500,000 7.87 29,723,000 10.35 42,472,000 7.49 20,790,000 22.86 24,522,000 14.18 26,543,000 12.21 22,454,000 17.61 Urban Grants ($) 675,000,000 0 0 12,200,204 0 135,708,491 8,646,361 9,632,961 0 29,301,502 37,187,212 10,744,248 0 0 34,142,222 10,151,880 0 0 8,987,662 14,346,633 0 15,918,745 19,131,723 13,754,597 20,108,247 0 24,080,699 0 0 10,531,025 0 Mass Transit Grants ($) 50,000,000 0 0 0 0 6,805,266 0 800,000 0 2,809,313 1,600,000 1,491,848 0 0 5,519,029 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,837,753 3,726,559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security Grants ($) 179,025,900 1,098,571 758,569 0 0 33,704,614 0 3,825,565 0 0 7,625,747 4,237,611 4,247,966 0 6,916,500 353,760 51,600 221,540 1,439,578 23,552,896 836,403 5,586,150 3,005,829 897,263 813,100 2,245,740 158,800 0 0 0 1,355,000 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 3,124,025,900 38,170,571 20,339,569 53,688,204 28,987,000 352,717,371 45,810,361 46,661,526 20,325,000 51,358,815 139,141,959 72,090,707 26,564,966 22,755,000 120,586,751 55,991,640 30,069,600 29,233,540 45,708,240 74,954,529 23,378,403 64,837,648 71,774,111 77,051,860 60,421,347 31,968,740 66,711,499 20,790,000 24,522,000 37,074,025 23,809,000 Total Grants $ per Capita 10.68 8.51 31.59 9.84 10.70 10.04 10.17 13.48 25.17 89.96 8.33 8.42 21.34 16.97 9.57 9.09 10.24 10.76 11.17 16.72 18.06 11.88 11.17 7.67 12.04 11.13 11.76 22.86 14.18 17.06 18.67 Table D.3a (continued) 85 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Formula Grants $ per Formula Grants ($) Capita 55,753,000 6.49 25,095,000 13.53 103,855,000 5.42 54,524,000 6.55 19,536,000 30.81 68,639,000 6.01 32,553,000 9.32 32,679,000 9.28 72,799,000 5.90 34,215,000 8.87 21,519,000 20.12 35,346,000 8.61 20,114,000 26.43 43,040,000 7.42 115,793,000 5.32 27,194,000 11.74 19,457,000 31.56 49,851,000 6.83 44,276,000 7.30 24,852,000 13.79 41,419,000 7.61 18,919,000 37.94 5,811,000 37.54 6,255,000 90.36 5,865,000 54.00 6,044,000 105.50 Urban Grants ($) 32,166,412 0 63,956,401 7,404,955 0 31,919,279 0 8,161,143 35,057,238 0 0 0 0 10,067,477 38,455,299 0 0 6,543,378 16,516,007 0 10,177,999 0 0 0 0 0 Mass Transit Grants ($) 0 0 17,484,581 0 0 800,000 0 0 3,925,651 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 800,000 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security Grants ($) 5,129,950 0 6,699,713 3,224,114 0 3,100,127 0 1,299,720 1,830,700 3,585,870 1,498,563 5,225,019 0 768,285 31,960,813 0 0 1,681,280 6,756,192 565,000 0 0 0 518,900 1,379,577 869,275 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 93,049,362 25,095,000 191,995,695 65,153,069 19,536,000 104,458,406 32,553,000 42,139,863 113,612,589 37,800,870 23,017,563 40,571,019 20,114,000 53,875,762 187,009,112 27,194,000 19,457,000 58,875,658 68,348,199 25,417,000 51,596,999 18,919,000 5,811,000 6,773,900 7,244,577 6,913,275 Total Grants $ per Capita 10.83 13.53 10.02 7.83 30.81 9.15 9.32 11.97 9.21 9.80 21.52 9.88 26.43 9.29 8.59 11.74 31.56 8.07 11.26 14.11 9.48 37.94 37.54 97.86 66.70 120.67 SOURCES: DHS 2004 first responder grant announcement, November 3, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; DHS 2004 UASI grant announcement, November 13, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/UASI_FY04_Allocations.doc; DHS 2004 port security grant announcement, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_Spreadsheet.xls; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table STEST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. Table D.3b Homeland Security: ODP Formula, High-Threat Urban, and Mass Transit Grant Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004 (as announced by DHS on November 3, November 13, and December 10, 2003) If Reduced by 0.59 Percent Across-the-Board Spending Cut Proposed in 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report 86 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Formula Grants ($) 2,206,902,000 36,853,275 19,465,472 41,243,221 28,815,977 175,457,656 36,944,732 32,211,822 20,205,083 19,134,437 92,181,899 55,288,860 22,185,330 22,620,746 73,572,347 44,422,353 29,840,894 28,840,829 35,072,842 36,836,376 22,409,002 41,250,180 45,639,131 62,031,840 39,266,950 29,547,634 42,221,415 20,667,339 24,377,320 26,386,396 $ per Capita Urban Grants ($) 7.59 675,000,000 8.26 0 30.42 0 7.60 12,128,223 10.70 0 5.03 134,907,811 8.25 8,595,347 9.36 9,576,127 25.17 0 33.72 29,128,623 5.55 36,967,807 6.50 10,680,857 17.93 0 16.97 0 5.87 33,940,783 7.26 10,091,984 10.22 0 10.68 0 8.62 8,934,635 8.27 14,261,988 17.41 0 7.60 15,824,824 7.14 19,018,846 6.21 13,673,445 7.87 19,989,608 10.35 0 7.49 23,938,623 22.86 0 14.18 0 12.21 10,468,892 Mass Transit ($) 50,000,000 0 0 0 0 6,765,115 0 795,280 0 2,792,738 1,590,560 1,483,046 0 0 5,486,467 795,280 0 0 0 0 0 1,826,910 3,704,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security ($) 177,969,647 1,092,089 754,093 0 0 33,505,757 0 3,802,994 0 0 7,580,755 4,212,609 4,222,903 0 6,875,693 351,673 51,296 220,233 1,431,084 23,413,934 831,468 5,553,192 2,988,095 891,969 808,303 2,232,490 157,863 0 0 0 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 3,105,594,147 37,945,365 20,219,566 53,371,444 28,815,977 350,636,338 45,540,080 46,386,223 20,205,083 51,055,798 138,321,021 71,665,372 26,408,233 22,620,746 119,875,290 55,661,289 29,892,189 29,061,062 45,438,561 74,512,297 23,240,470 64,455,106 71,350,643 76,597,254 60,064,861 31,780,124 66,317,901 20,667,339 24,377,320 36,855,288 Total per Capita ($) 10.61 8.46 31.41 9.78 10.63 9.99 10.11 13.40 25.03 89.43 8.28 8.37 21.21 16.87 9.51 9.04 10.18 10.70 11.10 16.62 17.95 11.81 11.10 7.62 11.97 11.07 11.69 22.73 14.10 16.96 Table D.3b (continued) 87 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No.Mariana Islands Virgin Islands Formula Grants ($) 22,321,521 55,424,057 24,946,940 103,242,256 54,202,308 19,420,738 68,234,030 32,360,937 32,486,194 72,369,486 34,013,132 21,392,038 35,137,459 19,995,327 42,786,064 115,109,821 27,033,555 19,342,204 49,556,879 44,014,772 24,705,373 41,174,628 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,218,096 5,830,397 6,008,340 $ per Capita Urban Grants ($) 17.61 0 6.49 31,976,630 13.53 0 5.42 63,579,058 6.55 7,361,266 30.81 0 6.01 31,730,955 9.32 0 9.28 8,112,992 5.90 34,850,400 8.87 0 20.12 0 8.61 0 26.43 0 7.42 10,008,079 5.32 38,228,413 11.74 0 31.56 0 6.83 6,504,772 7.30 16,418,563 13.79 0 7.61 10,117,949 37.94 0 37.54 0 90.36 0 54.00 0 105.50 0 Mass Transit ($) 0 0 0 17,381,422 0 0 795,280 0 0 3,902,490 0 0 0 0 0 795,280 0 0 795,280 795,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security ($) 1,347,006 5,099,683 0 6,660,185 3,205,092 0 3,081,836 0 1,292,052 1,819,899 3,564,713 1,489,721 5,194,191 0 763,752 31,772,244 0 0 1,671,360 6,716,330 561,667 0 0 0 515,838 1,371,437 864,146 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 23,668,527 92,500,371 24,946,940 190,862,921 64,768,666 19,420,738 103,842,101 32,360,937 41,891,238 112,942,275 37,577,845 22,881,759 40,331,650 19,995,327 53,557,895 185,905,758 27,033,555 19,342,204 58,528,292 67,944,945 25,267,040 51,292,577 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,733,934 7,201,834 6,872,487 Total per Capita ($) 18.56 10.77 13.45 9.96 7.78 30.63 9.09 9.26 11.90 9.16 9.74 21.39 9.82 26.27 9.24 8.54 11.67 31.37 8.02 11.20 14.02 9.43 37.71 37.32 97.28 66.31 119.96 SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security, funding announcements, November 3, 2003, and November 13, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ FY04_State_Grants.PDF; conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF and http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/UASI_FY04_Allocations.doc. Appendix E Homeland Security: Federal Grants and Redistributions Within California, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table E.1 Homeland Security: Grants Redistributions Within California, State and Local Homeland Security Formula Grants (as of August 4, 2003) State Agency Funds Distribution State Agency Highway Patrol National Guard Forestry and Fire Protection Health Services Food and Agriculture Environmental Protection Agency Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Grant Administration and State Strategy) Subtotal Local Agency Funds Distribution County Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Amount ($) 8,958,080 5,336,802 3,186,428 1,170,291 104,992 161,000 1,753,407 20,671,000 3,403,913 52,712 131,886 521,659 145,157 94,171 2,280,637 112,373 421,997 1,936,458 110,636 337,734 388,350 91,179 1,625,646 355,197 187,411 128,345 22,421,072 343,989 611,335 89,116 247,722 554,622 70,926 79,870 982,167 340,974 264,702 6,727,564 667,757 96,783 3,873,364 2,985,940 176,226 4,159,003 6,689,008 1,824,467 1,425,122 624,303 1,657,276 90 Table E.1 (continued) Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba Subtotal Total Amount ($) 969,703 3,927,836 632,373 435,615 57,891 149,528 973,380 1,109,446 1,129,609 236,615 179,241 79,814 915,882 176,674 1,824,243 456,518 190,863 82,684,000 103,355,000 SOURCE:_http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_ SessionID=@@@@1519845839.1062440442@@@@&BV_EngineID=eadciedlghkh bemgcfkmchcog.0&iOID=51640&sTitle=GOVERNOR+DAVIS+ANNOUNCES+ $119+MILLION+FOR+HOMELAND+SECURITY+08042003&sFilePath =/govsite/press_release/2003_08/20030804_PRO3344_HOMELAND_SEC_ FUNDS.html&sCatTitle=Press+Release. 91 Table E.2 Homeland Security: Grant Redistributions Within California, Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants, Overtime Amounts (announced on August 4, 2003) State Applicant State Agency Funds Distribution 22nd District Agricultural Association/CDF&A Berkeley, University of California, PD California Highway Patrol Chico, California State University, PD Davis, University of California, PD Department of Transportation Fresno, California State University, PD Humboldt State University PD Irvine, University of California, PD Military Department Northridge, California State University Pomona, California State Polytechnic University, PD San Diego, University of California San Francisco State University PD San Francisco, University of California, PD San Jose State University PD Santa Barbara, University of California, PD Sonoma State University Stephen P. Teale Data Center Office of Emergency Services Subtotal Amount ($) 7,133 18,312 6,942,120 3,666 15,829 124,399 2,004 4,585 5,478 587,213 26,217 9,412 1,672 39,041 18,569 13,960 9,181 2,818 6,887 111,504 7,950,000 County Alameda Contra Costa Contra Costa Contra Costa Fresno Humboldt Imperial Imperial Imperial Inyo Inyo Kern Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Local Applicant Local Agency Funds Distribution Oakland, City of Concord, City of, PD Richmond PD San Ramon Valley FPD Fresno, City of, PD Eureka PD Calexico, City of, PD Imperial County Airport Imperial County Sheriff Bishop PD Inyo County Kern County Sheriff’s Dept. Alhambra, City of, PD Beverly Hills, City of, PD Burbank, City of, PD Glendale, City of Amount ($) 424,243 51,023 7,478 7,142 17,193 5,876 7,088 7,053 23,638 14,490 6,252 8,824 14,282 61,089 43,744 40,563 92 Table E.2 (continued) County Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Marin Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Riverside San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Shasta Stanislaus Tulare Ventura Yuba Subtotal Total Grand total Local Applicant Amount ($) Glendora, City of 1,233 Long Beach Unified School District 4,387 Long Beach, City of 150,775 Long Beach Harbor Department—Security Division 41,423 Los Angeles County 85,875 Los Angeles, City of 1,364,094 Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority 9,231 Torrance, City of, PD 38,352 West Covina, City of 102,989 Marin Municipal Water District 9,808 Anaheim, City of 141,058 Costa Mesa, City of, PD 652 Fullerton, City of, PD 55,182 Orange County Sheriff’s Department 301,083 Santa Ana, City of, PD 13,027 Palm Springs City—International Airport 4,582 El Cajon, City of, PD 14,453 North County Transit District 109,048 San Diego Unified Port District Police 33,259 San Diego, City of 218,447 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 346,995 San Francisco, City and County 3,330,319 Stockton, City of 6,135 Broadmoor Police Protection District 5,903 San Carlos, City of, PD 2,608 San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department 53,554 San Mateo, City of, PD 32,126 Santa Barbara, City of 76,891 Mountain View, City of, PD 1,164 San Jose, City of 252,587 Santa Clara County Sheriff 62,686 Redding, City of 9,123 Stanislaus County Sheriff 3,921 Tulare County Sheriff’s Department 220,633 Ventura, County of 32,193 Yuba County Operational Area 7,020 7,882,796 15,832,797 119,187,797 SOURCE: http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_ SessionID=@@@@1519845839.1062440442@@@@&BV_EngineID= eadciedlghkhbemgcfkmchcog.0&iOID=51640&sTitle=GOVERNOR+DAVIS+ ANNOUNCES+$119+MILLION+FOR+HOMELAND+SECURITY+0804% 2f2003&sFilePath=/govsite/press_release/2003_08/20030804_PR03344_ HOMELAND_SEC_FUNDS.html&sCatTitle=Press+Release. 93 Table E.3 California Recipients of TSA Port Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2003 Grantee Benicia Port Terminal Company Harbor Deptartment of the City of Long Beach City of Long Beach Total Terminals International Pier T Long Beach City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Harbor Department Trans Pacific Container Service Corp. Pacific Harbor Line, Inc. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Vopak Terminal Los Angeles Inc. West Basin Container Terminal, Inc. Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Los Angeles Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Shell Oil Products, U.S. Martinez Refinery Port of Oakland Total Terminals International Berth 55-56 Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland Port of Redwood City Port of Richmond San Diego Unified Port District Red and White Fleet Port of San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Stockton Port District California Ammonia Company City of Vallejo California Total U.S. Total California as a % of U.S. City Benicia Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles/ Oakland Martinez Oakland Oakland Oakland Redwood City Richmond San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Stockton Stockton Vallejo Grant ($) 20,000 9,820,000 200,163 665,000 800,000 1,189,961 95,000 1,440,000 1,070,000 1,246,000 1,754,650 1,034,000 200,000 1,600,000 476,000 376,000 75,000 91,000 1,435,750 41,450 3,375,000 520,000 336,204 150,000 500,000 28,511,178 169,055,136 16.87 SOURCE: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=40&content=90. NOTE: Differs from $75 million in port security grants from the Office of Domestic Preparedness. 94 Table E.4 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2003 California Grantees, as of October 3, 2003 95 Fire Department Name Alameda County Fire Department Alturas Rural Fire Protection District Amador Fire Protection District American Canyon Fire Protection District Annapolis Volunteer Fire Department Antelope Volunteer Fire Company Beckwourth Fire Protection District Beginnings Volunteer Fire Department Biggs Fire Department Blue Lake Fire District Bodega Bay Fire Protection District Butte County Fire Department California City Fire Department Camptonville Fire Department Carmel Valley Fire Protection District City of Costa Mesa Fire Department City of Needles Fire Department City of Riverside Fire Department City of Santa Cruz City of West Sacramento Coffee Creek Volunteer Fire Company Copco Lake Fire Protection District Crest Forest Fire Protection District Davis Creek Rural Fire Protection District Desert Hot Springs Volunteer Fire Company East County Fire Protection District Encinitas Fire Department Eureka Fire Department Foothill Fire Protection District Fullerton Fire Department Georgetown Fire Protection District Glenn Codora Fire Gridley Fire Department Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District City San Leandro Alturas Jackson American Canyon Santa Rosa Red Bluff Beckwourth Redway Biggs Blue Lake Bodega Bay Oroville California City Camptonville Carmel Costa Mesa Needles Riverside Santa Cruz West Sacramento Coffee Creek Montague Crestline Davis Creek Desert Hot Springs El Cajon Encinitas Eureka Brownsville Fullerton Georgetown Glenn Gridley Half Moon Bay FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Emergency medical services Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Emergency medical services Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 208,302 192,600 85,562 45,450 5,677 67,500 35,707 48,960 27,383 50,614 89,640 297,798 260,042 74,130 83,970 91,709 48,326 179,946 21,266 107,334 228,150 15,892 138,980 14,310 22,500 85,005 701,629 54,322 198,000 85,890 175,500 32,175 49,815 64,477 Date Award Announced 7/25/03 10/3/03 8/8/03 7/25/03 6/12/03 8/15/03 8/1/03 6/27/03 6/19/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/22/03 9/12/03 6/12/03 9/12/03 8/29/03 9/12/03 9/5/03 8/15/03 8/29/03 10/3/03 8/15/03 8/29/03 9/5/03 6/19/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 9/19/03 8/29/03 8/1/03 6/12/03 9/12/03 6/19/03 9/12/03 96 Table E.4 (continued) Fire Department Name Hayfork Volunteer Fire Department Hughson Fire Protection District Humboldt #1 Fire Protection District Huntington Beach Intermountain Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department Kettenpom Zenia Volunteers Keyes Fire Protection District Kingsburg La Honda Fire Brigade La Porte Volunteer Fire Department Lake County Fire Protection District (Lakeshore) Lake Pillsbury Fire Protection District Lakeland Village Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. Lakeside Fire Protection District Lakeville Volunteer Fire Department Linda Fire Protection District Lindsay Fire Department Loma Linda Fire Department Loomis Fire Protection District Marina Department of Public Safety Mariposa County Fire Department Mayacamas Volunteer Fire Department Merced County Fire Department Modesto Fire Department Mount Shasta Vista Volunteer Fire Co. Muir Beach Volunteer Fire Department Newark Fire Department Niland Fire District North County Fire Protection District North San Juan Fire Protection District North Tahoe Fire Protection District Olancha Cartago Fire Department Ophir Hill Fire Protection District Orange County Fire Authority Orcutt Fire Protection District City Hayfork Hughson Eureka Huntington Beach Ramona Zenia Keyes Kingsburg La Honda La Porte Clearlake Potter Valley Lake Elsinore Lakeside Santa Rosa Marysville Lindsay Loma Linda Loomis Marina Mariposa Santa Rosa Merced Modesto Montague Muir Beach Newark Niland Castroville Nevada City Tahoe City Olancha Cedar Ridge Orange Orcutt FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire prevention Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 10,557 129,483 164,105 24,502 40,500 21,505 225,000 49,005 75,636 18,000 187,515 42,768 7,403 21,504 92,000 123,003 26,113 31,500 153,445 124,325 39,915 4,860 119,700 179,408 46,800 40,364 39,848 60,157 178,776 171,000 189,000 16,200 60,003 750,000 121,400 Date Award Announced 7/25/03 8/15/03 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/15/03 6/19/03 7/3/03 7/11/03 9/19/03 10/3/03 10/3/03 7/25/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/18/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/25/03 8/1/03 10/3/03 7/3/03 8/1/03 10/3/03 7/3/03 10/3/03 8/22/03 7/3/03 8/15/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/18/03 8/29/03 7/18/03 9/12/03 97 Fire Department Name Orleans Volunteer Fire Department Painted Cave Volunteer Fire Department Peardale–Chicago Park Fire Protection District Pechanga Fire Department Pleasant Valley Fire Company Porterville Fire Department Ramona Fire Department Redlands Fire Department Redwood Coast Fire Protection District Rincon Valley FPD Ripon Consolidated Fire District Rodeo Sacramento River Fire Protection District Salinas Fire Department San Bruno San Francisco Fire Department San Juan Bautista Volunteer Fire Department San Luis Obispo City Fire Department Santa Barbara County Fire Department Santa Fe Springs Fire Department Santa Margarita Fire Department Santa Paula Fire Department Sebastopol Fire Department Seiad Valley Volunteer Fire Department Tulare County Turlock City Fire and Emergency Services Valley Ford Volunteer Fire Department Ventura County Fire Protection District Weott Volunteer Fire Department Wilmar Volunteer Fire Department Windsor Fire Protection District Winters Fire Protection District Woodlake Fire Protection District Zamora Fire Protection District Total Table E.4 (continued) City Orleans Santa Barbara Grass Valley Temecula Dorris Porterville Ramona Redlands Manchester Santa Rosa Ripon Hercules Colusa Salinas San Bruno San Francisco San Juan Bautista San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Fe Springs Santa Margarita Santa Paula Sebastopol Seiad Valley Visalia Turlock Valley Ford Camarillo Weott Petaluma Windsor Winters Woodlake Zamora FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Firefighting vehicle Fire prevention Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 16,978 225,000 195,300 63,465 6,801 136,170 53,316 156,371 29,700 182,696 22,973 216,000 211,970 193,200 9,386 211,975 83,706 412,200 416,236 160,334 98,100 129,870 74,175 31,145 125,149 45,710 99,900 447,143 15,750 19,128 18,972 38,169 50,012 63,091 Date Award Announced 6/27/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 6/27/03 7/25/03 8/22/03 10/3/03 9/12/03 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/5/03 8/22/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/1/03 8/15/03 9/5/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 8/8/03 9/26/03 9/5/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/8/03 8/29/03 6/12/03 8/22/03 9/26/03 8/22/03 11,733,952 98 Table E.5 California Recipients of TSA Port Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 Grantee Valero Energy Corporation Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. Total Terminals International—Pier T, Long Beach Total Terminals International—Pier T, Long Beach Vopak Terminal Long Beach, Inc. City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Hornblower Cruises and Events Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company APM Terminals North America, Inc. Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Port of Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland SSA Terminals, LLC Port of Oakland Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Chevron Products Company ConocoPhillips International Matex Tank Terminals Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. City Benicia Carson Carson Carson Carson Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles area (various) Martinez Martinez Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland, Alameda Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Grant ($) 710,400 222,936 250,000 150,000 2,860 627,354 548,642 2,029,750 533,667 1,654,546 3,000,000 1,737,145 3,000,000 96,000 215,000 75,348 51,187 240,807 2,860 601,080 382,500 65, 185 208,000 96,000 250,000 853,350 48,300 150,000 65,000 41,850 166,320 40,000 115,000 3,000,000 218,400 100,000 197,000 Table E.5 (continued) 99 Grantee Port of Richmond, California ConocoPhillips Sacramento—Yolo Port District Sacramento—Yolo Port District Sacramento—Yolo Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Metropolitan Stevedore Company Port of San Francisco Hornblower Cruises and Events Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC West Basin Container Terminal Westway Terminal Company, Inc. City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Port of Stockton Port of Stockton Agrium U.S. Inc. Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals, L.P. Valero Energy Corporation California total U.S. total California as a % of U.S. City Richmond Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco, Berkeley San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro, Los Angeles Stockton Stockton Sacramento Wilmington Wilmington Grant ($) 2,583,700 211,200 321,400 50,000 243,800 71,500 200,000 190,000 500,000 89,681 50,000 525,798 500,000 80,000 45,000 60,000 90,000 158,500 450,000 299,420 150,000 224,400 150,000 150,000 269,600 300,000 308,000 979,628 1,176,500 100,000 350,000 100,000 980,000 33,704,614 179,025,900 18.83 SOURCE: DHS grant announcement, Department of Homeland Security Announces $179 Million in Grants to Secure America’s Ports, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ Port_Security_Spreadsheet.xls. PPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS RAYMOND L. WATSON, CHAIRMAN Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company EDWARD K. HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. GARY K. HART Founder Institute for Educational Reform California State University, Sacramento WALTER B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California VILMA S. MARTINEZ Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP CHERYL WHITE MASON Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office ARJAY MILLER Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUTTON Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center PPIC ADVISORY COUNCIL MARY C. DALY Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco CLIFFORD W. GRAVES General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California HILARY W. HOYNES Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis ANDRÉS E. JIMÉNEZ Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President NORMAN R. KING Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments DANIEL A. MAZMANIAN C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California DEAN MISCZYNSKI Director California Research Bureau RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco MANUEL PASTOR Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee JAMES P. SMITH Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org ISBN 1-58213-099-X" } ["___content":protected]=> string(106) "

FF 104TRFF

" ["_permalink":protected]=> string(85) "https://www.ppic.org/publication/federal-formula-grants-homeland-security/ff_104trff/" ["_next":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_prev":protected]=> array(0) { } ["_css_class":protected]=> NULL ["id"]=> int(8376) ["ID"]=> int(8376) ["post_author"]=> string(1) "1" ["post_content"]=> string(0) "" ["post_date"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:07" ["post_excerpt"]=> string(0) "" ["post_parent"]=> int(3568) ["post_status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["post_title"]=> string(10) "FF 104TRFF" ["post_type"]=> string(10) "attachment" ["slug"]=> string(10) "ff_104trff" ["__type":protected]=> NULL ["_wp_attached_file"]=> string(14) "FF_104TRFF.pdf" ["wpmf_size"]=> string(6) "976290" ["wpmf_filetype"]=> string(3) "pdf" ["wpmf_order"]=> string(1) "0" ["searchwp_content"]=> string(250066) "Public Policy Institute of California FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Homeland Security Tim Ransdell The Public Policy Institute of California (PPIC) is a private operating foundation established in 1994 with an endowment from William R. Hewlett. The Institute is dedicated to improving public policy in California through independent, objective, nonpartisan research. PPIC’s research agenda focuses on three program areas: population, economy, and governance and public finance. Studies within these programs are examining the underlying forces shaping California’s future, cutting across a wide range of public policy concerns, including education, health care, immigration, income distribution, welfare, urban growth, and state and local finance. PPIC was created because three concerned citizens—William R. Hewlett, Roger W. Heyns, and Arjay Miller—recognized the need for linking objective research to the realities of California public policy. Their goal was to help the state’s leaders better understand the intricacies and implications of contemporary issues and make informed public policy decisions when confronted with challenges in the future. David W. Lyon is founding President and Chief Executive Officer of PPIC. Raymond L. Watson is Chairman of the Board of Directors. Copyright © 2004 by Public Policy Institute of California All rights reserved San Francisco, CA Short sections of text, not to exceed three paragraphs, may be quoted without written permission provided that full attribution is given to the source and the above copyright notice is included. PPIC does not take or support positions on any ballot measure or on any local, state, or federal legislation, nor does it endorse, support, or oppose any political parties or candidates for public office. Research publications reflect the views of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the staff, officers, or Board of Directors of the Public Policy Institute of California. About This Series Federal Formula Grants and California The federal government uses formula grants to distribute more than $400 billion annually to state and local governments to help them implement federal policies in such areas as health, transportation, and education. How much each government receives is determined by complex formulas that consist of many factors such as state population growth and per capita income. This series of reports provides detailed information on California’s current and historical funding under the major federal grants and on the formulas used to determine California’s share of funding under various specific grants. All reports are posted on the PPIC website at www.ppic.org. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Homeland Security Tim Ransdell January 2004 Overview On March 1, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) became operational as a federal agency.1 Among its charges is the allocation of federal grant funds to help state and local governments and other eligible entities support the activities of the nation’s first responders. Funding from DHS and related agencies has increased more than tenfold over a two-year period. Much about federal homeland security policy is new. DHS itself is less than a year old. The Select Committee on Homeland Security of the U.S. House of Representatives held its first organizational meeting on March 5, 2003.2 In early 2003, the House and Senate Appropriations Committees each spliced a Homeland Security Subcommittee into their organizational structure by transferring various functions from eight other subcommittees.3 On the other hand, many of the federal programs that deliver homeland security grant funds to state and local service providers predate these developments, and some critics question whether these programs—and the statutory language and funding formulas that govern them—are up to their new and vastly expanded task. Despite patriotic rhetoric about setting aside partisanship and uniting for the greater good of the nation’s safety and homeland defense, the debate over funding for state and local homeland security activities, and the mechanisms thereby created, devolved into a geographic scramble for federal cash. The end For valuable advice and assistance during the drafting of this report, the author would like to acknowledge Mark Tajima with the State and Federal Legislative Policy and Governmental Affairs Division of Los Angeles County’s Chief Administrative Office. 1DHS was created by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002. 2By the end of fiscal year 2004, the House is expected to decide whether the House Select Committee on Homeland Security will become a permanent authorizing committee. Despite some pressure to do so, the U.S. Senate has not elected to create a parallel authorizing committee with jurisdiction over homeland security topics; the Senate Governmental Affairs Committee handles most homeland security matters. 3Both Appropriations Committees kept their total number of subcommittees at 13 by consolidating two other panels (Transportation and Treasury-Postal) into one new one (Transportation-Treasury). result is a funding distribution system that—at the expense of highly populated areas with tempting terror targets such as ports, economic focal points, and national icons—sends a disproportionate share of federal dollars to states and localities that are not as likely to be attacked. California, home to more than 12 percent of the nation’s population, receives less than 8 percent of funds distributed according to a politically drawn formula with a minimum guarantee that doles nearly half of its more than $2 billion in equal amounts to every state, regardless of size, with remaining funds distributed by population. As a result, California received $5 per person to distribute to first responders in the state, whereas Wyoming received more than $35 per person in 2003 and $38 per capita in 2004. Partly as a political compromise to quell critics of the formula, Congress provided discretionary funding to specifically aid urban areas. California’s share of these funds was somewhat larger than its share of formula grants, but the state’s total funding for homeland security grants remained well below its share of the nation’s population. In response to ongoing concern about the fairness and effectiveness of the existing funding stream, Congress has begun considering several bills. In typical fashion, bills in the Senate would make few changes to the fiscal favoritism shown smaller states. In the House, two bills—one sponsored by Democrats, the other by the Republican Chair of the Homeland Security Committee—were combined into a single package that would revamp the formula funding structure and base funding on threats, vulnerabilities, and needs. The compromise bill received unanimous support in its first legislative test. This report reviews most of the primary formula and discretionary grant programs that delivered federal financial assistance for homeland security activities to state and local governments and other entities during fiscal year 2003. It provides detailed information regarding grants to California and other states during that year and estimates how grant amounts might have changed if the administering agency had employed alternative formula scenarios. It then discusses preliminary prospects for future-year funding and also notes current legislative activity and possible formula changes. Background DHS is composed primarily of 22 existing federal agencies, programs, and offices that were pieced together from other departments. Most homeland security grant assistance for state and local governments flows through the 2 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP),4 which was moved from the Department of Justice to DHS upon the latter’s creation. Other sources of homeland security grant funds include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Transportation Security Administration (TSA), both of which were also merged into DHS upon its creation, as well as offices of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).5 Domestic Preparedness Before September 11, 2001 In 1998, responding to Congressional concerns about the potential for domestic terrorism and Congress’s initial appropriation of $12 million, the Department of Justice’s Office of Justice Programs established ODP to develop and administer training and equipment assistance programs for state and local emergency response agencies. In 1999, ODP implemented a State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program. It was to be a three-year program to provide grants to all 50 states for the acquisition of equipment, as well as for the development of a needs assessment and three-year statewide domestic preparedness strategy. Awards for the domestic preparedness program provided each state a base amount of $250,000 for equipment and $75,000 for planning, and any remaining funds were distributed on the basis of state population. Using a combination of funds that Congress appropriated in 1998 and 1999, ODP distributed $66 million6 to state and local government agencies during 1999, including $44 million to the 157 largest cities and localities and $22 million to the 50 states.7 In fiscal years 2000 and 2001, the state program aggregated appropriations and distributed combined grant funding of $145 million in 2000 and 2001. The funds were made available for equipment acquisition only (not for planning) and were available for 2000 to the 50 states only, and for 2001 to the states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories.8 4The office is occasionally still referred to as the Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, its name before 2001. 5HHS continued to administer some homeland security grant funding for fiscal year 2003, despite the fact that responsibility for the funding distribution transferred to DHS on March 1. 6ODP combined $53.8 million appropriated in fiscal year 1999 with $12 million that had been appropriated in fiscal year 1998 to reach the $66 million total. 7Beginning in fiscal year 2000, ODP initiated a two-year program for the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the U.S. territories. The program provided $3 million for equipment acquisition and planning in 2000. (In 2001, funds for these jurisdictions were blended with those of the 50 states.) 8Despite their omission from this definition of “state” before 2001, the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico generally would be treated as states for subsequent homeland security funding distribution and are referred to as states in the remainder of this report. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 3 The USA Patriot Act—An Urgent Response to a Changed World As fiscal year 2001 neared its end, the September 11 terrorist attacks in New York City, Washington, D.C., and rural Pennsylvania fundamentally altered the nation’s concept of domestic preparedness and introduced the term homeland security into the common vernacular. For several weeks following September 11, Congress extensively debated legislative responses to the terrorist acts. On October 24, less than six weeks after the attacks, Congress passed the USA Patriot Act, a 342-page bill making sweeping changes to a wide array of federal laws.9 President Bush signed the bill two days later on October 26. Throughout their writing of the USA Patriot Act, the House and Senate altered and added various provisions. Based substantially on a Bush administration proposal made one week after the attacks, the legislation began in the House as H. R. 2975 (the PATRIOT Act) and in the Senate as S.1510 (the USA Act). The Senate approved its bill on October 11. On October 12, the House passed its bill, after substituting the text of H. R. 3108—which was similar in many respects to the Senate bill. Finally, on October 23, the House introduced a new bill that incorporated both the House and Senate provisions and added a few new elements. Thus, the bill that ultimately passed Congress was introduced—and thus was first seen by most legislators—just one day before final approval. One provision that did not exist until the October 23 version was Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act, entitled “Grant Program for State and Local Preparedness Support.” This section codified elements of the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program formula that had been used until that time by ODP to allocate previous grants, and it authorized grants from 2002 through 2007.10 The act did not specify funding amounts for any fiscal year. In addition, the act provided little formula direction, except to specify that no state (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) could receive less than 0.75 percent of total appropriations for any fiscal year, and that none of the four territories could receive less than 0.25 percent of funds appropriated. The net effect of this small-state minimum provision is to allocate 40 percent of funds (39 percent to the 52 states and 1 percent to the territories) equally among states, 9The act’s full title was Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism (USA Patriot) Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. It is often referred to as the USA PATRIOT Act or, simply, the Patriot Act. 10The act states, “The Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support of the Office of Justice Programs shall make a grant to each State, which shall be used by the State, in conjunction with units of local government, to enhance the capability of State and local jurisdictions to prepare for and respond to terrorist acts including events of terrorism involving weapons of mass destruction and biological, nuclear, radiological, incendiary, chemical, and explosive devices”(see Section 1014). 4 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California regardless of size, leaving only 60 percent to be allocated by any subsequent formula provisions. Thus, it is sometimes referred to as a 40/60 formula. The law is silent regarding how ODP should allocate the remaining 60 percent of funding once the small-state minimum is deducted. However, ODP to date has continued to use the population-only method that had been employed previously to allocate State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program funds—dividing the remainder according to each state’s percentage of the national population relative to the U.S. total population. The 40/60 Formula: A 0.75 Percent Small-State Minimum A small-state minimum of 0.75 percent is unusually large. During 2002, the federal government distributed more than $400 billion in total grant funding by formula, and most of those funds were free from any small-state minimum or minimum threshold whatsoever.11 When a state-focused minimum was included in a program’s formula, the percentage share was much lower, typically 0.25 percent or 0.5 percent, or else a dollar amount that effectively translated to a minimum of less than 0.5 percent. One of the few parallels to the ODP formula is a Congressionally mandated formula that requires that the Federal Highway Administration allot half of appropriated funds ($49 million in 2002) for the Recreational Trails Program12 equally among states, with the balance allotted according to off-road recreational fuel usage (a 50/50 formula). A second grant program with a large (1 percent) small-state minimum is the Department of Interior’s $265 million Sport Fish Restoration program.13 In addition to the unusual size of the minimum percentage, the allocation method used by DHS diverges from that used by other agencies as they implement small-state minimums. Most formula grant minimum percentages are applied after the administering agency has already made an initial allocation of funds. Typically, the formula is run, the initial state totals are examined, and funding is added for any state whose initial allocation is below the minimum share. Any funds required to implement the minimum are then subtracted pro rata from the states that are not increased by the minimum. (The process is repeated to ensure that the redistribution does not cause any previously aboveminimum state to fall below the threshold.) 11See Tim Ransdell, Federal Formula Grants and California: Overview, Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, California, December 2002, http://www.ppic.org/main/publication.asp?i=470. 12See http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/factsheets/rec-trl.htm. 13See http://federalaid.fws.gov/. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 5 As a result, states benefiting from a small-state minimum in most education, social services, or transportation programs receive only the minimum amount. In contrast, DHS begins by allocating each state the minimum amount, after which it distributes remaining funds on a population basis to all states, including those that already received considerably more than their population share because of the small-state minimum. As a result, the least populous state, Wyoming, receives more than 0.85 percent of the nation’s total, rather than the 0.75 percent it would receive if the minimum were applied after DHS had already made its initial allocations.14 Similarly, Nevada also would receive 0.75 percent of total funding under a traditional minimum approach,15 yet it receives 1.2 percent of the total using the DHS allocation approach. As the nation’s largest state, California is not surprisingly at the opposite end of the spectrum, and its funding total is thus the most reduced by the small-state minimum. Home to 12 percent of the nation’s population,16 California receives just 7.95 percent of homeland security formula grant allocations after the minimum allotment is applied in the aforementioned atypical fashion. Under a more traditional method of applying a 0.75 percent small-state minimum, California would receive 11.1 percent of total funds. Fiscal Year 2003 Grant Funding On February 13, 2003, more than 15 months after enactment of the USA Patriot Act and after protracted debate over federal spending priorities, Congress passed and the president signed H. J. Res. 2, a fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill providing funding for most agencies of the federal government and consolidating the 11 then-unfinished appropriations bills into a single package.17 The omnibus bill provided 2003 funding for various federal agencies and offices that two weeks later would be merged into the newly formed DHS,18 including ODP. Soon thereafter, on April 12, 2003, Congress provided 14Wyoming housed 0.17 percent of the nation’s population on July 1, 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002). To compare per capita funding to California with that of other states, this report references allocations to Wyoming on a number of occasions. 15Nevada housed 0.74 percent of the nation’s population on July 1, 2002 (U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. 16U.S. Census Bureau, Annual Population Estimates by State, Table ST-EST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. 17The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. 18Other DHS components had previously been part of the Department of Defense, which was funded by the 2003 defense appropriations bill, one of the two spending bills Congress was able to complete before the fiscal year began on October 1, 2002. 6 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California a second large infusion of funds for homeland security programs as part of a fiscal year 2003 supplemental appropriations bill.19 The section below discusses 2003 funding for state and local service providers from several major sources. It is not intended to represent an exhaustive discussion. For some programs, the administering agency has yet to announce some or all final allocations. For others, the total allocable funds are relatively small or the program’s scope is too narrow to warrant meaningful examination on a geographic basis. In addition, funding for some programs supports activities that are partially or minimally related to homeland security. The primary administrative source of homeland security grant funding, ODP, provided a total of $2.8 billion in grants to state and local governments for fiscal year 2003, as shown in Table 1. California received $266 million or 9.4 percent of this amount. Table 1 ODP Grants to State and Local Recipients, Fiscal Year 2003, California and U.S. ODP programs using USA Patriot Act 40/60 formula ODP formula grants, round 1 (4/8/2003—omnibus) ODP formula grants, round 2 (5/21/2003—supplemental) Critical infrastructure protection grants (5/14/2003) Subtotal Discretionary grants for high-threat urban areas under UASI UASI, Round 1 (4/8/2003—omnibus) UASI, Round 2 (5/21/2003— supplemental) ODP port security (5/14/2003) Mass transit security (5/14/2003) Radiological defense (5/14/2003) Subtotal California California as U.S. a % of U.S. 45,023,000 566,295,000 103,354,880 1,300,000,000 15,900,796 200,000,000 164,278,676 2,066,295,000 7.95 7.95 7.95 7.95 22,930,000 62,190,000 9,076,700 7,965,493 0 102,162,193 97,070,000 499,910,000 75,000,000 65,000,000 35,000,000 771,980,000 23.62 12.44 12.10 12.25 0.00 13.23 Total 266,440,869 2,838,275,000 9.39 19Among other things, the Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act for 2003, Public Law 108-11, April 16, 2003, provided funding to underwrite expanded U.S. military activities in Iraq. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 7 ODP Formula Grants, 2003 State and Local First Responder Grants: Omnibus Appropriations Bill. The February 2003 omnibus bill appropriated $566 million (a multifold increase from the prior year’s amount) for ODP first responder preparedness grants to state and local governments. The bill required that the states distribute 80 percent of the funds to local governments. ODP calculated state allocations using its historical formula method, and it announced funding amounts on March 7.20 California received $45 million, or 7.95 percent of the U.S. total. (ODP specified amounts to be used for equipment, exercises, training, and planning,21 with the same formula used to allocate funds for all states.) California received $1.28 per capita, the lowest amount of any state. This amount was well below the $1.94 per capita national average and far below the $9.68 per capita that Wyoming received. Appendix Table B.1 shows each state’s funding allocation from this initial appropriation, with actual per capita amounts for each state. The table also shows each state’s grant amount if ODP had instead employed the more typical method of applying the small-state minimum after, rather than before, the formula allocation. As shown, such a change would have increased California’s allocation from $45 million to $63 million, and California’s per capita amount would have increased to $1.79, still below the $1.94 national average. The state’s per capita allotment under a typical small-state minimum approach would still have been well below that of Wyoming ($8.52), which would have had its total grant reduced from $4.8 million to $4.2 million. State and Local First Responder Grants: Supplemental Appropriations Bill. The April 2003 supplemental appropriations bill added $1.3 billion to the $566 million previously appropriated for first responder grants, and—despite growing protests from large states that the 0.75 percent small-state minimum was excessive—ODP on June 19 announced that it had again used the same formula method to determine allocations. As shown in Appendix Table B.2, which shows funding totals and per capita amounts for each state, California received $103 million from this pot of supplemental funding, or $2.94 per capita. Again, the amount represented 7.95 percent of the national total. The national per capita total was $4.44, and Wyoming received $22.21 per capita. A more typical application of a 0.75 20The funds were distributed to states on May 7, 2003. 21The breakdown was as follows: 70 percent for equipment, 18 percent for exercises, 5 percent for training, and 7 percent for planning. The bill initially provided $570 million—$400 million for equipment, $100 million for exercises, $30 million for training, and $40 million for planning—but each total was reduced by 0.65 percent to comply with an acrossthe-board spending reduction applied to most discretionary programs in the omnibus bill to reach spending targets—in this case $566 million. 8 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California percent small-state minimum would have increased California’s allocation to $144 million, or $4.11 per capita, and it would have reduced Wyoming’s allocation to $18.39 per capita. Appendix Table B.3 shows fiscal year 2003 state totals for the combined allocation of state and local homeland security grant funding for first responders from both the omnibus and supplemental appropriations bills. Again, the states were to distribute 80 percent of the funds received to local governments. A list of California grantees and grant amounts in fiscal year 2003 appears in Appendix Table E.1. Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants. The supplemental appropriations bill also provided $200 million for critical infrastructure preparedness grants.22 These funds were primarily used to reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for overtime costs associated with increased security to protect significant infrastructure assets from potential terrorist threats. The bill expressly required that ODP distribute those funds using the same 40/60 formula as for the state and local grants. Appendix Table B.4 shows grant totals and per capita amounts for each state. California’s critical infrastructure allocation was $15.9 million, or 45 cents per capita. The national per capita average was 68 cents, and Wyoming’s $1.7 million allocation represented $3.42 per capita for that state. If DHS had used a more traditional minimum, California’s allocation would have been $22.2 million (63 cents per capita), and Wyoming’s would have been $1.5 million ($3.01 per capita). Unlike the state and local grants, the bill required that the state distribute only 50 percent of funds to local governments. A list of California grantees and grant amounts is given in Appendix Table E.2. Total 2003 ODP Grants Using USA Patriot Act Formula. In sum, ODP allocated $2.1 billion in accordance with the formula contained in Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act—$566 million in state and local grants from the omnibus bill, $1.3 billion in state and local grants from the supplemental appropriations bill, and $200 million for critical infrastructure protection from the supplemental appropriations bill. As shown in Figure 1, California received a combined total of $164 million of these funds, or $4.68 per capita. The national per capita amount was $7.06. Wyoming’s total was $17.6 million, or $35.31 per capita. Other states 22DHS alternately uses the terms critical infrastructure preparedness and critical infrastructure protection. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 9 California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey Georgia North Carolina Virginia Massachusetts Indiana Washington Tennessee Missouri U.S. average Maryland Arizona Wisconsin Minnesota Colorado Alabama Louisiana South Carolina Kentucky Puerto Rico Oregon Oklahoma Connecticut Iowa Mississippi Kansas Arkansas Utah Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire Hawaii Rhode Island Montana Delaware South Dakota Alaska North Dakota Vermont District of Columbia Wyoming 4.68 4.95 5.05 5.16 5.47 5.49 5.59 5.78 6.04 6.05 6.10 6.36 6.65 6.75 6.79 6.91 6.97 7.06 7.08 7.08 7.08 7.32 7.68 7.69 7.69 8.01 8.02 8.25 8.64 8.67 8.72 9.51 9.63 9.94 9.96 10.93 11.37 12.59 12.84 13.20 15.79 16.21 16.39 16.69 18.72 21.28 23.43 24.60 28.31 28.68 29.37 31.38 35.31 Fiscal year 2003 dollars per capita, by state Figure 1—ODP State and Local Grants for First Responders and Critical Infrastructure Grants (Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula) per Capita Allocation, by State, 2003 10 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California receiving large amounts per capita included Vermont ($29.37), North Dakota ($28.68), Alaska ($28.31), Delaware ($23.43), and Montana ($21.28). As shown in Appendix Table B.5, a more typical application of a 0.75 percent small-state minimum would have increased California’s grants to $229 million, or $6.53 per capita, and Wyoming’s grants would have declined to $15.5 million, or $31.08 per capita. Thus, a more typical small-state minimum approach would have yielded California $229 million, or $65 million more than the state actually received. ODP Discretionary Grants for High-Threat Urban Areas In addition to ODP formula grant funds, Congress provided additional federal homeland security support to state and local governments and other entities during fiscal year 2003, including $800 million—$100 million initially and $700 million subsequently—for discretionary grants to high-threat urban areas. Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI), Round 1: Omnibus Appropriations Bill Funds. The February 2003 omnibus appropriations bill provided $100 million for discretionary grants to local governments to address equipment, training, planning, and exercise needs of selected large, high-threat urban areas. A conference report on the omnibus appropriations bill stated, “conferees recognize that certain large urban areas remain high threat targets and are inadequately prepared to respond to a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) event.” To distribute funds, Congress directed DHS to take into account “credible threat; vulnerability; the presence of infrastructure of national importance; population; and identified needs of the jurisdiction’s public safety agencies.”23 DHS made seven grants from this initial appropriation, including one to Los Angeles for $12.4 million and one to San Francisco for $10.3 million.24 California thus received $22.9 million, or 23.6 percent, of the $97.1 million total distributed nationwide in this first funding round. The total amount available for grants was lessened by the omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent acrossthe-board discretionary spending reduction, and ODP ultimately distributed $97.1 million to states. UASI, Round 2: Supplemental Appropriations Bill Funds. Two months later, the April 2003 supplemental appropriations bill provided $700 million for discretionary grants for high-density urban areas, high-threat areas, and the 23The Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. 24On April 8, 2003, DHS allocated $12,422,000 from the Urban Area Security Initiative to the Los Angeles area. On May 14, DHS allocated $10,349,000 for the San Francisco area. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 11 protection of critical infrastructure.25 The bill did not explicitly specify how funds should be distributed, but Congress directed DHS “to take into consideration credible threat, vulnerability, the presence of infrastructure of national importance, population, and identified needs of public agencies.”26 (The criteria differed slightly from those for the $100 million in high-threat urban area grants provided by the omnibus appropriations bill.) DHS elected to distribute $500 million of the $700 million total according to an internally developed formula, details of which the agency did not fully disclose. Again, Congress required that states pass through no less than 80 percent of any funds they received to local governments. The agency distributed $175 million of the remaining $200 million via discretionary grants for port security ($75 million), mass transit security ($65 million), and radiological defense ($35 million). By the end of fiscal year 2003, DHS had not announced how it would allocate $15 million in pilot project funding, and it had elected to use $10 million to provide technical assistance to state and local jurisdictions receiving funding. The DHS “Discretionary Formula” for UASI Grants. To distribute $500 million of the $700 million total, DHS reported that it had developed a formula using a weighted linear combination of three factors—threat, critical assets, and population density—to determine grant amounts for each eligible urban area. The department offered a limited outline of the formula criteria it employed, but, citing national security, elected not to provide full details regarding the first two criteria. A few details are known or have been reported. For threat level, the department stated that it averaged unspecified inputs from three sources: an assessment of likely targets from the Central Intelligence Agency, a similar analysis from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and information from “a DHS ‘Red Team’ of knowledgeable people who assume the roles and practice the modes of operation of terrorist groups.” To identify critical infrastructure assets, DHS stated that it used three criteria: “1) those assets whose loss would produce the social or economic effect comparable to use of a weapon of mass destruction, 2) those assets that would have a significant impact but from which recovery would be less traumatic, and 3) federal assets including memorials and other sites of cultural iconic value.” For population density, the department reported that it used 2000 Census population estimates for the 65 most densely populated cities. 25These discretionary grants were separate from critical infrastructure protection formula grants, described above. Detailed allocation information is available at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=755. 26Conference report (H. Rept. 108-76) on the supplemental appropriations bill for fiscal year 2003, Emergency Wartime Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2003, Public Law 108-11, April 16, 2003. 12 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California During questioning at a hearing of a House Judiciary subcommittee,27 ODP Director Suzanne Mencer appeared to confirm that the DHS used factor weights as follows: population density was weighted at 9, presence of critical infrastructure assets was weighted at 6, and credible threats was weighted at 3. Five urban areas in California received grants from the second round of UASI funding, for a statewide total of $62.2 million, 12.4 percent of the $500 million national total. Both Los Angeles ($18.9 million) and San Francisco ($18.6 million) received grants to supplement those received under the UASI first round. The other recipient areas in California were San Diego ($11.4 million), Sacramento ($6.9 million), and Long Beach ($6.5 million). Port Security Grants. ODP used $75 million of the remaining $200 million in 2003 discretionary funding from the supplemental appropriations bill to provide port security grants directly to recipient jurisdictions. Recipients could use the funds for various activities, including paying for increased operations during heightened states of terror alert, critical infrastructure security, security enhancements, training, exercises, equipment, planning, and information sharing. One of the 14 urban areas receiving grant funds was in California—the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach received four grants totaling $9.1 million28—and the state thus received 12.1 percent of ODP’s total port security funding distributed nationwide.29 Mass Transit Security Grants. ODP distributed $65 million for grants through states to the nation’s 20 highest-risk transit systems for various uses, including installation of physical barricades, area monitoring systems,30 integrated communications systems, prevention planning, training, exercises, and operational cost increases during times of heightened terror alerts. Three transit agencies in California were among the 20 recipients: The Los Angeles Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) received $4.6 million, San Francisco Municipal Railway (Muni) received $2.4 million, and San 27Homeland Security—The Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals), Hearing, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, November 20, 2003. 28California recipients included the Harbor Department of Los Angeles ($2.5 million), Seaside Transportation Services in Los Angeles ($2.4 million), and the Harbor Department of Long Beach (two grants of $3 million and $1.1 million). 29In addition to these ODP port security grants, which are focused on urban areas, TSA provided a separate $170 million port security grant allocation stream to 198 jurisdictions of varying sizes. 30Area monitoring systems include video surveillance, motion detectors, thermal/IR imagery and chemical/radiological material detection systems. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 13 Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District (BART) received $977,000. California’s $8 million in grants represented 12.1 percent of the nation’s total. Other ODP Funds for High-Threat Urban Areas. To date, California has not received funds from the three remaining portions of high-threat urban area funds. ODP allocated $35 million in radiological defense funds to New York/New Jersey ($30 million) and South Carolina ($5 million); California received no funding. Eventually, ODP is expected to allocate funds for a $15 million pilot program on a geographic basis. ODP was to retain the remaining $10 million to provide technical assistance to state and local recipients, funds that would not be allocable geographically. ODP Funds: Combined Formula and Discretionary Funds. The nation’s combined grant funds from ODP—including formula funds for state and local homeland security grants and critical infrastructure protection grants, plus discretionary funds for the UASI, port security, mass transit security, and radiological defense grants—totaled $2.8 billion in fiscal year 2003. Of this amount, California received combined funding of $266 million, which (as shown in Appendix Table C.1) represents 9.4 percent of total grants distributed nationwide.31 As shown in Figure 2, California received $7.59 per capita from these grants, whereas the national per capita amount was $9.71. With ODP formula and discretionary spending combined, the District of Columbia passes Wyoming as the “state” receiving the largest amount per capita. The national capital’s $64.3 million in discretionary grants, when combined with its $17.9 million from the state and local formula grants program, results in a remarkable $144 per capita for the District. However, many of the ODP discretionary funds assigned herein to the District of Columbia are actually intended for the greater Washington area, which includes substantial portions of Maryland and Virginia. If those funds were parceled among the three jurisdictions, the actual 2003 ODP per capita amount for the District of Columbia would be considerably lower and those of the other two considerably higher. Nevertheless, the District would rank first among states in ODP grant receipts per capita. TSA Discretionary Homeland Security Grant Funds The TSA administers several homeland security grant programs that assist state and local governments and other service providers. 31This percentage calculation omits from the denominator the $15 million that ODP intends to distribute in the future for pilot projects, as well as the $10 million retained for technical assistance. 14 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California North Carolina Georgia Indiana Ohio Michigan Florida Wisconsin Virginia Minnesota Texas California Alabama New Jersey Tennessee Kentucky Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Oklahoma Connecticut Arizona Illinois Maryland Iowa Mississippi U.S. average Massachusetts Kansas Arkansas Missouri South Carolina Louisiana Oregon Utah Colorado Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Washington Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire New York Rhode Island Montana Hawaii Delaware South Dakota North Dakota Alaska Vermont Wyoming District of Columbia 6.10 6.26 6.75 6.81 7.00 7.01 7.08 7.27 7.32 7.52 7.59 7.69 7.70 7.96 8.02 8.06 8.67 8.67 8.72 9.10 9.12 9.30 9.51 9.63 9.71 9.84 9.94 9.96 10.41 10.48 10.58 10.82 10.93 11.31 11.37 12.59 12.84 12.94 13.20 15.79 16.21 16.39 17.04 18.72 21.28 22.20 23.43 24.60 28.68 28.70 29.37 144.05 35.31 Fiscal year 2003 dollars per capita, by state Figure 2—All ODP Grants (Formula and Discretionary), per Capita Allocation, by State, 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 15 TSA Port Security Grants and Operation Safe Commerce. In the fiscal year 2003 omnibus appropriations bill, Congress provided $150 million for TSA port security grants, and it provided an additional $20 million in the supplemental appropriations bill. The funds were separate from the $75 million distributed by ODP under the Urban Area Security Initiative. On June 12, 2003, DHS announced that it would distribute $169 million in port security grants intended for security upgrades, such as new harbor patrol boats, surveillance equipment at roads and bridges, and construction of new command and control facilities. 32 TSA, the U.S. Coast Guard, and the Department of Transportation’s Maritime Administration jointly selected the grantees, which included state and local governments and private companies. Among the 198 total TSA port security grants nationwide, California recipients won 25 grants, for total funding to the state of $28.5 million—16.9 percent of the U.S. total. A list of California grantees and grant amounts is shown in Appendix Table E.3. A joint effort of DHS and the Department of Transportation, Operation Safe Commerce is a pilot program administered by TSA that seeks to “bring together private business, ports, local, state, and federal representatives to analyze current security procedures for cargo entering the country.”33 The program would employ satellites to track and monitor cargo containers from their points of origin through their arrival at major U.S. ports. In 2003, DHS made three grants under Operation Safe Commerce, including one to the Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach for $8.3 million.34 California thus received 29.2 percent of the $28.3 million in nationwide pilot project funds.35 TSA Funds for Integrating Airport Baggage Explosives Screening Equipment. During fiscal year 2003, TSA signed agreements with six of the nation’s largest airports to distribute $776 million in federal funds to help defray the costs of installing systems to detect explosives in passenger baggage.36 Some 32DHS Secretary Tom Ridge’s announcement of the TSA port security grants is available at http://www.tsa.gov/public/ display?content=85. 33See http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=85. 34The Southern California ports received $8,250,356; the other Operation Safe Commerce grantees were the Ports of Seattle and Tacoma ($13,302,791) and the Port Authority of New York/New Jersey ($6,747,227). 35In May 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy informed the Senate Government Affairs Committee of his desire to use these funds for other purposes; Senator Patty Murray (WA), the primary proponent of Operation Safe Commerce, held up the nomination of a White House appointee to the Office of Management and Budget until the funding diversion was abandoned. Murray and other Democratic senators have urged greater administration emphasis on port security issues and program funding. 36For TSA’s announcement of this funding on July 7, 2003, see 16 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California of the funds will be provided from future-year appropriations. Under the agreements with the six airports, secured via letters of intent (LOIs), TSA will pay 75 percent of allowable costs over a three- to four-year period.37 Whereas screening equipment is in use at various airports, the agreements seek to ensure that 100 percent of baggage is screened for explosives at the selected airports. Los Angeles was one of the six designees, with funds intended for Los Angeles International Airport ($235 million) and Ontario International ($21.4 million). The combined LOI amount was the largest announced to date.38 TSA will reimburse Los Angeles World Airports $55 million for fiscal year 2004, and $67.2 million for each of the three subsequent years. With this single announcement, California became the destination for 34 percent of LOI funding announced by the end of 2003. On September 30, 2003, TSA indicated its intent to enter into similar financial arrangements with “several more airports” in the near future.39 Congress also provided TSA a total of $248 million to enter into reimbursable agreements with state and local law enforcement agencies to help defray the costs of providing security services and presence at commercial airports. TSA Intercity Bus Grants. On August 15, 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy announced distribution of $20 million in security improvements for intercity bus operators.40 The 67 grants were intended to provide for driver protection, tracking and communications, passenger and baggage screening, security assessments and planning, personnel training, and physical security enhancements such as fencing, lighting, and surveillance equipment. The four grantees based in California41 received a combined total of $117,116, or slightly less than 1 percent of total funding distributed nationwide. http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=571 and for the September 2, 2003, announcement see http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=678. TSA will provide the explosive detection equipment, but airports will incur expenses as they integrate the equipment with their checked-baggage conveyer systems. 37TSA plans to enter into similar agreements with at least four more airports using funds appropriated for 2004. On October 16, 2003, TSA Administrator James M. Loy reported that four of these six airports are expected to miss the Congressionally mandated deadline of December 31, 2003, for ensuring that all baggage be electronically screened. 38Joining Los Angeles International Airport as second-round recipients of TSA funds were Denver International ($67.5 million) and Las Vegas McCarran International ($93.8 million); first-round recipients were Seattle/Tacoma International ($159 million), Dallas/Fort Worth International ($104 million), and Boston Logan International ($87 million). 39See TSA’s September 30, 2003, press release at http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=716. In the release, TSA notes that it had purchased an additional 43 in-line baggage screening machines to be used in these airports in conjunction with the 100 percent screening LOIs. The machines were to be in addition to the 440 such machines already in use at various airports across the country. 40See http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=658. 41The California-based grantees were Antelope Valley Bus of Long Beach ($25,473), Storer Transportation Service of Modesto ($44,434), Grosvenor Bus Lines of San Francisco ($76,004), and Orange Belt Stages of Visalia ($31,205). FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 17 FEMA Grants for Preparedness In fiscal year 2003, FEMA distributed funds from two grant programs to state and local governments for homeland security enhancements. In addition, the U.S. Fire Administration at FEMA was charged with distributing grants to fire departments under the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. FEMA also distributed grants to improve the interoperability of first responder emergency communications equipment and another set of grants to enhance telecommunications capabilities of emergency operations centers. FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants. In the fiscal year 2003 omnibus spending bill, Congress appropriated $165 million for FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) program, used to help states develop, maintain, and improve state and local emergency management activities.42 The scope of the program permits a wide array of state and local preparedness activities, and it consolidated a number of smaller disaster preparedness and management programs. FEMA allocated EMPG funds using the 0.75 percent small-state minimum (40/60) method outlined in Section 1014 of the USA Patriot Act, the formula used to allocate state and local first responder grants. FEMA did so despite language in the conference report to accompany the omnibus appropriations bill stating that “FEMA should consider an allocation system for these funds that takes into consideration not only population, but also risk and vulnerability assessments.”43 California received $13.1 million from the EMPG program in 2003, 7.93 percent of the total distributed nationwide. FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams. From the $20 million that Congress appropriated for the Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) formula grant program for 2003, FEMA allocated $18.8 million to states to be used by state and local governments to support the formation, oversight, and outreach of “Citizen Corps” councils and to expand CERT training across the country.44 CERT training funds are part of an effort to develop a volunteer response force that can supplement emergency and disaster response capabilities within communities.45 42The EMPG program is sometimes referred to as the all-hazards emergency management system. 43H. Rept. 108-10, February 13, 2003, p. 1473. 44See http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_123.shtm. 45According to FEMA, “The CERT concept was developed and implemented by the Los Angeles City Fire Department in 1985. FEMA made this training available nationally in 1993.” The CERT training program is a 20-hour disaster preparedness and recovery course. 18 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California The formula for CERT grant distribution again relies on the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 method that allocates to California less than 8 percent of appropriated funds. California’s $1.5 million allocation was 7.9 percent of the total distributed nationwide for fiscal year 2003. FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated $750 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program (AFGP).46 After rescissions and set-asides,47 FEMA announced that approximately $680 million would be made available to fire departments on a discretionary, competitive basis. Larger fire departments, and the local government agencies that run them, have charged that the program was not designed to distribute as much money as Congress now appropriates for it, and that its primary focus is on smaller, often rural, volunteer fire departments.48 The program was initially authorized in 2000, 49 and maximum authorized funding was $100 million for 2001 and $300 million for 2002. (After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Congress increased the authorized funding level to $900 million.50) In fiscal year 2001, FEMA awarded $96.6 million via 1,886 grants to fire departments; rural departments received 1,379 grants (74 percent of all grants) totaling $55.4 million (57 percent of all funds awarded). The program’s authorizing language limits any single recipient fire department to one grant per fiscal year of no more than $750,000. It further requires that volunteer fire departments receive at least their proportionate share of all grants awarded, and it requires that applicants who protect a population of 50,000 or less provide 10 percent nonfederal 46FEMA refers to the program as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, whereas Congressional documents refer to Firefighter Assistance Grants. 47The omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent across-the-board reduction left FEMA $745.1 million to carry out the AFGP, and the bill also authorized FEMA to spend up to 5 percent of total funds for administration of the program. In addition, FEMA was authorized to set aside as much as $27,500,000 of the funds for fire prevention and injury prevention programs. On October 14, 2003, FEMA announced the opening of an application period for $27.5 million in 2003 Fire Prevention and Safety Grants, with particular focus on death and injury rates for young children, seniors, and the firefighters called to respond to fires. See http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/2003grants/03-prevgrants.shtm. 48FEMA estimates that there are approximately 32,000 fire departments in the nation, whereas the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) database counts 26,354 fire departments nationwide. The NFPA estimates that 76 percent of the nation’s fire departments are staffed entirely by volunteers, yet these departments provide fire protection services to only 26 percent of the nation’s population. On the other hand, the 6 percent of fire departments that are staffed entirely by career employees protect 40 percent of the nation’s population. 49Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law 106-398, October 30, 2000. 50Federal Fire Prevention and Control Act of 1974, 15 U.S.C. 2201 et seq., as amended by the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2002, Public Law. 107-107, December 28, 2001. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 19 matching funds, whereas applicants who protect a population in excess of 50,000 must provide at least a 30 percent match. By the end of fiscal year 2003, FEMA had announced a total of $293 million in Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program awards to 4,491 grantees nationwide. In California, 103 grantees had received $11.7 million, approximately 4 percent of the U.S. total.51 As of the end of the fiscal year, 18 states had received a larger total number of grants than California. The Orange County Fire Authority was one of four departments in the nation that received a maximum grant of $750,000. 52 A list of California grantees and grant amounts appears in Appendix Table E.4. Interoperable Communications Grants. On September 25, 2003, DHS announced the allocation of $79.6 million in discretionary grants to help communities develop interoperable communications systems for public safety agencies.53 The grant program, jointly run by FEMA and the Department of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS), provides funding through a competitive grant process for demonstration projects to explore uses of equipment and technologies to increase communications interoperability among fire, law enforcement, and emergency medical service agencies. The maximum federal share for a grant award was $6 million, with a non-federal cost share of 25 percent. Eligible applicants included the nation’s 50 largest Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), the largest MSA from each state, and one local jurisdiction nominated by the governor of each state. No California jurisdiction was among the 17 recipients selected nationwide. FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants. On September 25, 2003, FEMA announced the allocation of $74.8 million via 19 grants to help states develop and improve Emergency Operations Centers (EOCs). 54 EOCs are secure command and control centers for use in the event of major emergencies. The grants were provided using a mixture of funds appropriated in fiscal years 2002 ($56 million) and 2003 ($25 million). EOC grants are designed to help ensure that state and local EOCs have “the support and telecommunications capabilities that provide flexibility, sustainability, security, survivability, and interoperability.” FEMA noted that the funds were distributed “to address the most immediate EOC deficiencies nationwide.” 51For an updated count, see http://www.usfa.fema.gov/fire-service/grants/2003grants/03awards.shtm. 52The other three fire departments receiving a $750,000 maximum grant by the end of fiscal year 2003 were the City of Miami Department of Fire and Rescue, the Fire Department of New York, and the Columbus (OH) Division of Fire. 53For details, see http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0266.xml. 54For details, see http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1737. 20 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California In an earlier phase of EOC funding, using only funds appropriated during fiscal year 2002, all states (regardless of size) were allocated an equal, fixed amount of $50,000 to conduct an initial assessment of the hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks to the existing EOC. Total funding from this first phase, completed in December 2002, was $2.8 million. FEMA awarded states an additional $4.3 million in 2002 funding (in grants up to $150,000 per state) to make physical modifications to EOCs to accommodate a secure communications equipment suite, including secure video teleconferencing, facsimile, and telephone systems. (Using a $7 million appropriation, FEMA separately provided secure equipment directly to state EOCs; the state grants were to be used only to modify facilities to incorporate the new equipment.)55 HHS Grants: Bioterrorism Preparedness Formula Funding Although DHS assumed responsibility for several homeland security functions in March 2003, HHS continued to administer fiscal year 2003 funding for some programs, including bioterrorism preparedness grants.56 On September 2, 2003, HHS announced allocation of $1.4 billion in fiscal year 2003 bioterrorism preparedness aid to states, territories, and three municipalities (Los Angeles County and the cities of New York and Chicago).57 HHS made grants totaling $870 million from the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) for public health systems preparedness and $498 million from the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) for hospital preparedness.58 Appropriated totals for the programs, including unallocated funds for program administration, were $940 million to CDC for state and local preparedness and $518 million to HRSA for hospital preparedness.59 55Because EOC assessment and EOC secure communications grants were funded entirely from 2002 appropriations, state totals for the programs are not reflected in this report’s appendix tables or in agency grant totals for 2003. However, this report’s tables and totals do include the $74.8 million in EOC grants. 56This report does not examine funds for the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems program that help metropolitan areas prepare and plan for mass-casualty disasters. The multiyear program was expected to terminate after 2003. 57See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html. Aid was available for the period from August 31, 2003, through August 30, 2004. See also Continuation Guidance for Cooperative Agreement on Public Health Preparedness and Response for Bioterrorism—Budget Year Four, Centers for Disease Control, Washington, D.C., http://www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/continuationguidance/index.asp. 58CDC stated that, in addition to these funds, $100 million of special appropriation smallpox funds and $65 million of Strategic National Stockpile funds would be distributed on the basis of 2001 census data, despite the fact that 2002 data were available at the time of allocation. See http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html, http:// www.bt.cdc.gov/planning/continuationguidance/guidance-qa.asp?type=qdate. 59From a separate funding source, HRSA awarded 31 grants to universities totalling $26.6 million in 2003 for bioterrorism training and curriculum development, including $1.5 million to the University of California, San Francisco, and $313,430 to the University of California, Los Angeles. HHS News Release, September 12, 2003, http://www.hhs. gov/news/press/2003pres/20030912d.html. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 21 Bioterrorism preparedness funds were provided pursuant to cooperative agreements between the administering agency and the recipient jurisdiction. Although DHS was given responsibility for these grant funds, CDC and HRSA continued to administer the funds for fiscal year 2003; funding in future years may be provided by DHS, although the source of funds may continue to be the appropriations bill for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. To distribute the $870 million in public health system preparedness funding not retained at the national level, HHS initially allocated each of the 55 primary recipients (the 52 states and the three municipalities) $5 million per recipient—the District of Columbia received a doubled base allocation of $10 million.60 HHS then allocated the $586 million remaining (after the initial allocation and set-aside for territories) to the 55 recipients proportional to their relative share of the total population in 2001. The seven eligible territories61 received a total of $4 million, with each territory receiving $500,000 initially; the remaining $500,000 was divided on the basis of each territory’s population relative to the total for all seven territories. To distribute the $498 million62 in HRSA hospital preparedness grant funding, HHS employed a similar method. Each of the 55 jurisdictions received $1 million initially (with a doubled allocation of $2 million to the District of Columbia). After also setting aside $4.5 million for territories, HHS allocated the remaining $438.5 million proportional to the population of the entire nation, including the territories. In a slight change from the CDC formula method, the seven territories were each allocated $500,000 per awardee plus a population-based allocation, with no cap on the territories’ combined total allocation. Because California received one base allocation and Los Angeles County received a second, the state’s total allocation from both programs is larger than it would have been without the double counting. Nevertheless, because the state’s large population resulted in a population-count funding share that eclipsed the base allocation, the change in California’s total allocation was not as dramatic as it would have been for a state with fewer residents (such as the District of 60In effect, Washington, D.C., was treated as a fourth municipal recipient, with the state-level base amount and the municipal base amount allocated to the same governmental entity. 61For these programs, eligible territories included American Samoa, the Virgin Islands, Guam, the Northern Mariana Islands, the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. (The inclusion of the Marshall Islands, Micronesia, and Palau is at variance with other grants examined in this report.) 62HRSA retained $20 million for administration. In fiscal year 2002, the total appropriation for the HRSA program was $135 million. 22 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Columbia). California received a total of $80.1 million from the CDC grant program ($24.5 million for Los Angeles County and $55.6 million for the state). The state received a total of $54.4 million in HRSA grants ($15.6 million for Los Angeles County and $38.8 million for the state). As shown in Appendix Table C.4, California’s $134.5 million combined total from the HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants represented 9.8 percent of the U.S. total. California received $3.83 per capita in fiscal year 2003; the national amount per capita that year was $4.68. Among all states, California tied with Florida for “second-to-last” ranking for per capita receipts. With per capita receipts of $3.75, Texas ranked lowest, eight cents below the per capita level of Florida and California. No other state received less than $4 per capita. As is the case for ODP formula grant funds, the HHS technique of providing a base allocation and then allocating the remainder according to population results in per capita variations that sharply increase funding in small states.63 The doubling of the base allocation to the District of Columbia gave it the largest per capita allocation among states ($24.58), but other small states received large per capita formula allocations, including Wyoming ($15.54), Vermont ($13.25), North Dakota ($13.02), and Alaska ($12.80). Ultimately, when compared to the 40/60 method for distributing DHS formula grant dollars, the allocation scheme for HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants was somewhat less skewed to the benefit of small states. Nevertheless, the “four-to-one” funding discrepancy between top-ranked Wyoming64 and bottomranked Texas was still very large. Fiscal Year 2004 Funding On September 24, 2003, the House and Senate each approved the conference report to accompany H. R. 2555, 65 which made appropriations for fiscal year 2004 for the Department of Homeland Security and related agencies and purposes, and President Bush signed the measure into law one week later.66 Total 2004 appropriated funding in the conference agreement provided $29.4 63The HHS formula differed from the USA Patriot Act’s formula for ODP state and local grants in that the latter specifies a percentage (0.75 percent) of funds for each state, whereas HHS uses a specified dollar amount. 64For this comparison, the District of Columbia is set aside as aberrant for two reasons: The jurisdiction received a doubled allocation and many of the dollars were to be used in neighboring Virginia and Maryland. 65H. Rept. 108-280, September 23, 2003. 66Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 23 billion for DHS operations and activities, an increase of $535.8 million above the level enacted in fiscal year 2003.67 The measure that ultimately became law included various compromises between the House and Senate versions of the bill. The House version had proposed spending several hundred million dollars more than did the Senate for first responder grants. Per Congressional custom, DHS was directed to comply with language and allocation amounts contained in the House report68 and Senate report69 that were not addressed to the contrary in the final conference report. As this report goes to print, the House has passed and the Senate will soon consider the conference report (H. Rept. 108-401) on H. R. 2673, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill funding various federal agencies.70 In addition to a 0.59 percent across-the-board cut in spending for all programs the bill funds, the bill—if enacted—would retroactively apply a similar 0.59 percent reduction to previously enacted non-defense appropriations amounts, including those contained in the 2004 Homeland Security appropriations bill. House Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 On June 24, 2003, the House passed its version of the bill, which would have provided $30.4 billion in total spending,71 including $3.5 billion for ODP, $5.2 billion for TSA, and $5.1 billion for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate that includes FEMA. The House bill included $1.9 billion72 for formula grants to state and local governments that are allocated according to the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, plus $200 million for critical infrastructure protection grants (the same amount as in 2003) allocated using the same formula.73 The House bill allotted $510 million for a new state and local law 67Combined DHS budget authority for 2004 totals $37.4 billion, including $31.3 billion in discretionary funding provided by Congress (mostly from the conference report) and an additional $6.1 billion in mandatory spending (primarily funded from fees). 68H. Rept. 108-169, June 23, 2003. 69S. Rept. 108-86, July 10, 2003. 70Formally titled A Bill Making Appropriations for Agriculture, Rural Development, Food and Drug Administration, and Related Agencies for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2004, and for Other Purposes, H. R. 2673 is also known as the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 or, simply, the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. 71The total spending amount did not include $4.7 billion in advance appropriations from future fiscal years to provide for biological defense activities. 72The amount represented an increase of $34 million over the fiscal year 2003 amount, restoring funds cut by the omnibus appropriations bill’s 0.65 percent across-the-board reduction applied to most domestic discretionary spending. 73In a change from the 50 percent pass-through requirement for 2003 critical infrastructure protection grant funding, the bill proposed that 80 percent of those grants be transferred from states to local governments. 24 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California enforcement terrorism prevention grant program also using the 40/60 formula. For discretionary grants, the House bill proposed $500 million for grants to high-threat urban areas and $760 million for the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program.74 House bill language would have prohibited DHS from using the 40/60 formula to allocate high-threat urban area grant funds, fixing a problem that did not exist—the formula has not been used to allocate those programs’ funds in previous years. When allocating high-threat urban area funds, House report language urged DHS to take into account “credible threat, presence of critical infrastructure, population, vulnerability, and the identified needs of public agencies.” Remaining ODP funding was to be used for national programs.75 For TSA, the House bill proposed $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for Operation Safe Commerce, $25 million for trucking industry grants, and $10 million for intercity bus security. It proposed $1.3 billion for continued enhancements of baggage screening technology at the nation’s airports, of which $235 million would be provided for LOIs to help airports integrate screening systems with existing baggage conveyor systems.76 From FEMA funds, the House bill proposed $168 million for the EMPG program,77 and $45 million in Citizen Corps funding, of which $20 million would be used to provide grants for CERT training.78 The House bill also proposed a new $35 million appropriation for competitive grants for Centers for Emergency Preparedness, and language implied that universities were to be the intended grant recipients.79 The bill expressly required that the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula not be used to allocate those funds. 74The amounts included an increase of $10 million each for the terrorism prevention grants and the firefighters assistance grants added by a floor amendment, offered by Rep. Lee Terry (NE), that reduced funding for TSA by $20 million to offset the increased grant funding. 75This was to include $45 million for the Citizen Corps, $32 million for Grant Administration and Planning, $125 million for a National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $35 million for Centers for Emergency Preparedness, $67 million for technical assistance, $50 million for a National Exercise Program, $12 million for standards and testing, $5 million for equipment caches, $21 million for management and administration, and $11 million for contractor support. 76In addition, the House bill proposed $160 million for reimbursable agreements between TSA and state and local law enforcement agencies to defray the cost of providing security presence at airports. 77EMPG funds were to be available via the DHS Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate. 78The House bill directed that the FEMA function at DHS continue to administer the Citizen Corps/CERT program, although ODP was to become the program’s funding source for fiscal year 2003. 79Other university-focused funds in the House bill included $35 million for “University Programs/Fellowship Programs,” and $25 million for university-based centers of excellence. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 25 Senate Homeland Security Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2004 On July 24, 2003, the Senate passed its version of H. R. 2555, providing $29.3 billion for DHS and related functions at other federal agencies.80 The Senate bill proposed $3.6 billion for ODP, including $2.9 billion for state and local programs and $750 million for Firefighter Assistance Grants. The bulk of state and local grant funding was to be composed of $1.25 billion for state and local formula grants (after a deduction, this amount was $700 million less than the House proposed) and $500 million for a new state and local law enforcement terrorism prevention grant program ($10 million less than proposed in the House bill). Funds from both accounts were to be allocated using the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. Of the $1.25 billion, $50 million was to be used for Citizen Corps, part of which has been used in the past to provide CERT training. (Thus, the Senate actually proposed $1.2 billion for the basic, formula-based grants.) In addition, the Senate proposed $750 million for high-threat urban area discretionary grants ($250 million more than the House version), with an express prohibition on the use of the 40/60 formula to allocate funds—language with little effect because the formula had not been used to determine allocations in prior years. The Senate bill would have provided $358 million for national programs.81 The Senate’s bill did not propose funds for ODP critical infrastructure grants.82 During Senate floor debate, Sen. Carl Levin (MI) had been expected to introduce an amendment to change or eliminate the 0.75 percent small-state minimum. Believing he lacked the votes for passage, he elected not to do so, but he and several colleagues from larger states spoke on the floor, calling the program’s small-state minimum “overreaching and almost unprecedented,” and “a departure from typical small-state minimums that are one half of one percent or less.” The bill included non-binding “sense of the Senate” language urging that DHS take into account tourist population as a factor when allocating discretionary and formula grant funds—language that later would be deleted in conference. 80A major difference in total funding between the two chambers’ versions was that the House’s provided $890 million for President Bush’s biological weapons defense initiative, Project Bioshield, whereas the Senate bill did not, because the program lacked authorizing legislation. The House had approved a program authorization bill (H. R. 2122, the Project Bioshield Act of 2003, passed on July 16); the Senate had not done so. 81For national programs, the Senate bill proposed $60 million for the Center for Domestic Preparedness, $80 million for the existing members of the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium, $28 million for the continuation of core training programs, $60 million for competitive grants for emerging training, $50 million for exercises, $40 million for equipment support, $10 million for technical assistance, and $30 million for management and administration. 82However, in separate language, the bill proposed $294 million from the analysis and infrastructure account for FEMA for critical infrastructure identification, assessments, and protection, as well as $72 million from the science and technology account for critical infrastructure systems modeling, simulation, and analysis for critical infrastructure protection. 26 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California From a total of $5.4 billion for TSA, the Senate bill proposed $150 million for port security grants, $30 million for Operation Safe Commerce, $25 million for trucking industry grants, and $10 million for intercity bus security—amounts that paralleled the House-passed version of the bill.83 From a total of $1.4 billion proposed for explosives detection systems, the Senate also proposed spending $309 million for LOIs for funds to help airports install baggage explosive screening systems.84 (Both amounts were below the House-passed funding level.) From a total of $3.6 billion for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate,85 the Senate bill proposed $165 million for EMPGs ($3 million less than the House proposal). Final Homeland Security Appropriations Totals for Fiscal Year 2004 The conference agreement86 on fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations provided $1.7 billion for ODP state and local formula grants ($200 million less than the House proposed and $500 million more than the Senate proposed). The agreement also provided $500 million (the Senateproposed amount) for a new law enforcement terrorism prevention grants program, to be allocated using the same 40/60 formula. Providing no 2004 funds for critical infrastructure protection grants, the conference agreement thus appropriated $2.2 billion for ODP grants to be allocated according to the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. The appropriated amount would represent a $134 million increase from the $2.066 billion in 2003 ODP grant appropriations. However, if the Senate approves the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report that is currently under consideration, the total allocated nationwide would be subject to a 0.59 percent reduction, yielding a total allocation of $2.207 billion (rescinding approximately $13 million from the amount initially enacted for 2004). For discretionary grants to high-threat, high-density urban areas, the agreement provided $725 million ($225 million more than the House proposed, $25 million less than the Senate proposed, and $75 million less than Congress appropriated for fiscal year 2003).87 The conference report retained language 83In addition, the bill proposed $170 million for TSA state and local reimbursement agreements for local law enforcement officers for airport support and enforcement presence. 84A separate $45 million appropriation would have provided funds for research and development of next-generation explosive detection systems. 85Most of the $1.5 billion difference between House and Senate spending for the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate represented funds for Project Bioshield. 86Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. 87If the 0.59 percent across-the-board reduction in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, it will rescind $4.3 million from this U.S. total. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 27 originally included in the House report directing DHS to consider threat, population, vulnerability, critical infrastructure, and need as it allocated grants, and it added the additional requirement that DHS also consider “cooperation of multiple jurisdictions in preparing domestic preparedness plans.”88 In other ODP funding areas, the conference agreement also included $40 million ($5 million less than the House proposed and $10 million less than the Senate proposed) for ODP Citizen Corps grants,89 $135 million for the National Domestic Preparedness Consortium (of which $55 million is to be used for the Center for Domestic Preparedness), $30 million for technical assistance, $50 million for a National Exercise Program, $60 million for competitive training grants (somewhat similar to the $35 million proposed by the House under Centers for Emergency Preparedness), $17 million for equipment and testing, and $30 million for management and administration. The agreement provides $750 million (the same amount as appropriated for 2003) for Firefighter Assistance Grants, which will continue to be administered by ODP (not moved to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate as had been recommended by the Senate).90 The fiscal year 2004 conference agreement appropriated $3.7 billion for TSA, including $125 million for port security grants ($25 million less than proposed in both the House and Senate bills and $45 million less than the 2003 appropriation) to fund security planning and projects to improve dockside and perimeter security at the nation’s ports.91 In addition, the agreement included several other port security measures. Congress provided $14 million for “Customs-Trade Partnership Against Terrorism,” which provides training and technical assistance to foreign manufacturers and importers to help them meet U.S. standards for repelling potential terrorist attempts to use shipments for introducing weapons of mass destruction into U.S. ports. The agreement also provided $62 million for the Container Security Initiative (CSI), to deploy teams of inspectors, special agents, and intelligence analysts to 20 foreign “mega-ports” and approximately ten other strategic ports to inspect containerized cargo for weapons of mass destruction before shipment to the United States. Congress also provided $64 million for technology to support non-intrusive inspection of cargo. 88H. Rept. 108-280, September 23, 2003, p. 46. 89The conference report provides no direction regarding the share to be used for CERT training grants. Because the House required $20 million for this purpose and the Senate bill was silent, DHS may still follow the House report’s direction. The 2003 funding level was $20 million. 90Firefighter Assistance Grants for 2004 are to be available for allocation until September 30, 2005. If the 0.59 percent across-the-board reduction in the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, it will rescind $4.4 million from this U.S. total. 91The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would rescind $737,500 of this amount. 28 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California For other TSA accounts, Congress appropriated $250 million ($15 million more than the House proposal and $59 million less than the Senate proposal) for installation of explosive detection systems for checked baggage at airports (from a $1.3 billion total appropriation for explosive detection systems),92 $85 million for air cargo security, $17 million for Operation Safe Commerce ($13 million less than in both the House and Senate bills and in 2003), $22 million for trucking security ($3 million less than in both the House and Senate bills), and $10 million for intercity bus security (the same as in the House and Senate bills and half of the 2003 appropriation). For EMPGs, allocated using the 40/60 formula, the agreement included $180 million (an increase of $12 million from the House proposal and $15 million from the Senate proposal).93 The 2003 appropriation for EMPG had been $165 million. The agreement also provides $60 million for Urban Search and Rescue, $50 million for the Metropolitan Medical Response System, $70 million for scholarships and university-based centers of excellence,94 and $66.5 million for critical infrastructure protection.95 92In addition, Congress provided $150 million for TSA to use to procure additional explosive detection equipment for installation in airports with which the agency has established cooperative agreements, as well as in other airports. 93The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would rescind $1.1 million of this amount. 94The $70 million for homeland security university programs, funded from the science and technology account, was intended to provide scholarships to undergraduate and graduate students pursuing degrees including physical, biological, social, and behavioral sciences (priority homeland security areas), and to create a Homeland Security Centers of Excellence (HS-Centers) program at universities to provide “a dedicated capability that will enhance our ability to anticipate, prevent, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks.” Although it gave DHS flexibility to make changes, Congress (in the 2003 omnibus appropriations bill) required that criteria for designation include expertise in various areas: first responder training; incident response; emergency and diagnostic medical services; chemical, biological, radiological, and nuclear countermeasures or detection; animal and plant health and diagnostics; food safety; water and wastewater operations; port and waterway security; transportation; information security and information engineering; engineering; border transportation and security; and the public policy implications and public dissemination of homeland security-related research and development. Homeland Security Act of 2002, Public Law 107-296, November 25, 2002, as amended by the Consolidated Appropriations Resolution for Fiscal Year 2003, Public Law 108-7, February 20, 2003. DHS was expected to provide between $2 million and $4 million annually for three years to selected universities to establish HS-Centers with a mission of “providing tools to model the risks and vulnerabilities of terrorism and assessing the economic impact and consequences of terrorist countermeasures and responses.” DHS established the Office of University Programs to administer the funds. See DHS Office of University Programs Fact Sheet, November 17, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2245. On November 25, 2003, DHS announced that the nation’s first HS-Center would be established at the University of Southern California (USC) and that the department would provide $12 million over three years to underwrite its establishment. The USC center, named the Homeland Security Center for Risk and Economic Analysis of Terrorism Events, will examine targets and means of terrorism and emphasize protecting critical infrastructure systems as well as “tools for planning responses to emergencies, to minimize the threat to human lives and reduce the economic impact in the event of an attack.” To develop and operate the center, USC will partner with the University of Wisconsin at Madison; New York University; and the University of California, Berkeley. See DHS press release, November 25, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=2387. 95Of the critical infrastructure funds, $60 million is provided for the research, development, testing, and evaluation of an FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 29 The conference agreement revises the funding structure for TSA’s aviation security account entitled Security Direction and Enforcement. In fiscal year 2003 and in the House and Senate versions of the 2004 appropriations bills, funding to reimburse state and local law enforcement agencies for stepped-up security at airports was available as a separate line item ($248 million in 2003, $160 million in the 2004 House bill, and $170 million in the 2004 Senate bill). The conference agreement provides a total of $703.3 million for the Security Direction and Enforcement account, a reduction of $18.4 million from the House bill, but a precise comparison of programs is difficult. Resolving the largest funding discrepancy between the House and Senate versions, the conference agreement included a House plan to provide $5.6 billion over several fiscal years for bioterrorism response. Up to $890 million is provided for fiscal year 2004, and up to a total of $3.4 billion is provided for fiscal years 2004 through 2008.96 House- and Senate-Proposed Bioterrorism Grant Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2004 Grants for bioterrorism preparedness are provided from appropriations bills for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education. As this report went to print, the House and Senate each had passed a Labor-HHS-Education appropriations bill for fiscal year 2004, and the conference committee on the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill had prepared compromise language.97 The House-passed bill proposed $940 million to CDC for state and local bioterrorism preparedness and $588 million to HRSA for bioterrorism preparedness and response activities,98 including $518 million for hospital preparedness. The Senate bill99 also proposed $940 million to CDC for upgrading state and local capacity,100 with $578 million to HRSA for bioterrorism activities, including $518 million for hospital preparedness and antimissile device for commercial aircraft. Ibid. These critical infrastructure protection funds are distinct from the 2003 critical infrastructure protection grants, which received no 2004 funds. 96All but $890 million of the $5.6 billion constitutes advance appropriations from future-year budgets and does not count against the budget total for 2004. 97The House approved H. R. 2660 on July 10, 2003; the Senate approved S. 1356 on September 10, 2003. On November 25, 2003, the committee of conference working to resolve differences between the two bills filed the conference report (H. Rept. 108-401) on the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill. The House approved the conference report on December 8, 2003. 98H. Rept. 108-188, June 25, 2003. The total was to include $41.7 million from HRSA’s regular appropriation and $545.9 million from the Public Health and Social Services Emergency Fund. 99S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. 100Within this total, the Senate bill sought to reserve $40 million for the Health Alert Network. S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. 30 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California infrastructure improvements related to bioterrorism. The 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report proposes to retain the $518 million amount for hospital preparedness, but it would divide the $940 million for state and local preparedness by specifically directing DHS to use $847 million for state cooperative agreements, $29.8 million for public health preparedness centers, and $5.5 million for advanced local public health practice.101 In addition, the 2004 amounts would be reduced by the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission applied to all programs, resulting in total appropriations of $842.5 million for CDC preparedness grants and $495 million for HRSA grants. The Senate committee report also included language recommending that formula allocations to states be based on a number of threat factors: organizational headquarters, financial markets, internationally recognized icons, ports, transit systems, population density, and past international terrorism.102 The House bill did not include comparable language, and the conference committee omitted the Senate language from the omnibus appropriations conference report. In addition, both House and Senate reports expressed concern and disapproval about reports that some grant recipients are supplanting state and local funds with federal funds. Future Formula Funding Outcomes Many homeland security grants are made on a discretionary basis, and it is difficult to predict future funding outcomes with accuracy. Formula grant funds are a different matter. Although on some occasions administering agencies have latitude to alter formula distributions—by selecting data sources and applying set-aside amounts, for example, and sometimes by developing the formula itself—the distribution of funds by formula is more predictable than that by competitive grant or agency discretion. The following discusses prospective funding amounts under different funding scenarios and notes announced allocations for fiscal year 2004. 101The report states that funds for public health preparedness centers should be used “to establish collaborative programs with State and local public health agencies, enhance practice-based training of students, and to increase participation of public health practitioners in the Centers’ education and training activities.” H. Rept. 108-401, November 25, 2003, p. 803. 102Senate report language recommended that funds be distributed using a formula that includes terrorism risk factors, including “(1) Site of headquarters or major offices of multinational organizations; (2) site of major financial markets; (3) site of previous incidents of international terrorism; (4) some measure of population density versus just population; (5) internationally recognized icons; (6) percent of national daily mass transit riders; (7) proximity to a major port, including major port ranked on number of cargo containers arriving at the port per year.” See S. Rept. 108-81, June 26, 2003. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 31 Table 2 shows total 2003 and 2004 appropriations for a number of formula and discretionary programs discussed in this report.103 Total 2003 spending by formula was $3.6 billion, including $2.25 billion allocated pursuant to the provisions of the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula (ODP’s state and local grants for first responders and critical infrastructure protection grants, plus FEMA’s EMPG and CERT grants) and $1.4 billion for HHS bioterrorism preparedness allocated pursuant to a different formula. The fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would spend amounts that are similar, although not identical, to 2003 amounts for bioterrorism preparedness amounts. Whereas funds administered by the Department of Homeland Security were not subject to an across-the-board reduction in 2003, HHS funds were cut by 0.65 percent in 2003; the 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report’s reduction of 0.59 percent on all programs represents a small change from the prior year’s rescission. The fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations conference report provided amounts more substantially different from 2003 totals for programs subject to the 40/60 formula. Thus, this report examines future funding outcomes under them. For fiscal year 2004, the conference agreement provided total combined funding of $2.4 billion for the ODP and FEMA programs that employ the 40/60 formula. As shown in Appendix Table D.1, California received $179 million (7.95 percent) of the $2.25 billion in total 2003 grants for programs dependent on the 40/60 formula. California received $5.09 per capita from these grants, below the $7.69 national per capita amount and well below Wyoming’s $38.45 per capita grant. Of the $2.4 billion provided for by the fiscal year 2004 conference agreement for all homeland security programs employing the 40/60 formula (including the ODP grants just discussed), California will likely receive $190 million (again 7.95 percent), assuming neither Congress nor the administration changes the formula before allocations are made. This amount would be $5.40 per capita, which is below the $8.15 national per capita amount and well below the $40.77 per capita received by Wyoming. If DHS were to distribute grants using a traditional 0.75 percent small-state minimum approach rather than the 40/60 approach it used in 2003, California would receive $265 million (11.1 percent) for these programs in 2004—$75 million more than under the existing formula. Such a scenario would increase California’s per capita grants amount from $5.40 to $7.54, still below the nation’s unchanged $8.15 per capita amount and 103It shows two final totals for 2004—one if the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending reduction in the 2004 omnibus appropriations bill is enacted, another if it is not. 32 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Table 2 Homeland Security Grants for Fiscal Year 2003 and Proposed and Enacted Amounts for Fiscal Year 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA USA Patriot Act formula grant programs State and local grants for first responders Critical infrastructure grants State and local law enforcement grants Emergency management performance grants CERT/Citizen Corpsb Subtotal Other formula grants CDC bioterrorism preparednessc HRSA hospital preparednessc Subtotal Total Discretionary programs Assistance to Firefighters Grants High-threat urban area grants TSA port security grants Operation safe commerce Intercity bus grants Airport security baggage screeningd Subtotal Grand total 2003 Actual House Proposed 2004 1,866,295,000 200,000,000 0 165,140,000 18,800,000 2,250,235,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 3,618,235,000 745,125,100 771,980,000 169,055,136 28,300,374 19,800,007 500,000,000 1,734,260,617 5,352,495,617 1,900,000,000 200,000,000 510,000,000 168,000,000 20,000,000 2,798,000,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 4,166,000,000 760,000,000 500,000,000 150,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 235,000,000 1,450,000,000 5,616,000,000 Senate Proposed 2004 Conference Agreement 2004 1,200,000,000 0 500,000,000 165,000,000 20,000,000 1,885,000,000 870,000,000 498,000,000 1,368,000,000 3,253,000,000 750,000,000 750,000,000 150,000,000 30,000,000 10,000,000 309,000,000 1,690,000,000 4,943,000,000 1,685,000,000 0 500,000,000 180,000,000 35,000,000 2,400,000,000 847,456,000 498,000,000 1,345,456,000 3,745,456,000 750,000,000 725,000,000 125,000,000 17,000,000 10,000,000 250,000,000 1,627,000,000 5,372,456,000 Conference Agreement 2004, Reduceda 1,675,058,500 0 497,050,000 178,938,000 34,793,500 2,385,840,000 842,456,010 495,061,800 1,337,517,810 3,723,357,810 745,575,000 720,722,500 124,262,500 16,899,700 9,941,000 248,525,000 1,617,400,700 5,340,758,510 Amount of Reduction, 2004a –9,941,500 0 –2,950,000 –1,062,000 –206,500 –14,160,000 –4,999,990 –2,938,200 –7,938,190 –22,098,190 –4,425,000 –4,277,500 –737,500 –100,300 –59,000 –1,475,000 –9,599,300 –31,697,490 aThe fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report would subject all non-defense spending to a 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission. bThe Senate bill and conference agreement did not specify what share of Citizen Corps funding would be used for CERT training grants. The House specified $20 million for CERT training. DHS applied $35 million for 2004. cAs this report went to print, Congress had not finalized fiscal year 2004 appropriations for the Departments of Labor, HHS, and Education, which provides funding for the CDC and HRSA bioterrorism preparedness grants. Before its 0.59 percent reduction, the omnibus appropriations conference report includes $847,456,000 for CDC grants and $498,000 for HRSA grants. dFunds for airport security baggage screening will be provided from amounts appropriated for several future fiscal years. The amount is listed here for reference, but it is not included in totals for 2003. 33 Wyoming’s $35.88 per capita amount. (For reference, if funds were distributed solely on the basis of population, with no small-state minimum whatsoever, California would receive $288 million, or 12 percent of the nation’s total.) If the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut is applied to these amounts, California’s total will decline by $1 million, to $189 million, or $5.37 per capita. State and Local Homeland Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 On November 3, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge announced fiscal year 2004 allocations of homeland security grant funding. As expected, California again will receive the fewest grant dollars per capita of any state. The grants104 are provided via three programs: State homeland security grants will provide $1.7 billion, a new Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP) will distribute $500 million, and the Citizen Corps program will provide $35 million in grants. (The grant awards were announced before a conference agreement was reached on the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations bill, so they did not reflect the 0.59 percent rescission that would apply retroactively to these funds.) California was slated to receive $176.5 million from these three ODP grants, including $134 million in state grants, $39.8 million in LETPP grants, and $2.8 million in Citizen Corps grants. In each case, the state’s share will again be 7.95 percent. As shown in Figure 3, for every person in California, the formula will provide the state $5.03 in 2004 homeland security grant funding; for every person in Wyoming, the formula will provide that state $37.94. For a table detailing 2004 state allocations from these ODP grant programs, see Appendix Table D.2.a, and for a similar table that shows the effect of the omnibus appropriations conference report’s proposed 0.59 percent rescission, see Appendix Table D.2.b. Some organizations have expressed concern that the new $500 million law enforcement grant program may displace funds from the Department of Justice’s COPS program. The House-passed version of the 2004 Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bills would reduce COPS grant funding by $295 million; the Senate Appropriations Committee bill would reduce that program’s funds by $322 million. UASI Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 On November 13, 2003, DHS released its distribution plan for $725 million in fiscal year 2004 Urban Area Security Initiative funding, to be distributed in two pots: $675 million for general urban area grants and $50 million for urban mass transit security grants. DHS selected 50 urban areas and 104Funds appropriated pursuant to the Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2004, Public Law 108-90, October 1, 2003. 34 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California California Texas New York Florida Illinois Pennsylvania Ohio Michigan New Jersey Georgia North Carolina Virginia Massachusetts Indiana Washington Tennessee Missouri U.S. average Maryland Arizona Wisconsin Minnesota Colorado Alabama Louisiana South Carolina Kentucky Puerto Rico Oregon Oklahoma Connecticut Iowa Mississippi Kansas Arkansas Utah Nevada New Mexico West Virginia Nebraska Idaho Maine New Hampshire Hawaii Rhode Island Montana Delaware South Dakota Alaska North Dakota Vermont District of Columbia Wyoming 5.03 5.32 5.42 5.55 5.87 5.90 6.01 6.21 6.49 6.50 6.55 6.83 7.14 7.26 7.30 7.42 7.49 7.59 7.60 7.60 7.61 7.87 8.25 8.26 8.27 8.61 8.62 8.87 9.28 9.32 9.36 10.22 10.35 10.68 10.70 11.74 12.21 13.53 13.79 14.18 16.97 17.41 17.61 17.93 20.12 22.86 25.17 26.43 30.42 30.81 31.56 37.94 33.72 Fiscal year 2004 dollars per capita, by state (without 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut) Figure 3—ODP State and Local Grants for First Responders, Law Enforcement Terrorism Preparedness Program Grants, and Citizen Corps Grants, per Capita Allocation, by State, 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 35 30 urban mass transit systems for 2004 funding. Again, the totals do not reflect the 0.59 percent funding rescission proposed by the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. California was slated to receive $142.5 million, or 19.7 percent, of the total funds before rescissions. When combined with the 7.95 percent share of state grant funds (discussed above), the state’s large share of UASI funding is still insufficient to increase California’s per capita 2004 homeland security grant funding for 2004 to the national average, although it does manage to raise the state out of its last-place position in funding per person. California’s share of 2004 ODP grants announced through the date this report went to print is approximately $9 per capita, still below the $10 per capita national average and far below the $38 per capita to be received by top-ranked Wyoming. With the addition of urban area grant funding, Texas displaces California as the lowest per capita funded state, and California also moves above Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, Puerto Rico, and Virginia in per capita receipts. Without applying any rescissions, California is expected to receive $135.7 million or 20.1 percent of the nation’s total urban area formula grants in 2004, with grants going to Los Angeles ($28.3 million), San Francisco ($26.5 million), Santa Ana ($15.1 million), Long Beach ($12.1 million), San Diego ($10.5 million), Anaheim ($10.3 million), San Jose ($10 million), Sacramento ($8 million), Oakland ($7.9 million), and Fresno ($7.1 million). Funds will be allocated to states, which must award 80 percent to the designated cities and contiguous counties within the designated urban area and use the remaining 20 percent for security enhancements within the urban area. Before rescissions, California was expected to receive $6.8 million, or 13.6 percent, of the nation’s $50 million in mass transit security grants in 2004, with $2 million slated for Los Angeles Metrolink, $1.6 million for San Francisco’s BART, and $800,000 each for the San Francisco area’s Caltrain, the San Jose area’s Altamont Commuter Express (ACE), Los Angeles County’s MTA, and the San Diego Coaster. The $50 million for metropolitan rail transit authorities will also be distributed via states, with recipients reportedly selected on the basis of the number of annual riders and overall track mileage. Allowable uses of funds include physical barricades, area monitoring systems such as video surveillance and motion detectors, thermal/infrared imagery and chemical/radiological material detection systems, integrated communications systems, and prevention planning, training, and exercises. On December 10, 2003, DHS announced its plan for distributing $179 million in UASI port security grants for 442 projects to 235 applicant 36 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California organizations nationwide.105 With the funds, intended for security planning and projects to improve dockside and perimeter security, ports were to purchase new harbor patrol boats and surveillance equipment, construct new command and control facilities, and undertake similar activities. DHS allocated $33.7 million (18.8 percent of the total U.S. grants) to fund 70 projects to be operated by 31 California grantees (including ports, oil refineries, chemical plants, and shipping companies) located in Benicia, Carson, Long Beach, Los Angeles, Martinez, Oakland, Port Hueneme, Richmond, Sacramento, San Diego, San Francisco, San Pedro, Stockton, and Wilmington. A list of 2004 California grantees and grant amounts is given in Appendix Table E.5. Appendix Table D.3.a shows state allocations of 2004 ODP formula, urban area, mass transit, and port security grants as enacted by the homeland security appropriations conference report for fiscal year 2004. Appendix Table D.3.b shows similar amounts if the grants were to be reduced by the 0.59 percent across-the-board spending rescission proposed by the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report. Criticism of the Grant Process DHS has been criticized since before its creation. The Bush administration initially opposed a separate department, arguing that the functions could be handled by existing agencies; once Congress was on the verge of creating it anyway, the administration backed the proposal and devoted considerable resources to the development of a new department. A report entitled Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, prepared by an independent task force sponsored by the Council on Foreign Relations, criticized as inadequate the level of funding the federal government has committed to homeland security activities—stating that “America will fall approximately $98.4 billion short of meeting critical emergency responder needs over the next five years”—and lamented the nation’s insufficient standards and guidelines for emergency preparedness.106 105Press release, Department of Homeland Security Announces $179 Million in Grants to Secure America’s Ports, Department of Homeland Security, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_ Sopreadsheet.xls. Of the $179 million total, $75 million was funded by the fiscal year 2004 homeland security appropriations conference report, and $104 million represented unused port security funds from fiscal year 2002. If the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted, grants will be reduced pursuant to a 0.59 across-the-board spending rescission. However, it is likely that only the portion of grants that represents the 2004 appropriation will be subject to this reduction. 106Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 37 The homeland security grant allocation process has been embattled as well. The news media has cited a number of examples of formula-based grants being made to small jurisdictions that have little idea what to do with the unexpected windfall. When the Oak Bluffs Steamship Authority of Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, was awarded $909,000 to upgrade port security, harbormaster Todd Alexander told a reporter, “Quite honestly, I don't know what we're going to do, but you don’t turn down grant money.”107 And officials in Colchester, Vermont, a rural town with a population of approximately 17,000 residents, used an unexpected grant to purchase a search and rescue vehicle capable of boring through concrete and equipped with a camera to search for victims in collapsed buildings.108 Fairness of the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 Formula Much of the criticism of federal funding allocation for state and local homeland security activities has been leveled at the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, both for its fiscal favoritism toward smaller states and its omission of threat as an allocation factor. The Council on Foreign Relations report stated that one of the two major obstacles hampering America’s emergency preparedness efforts was that “funding for emergency responders has been sidetracked and stalled due to a politicized appropriations process,” and added, “Congress should establish a system for allocating scarce resources based less on dividing the spoils and more on addressing identified threats and vulnerabilities. To do this, the federal government should consider such factors as population, population density, vulnerability assessment, and presence of critical infrastructure within each state.”109 Specifically addressing the small-state minimum issue, the report notes, “the state and population-driven approach has led to highly uneven funding outcomes,” and—citing as an example the unusually large per capita allocation to Wyoming versus that to larger states—adds, “While this approach may have political appeal, it unnecessarily diverts funding from areas of highest priority.” On April 24, 2003, DHS Secretary Tom Ridge appeared in California and stated that one of the first orders of business for the new department was to Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6085. The report is often referred to as the Rudman Report. 107Vineyard Gazette, Martha’s Vineyard, Massachusetts, June 13, 2003, http://www.mvgazette.com/news/ 2003/06/13/homeland_security_grants.php. 108USA Today, Washington, D.C., July 13, 2003, http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-07-13-antiterrorfunding-usat_x.htm. 109Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication. php?id=6085. 38 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California ensure that homeland security funds are “channeled to communities based on not only density of population but threat, vulnerability, and critical infrastructure, both public and private,” adding, “We are going to be working on a new funding formula, and I feel very confident that the next round of federal dollars going out to the country will include significant dollars . . . to California.”110 (Despite these comments, DHS later released fiscal year 2003 funds based on the 40/60 formula.) On June 24, 2003, Rep. Christopher Cox (Newport Beach), Chairman of the House Select Committee on Homeland Security, announced that he planned to introduce a bill to change the current formula and require threat-based funding decisions.111 At a July 17 hearing of the committee, Chairman Cox commented that the method for distributing state and local homeland security grants “must be threat-based instead of political formulas,” adding, “Nearly two years after the attacks of September 11th, grants are still being distributed to states using formulas that take no account of whether the recipient is, based on our best intelligence, at risk.”112 In a letter to Congress, a bipartisan group of California state and local leaders wrote that grant funding “is skewed to states where the threat of a terrorist attack is low, and states and localities where the threat is high do not get the help they need,” and added, “The only sensible policy is for the great majority of the Homeland Security Block Grant funds to be distributed to the states and localities where the threat of terrorism is greatest.”113 A number of critics charge that processes for distributing funds to state and local recipients for many programs were devised initially—in many cases before the September 11 attacks—to provide far fewer dollars than is the case now. Chairman Cox said, “Careful scrutiny of the process suggests that it was established to handle a stream, not a flood, of new revenue.”114 For example, the 110California Capitol Hill Bulletin, Vol. 10, No. 11, California Institute for Federal Policy Research, Washington, D.C., April 25, 2003, http://www.calinst.org/bulletins/b1011.htm. 111Press release, Cox Announces Legislation To Reform First Responder Grant Process, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, June 24, 2003, http://homeland.house.gov/release.cfm?id=42. 112First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Are Working Together To Make America Safer, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 17, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/ release.cfm?id=57. 113The signatories to the letter included California Governor Gray Davis, Senate President pro tempore John Burton, Senate Minority Leader Jim Brulte, Assembly Speaker Herb J. Wesson, Jr., Assembly Minority Leader Dave Cox, California State Association of Counties President and Sonoma County Supervisor Tim Smith, and League of California Cities President and Oakland City Attorney John Russo. 114First Responders: How States, Localities, and the Federal Government Are Working Together To Make America Safer, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Washington, D.C., July 17, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/ release.cfm?id=57. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 39 state domestic preparedness equipment support program provided grants of $15.7 million in fiscal year 2001, $526 million in 2002, and $1.9 billion in 2003.115 As discussed above, California is the state most disadvantaged on a per capita basis by the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula, which gives California less than 8 percent of grants despite the fact that the state houses more than 12 percent of the nation’s population. Some California advocates further note that the state’s vast port complexes, major military bases, and coastal and border location might justify an even greater share of homeland security funds when compared to states located farther inland, and that the state has a number of large tourist attractions and internationally recognized icons that could warrant further enhancement in the state’s security response. Issues with High-Threat Urban Area Funding Some observers have criticized allocations to urban areas under the Urban Area Security Initiative. One target of criticism has been the fact that DHS (for national security reasons) has elected not to disclose details of its distribution formula, and recipient jurisdictions are dissatisfied with their allocations. In addition, some argue that these grants place excessive emphasis on the density of population as a distributional factor and that the metrics used to define density may be flawed.116 The rationale for using population density is the number of lives that could be lost in the event of an act of terrorism. However, the geographic boundaries within which those lives are counted significantly influence the level of density or sparseness within the subject universe and thus affect funding outcomes. For example, in addition to housing nearly 4 million people, many in crowded neighborhoods, the city limits of Los Angeles contain numerous uninhabitable mountainous areas. The political boundaries of the County of Los Angeles contain an even larger proportion of uninhabitable land. Thus, the population density of these areas is considerably lower than the population density of such areas as San Francisco and New York, which have fewer natural obstacles.117 Despite housing a population five times larger, Los 115Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C., http://www.cfda.gov/ public/viewprog.asp?progid=486. 116The $700 million for the UASI provided by the 2003 supplemental appropriations bill required that DHS use the funds “for discretionary grants for use in high-density urban areas, high-threat areas, and for protection of critical infrastructure.” Population density as a distributional factor has been endorsed by a number of critics, such as the authors of the Council on Foreign Relations report. Richard A. Clarke, Jamie F. Metzl, and Warren B. Rudman, Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Unprepared, Council on Foreign Relations, New York, June 29, 2003, http://www.cfr.org/publication.php?id=6085. 117In 2002, New York’s 8.1 million people lived 26,655 per square mile, San Francisco’s 764,000 people lived 16,381 per square mile, and Los Angeles’s 3.8 million people lived 8,098 per square mile. Los Angeles County Chief Administrative Office, FY 2003 High-Threat Urban Area Grants, internal analysis, July 2003. 40 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Angeles received almost the same amount ($18.9 million) as San Francisco ($18.6 million) in urban area discretionary formula grants.118 Likewise, although it is not presently a factor in any formula, any change that incorporated statelevel population density rather than state population counts might theoretically disadvantage California, which has the third largest land area among states. The artificial political boundaries that define state and municipal jurisdictions also influence how population is counted, raising questions about the usage of either density or population itself as a formula factor. Population data typically reflect the location of an individual’s residence rather than his or her place of employment; the “daytime population” of a downtown area—as well as a port, airport, shopping mall, theme park, or other point of congregation—may vastly exceed what is represented by population data alone. Others have criticized the particular factor-weighting mix used by DHS to distribute funds. At a Congressional hearing, 119 Rep. Anthony D. Weiner (NY) argued that by weighting population density at 9, critical infrastructure assets at 6, and credible threats at 3, the formula undervalued intelligence regarding actual threats. Noting that New York, the Washington area, and Los Angeles International Airport have been known Al Qaeda targets, whereas population centers and infrastructure assets represent merely speculative factors, Weiner argued that credible threat information should count for more than the one-sixth of total funds intended for high-threat, high-density urban areas. He also criticized the increasing dilution of these grants, noting that DHS made seven grants from the first round of UASI funding, 30 from the second round, and 50 from the third. Doubting the appropriateness of providing high-threat urban area funding to Fresno and San Antonio, Weiner commented, “Once you add Fresno, it becomes very difficult for you next year to take Fresno off.” Some have also criticized the allocation of port security funding. California ports transshipped 42 percent of the nation’s total containerized cargo in 2002, and an even greater share (48 percent) of the nation’s imported containers, which pose a far more significant threat of terrorist activity than U.S. cargo destined for export.120 The Ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach represent the largest and 118Analogous to the Los Angeles experience, the 1.3 million-person population of the City of San Diego is spread over a relatively large land area (324 square miles), and the city received considerably less ($11.4 million) than did smaller-sized San Francisco. 119Homeland Security—The Balance Between Crisis and Consequence Management through Training and Assistance (Review of Legislative Proposals), Hearing, House Judiciary Subcommittee on Crime, Terrorism, and Homeland Security, November 20, 2003. 120 Percentage listed are shares of the nation’s 2002 cargo traffic measured in twenty-foot equivalent units or TEUs (an industry standard for cargo volume) at the 30 largest U.S. ports, which transship 99 percent of the nation’s total traffic. Port Import Export Reporting Service (PIERS), Journal of Commerce, as cited by Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, http://www.bts.gov. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 41 second-largest container ports by volume, respectively, and the Port of Oakland ranks seventh. Although federal port security funding to California has been substantial—the state received 17 percent ($28.5 million) of TSA port security grants and 12.1 percent ($9 million) of the ODP port security grants in fiscal year 2003—neither grant share comes close to the state’s share of containerized cargo volume. Proposals for Change Changing any federal funding distribution formula is a politically thorny process, but devising a single viable formulaic alternative to the 40/60 scheme may prove particularly problematic because of the wide array of concerns and factors in play. Even supporters of large states acknowledge the existence of some economies of scale in some functional areas, such as planning and training, which argues for some form of minimum guarantee, and it stands to reason that it is more costly on a per capita basis to patrol and protect a sparsely populated area than a densely populated area. On the other hand, other functions, including relatively costly areas such as equipment acquisition and critical infrastructure protection, are less subject to such economies and arguably inappropriate for minimum funding guarantees. Many critics, both within Congress and without, argue for adding threat levels to the distributive mix. However, some question the feasibility of developing a functioning matrix that treats fairly the entire nation. Despite obstacles, members of Congress have proposed and begun to consider alternatives for modifying the existing funding structure. House Bills Two major homeland security authorization bills were recently introduced in the House of Representatives, and initial legislative action commenced with a bipartisan blending of the two bills during a November 20, 2003, subcommittee markup session. Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003. At a news conference on October 9, 2003, Chairman Cox announced the introduction of H. R. 3266, the Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2003. 121 In addition to streamlining and expediting the process for shifting federal grant funding for the nation’s first responders (e.g., reducing the number of application steps from 12 to 2), the initial bill proposed to change the formula allocation 121News release, Cox Introduces Bill For Faster and Smarter Funding For First Responders, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, October 9, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=94. 42 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California process by basing grants in part on an assessment of threats faced by recipient jurisdictions and consolidating existing first responder grant programs (except for several that are specifically excluded)122 into a single, uniform program under the DHS Office of State and Local Government Coordination. The legislation required that the formula for awarding money be based predominantly on the threat of terrorism to each locality, with responsibility for creating the formula given to the DHS Directorate of Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection. The bill delineated various criteria, including threats to population, economic interests, critical infrastructure (energy, communications, or governmental), food or water supply safety, and national icons.123 DHS was further directed to prioritize the threats on the basis of first specificity and immediacy and second risk of human life, disruption of food and water supply, and economic effect, with the distributional scheme updated annually. Funding, which requires a 25 percent state or local match124 and an 80 percent passthrough to local governments, could be used only for buying or upgrading equipment, emergency response exercises, equipment training, and attack prevention training; use for construction activities would be expressly prohibited. The bill permitted multiple jurisdictions to join together to apply for and administer a regional grant. At the event announcing his bill’s introduction, Cox said, “Terrorists have no regard for state lines. The post 9-11 reality requires us to think beyond traditional boundaries because we can be certain that if we don’t, terrorists will.” At a hearing held on October 16 to examine the bill, Cox commented that the country’s artificial political boundaries do not necessarily reflect terrorist threat 122Exempted programs include the Fire Grant Program, EMPG Program, Urban Search and Rescue Grants Program, DOJ Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program, Edward Byrne Memorial State and Local Law Enforcement Assistance Grant Program, Public Safety Partnership and COPS Program, bioterrorism preparedness-related grant programs under the Public Health Service Act, and the emergency response assistance program. 123As introduced, the Cox bill required that the DHS risk analysis consider specific threats as well as various potential threats, including the following: “(A) Threats to the population of the State or region, including military and tourist populations. (B) Threats to specific economic sectors or private sector facilities. (C) Threats to major communications nodes, including cyber and telephonic nodes. (D) Threats to specific elements of the Nation’s food supply. (E) Threats to the water supply. (F) Threats to the energy supply, including to electrical, petroleum, and nuclear sources. (G) Threats to civic infrastructure and emergency response capabilities, including threats that would – (i) substantially eliminate the government of the State or region; (ii) materially degrade the ability of first responders serving the State or region to communicate or to provide assistance during and in the aftermath of an act of terrorism, including a chemical, biological, radiological, or nuclear attack; and (iii) curtail the availability or effectiveness of emergency medical services, including hospital-based services, needed to serve the population of the State or region during such a terrorist-induced mass-medical emergency. (H) Threats to specific national monuments or structures of symbolic national importance, particularly those that routinely attract large numbers of tourist visitors. (I) Threats to significant concentrations of natural resources on which major economic sectors or population centers depend. (J) Threats to major transportation systems or nodes.” H. R. 3266, 108th Congress, 1st Session, October 8, 2003. 124The matching requirement was postponed until two years after the bill’s enactment. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 43 levels. 125 Under his bill, he said, Los Angeles and Orange Counties could continue to build their existing partnership and apply for one regional grant instead of multiple grants, thereby ameliorating inefficiencies in the current grant-making process. Rather than the current “political formula” that sometimes sends grants to jurisdictions that in some cases don't know what to do with them, Chairman Cox commented that the nation instead needs “a threatbased formula that eliminates this waste and the potential for abuse.” At an October 21 hearing of the full House Select Committee on Homeland Security,126 Chairman Cox said, “Our country needs a new formula for distributing funds based on rigorous authoritative risk assessments that match threat with vulnerability—the core mission of the Department of Homeland Security.” Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003—The PREPARE Act. Led by Ranking Minority Member Rep. Jim Turner (TX), Democrats on the Homeland Security Committee and a number of colleagues introduced H. R. 3158 (the Preparing America to Respond Effectively Act of 2003, dubbed the PREPARE Act) to accomplish many of the same goals as the Cox bill. The bill sought to alter the grant formula as well, but it placed more emphasis on a prioritized assessment of first responder funding needs than on threat levels. The PREPARE Act designed a 27-member task force,127 appointed by the Secretary of Homeland Security, to identify the essential capabilities for which every state and local government should have access to prevent, prepare for, and respond to acts of terrorism. (The bill suggested factors the task force might include when examining threat vulnerability,128 but final determination of need and capability standards was left to the task force.) The bill required that state and local governments compare their individual capabilities against the task force’s guidelines and submit to DHS a funding request that the state prioritized. DHS would then prepare an extensive, prioritized list of the disaster and emergency preparedness and response needs of the nation’s state and local governments, as 125Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, October 16, 2003. 126Full Committee Hearing on H. R. 3266: Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders, Hearing, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, October, 21, 2003. 127The task force would include three DHS officials (in an ex-officio capacity), two state-level elected officials, two locallevel elected officials, five members representing specified agencies or organizations, and 15 members representing specified functional sectors, including fire protection (2), law enforcement (2), emergency medical services (2), public health (2), emergency management (2), public works (2), hospitals and other medical services (2), and hazardous materials response (1). 128Suggested vulnerability factors include proximity to critical infrastructure and international borders, the presence of national icons or national assets that may be terrorist targets, population (including tourist, military, and commuting population), and population density. 44 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California well as an assessment of which jurisdictions have and have not yet met their individual, jurisdictionally specific needs. Using its prioritization, DHS would then submit to Congress an allocation scheme—with percentage shares for each state—for distributing funds in fiscal years 2006 through 2011.129 Congressional Review of House Proposals. At the October 16 hearing, Emergency Preparedness and Response Subcommittee Ranking Democrat Bennie Thompson (MS) advocated the Democrats’ bill, arguing against basing funds on “ever-changing threat assessments.” Rep. Ben Cardin (MD) suggested that a funding formula should be sensitive to risk but also should provide predictable funding. At the October 21 hearing, Rep. Turner commented that, “expanded capabilities must be determined in a bottom-up process involving local responders and must be based on the understanding of the likely threats and vulnerabilities that exist in our communities. To base preparedness funding exclusively on a snapshot of the threat faced by a community or region applying for the grant, as proposed by the majority, ignores the reality that threat information is often vague, inconsistent and ever-changing.” During the October 16 hearing, Chairman Cox assured Democrats that the committee would work together in a bipartisan fashion to develop a consensus bill, and he noted that there are many complementary portions of the two bills. A number of subcommittee hearing participants echoed Cox’s comments regarding the complementary nature of the bills. PREPARE Act author Turner commented that the bills “have parallel goals,” and Rep. William Pascrell (NJ) said, “I see no contradictions between these two pieces of legislation.” In addition to the two primary bills, Rep. John Sweeney (NY) introduced a one-page bill with the sole purpose of amending the USA Patriot Act to reduce the small-state minimum from 0.75 percent to 0.5 percent. The Sweeney bill would also add a sentence to the act to require that grants be awarded “based on a quantitative assessment of risk for three categories: threat, vulnerability, and consequences.” 130 129Like the Cox bill, the PREPARE Act would require a minimum 25 percent state and local match (which could be reduced to 10 percent at the discretion of DHS) and would exclude a number of programs, including the Assistance to Firefighters Grants program, EMPG, the COPS grant program, Local Law Enforcement Block Grant program, and the Byrne Formula Grant Program. It would also authorize new grants for state and local governments, including one to compensate for additional personnel costs incurred as a result of elevated threat-level designations, and another to provide equipment and facilities necessary to receive, transmit, handle, and store classified information. An additional grant would authorize DHS and the Department of Education to make grants to develop and implement programs at public elementary schools and secondary schools to instruct students regarding age-appropriate skills that may be used to prepare for and respond to a man-made emergency or a natural disaster. 130H. R. 2512, the First Responders Funding Reform Act of 2003, 108th Congress, First Session, June 18, 2003, referred to the House Judiciary Committee. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 45 Compromise Bill Approved by Homeland Security Subcommittee. On November 20, 2003, Chairman Cox and Ranking Democrat Turner made good on vows to collaborate toward common solutions, unveiling a compromise bill that merged the elements of H. R. 3266 and H. R. 3158.131 At a markup session of the Homeland Security Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, Chairman John Shadegg (AZ) proposed the compromise version as an amendment in the nature of the substitute to H. R. 3266, which the members approved by voice vote without dissent. Applauding “the bipartisan spirit and the teamwork of this committee,” Cox called the markup a defining moment for the panel.132 Under the compromise bill, no geographic area would receive specific funding guarantees, DHS would allocate funding pursuant to its comprehensive assessment of the threats facing the nation, and states and regions would apply to DHS for funding based on the extent of state, regional, and local preparedness needs. The compromise bill expressly does not affect Assistance to Firefighters Grants, Emergency Management Performance Grants, Urban Search and Rescue Grants, Local Law Enforcement Block Grants, COPS grants, Byrne grants, or HHS bioterrorism preparedness grants. Incorporating language from the PREPARE Act, the bill requires that DHS establish and regularly update a specific, flexible, and measurable list of “essential capabilities” for state and local government emergency preparedness and response that considers variables of “threat, vulnerability, and consequences with respect to the Nation’s population (including transient commuting and tourist populations) and critical infrastructure.”133 The bill would require that state and regional134 grant applications be based on building essential capabilities, and DHS would prioritize funding applications on the basis of the extent to which they build essential capabilities. It requires that a 25-member “Task Force on Essential Capabilities for First Responders” assist DHS in developing assessment standards, 131In addition, the compromise bill incorporates allocation criteria language (although not the 0.5 percent small-state minimum proposal) from H. R. 2512. 132See press release, Committee Votes Unanimously In Favor Of First Responder Legislation, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, November 21, 2003, http://hsc.house.gov/release.cfm?id=114. 133The bill specifies that a DHS assessment of critical infrastructure should examine the protection of agriculture, banking and finance, chemical industries, the defense industrial base, emergency services, energy, food, government, postal and shipping, public health, information and telecommunications networks, transportation, and water. It lists specific threat areas listed in prior bills and adds cyber threats to the list. H. R. 3266, Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders, House Select Committee on Homeland Security, as amended by the Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness and Response, November 20, 2003. 134The bill defines eligible regions as those encompassing an area of not less than 20,000 square miles, or housing a population of at least 1.65 million, or others approved by DHS and the appropriate state or states and incorporated jurisdictions. 46 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California prioritization, and implementation methodology.135 States then would be required to submit to DHS a three-year plan detailing the extent to which state and local first responders have and have not achieved the essential capabilities applicable to the state and prioritizing outstanding needs. DHS would evaluate and annually prioritize grant applications on the basis of the degree to which they would, “by improving applicants’ essential capabilities, advance the Nation’s achievement of the essential capabilities.”136 The bill includes the 80 percent state pass-through requirements contained in predecessor bills, and it requires 25 percent cost-sharing by recipients beginning two years after enactment, with inkind contributions allowable to satisfy the match.137 The bill would also move ODP from the Directorate of Border and Transportation Security to the Directorate for Emergency Preparedness, which now houses FEMA. The full Select Committee on Homeland Security is expected to consider H. R. 3266 after Congress reconvenes for the 108th Congress’s second session in early 2004. Senate Bills On the other side of the Capitol, there has been limited action on relevant Senate bills. On Tuesday, June 17, 2003, the Senate Committee on Government Affairs unanimously approved S. 1245, which would coordinate federal homeland security grants but which also would retain and codify the 40/60 allocation formula. The bill, authored by Government Affairs Committee Chair Susan Collins (ME) and entitled the Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, would designate criteria for DHS to use to allocate formula funds that remain after the small-state minimum is applied—population, threat, and border and coastline locations.138 The Collins bill would specify that 10 percent of grants be used for discretionary grants to local governments in high-threat areas (a smaller percentage than was 135The compromise bill differs from the PREPARE Act in that it does not delineate specific fields which a specific number of task force members must represent, allowing DHS greater flexibility in determining membership within set guidelines. See H. R. 3266. 136See H. R. 3266. 137In-kind contributions may include personnel overtime, contractor services, administrative costs, equipment fuel and maintenance, and rental space. See H. R. 3266. 138The bill would require that every state receive an equal share of the first 39 percent of funds (0.75 percent each), with the four territories receiving 0.25 percent each. The remaining 60 percent would then be allocated according to “(A) population, including tourist and military populations, and population density; (B) threat, risk, and vulnerability of critical infrastructure or key national assets, or other factors identified in a State homeland security plan; (C) an international border with Canada or Mexico, or coastline bordering international waters of Canada, Mexico, the Atlantic Ocean or the Pacific Ocean; or (D) other factors specified in writing by the Secretary [of Homeland Security].” S. 1245, The Homeland Security Grant Enhancement Act of 2003, 108th Congress, 1st Session, June 12, 2003, as reported by the Senate Committee on Government Affairs. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 47 appropriated and allocated for the Urban Area Security Initiative in fiscal year 2003), and it would more explicitly direct DHS allocation of those discretionary funds by specifying criteria similar to those for formula grant awards.139 The bill would also require that states forward at least 80 percent of funding to first responders, and that the state or local government (except those in economically distressed areas) provide at least a 25 percent match (effective two years after enactment), and prohibit federal funds from supplanting existing state and local expenditures. On July 30, 2003, the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works approved S. 930, entitled the Emergency Preparedness and Response Act of 2003 and introduced by Committee Chairman James Inhofe (OK). It would authorize $3.3 billion for first responder grants for fiscal year 2004 and $3.5 billion for the ensuing three fiscal years. Like the Collins bill, it would largely codify the 40/60 formula, and it would base grants after the minimum amount on population, critical infrastructure, public buildings, and national icons in determining a state or local area’s funding allocation. (Rather than set a minimum share of 0.75 percent, the Inhofe bill would accomplish a similar result by providing each state a set minimum of $15 million. In fiscal year 2003, each state effectively received $15.5 million as a base allocation from ODP programs using the 40/60 formula.) The Inhofe bill would also provide funding for urban search and rescue task forces. As this report went to print, none of these authorizing bills in either the House or Senate had been scheduled for floor action. Conclusion To date, most federal funding to help states and localities counter terrorism has been distributed without regard to threat levels or other similar metrics. In fact, funds are not even distributed on the basis of population. Instead, DHS and HHS have allocated funds on a modified population basis that vastly favors smaller and more rural states over larger and more urbanized states. The formula that distributes most homeland security funds to state and local governments delivers more than $6 per resident to five small states for every $1 per resident it provides to California. Grants from ODP, as well as two FEMA grants, are allocated according to a 40/60 formula that previously had been used to distribute only a few million dollars—in 2003, that same formula allocated $2.25 billion. Despite housing more than 12 percent of the nation’s population, 139The Collins bill would require that every locality meeting any one of the preceding criteria receive an award. 48 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California California receives less than 8 percent of the grants distributed according to this formula. As a result, some portions of the nation with little likelihood of becoming terror targets are flush with federal revenue, whereas other areas—many of which have a known history of terror threats or house an array of seemingly attractive targets—must find security funding on their own or go without. The Secretary of DHS commented that the 40/60 formula should be changed to reflect threat levels and concentrate funding in areas most likely to be subject to a terrorist attack. Ultimately, the formula grants were allocated using the existing formula. To a large extent, the department’s hands were tied by Congress, which created the 40/60 allocation scheme by inserting a last-minute amendment into the USA Patriot Act. In distributing funds to states, however, DHS went still further beyond that law’s directives, granting extra funds to small states that already received a disproportionate windfall. An additional $1.4 billion in bioterrorism preparedness grants from HHS yielded fiscal results that were somewhat less stark, owing to the smaller size of the minimum amount guaranteed to each recipient, but that were nevertheless similar in their favoritism toward small states. DHS did allocate some of the high-threat urban area funds using an unpublished formula that took into account threat levels. California received a larger share of grants intended to aid high-threat urban areas with high population density levels, but the total funds for these grants was small relative to the amount distributed by formula. Discretionary spending for other DHS homeland security activities compensated somewhat for the formula funding shortfall. A single airport security funding agreement, reached in 2003 but to be allocated over several future fiscal years, will provide California more funding than did the entire 2003 formula allotment. Critics decry the existing grant funding scheme for distributing most homeland security grant dollars with no regard for threat or vulnerability, and for employing an allocation formula that arbitrarily favors one group of artificial political jurisdictions over another. However, calls for a funding stream linked to known or likely threats and critical infrastructure vulnerabilities draws attention to the challenging task of devising an appropriate, comprehensive formula, as well as to the thorny issue of who—Congress, the administration, or state and local first responder representatives—should draft an allocation method. Pending legislative proposals may eventually result in formula changes. Two competing House bills were merged into a single compromise measure employing a threat-based formula, although it exempts various existing grant FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA 49 programs and entrusts final formula design to other decisionmakers. As is often the case, legislative proposals in the Senate are less likely to repair discrepancies that favor small states. Divining a politically acceptable and functionally successful formula is always a major challenge. Although the nature and scope of change is uncertain at this time, California would likely benefit financially from almost any significant alteration in the existing distribution formulas. 50 California Institute for Federal Policy Research • Public Policy Institute of California Appendix A Methodology Some funds attributed to one fiscal year may be spent in other fiscal years. For example, federal funds to Los Angeles International Airport to help defray the cost of integrating federally purchased explosive detection systems were announced in fiscal year 2003 but will be distributed between fiscal years 2004 and 2007. To determine per capita allocations, this report used 2002 population figures. An exception was that 2000 decennial Census population totals were deemed unchanged for four territories, as no intercensal estimates have been published. Some discretionary grants listed for Washington D.C. were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. This report applied the totals only to the District of Columbia. DHS awarded a port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this report applies all of these funds to the state of New York. Similarly, a transit grant of $877,356 to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is also applied to New York. Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states. The four U.S. territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) are allocated 1 percent of funding from the USA Patriot Act’s 40/60 formula. The two bioterrorism response grant programs funded via HHS provide funding to seven territories and outlying areas: the four territories listed above, as well as the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, and Palau. FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Appendix B Homeland Security: State and Local First Responder Grant Funding Distributed by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table B.1 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $566 Million First Responder Grants from 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on March 7, 2003) 54 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Calculated Reproduction of DHS Release, Using Model Based on 0.75% Initial Allocation per State, Followed by 2002 Population $ % $ per Capita 566,295,000 100.00 1.94 9,456,787 1.67 2.11 4,994,754 0.88 7.76 10,583,052 1.87 1.94 7,394,060 1.31 2.73 45,022,706 7.95 1.28 9,480,049 1.67 2.10 8,265,426 1.46 2.39 5,184,719 0.92 6.42 4,910,119 0.87 8.60 23,653,929 4.18 1.42 14,187,141 2.51 1.66 5,692,744 1.01 4.57 5,804,486 1.02 4.33 18,878,606 3.33 1.50 11,398,904 2.01 1.85 7,657,274 1.35 2.61 7,400,801 1.31 2.73 8,999,733 1.59 2.20 9,452,302 1.67 2.11 5,750,298 1.02 4.44 10,585,008 1.87 1.94 11,710,947 2.07 1.82 15,917,434 2.81 1.58 10,075,934 1.78 2.01 7,581,824 1.34 2.64 10,834,010 1.91 1.91 5,303,237 0.94 5.83 6,255,075 1.10 3.62 6,770,993 1.20 3.12 5,727,762 1.01 4.49 Estimate of How Omnibus Funds Would Have Been Allocated, Using Traditional 0.75% as a Small-State Minimum Only $ % $ per Capita 566,295,000 100.00 1.94 8,025,167 1.42 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 6.60 9,760,140 1.72 1.79 4,847,609 0.86 1.79 62,813,225 11.09 1.79 8,061,003 1.42 1.79 6,189,918 1.09 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 5.26 4,247,213 0.75 7.44 29,895,370 5.28 1.79 15,312,113 2.70 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.41 4,247,213 0.75 3.17 22,539,151 3.98 1.79 11,016,931 1.95 1.79 5,253,081 0.93 1.79 4,857,993 0.86 1.79 7,321,091 1.29 1.79 8,018,259 1.42 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.28 9,763,153 1.72 1.79 11,497,623 2.03 1.79 17,977,570 3.17 1.79 8,978,941 1.59 1.79 5,136,853 0.91 1.79 10,146,732 1.79 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 4.67 4,247,213 0.75 2.46 4,247,213 0.75 1.95 4,247,213 0.75 3.33 Table B.1 (continued) 55 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Calculated Reproduction of DHS Release, Using Model Based on 0.75% Initial Allocation per State, Followed by 2002 Population $ % $ per Capita 14,221,965 2.51 1.66 6,401,241 1.13 3.45 26,492,260 4.68 1.38 13,908,271 2.46 1.67 4,983,519 0.88 7.86 17,509,183 3.09 1.53 8,303,989 1.47 2.38 8,336,271 1.47 2.37 18,570,283 3.28 1.51 8,727,921 1.54 2.26 5,489,339 0.97 5.13 9,016,328 1.59 2.20 5,130,932 0.91 6.74 10,978,819 1.94 1.89 29,537,253 5.22 1.36 6,936,767 1.22 2.99 4,963,177 0.88 8.05 12,716,215 2.25 1.74 11,294,316 1.99 1.86 6,339,484 1.12 3.52 10,565,337 1.87 1.94 4,826,289 0.85 9.68 1,482,262 0.26 25.87 1,595,492 0.28 10.31 1,496,114 0.26 21.61 1,541,854 0.27 14.20 Estimate of How Omnibus Funds Would Have Been Allocated, Using Traditional 0.75% as a Small-State Minimum Only $ % $ per Capita 15,365,758 2.71 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 2.29 34,267,720 6.05 1.79 14,882,524 2.63 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 6.70 20,429,603 3.61 1.79 6,249,323 1.10 1.79 6,299,052 1.11 1.79 22,064,191 3.90 1.79 6,902,376 1.22 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 3.97 7,346,656 1.30 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 5.58 10,369,805 1.83 1.79 38,958,425 6.88 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 1.83 4,247,213 0.75 6.89 13,046,203 2.30 1.79 10,855,817 1.92 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 2.36 9,732,850 1.72 1.79 4,247,213 0.75 8.52 1,415,738 0.25 24.71 1,415,738 0.25 9.15 1,415,738 0.25 20.45 1,415,738 0.25 13.03 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.2 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $1.3 Billion First Responder Grants from 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill 56 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Supplemental Share with DHS Repeating Same Formula Used for Omnibus Funds (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 21,709,007 4.84 11,465,828 17.81 24,293,754 4.45 16,974,037 6.26 103,354,880 2.94 21,762,672 4.83 18,974,731 5.48 11,901,882 14.74 11,271,903 19.74 54,300,440 3.25 32,567,474 3.80 13,068,140 10.50 13,326,400 9.94 43,337,775 3.44 26,167,494 4.25 17,578,991 5.99 16,989,252 6.26 20,658,728 5.05 21,700,228 4.84 13,199,817 10.20 24,299,199 4.45 26,883,871 4.18 36,539,868 3.64 23,130,482 4.61 17,404,836 6.06 24,870,817 4.38 12,174,472 13.39 14,359,871 8.30 15,543,643 7.15 13,149,547 10.31 Supplemental Share with DHS Allocating Only the Supplemental Money via Standard Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 18,422,761 4.11 9,750,000 15.14 22,405,606 4.11 11,128,285 4.11 144,195,504 4.11 18,505,026 4.11 14,209,719 4.11 9,750,000 12.08 9,750,000 17.08 68,628,508 4.11 35,150,844 4.11 9,750,000 7.83 9,750,000 7.27 51,741,401 4.11 25,290,724 4.11 12,059,095 4.11 11,152,121 4.11 16,806,468 4.11 18,406,903 4.11 9,750,000 7.53 22,412,521 4.11 26,394,212 4.11 41,269,728 4.11 20,612,267 4.11 11,792,279 4.11 23,293,075 4.11 9,750,000 10.72 9,750,000 5.64 9,750,000 4.49 9,750,000 7.65 Supplemental Share with DHS Using Supplement to Reallocate Funds So Entire $1.8 Billion Was Based on Standard Small- State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,300,000,000 4.44 16,990,928 3.79 9,002,213 13.98 21,581,746 3.96 8,581,894 3.17 161,985,729 4.61 17,086,028 3.79 12,134,637 3.51 8,812,213 10.91 9,087,213 15.92 74,869,877 4.48 36,274,958 4.24 8,304,213 6.67 8,194,213 6.11 55,401,552 4.40 24,908,656 4.04 9,655,676 3.29 8,609,114 3.17 15,126,559 3.70 16,974,162 3.79 8,246,213 6.37 21,590,673 3.96 26,180,835 4.07 43,329,297 4.31 19,515,209 3.89 9,347,132 3.25 22,605,807 3.99 8,694,213 9.56 7,742,713 4.48 7,226,213 3.32 8,270,213 6.49 Table B.2 (continued) 57 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Supplemental Share with DHS Repeating Same Formula Used for Omnibus Funds (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 32,648,238 3.80 14,695,080 7.92 60,816,510 3.17 31,928,423 3.84 11,440,800 18.04 40,193,672 3.52 19,062,821 5.46 19,137,209 5.43 42,630,658 3.46 20,036,941 5.19 12,601,794 11.78 20,697,420 5.04 11,778,619 15.48 25,204,052 4.35 67,805,659 3.11 15,923,971 6.87 11,393,763 18.48 29,191,855 4.00 25,927,810 4.27 14,552,550 8.08 24,254,370 4.46 11,078,630 22.21 3,402,976 59.40 3,662,139 23.66 3,434,630 49.62 3,539,370 32.59 Supplemental Share with DHS Allocating Only the Supplemental Money via Standard Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 35,273,991 4.11 9,750,000 5.26 78,665,776 4.11 34,164,669 4.11 9,750,000 15.38 46,898,673 4.11 14,346,092 4.11 14,460,250 4.11 50,651,070 4.11 15,845,254 4.11 9,750,000 9.11 16,865,154 4.11 9,750,000 12.81 23,805,166 4.11 89,433,868 4.11 9,750,000 4.21 9,750,000 15.81 29,949,168 4.11 24,920,866 4.11 9,750,000 5.41 22,342,957 4.11 9,750,000 19.55 3,250,000 56.73 3,250,000 20.99 3,250,000 46.95 3,250,000 29.92 Supplemental Share with DHS Using Supplement to Reallocate Funds So Entire $1.8 Billion Was Based on Standard Small- State Minimum $ $ per Capita 36,417,749 4.24 7,596,213 4.09 86,441,495 4.51 35,139,193 4.22 9,014,213 14.22 49,818,276 4.36 12,291,416 3.52 12,423,302 3.53 54,145,261 4.39 14,020,630 3.63 8,508,213 7.95 15,194,810 3.70 8,866,213 11.65 23,196,972 4.00 98,854,292 4.54 7,060,213 3.05 9,034,213 14.65 30,279,371 4.15 24,482,682 4.03 7,657,213 4.25 21,510,806 3.95 9,170,213 18.39 3,183,738 55.57 3,069,738 19.83 3,169,738 45.79 3,123,738 28.76 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf. U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.3 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Combined Allocation of $1.866 Billion First Responder Grants for 2003, from 2003 Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations Bills ($566 million omnibus, plus $1.3 billion supplemental) 58 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Share with DHS Allocating All Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) for Both Supplemental and Omnibus $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 31,166,007 6.95 16,460,828 25.57 34,877,754 6.39 24,368,037 8.99 148,377,880 4.23 31,242,672 6.93 27,239,731 7.87 17,086,882 21.16 16,181,903 28.34 77,954,440 4.66 46,755,474 5.46 18,761,140 15.07 19,129,400 14.26 62,216,775 4.94 37,566,494 6.10 25,235,491 8.59 24,390,252 8.98 29,659,728 7.25 31,151,228 6.95 18,950,817 14.64 34,884,199 6.39 38,594,871 6.00 52,457,868 5.22 33,206,482 6.62 24,986,836 8.70 35,704,817 6.29 17,477,472 19.22 20,614,371 11.92 22,314,643 10.27 18,876,547 14.80 Share with DHS Allocating Supplemental Based on Population with 0.75% Small-State Minimum, But with Omnibus Allocation Unchanged $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 27,879,761 6.21 14,745,000 22.90 32,989,606 6.05 18,522,285 6.83 189,218,504 5.39 27,985,026 6.21 22,474,719 6.49 14,935,000 18.50 14,660,000 25.68 92,282,508 5.52 49,338,844 5.76 15,443,000 12.41 15,553,000 11.60 70,620,401 5.60 36,689,724 5.96 19,715,595 6.71 18,553,121 6.83 25,807,468 6.31 27,857,903 6.21 15,501,000 11.97 32,997,521 6.05 38,105,212 5.93 57,187,728 5.69 30,688,267 6.11 19,374,279 6.75 34,127,075 6.02 15,053,000 16.55 16,004,500 9.26 16,521,000 7.60 15,477,000 12.14 Share with DHS Allocating All Funds with 0.75% Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 1,866,295,000 6.38 26,447,928 5.89 13,997,213 21.74 32,165,746 5.89 15,975,894 5.89 207,008,729 5.89 26,566,028 5.89 20,399,637 5.89 13,997,213 17.34 13,997,213 24.52 98,523,877 5.89 50,462,958 5.89 13,997,213 11.24 13,997,213 10.44 74,280,552 5.89 36,307,656 5.89 17,312,176 5.89 16,010,114 5.89 24,127,559 5.89 26,425,162 5.89 13,997,213 10.81 32,175,673 5.89 37,891,835 5.89 59,247,297 5.89 29,591,209 5.89 16,929,132 5.89 33,439,807 5.89 13,997,213 15.39 13,997,213 8.09 13,997,213 6.44 13,997,213 10.98 Table B.3 (continued) 59 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Share with DHS Allocating All Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) for Both Supplemental and Omnibus $ $ per Capita 46,870,238 5.46 21,096,080 11.37 87,308,510 4.56 45,836,423 5.51 16,423,800 25.90 57,703,672 5.05 27,366,821 7.83 27,473,209 7.80 61,200,658 4.96 28,763,941 7.45 18,090,794 16.91 29,714,420 7.23 16,909,619 22.22 36,182,052 6.24 97,343,659 4.47 22,860,971 9.87 16,356,763 26.53 41,907,855 5.75 37,221,810 6.13 20,892,550 11.59 34,819,370 6.40 15,905,630 31.89 4,884,976 85.27 5,258,139 33.97 4,930,630 71.23 5,081,370 46.78 Share with DHS Allocating Supplemental Based on Population with 0.75% Small-State Minimum, But with Omnibus Allocation Unchanged $ $ per Capita 49,495,991 5.76 16,151,000 8.71 105,157,776 5.49 48,072,669 5.78 14,733,000 23.23 64,408,673 5.64 22,650,092 6.48 22,796,250 6.47 69,221,070 5.61 24,572,254 6.37 15,239,000 14.25 25,882,154 6.30 14,881,000 19.55 34,783,166 6.00 118,971,868 5.46 16,687,000 7.20 14,713,000 23.86 42,665,168 5.85 36,214,866 5.97 16,090,000 8.93 32,907,957 6.05 14,577,000 29.23 4,732,000 82.60 4,846,000 31.30 4,746,000 68.56 4,792,000 44.12 Share with DHS Allocating All Funds with 0.75% Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 50,639,749 5.89 13,997,213 7.55 112,933,495 5.89 49,047,193 5.89 13,997,213 22.07 67,328,276 5.89 20,595,416 5.89 20,759,302 5.89 72,715,261 5.89 22,747,630 5.89 13,997,213 13.08 24,211,810 5.89 13,997,213 18.39 34,174,972 5.89 128,392,292 5.89 13,997,213 6.04 13,997,213 22.70 42,995,371 5.89 35,776,682 5.89 13,997,213 7.77 32,075,806 5.89 13,997,213 28.07 4,665,738 81.44 4,665,738 30.14 4,665,738 67.40 4,665,738 42.96 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56 , October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.4 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of $200 Million in Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants from the 2003 Supplemental Appropriations Bill 60 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 200,000,000 0.68 3,339,880 0.74 1,764,011 2.74 3,737,646 0.68 2,611,381 0.96 15,900,796 0.45 3,348,096 0.74 2,919,124 0.84 1,831,102 2.27 1,734,121 3.04 8,353,925 0.50 5,010,513 0.59 2,010,522 1.62 2,049,987 1.53 6,667,411 0.53 4,025,783 0.65 2,704,341 0.92 2,613,762 0.96 3,178,461 0.78 3,338,296 0.74 2,030,849 1.57 3,738,337 0.68 4,135,988 0.64 5,621,605 0.56 3,558,546 0.71 2,677,694 0.93 3,826,278 0.67 1,872,959 2.06 2,209,122 1.28 2,391,331 1.10 2,022,890 1.59 Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 200,000,000 0.68 2,834,271 0.63 1,500,000 2.33 3,447,016 0.63 1,712,044 0.63 22,183,924 0.63 2,846,927 0.63 2,186,111 0.63 1,500,000 1.86 1,500,000 2.63 10,558,232 0.63 5,407,822 0.63 1,500,000 1.20 1,500,000 1.12 7,960,216 0.63 3,890,881 0.63 1,855,245 0.63 1,715,711 0.63 2,585,610 0.63 2,831,831 0.63 1,500,000 1.16 3,448,080 0.63 4,060,648 0.63 6,349,189 0.63 3,171,118 0.63 1,814,197 0.63 3,583,550 0.63 1,500,000 1.65 1,500,000 0.87 1,500,000 0.69 1,500,000 1.18 Table B.4 (continued) 61 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Population) $ $ per Capita 5,022,811 0.58 2,260,744 1.22 9,356,346 0.49 4,912,023 0.59 1,760,043 2.78 6,183,768 0.54 2,932,743 0.84 2,944,144 0.84 6,558,519 0.53 3,082,465 0.80 1,938,685 1.81 3,184,322 0.78 1,812,106 2.38 3,877,420 0.67 10,431,755 0.48 2,449,878 1.06 1,752,859 2.84 4,491,022 0.62 3,988,845 0.66 2,238,933 1.24 3,731,390 0.69 1,704,514 3.42 523,495 9.14 563,484 3.64 528,387 7.63 544,541 5.01 Critical Infrastructure Protection Funds with Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 5,426,768 0.63 1,500,000 0.81 12,102,427 0.63 5,256,103 0.63 1,500,000 2.37 7,215,180 0.63 2,207,091 0.63 2,224,654 0.63 7,792,472 0.63 2,437,731 0.63 1,500,000 1.40 2,594,639 0.63 1,500,000 1.97 3,662,333 0.63 13,759,057 0.63 1,500,000 0.65 1,500,000 2.43 4,607,564 0.63 3,833,979 0.63 1,500,000 0.83 3,437,378 0.63 1,500,000 3.01 500,000 8.73 500,000 3.23 500,000 7.22 500,000 4.60 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. U.S. Census Bureau, Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Table B.5 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Total ODP 2003 Grant Allocations of $2.066 Billion, Including First Responder Grants and Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants, from 2003 Omnibus and Supplemental Appropriations Bills ($1.8 billion plus $200 million for critical infrastructure) 62 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Share of Grand Total Funding with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Remainder Based on Population) $ $ per Capita 2,066,295,000 7.06 34,505,887 7.69 18,224,839 28.31 38,615,401 7.08 26,979,418 9.96 164,278,676 4.68 34,590,768 7.68 30,158,854 8.72 18,917,984 23.43 17,916,023 31.38 86,308,365 5.16 51,765,986 6.05 20,771,662 16.69 21,179,387 15.79 68,884,185 5.47 41,592,277 6.75 27,939,832 9.51 27,004,013 9.94 32,838,189 8.02 34,489,524 7.69 20,981,666 16.21 38,622,536 7.08 42,730,859 6.65 58,079,473 5.78 36,765,027 7.32 27,664,530 9.63 39,531,095 6.97 19,350,431 21.28 22,823,494 13.20 24,705,974 11.37 20,899,437 16.39 Share of Grand Total with Funds Allocated Based on Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 2,066,295,000 7.06 29,282,199 6.53 15,497,213 24.07 35,612,762 6.53 17,687,937 6.53 229,192,653 6.53 29,412,955 6.53 22,585,748 6.53 15,497,213 19.19 15,497,213 27.15 109,082,109 6.53 55,870,780 6.53 15,497,213 12.45 15,497,213 11.56 82,240,768 6.53 40,198,536 6.53 19,167,422 6.53 17,725,825 6.53 26,713,170 6.53 29,256,993 6.53 15,497,213 11.97 35,623,753 6.53 41,952,483 6.53 65,596,486 6.53 32,762,327 6.53 18,743,328 6.53 37,023,357 6.53 15,497,213 17.04 15,497,213 8.96 15,497,213 7.13 15,497,213 12.15 Table B.5 (continued) 63 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Share of Grand Total Funding with DHS Allocating Funds Based on Omnibus Allocation (0.75% per State, Then Remainder Based on Population) $ $ per Capita 51,893,049 6.04 23,356,824 12.59 96,664,856 5.05 50,748,447 6.10 18,183,843 28.68 63,887,440 5.59 30,299,565 8.67 30,417,353 8.64 67,759,178 5.49 31,846,406 8.25 20,029,480 18.72 32,898,742 8.01 18,721,724 24.60 40,059,473 6.91 107,775,414 4.95 25,310,848 10.93 18,109,622 29.37 46,398,877 6.36 41,210,655 6.79 23,131,483 12.84 38,550,759 7.08 17,610,144 35.31 5,408,471 94.40 5,821,624 37.61 5,459,017 78.86 5,625,911 51.80 Share of Grand Total with Funds Allocated Based on Traditional Small-State Minimum $ $ per Capita 56,066,517 6.53 15,497,213 8.35 125,035,922 6.53 54,303,296 6.53 15,497,213 24.44 74,543,457 6.53 22,802,507 6.53 22,983,956 6.53 80,507,734 6.53 25,185,361 6.53 15,497,213 14.49 26,806,450 6.53 15,497,213 20.36 37,837,305 6.53 142,151,349 6.53 15,497,213 6.69 15,497,213 25.13 47,602,935 6.53 39,610,661 6.53 15,497,213 8.60 35,513,184 6.53 15,497,213 31.08 5,165,738 90.17 5,165,738 33.37 5,165,738 74.63 5,165,738 47.56 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf . U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. To return rounded funding totals to the starting total, DHS added $500 each to Nebraska and Iowa. Other states rounded to 1000s. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Appendix C Homeland Security: Total Grants Distributed by the Department of Homeland Security, Fiscal Year 2003 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table C.1 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2003 66 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey ODP Formula Urban Area Security Urban Area Security ODP Grants Under Initiative, Round 1 Initiative, Round 2 ODP Port Mass Transit Radiological Grants USA Patriot (4/8/2003 Omnibus) (5/14/2003 Security Grants Security Grants Defense Grants Total ODP per Act ($) ($) Supplemental) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) Grants ($) % of U.S. Total Capita ($) 2,066,295,000 97,070,000 499,910,000 75,000,000 65,000,000 35,000,000 2,838,275,000 100.00 9.71 34,505,887 34,505,887 1.22 7.69 18,224,839 250,000 18,474,839 0.65 28.70 38,615,401 11,030,000 49,645,401 1.75 9.10 26,979,418 26,979,418 0.95 9.96 164,278,676 22,930,000 62,190,000 9,076,700 7,965,493 266,440,869 9.39 7.59 34,590,768 15,570,000 825,119 50,985,887 1.80 11.31 30,158,854 30,158,854 1.06 8.72 18,917,984 18,917,984 0.67 23.43 17,916,023 18,200,000 42,400,000 3,709,839 82,225,862 2.90 144.03 86,308,365 18,950,000 10,947,378 896,544 117,102,287 4.13 7.01 51,765,986 1,781,362 53,547,348 1.89 6.26 20,771,662 6,870,000 27,641,662 0.97 22.20 21,179,387 21,179,387 0.75 15.79 68,884,185 10,970,000 29,970,000 5,117,019 114,941,204 4.05 9.12 41,592,277 41,592,277 1.47 6.75 27,939,832 27,939,832 0.98 9.51 27,004,013 27,004,013 0.95 9.94 32,838,189 32,838,189 1.16 8.02 34,489,524 6,280,000 6,650,200 47,419,724 1.67 10.58 20,981,666 20,981,666 0.74 16.21 38,622,536 10,900,000 1,225,952 50,748,488 1.79 9.30 42,730,859 16,720,000 3,783,396 63,234,255 2.23 9.84 58,079,473 12,270,000 70,349,473 2.48 7.00 36,765,027 36,765,027 1.30 7.32 27,664,530 27,664,530 0.97 9.63 39,531,095 19,540,000 59,071,095 2.08 10.41 19,350,431 19,350,431 0.68 21.28 22,823,494 22,823,494 0.80 13.20 24,705,974 24,705,974 0.87 11.37 20,899,437 20,899,437 0.74 16.39 51,893,049 11,890,000 2,346,366 66,129,415 2.33 7.70 Table C.1 (continued) 67 ODP Formula Urban Area Security Urban Area Security Grants Under Initiative, Round 1 Initiative, Round 2 ODP Port Mass Transit Radiological USA Patriot (4/8/2003 Omnibus) (5/14/2003 Security Grants Security Grants Defense Grants Act ($) ($) Supplemental) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) (5/14/2003) ($) Total ODP Grants ($) ODP Grants per % of U.S. Total Capita ($) New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands 23,356,824 96,664,856 50,748,447 18,183,843 63,887,440 30,299,565 30,417,353 67,759,178 31,846,406 20,029,480 32,898,742 18,721,724 40,059,473 107,775,414 25,310,848 18,109,622 46,398,877 41,210,655 23,131,483 38,550,759 17,610,144 5,408,471 5,821,624 5,459,017 0 5,625,911 25,000,000 8,690,000 11,280,000 135,270,000 9,371,218 30,049,694 30,000,000 13,850,000 6,770,000 21,030,000 6,070,000 34,160,000 6,450,211 1,605,958 5,124,554 12,158,057 926,394 4,211,946 1,062,847 5,000,000 18,180,000 6,600,000 6,765,724 1,098,027 23,356,824 326,355,768 50,748,447 18,183,843 77,737,440 30,299,565 38,113,747 99,451,335 33,452,364 20,029,480 43,023,296 18,721,724 46,129,473 163,846,318 25,310,848 18,109,622 52,998,877 78,534,406 23,131,483 38,550,759 17,610,144 5,408,471 5,821,624 5,459,017 0 5,625,911 0.82 11.50 1.79 0.64 2.74 1.07 1.34 3.50 1.18 0.71 1.52 0.66 1.63 5.77 0.89 0.64 1.87 2.77 0.81 1.36 0.62 0.19 0.21 0.19 0.00 0.20 12.59 17.04 6.10 28.68 6.81 8.67 10.82 8.06 8.67 18.72 10.48 24.60 7.96 7.52 10.93 29.37 7.27 12.94 12.84 7.08 35.31 94.40 37.61 78.86 0.00 51.80 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=755; http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=552; http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ODP_State_ Homeland_Security_Grant_Program.pdf; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 2, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and thus are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) allocated 1 percent of funding. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable. Decennial census 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Discretionary grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. DHS awarded a $9,371,218 port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this table applies all funds to New York. Similarly, an $877,356 transit grant to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is applied to New York. Table C.2 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Transportation Security Administration, Fiscal Year 2003 68 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico TSA Port Security Grants (6/12/2003) ($) 169,055,136 948,000 3,971,255 0 0 28,511,178 0 2,356,397 290,400 58,485 17,636,925 2,629,643 7,005,561 0 575,000 68,800 0 0 55,136 20,823,098 1,928,880 4,340,532 4,458,771 161,000 0 705,444 125,000 0 0 0 80,000 4,867,107 0 DHS/DOT Operation Safe Commerce (6/12/2003) ($) 28,300,374 8,250,356 TSA Intercity Bus Grants (8/15/2003) ($) 19,800,007 0 0 99,950 0 177,116 0 0 0 773,614 141,580 265,003 0 0 51,278 113,813 226,272 0 0 0 0 338,482 1,173,875 0 335,102 0 0 0 0 320,791 73,182 2,454,224 0 TSA Airport Security Letters of Agreement Announcements (7/7/ 2003 and 9/2/2003) ($) 775,650,000 264,400,000 67,500,000 87,000,000 93,750,000 Total TSA Discretionary Grants ($) 992,805,517 948,000 3,971,255 99,950 0 301,338,650 67,500,000 2,356,397 290,400 832,099 17,778,505 2,894,646 7,005,561 0 626,278 182,613 226,272 0 55,136 20,823,098 1,928,880 4,679,014 92,632,646 161,000 335,102 705,444 125,000 0 0 94,070,791 153,182 7,321,331 0 % of U.S. Total 100.00 0.10 0.40 0.01 0.00 30.35 6.80 0.24 0.03 0.08 1.79 0.29 0.71 0.00 0.06 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 2.10 0.19 0.47 9.33 0.02 0.03 0.07 0.01 0.00 0.00 9.48 0.02 0.74 0.00 TSA Grants per Capita ($) 3.40 0.21 6.17 0.02 0.00 8.58 14.98 0.68 0.36 1.46 1.06 0.34 5.63 0.00 0.05 0.03 0.08 0.00 0.01 4.65 1.49 0.86 14.41 0.02 0.07 0.25 0.02 0.00 0.00 43.28 0.12 0.85 0.00 Table C.2 (continued) 69 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands TSA Port Security Grants (6/12/2003) ($) 10,072,663 4,870,000 0 777,000 725,000 1,185,000 5,151,969 562,000 355,000 1,827,889 0 639,655 17,743,010 0 0 5,050,858 16,103,235 522,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,873,245 DHS/DOT Operation Safe Commerce (6/12/2003) ($) 6,747,227 13,302,791 TSA Intercity Bus Grants (8/15/2003) ($) 172,130 566,591 0 44,408 0 9,900 342,765 0 0 35,263 0 123,375 10,755,141 0 217,542 841,330 26,407 0 120,873 0 0 0 0 0 0 TSA Airport Security Letters of Agreement Announcements (7/7/ 2003 and 9/2/2003) ($) 104,000,000 159,000,000 Total TSA Discretionary Grants ($) 16,992,020 5,436,591 0 821,408 725,000 1,194,900 5,494,734 562,000 355,000 1,863,152 0 763,030 132,498,151 0 217,542 5,892,188 188,432,433 522,000 120,873 0 0 0 0 0 1,873,245 % of U.S. Total 1.71 0.55 0.00 0.08 0.07 0.12 0.55 0.06 0.04 0.19 0.00 0.08 13.35 0.00 0.02 0.59 18.98 0.05 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.19 TSA Grants per Capita ($) 0.89 0.65 0.00 0.07 0.21 0.34 0.45 0.15 0.33 0.45 0.00 0.13 6.08 0.00 0.35 0.81 31.05 0.29 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.25 SOURCES: TSA Port http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?content=85, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_Press_Kit_DHS.pdf (6-12-2003); Bus: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=658 (8-15-2003); Airport 1: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=678 (9-2-2003); Airport 2: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=44&content=571 (7-7-2003). NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states. Discretionary grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Viginia. DHS awarded a $9,371,218 port security grant to New York/New Jersey; this table applies all funds to New York. Similarly, an $877,356 transit grant to the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey is applied to New York. Table C.3 Homeland Security: Grants to State and Local Governments from the Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fiscal Year 2003 70 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico FEMA Emergency Management Performance Grants (4/16/2003) ($) 165,140,000 2,752,864 1,454,479 3,076,171 2,151,922 13,094,650 2,756,043 2,407,428 1,508,348 1,425,190 6,870,000 4,123,419 1,658,937 1,689,064 5,483,731 3,313,688 2,227,865 2,152,490 2,616,272 2,751,260 1,674,771 3,076,637 3,407,781 4,630,575 2,929,118 2,205,660 3,151,469 1,542,988 1,820,480 1,968,780 1,667,748 4,139,084 1,862,907 FEMA Community Emergency Response Teams (5/29/2003) ($) 18,800,000 313,949 165,817 351,339 245,470 1,494,675 314,721 274,398 172,124 163,007 785,269 470,988 188,989 192,699 626,737 378,424 254,208 245,694 298,775 313,800 190,900 351,404 388,783 528,431 334,503 251,703 359,670 176,058 207,657 224,785 190,152 472,144 212,510 FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (as of 10/3/2003) ($) 293,969,462 10,469,577 1,778,775 2,133,382 5,098,624 11,733,952 2,797,460 3,131,139 516,268 0 4,498,985 6,757,146 0 2,721,793 12,079,454 8,823,008 8,349,514 6,201,255 8,710,737 5,714,904 4,954,770 1,625,307 3,465,711 5,648,656 9,818,214 8,510,814 10,651,581 5,031,073 4,800,547 761,005 1,531,473 4,532,832 2,330,858 FEMA/DOJ Communications Interoperability Grants (9/25/ 2003) ($) 79,570,300 0 0 0 2,082,385 0 0 0 2,406,284 0 0 0 0 0 6,000,000 0 5,995,822 0 0 0 0 5,629,013 0 6,000,000 6,000,000 0 5,496,750 4,475,916 0 0 2,176,168 0 0 FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants (9/25/2003) ($) 73,764,887 0 0 0 12,375,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,125,000 0 9,335,572 0 434,171 0 0 232,118 0 0 0 0 0 6,662,370 494,168 0 1,924,875 4,783,995 9,164,503 0 0 Total FEMA Grants ($) 631,244,649 13,536,390 3,399,071 5,560,892 21,953,401 26,323,277 5,868,224 5,812,965 4,603,024 1,588,197 12,154,254 11,351,553 2,972,926 4,603,556 33,525,494 12,515,120 17,261,580 8,599,439 11,625,784 9,012,082 6,820,441 10,682,361 7,262,275 16,807,662 19,081,835 17,630,547 20,153,638 11,226,035 8,753,559 7,738,565 14,730,044 9,144,060 4,406,275 % of U.S. Total FEMA Grants 100.00 2.14 0.54 0.88 3.48 4.17 0.93 0.92 0.73 0.25 1.93 1.80 0.47 0.73 5.31 1.98 2.73 1.36 1.84 1.43 1.08 1.69 1.15 2.66 3.02 2.79 3.19 1.78 1.39 1.23 2.33 1.45 0.70 FEMA Grants per Capita ($) 2.16 3.02 5.28 1.02 8.10 0.75 1.30 1.68 5.70 2.78 0.73 1.33 2.39 3.43 2.66 2.03 5.88 3.17 2.84 2.01 5.27 1.96 1.13 1.67 3.80 6.14 3.55 12.34 5.06 3.56 11.55 1.06 2.38 Table C.3 (continued) 71 New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands FEMA Emergency FEMA Management Community Performance Emergency Grants Response Teams (4/16/2003) ($) (5/29/2003) ($) 7,703,460 879,497 4,045,543 461,730 1,450,633 165,444 5,095,337 581,274 2,415,000 275,678 2,424,176 276,750 5,401,194 616,501 2,536,400 289,752 1,599,677 182,236 2,624,831 299,326 1,491,467 170,338 3,191,728 364,477 8,580,534 980,585 2,018,685 230,288 1,443,442 164,769 3,698,780 422,156 3,282,282 374,951 1,842,282 210,460 3,071,833 350,751 1,405,455 160,224 431,942 49,208 589,350 52,967 571,340 49,668 00 632,810 51,187 FEMA Assistance to Firefighters Grants (as of 10/3/2003) ($) 16,605,888 8,435,832 3,148,459 10,540,697 4,507,310 4,755,931 13,557,151 374,981 554,605 4,787,382 3,594,215 10,227,538 12,169,976 2,189,534 1,647,016 9,723,659 8,560,565 2,669,335 9,676,003 1,064,571 0 0 0 0 0 FEMA/DOJ Communications Interoperability Grants (9/25/ 2003) ($) 6,000,000 0 0 0 846,263 0 5,964,973 0 3,041,942 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,000,000 5,765,100 5,689,684 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 FEMA Emergency Operations Centers Grants (9/25/2003) ($) 2,818,105 0 0 0 1,959,294 0 0 0 0 2,062,294 3,433,500 0 0 442,365 0 5,137,452 0 0 0 0 4,112,270 3,221,708 4,046,127 0 0 Total FEMA Grants ($) 34,006,950 12,943,105 4,764,536 16,217,308 10,003,545 7,456,857 25,539,819 3,201,133 5,378,460 9,773,833 8,689,520 13,783,743 21,731,095 4,880,872 3,255,227 24,982,047 17,982,898 10,411,761 13,098,587 2,630,250 4,593,420 3,864,025 4,667,135 0 683,997 % of U.S. Total FEMA Grants 5.39 2.05 0.75 2.57 1.58 1.18 4.05 0.51 0.85 1.55 1.38 2.18 3.44 0.77 0.52 3.96 2.85 1.65 2.08 0.42 0.73 0.61 0.74 0.00 0.11 FEMA Grants per Capita ($) 1.78 1.56 7.51 1.42 2.86 2.12 2.07 0.83 5.03 2.38 11.42 2.38 1.00 2.11 5.28 3.43 2.96 5.78 2.41 5.27 80.18 24.96 67.42 0.00 6.30 SOURCES: EMPG: http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_empg2.shtm (4-16-2003); CERT: http://www.fema.gov/nwz03/nwz03_123b.shtm (5-29-2003); firefighter grants: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/xls/grants/fy03total.xls; interoperability grants: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0266.xml; EOC grants: http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=1737; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: Awards for Assistance to Firefighters Grants Program are being made on an ongoing basis. Total appropriation for 2003 was $750 million. The above total represents grants made as of the date of this publication. Table C.4 Homeland Security: Bioterrorism Preparedness Grants to State and Local Governments from the Department of Health and Human Services, Fiscal Year 2003 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin CDC Public Health Systems Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 870,000,000 14,056,645 6,284,107 15,755,035 10,461,043 80,120,894 13,979,790 11,960,524 6,614,378 11,162,901 38,181,999 22,034,847 7,486,672 7,676,282 35,373,345 17,416,386 10,941,890 10,476,095 13,245,815 14,059,595 7,603,092 15,915,365 17,972,524 25,278,581 15,101,600 10,795,501 16,424,504 6,834,837 8,485,811 9,251,219 7,552,202 22,248,528 8,710,551 48,676,120 21,630,396 6,290,025 28,082,405 12,031,404 12,039,235 29,933,326 12,778,777 7,147,493 13,232,255 6,536,811 16,651,663 48,310,184 9,618,011 6,242,254 19,584,849 17,146,134 8,649,835 15,955,629 HRSA Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 498,000,000 7,762,315 1,958,803 9,030,450 5,077,591 54,357,090 7,704,930 6,197,207 2,205,406 2,868,302 25,775,967 13,719,390 2,856,721 2,998,297 20,945,488 10,270,929 5,436,624 5,088,830 7,156,894 7,764,518 2,943,648 9,150,163 10,686,180 16,141,386 8,542,551 5,327,321 9,530,322 2,370,015 3,602,747 4,174,253 2,905,650 13,878,940 3,770,553 30,878,256 13,417,400 1,963,221 18,234,914 6,250,131 6,255,978 19,616,940 6,808,171 2,603,466 7,146,769 2,147,489 9,699,934 33,338,368 4,448,125 1,927,552 11,890,053 10,069,141 3,725,218 9,180,227 Total HHS Grants ($) 1,368,000,000 21,818,960 8,242,910 24,785,485 15,538,634 134,477,984 21,684,720 18,157,731 8,819,784 14,031,203 63,957,966 35,754,237 10,343,393 10,674,579 56,318,833 27,687,315 16,378,514 15,564,925 20,402,709 21,824,113 10,546,740 25,065,528 28,658,704 41,419,967 23,644,151 16,122,822 25,954,826 9,204,852 12,088,558 13,425,472 10,457,852 36,127,468 12,481,104 79,554,376 35,047,796 8,253,246 46,317,319 18,281,535 18,295,213 49,550,266 19,586,948 9,750,959 20,379,024 8,684,300 26,351,597 81,648,552 14,066,136 8,169,806 31,474,902 27,215,275 12,375,053 25,135,856 % of U.S. Total HHS Grants 100.00 1.59 0.60 1.81 1.14 9.83 1.59 1.33 0.64 1.03 4.68 2.61 0.76 0.78 4.12 2.02 1.20 1.14 1.49 1.60 0.77 1.83 2.09 3.03 1.73 1.18 1.90 0.67 0.88 0.98 0.76 2.64 0.91 5.82 2.56 0.60 3.39 1.34 1.34 3.62 1.43 0.71 1.49 0.63 1.93 5.97 1.03 0.60 2.30 1.99 0.90 1.84 HHS Grants per Capita ($) 4.68 4.86 12.80 4.54 5.73 3.83 4.81 5.25 10.92 24.58 3.83 4.18 8.31 7.96 4.47 4.50 5.58 5.73 4.98 4.87 8.15 4.59 4.46 4.12 4.71 5.61 4.58 10.12 6.99 6.18 8.20 4.21 6.73 4.15 4.21 13.02 4.06 5.23 5.20 4.02 5.08 9.12 4.96 11.41 4.55 3.75 6.07 13.25 4.32 4.48 6.87 4.62 72 Table C.4 (continued) Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands CDC Public Health Systems Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 6,000,636 553,313 625,215 559,296 1,665,052 597,124 HRSA Hospital Bioterrorism Preparedness Cooperative Agreement ($) 1,747,144 601,511 738,414 612,902 1,814,266 684,929 Total HHS Grants ($) 7,747,780 1,154,824 1,363,629 1,172,198 3,479,318 1,282,053 % of U.S. Total HHS Grants 0.57 0.08 0.10 0.09 0.25 0.09 HHS Grants per Capita ($) 15.54 20.16 8.81 16.93 16.98 11.80 SOURCES: CDC: http://www.hhs.gov/news/press/2003pres/20030902.html; HRSA: http://www.bt.cdc.gov/ planning/continuationguidance/pdf/annex_b_funding.pdf; Population: U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. NOTES: The formula for both programs uses a base allocation for each state followed by population distribution of any remainder. The base allocation for the CDC bioterrorism response program is $5 million and for the HRSA hospital preparedness program is $1 million. (District of Columbia receives doubled base allocation—$10 million for CDC, $2 million for HRSA). Grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. Outlying areas include the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau. 73 Table C.5 Homeland Security: Total Grants by Agency to State and Local Governments, Total Formula Grants, and All Grants Grand Total for All Agencies, Fiscal Year 2003 74 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Total ODP Grants ($) Total TSA Total FEMA Grants ($) Grants ($) Total HHS Grants ($) Grand Total Total Total Formula Homeland Grand Grand Total Homeland Formula Grants per Security Grants: Total as Total per Security Formula Grants as % Capita 2003 ODP, TSA, % of Capita Grants ($) of U.S. ($) FEMA, HHS ($) U.S. 2003 ($) 2,838,274,998 992,805,517 631,244,649 1,368,000,000 3,618,235,000 100.00 12.38 5,830,325,164 100.00 19.95 34,505,887 948,000 13,536,390 21,818,960 59,391,660 1.64 13.24 70,809,237 1.21 15.78 18,474,839 3,971,255 3,399,071 8,242,910 28,088,045 0.78 43.63 34,088,075 0.58 52.95 49,645,401 99,950 5,560,892 24,785,485 66,828,396 1.85 12.25 80,091,728 1.37 14.68 26,979,418 0 21,953,401 15,538,634 44,915,444 1.24 16.57 64,471,453 1.11 23.79 266,440,869 301,338,650 26,323,277 134,477,984 313,345,985 8.66 8.92 728,580,780 12.50 20.75 50,985,887 67,500,000 5,868,224 21,684,720 59,346,252 1.64 13.17 146,038,831 2.50 32.41 30,158,854 2,356,397 5,812,965 18,157,731 50,998,411 1.41 14.74 56,485,947 0.97 16.32 18,917,984 290,400 4,603,024 8,819,784 29,418,240 0.81 36.44 32,631,192 0.56 40.42 82,225,862 832,099 1,588,197 14,031,203 33,535,423 0.93 58.74 98,677,361 1.69 172.85 117,102,287 17,778,505 12,154,254 63,957,966 157,921,600 4.36 9.45 210,993,012 3.62 12.62 53,547,348 2,894,646 11,351,553 35,754,237 92,114,630 2.55 10.76 103,547,784 1.78 12.10 27,641,662 7,005,561 2,972,926 10,343,393 32,962,981 0.91 26.48 47,963,542 0.82 38.53 21,179,387 0 4,603,556 10,674,579 33,735,729 0.93 25.15 36,457,522 0.63 27.18 114,941,204 626,278 33,525,494 56,318,833 131,313,486 3.63 10.42 205,411,809 3.52 16.30 41,592,277 182,613 12,515,120 27,687,315 72,971,704 2.02 11.85 81,977,325 1.41 13.31 27,939,832 226,272 17,261,580 16,378,514 46,800,419 1.29 15.94 61,806,198 1.06 21.05 27,004,013 0 8,599,439 15,564,925 44,967,122 1.24 16.56 51,168,377 0.88 18.84 32,838,189 55,136 11,625,784 20,402,709 56,155,945 1.55 13.72 64,921,818 1.11 15.86 47,419,724 20,823,098 9,012,082 21,824,113 59,378,697 1.64 13.25 99,079,017 1.70 22.10 20,981,666 1,928,880 6,820,441 10,546,740 33,394,077 0.92 25.80 40,277,727 0.69 31.12 50,748,488 4,679,014 10,682,361 25,065,528 67,116,105 1.85 12.30 91,175,391 1.56 16.70 63,234,255 92,632,646 7,262,275 28,658,704 75,186,127 2.08 11.70 191,787,880 3.29 29.84 70,349,473 161,000 16,807,662 41,419,967 104,658,446 2.89 10.41 128,738,102 2.21 12.81 36,765,027 335,102 19,081,835 23,644,151 63,672,799 1.76 12.68 79,826,115 1.37 15.90 27,664,530 705,444 17,630,547 16,122,822 46,244,715 1.28 16.10 62,123,343 1.07 21.63 59,071,095 125,000 20,153,638 25,954,826 68,997,060 1.91 12.16 105,304,559 1.81 18.56 19,350,431 0 11,226,035 9,204,852 30,274,329 0.84 33.29 39,781,318 0.68 43.74 22,823,494 0 8,753,559 12,088,558 36,940,189 1.02 21.36 43,665,611 0.75 25.25 24,705,974 94,070,791 7,738,565 13,425,472 40,325,011 1.11 18.55 139,940,802 2.40 64.39 Table C.5 (continued) 75 Total ODP Grants ($) Total TSA Total FEMA Grants ($) Grants ($) Total HHS Grants ($) Grand Total Total Total Formula Homeland Grand Grand Total Homeland Formula Grants per Security Grants: Total as Total per Security Formula Grants as % Capita 2003 ODP, TSA, % of Capita Grants ($) of U.S. ($) FEMA, HHS ($) U.S. 2003 ($) New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands Outlying Areas U.S. Virgin Islands 20,899,437 153,182 66,129,415 7,321,331 23,356,824 0 326,355,768 16,992,020 50,748,447 5,436,591 18,183,843 0 77,737,440 821,408 30,299,565 725,000 38,113,747 1,194,900 99,451,335 5,494,734 33,452,364 562,000 20,029,480 355,000 43,023,296 1,863,152 18,721,724 0 46,129,473 763,030 163,846,318 132,498,151 25,310,848 0 18,109,622 217,542 52,998,877 5,892,188 78,534,406 188,432,433 23,131,483 522,000 38,550,759 120,873 17,610,144 0 5,408,471 0 5,821,624 0 5,459,017 0 00 5,625,911 1,873,245 14,730,044 9,144,060 4,406,275 34,006,950 12,943,105 4,764,536 16,217,308 10,003,545 7,456,857 25,539,819 3,201,133 5,378,460 9,773,833 8,689,520 13,783,743 21,731,095 4,880,872 3,255,227 24,982,047 17,982,898 10,411,761 13,098,587 2,630,250 4,593,420 3,864,025 4,667,135 0 683,997 10,457,852 36,127,468 12,481,104 79,554,376 35,047,796 8,253,246 46,317,319 18,281,535 18,295,213 49,550,266 19,586,948 9,750,959 20,379,024 8,684,300 26,351,597 81,648,552 14,066,136 8,169,806 31,474,902 27,215,275 12,375,053 25,135,856 7,747,780 1,154,824 1,363,629 1,172,198 3,479,318 1,282,053 33,215,189 92,631,745 37,913,345 184,802,189 90,303,516 28,053,166 115,881,370 51,271,778 51,413,492 123,327,139 54,259,506 31,562,352 56,201,923 29,067,829 69,967,275 198,985,085 41,625,957 27,887,639 81,994,715 72,083,163 37,559,278 67,109,199 26,923,603 7,044,445 7,827,570 7,252,223 3,479,318 7,591,961 0.92 2.56 1.05 5.11 2.50 0.78 3.20 1.42 1.42 3.41 1.50 0.87 1.55 0.80 1.93 5.50 1.15 0.77 2.27 1.99 1.04 1.85 0.74 0.19 0.22 0.20 0.10 0.21 26.05 10.78 20.44 9.65 10.85 44.24 10.15 14.68 14.60 10.00 14.06 29.51 13.68 38.19 12.07 9.14 17.97 45.23 11.24 11.88 20.84 12.33 53.99 122.96 50.56 104.77 16.98 69.90 46,240,515 118,722,274 40,244,203 456,909,114 104,175,939 31,201,625 141,093,475 59,309,645 65,060,717 180,036,154 56,802,445 35,513,899 75,039,305 36,095,544 87,027,843 399,724,116 44,257,856 29,752,197 115,348,014 312,165,012 46,440,297 76,906,075 27,988,174 11,156,715 11,049,278 11,298,350 3,479,318 9,465,206 0.79 36.27 2.04 13.82 0.69 21.69 7.84 23.85 1.79 12.52 0.54 49.21 2.42 12.35 1.02 16.98 1.12 18.48 3.09 14.60 0.97 14.72 0.61 33.20 1.29 18.27 0.62 47.43 1.49 15.01 6.86 18.35 0.76 19.11 0.51 48.25 1.98 15.82 5.35 51.44 0.80 25.77 1.32 14.13 0.48 56.12 0.19 194.74 0.19 71.38 0.19 163.22 0.06 16.98 0.16 87.15 NOTES: Formula grants include ODP state and local grants, critical infrastructure grants, EMPGs, CERT/Citizen Corps grants, CDC bioterrorism response grants, and HRSA hospital preparedness grants. The formula for all programs uses a base allocation for each state followed by population distribution of any remaining funds. Base allocation for the CDC bioterrorism response program is $5 million and for the HRSA hospital preparedness program is $1 million. (District of Columbia receives doubled base allocation—$10 million for CDC, $2 million for HRSA). Grants listed for Washington, D.C., were intended for the Washington metropolitan area, which includes portions of Maryland and Virginia. Outlying aeas include the Federated States of Micronesia, Marshall Islands, and Palau. Grant total includes formula and discretionary grants. Appendix D Homeland Security: State and Local First Responder Grant Funding, Formula and Discretionary, Distributed by the Office of Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year 2004, Including Estimated Rescissions FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table D.1 Homeland Security Formula Grants: Allocation of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula Found in USA Patriot Act, Fiscal Year 2003 Actual and Fiscal Year 2004 Predictions Based on Appropriations Conference Report 78 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Actual Allocations, Fiscal Year 2003, All Homeland Security Grants Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 2,250,235,000 100.00 7.69 37,572,700 1.67 8.37 19,845,135 0.88 30.83 42,042,911 1.87 7.71 29,376,810 1.31 10.84 178,868,001 7.95 5.09 37,661,532 1.67 8.36 32,840,680 1.46 9.49 20,598,456 0.92 25.51 19,504,220 0.87 34.16 93,963,634 4.18 5.62 56,360,393 2.50 6.58 22,619,588 1.01 18.17 23,061,150 1.02 17.20 74,994,653 3.33 5.95 45,284,389 2.01 7.35 30,421,905 1.35 10.36 29,402,197 1.31 10.83 35,753,236 1.59 8.74 37,554,584 1.67 8.38 22,847,337 1.02 17.65 42,050,577 1.87 7.70 46,527,423 2.07 7.24 63,238,479 2.81 6.29 40,028,648 1.78 7.97 30,121,893 1.34 10.49 43,042,234 1.91 7.59 21,069,477 0.94 23.17 24,851,631 1.10 14.37 26,899,539 1.20 12.38 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, All Homeland Security Grants, Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 2,385,840,000 100.00 8.15 39,842,096 1.67 8.88 21,043,244 0.88 32.69 44,587,132 1.87 8.17 31,151,687 1.31 11.49 189,683,776 7.95 5.40 39,940,104 1.67 8.86 34,822,811 1.46 10.06 21,843,581 0.92 27.05 20,686,671 0.87 36.24 99,655,640 4.18 5.96 59,771,407 2.51 6.98 23,983,924 1.01 19.27 24,454,702 1.02 18.23 79,536,874 3.33 6.31 48,024,371 2.01 7.80 32,260,626 1.35 10.99 31,180,086 1.31 11.48 37,916,496 1.59 9.26 39,823,203 1.67 8.88 24,226,404 1.02 18.72 44,595,370 1.87 8.17 49,339,031 2.07 7.68 67,061,252 2.81 6.67 42,450,605 1.78 8.46 31,942,749 1.34 11.12 45,644,435 1.91 8.05 22,342,905 0.94 24.57 26,353,064 1.10 15.24 28,526,663 1.20 13.12 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, Hypothetical Alternative Allocations of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula, Same Grants, Fiscal Year 2004, Using Reduced by 0.59% Reduction from 0.75% as Small-State Minimum Only Omnibus Appropriations Bill $ per $ per $ % Capita $ % Capita 2,385,840,000 100.00 8.15 2,371,763,544 100.00 8.11 33,810,585 1.42 7.54 39,607,028 1.67 8.83 17,893,800 0.75 27.79 20,919,089 0.88 32.49 41,120,146 1.72 7.54 44,324,068 1.87 8.12 20,423,313 0.86 7.54 30,967,892 1.31 11.43 264,636,462 11.09 7.54 188,564,641 7.95 5.37 33,961,562 1.42 7.54 39,704,457 1.67 8.81 26,078,551 1.09 7.54 34,617,357 1.46 10.00 17,893,800 0.75 22.16 21,714,704 0.92 26.90 17,893,800 0.75 31.34 20,564,620 0.87 36.02 125,951,261 5.28 7.54 99,067,671 4.18 5.93 64,510,993 2.70 7.54 59,418,756 2.51 6.94 17,893,800 0.75 14.37 23,842,419 1.01 19.15 17,893,800 0.75 13.34 24,310,420 1.02 18.13 94,959,003 3.98 7.54 79,067,606 3.33 6.27 46,415,094 1.95 7.54 47,741,028 2.01 7.75 22,131,594 0.93 7.54 32,070,288 1.35 10.92 20,467,059 0.86 7.54 30,996,123 1.31 11.41 30,844,264 1.29 7.54 37,692,788 1.59 9.21 33,781,480 1.42 7.54 39,588,246 1.67 8.83 17,893,800 0.75 13.82 24,083,468 1.02 18.60 41,132,837 1.72 7.54 44,332,258 1.87 8.12 48,440,281 2.03 7.54 49,047,931 2.07 7.63 75,740,744 3.17 7.54 66,665,591 2.81 6.63 37,828,901 1.59 7.54 42,200,146 1.78 8.41 21,641,916 0.91 7.54 31,754,287 1.34 11.06 42,748,884 1.79 7.54 45,375,133 1.91 8.00 17,893,800 0.75 19.68 22,211,082 0.94 24.42 17,893,800 0.75 10.35 26,197,581 1.10 15.15 17,893,800 0.75 8.23 28,358,356 1.20 13.05 Table D.1 (continued) 79 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Actual Allocations, Fiscal Year 2003, All Homeland Security Grants Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 22,757,337 1.01 17.85 56,504,277 2.51 6.58 25,432,241 1.13 13.71 105,247,813 4.68 5.49 55,255,720 2.46 6.64 19,799,920 0.88 31.22 69,564,051 3.09 6.09 32,990,243 1.47 9.44 33,118,279 1.47 9.40 73,776,873 3.28 5.98 34,672,558 1.54 8.99 21,811,393 0.97 20.39 35,822,899 1.59 8.72 20,383,529 0.91 26.78 43,615,678 1.94 7.52 117,336,533 5.21 5.39 27,559,821 1.22 11.90 19,717,833 0.88 31.98 50,519,813 2.25 6.93 44,867,888 1.99 7.39 25,184,225 1.12 13.98 41,973,343 1.87 7.71 19,175,823 0.85 38.45 5,889,621 0.26 102.80 6,463,941 0.29 41.76 6,080,025 0.27 87.83 6,309,908 0.28 58.10 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, All Homeland Security Grants, Using 40/60 Formula $ per $ % Capita 24,131,459 1.01 18.93 59,918,121 2.51 6.98 26,968,872 1.13 14.54 111,613,724 4.68 5.83 58,596,509 2.46 7.04 20,995,908 0.88 33.11 73,767,400 3.09 6.46 34,985,282 1.47 10.01 35,121,286 1.47 9.97 78,237,888 3.28 6.34 36,771,336 1.54 9.53 23,126,966 0.97 21.62 37,986,413 1.59 9.25 21,616,971 0.91 28.40 46,254,524 1.94 7.98 124,442,489 5.22 5.71 29,225,079 1.22 12.62 20,910,209 0.88 33.91 53,574,294 2.25 7.35 47,583,733 1.99 7.84 26,708,683 1.12 14.82 44,512,494 1.87 8.18 20,333,488 0.85 40.77 6,244,871 0.26 109.00 6,721,916 0.28 43.42 6,303,234 0.26 91.06 6,495,937 0.27 59.81 Predicted Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, Hypothetical Alternative Allocations of All Grants Using 40/60 Formula, Same Grants, Fiscal Year 2004, Using Reduced by 0.59% Reduction from 0.75% as Small-State Minimum Only Omnibus Appropriations Bill $ per $ per $ % Capita $ % Capita 17,893,800 0.75 14.03 23,989,083 1.01 18.81 64,736,999 2.71 7.54 59,564,604 2.51 6.93 17,893,800 0.75 9.65 26,809,756 1.13 14.45 144,372,273 6.05 7.54 110,955,203 4.68 5.79 62,701,103 2.63 7.54 58,250,790 2.46 7.00 17,893,800 0.75 28.22 20,872,033 0.88 32.92 86,071,331 3.61 7.54 73,332,172 3.09 6.42 26,328,831 1.10 7.54 34,778,869 1.47 9.95 26,538,341 1.11 7.54 34,914,071 1.47 9.91 92,957,961 3.90 7.54 77,776,284 3.28 6.31 29,080,186 1.22 7.54 36,554,385 1.54 9.47 17,893,800 0.75 16.73 22,990,517 0.97 21.49 30,951,969 1.30 7.54 37,762,293 1.59 9.19 17,893,800 0.75 23.51 21,489,431 0.91 28.24 43,688,706 1.83 7.54 45,981,623 1.94 7.93 164,134,537 6.88 7.54 123,708,279 5.22 5.68 17,893,800 0.75 7.73 29,052,651 1.22 12.54 17,893,800 0.75 29.02 20,786,839 0.88 33.71 54,964,556 2.30 7.54 53,258,206 2.25 7.30 45,736,306 1.92 7.54 47,302,989 1.99 7.79 17,893,800 0.75 9.93 26,551,102 1.12 14.74 41,005,169 1.72 7.54 44,249,870 1.87 8.13 17,893,800 0.75 35.88 20,213,521 0.85 40.53 5,964,600 0.25 104.11 18,066,844 0.76 315.35 5,964,600 0.25 38.53 18,541,075 0.78 119.77 5,964,600 0.25 86.17 18,124,862 0.76 261.84 5,964,600 0.25 54.92 18,316,429 0.77 168.64 SOURCES: Conference report to accompany the Homeland Security Appropriations Act, Fiscal Year 2004 (H. Rept. 108-280); conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Allocation formula from Sec. 1014 of the USA Patriot Act of 2001, Public Law 107-56, October 26, 2001. NOTES: Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia are treated as states and are subject to the 0.75 percent guarantee. Territories (U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and Northern Mariana Islands) are allocated 1 percent of funding. Intercensal estimates of territory population unavailable; 2000 population deemed unchanged for four territories. Right columns show allocations after 0.59 percent across-the-board spending cut if the fiscal year 2004 omnibus appropriations conference report is enacted. Table D.2a Homeland Security: ODP Grant Allocations Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula, Fiscal Year 2004, as Enacted by 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on November 3, 2003) 80 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina Law Enforcement State Grants ($) ($) 1,685,000,000 500,000,000 28,138,000 8,350,000 14,862,000 4,410,000 31,490,000 9,344,000 22,001,000 6,529,000 133,964,000 39,752,000 28,208,000 8,370,000 24,594,000 7,298,000 15,427,000 4,578,000 14,610,000 4,335,000 70,382,000 20,885,000 42,214,000 12,526,000 16,939,000 5,026,000 17,271,000 5,125,000 56,173,000 16,669,000 33,917,000 10,065,000 22,784,000 6,761,000 22,021,000 6,534,000 26,779,000 7,946,000 28,125,000 8,346,000 17,110,000 5,077,000 31,495,000 9,346,000 34,846,000 10,340,000 47,362,000 14,054,000 29,981,000 8,896,000 22,560,000 6,694,000 32,236,000 9,556,000 15,780,000 4,682,000 18,612,000 5,523,000 20,147,000 5,978,000 17,043,000 5,057,000 42,317,000 12,557,000 19,047,000 5,652,000 78,827,000 23,391,000 41,384,000 12,280,000 Citizen Corps ($) 35,000,000 584,000 309,000 654,000 457,000 2,783,000 586,000 511,000 320,000 303,000 1,462,000 877,000 352,000 359,000 1,167,000 704,000 473,000 457,000 556,000 584,000 355,000 654,000 724,000 984,000 623,000 469,000 670,000 328,000 387,000 418,000 354,000 879,000 396,000 1,637,000 860,000 Total Grants ($) 2,220,000,000 37,072,000 19,581,000 41,488,000 28,987,000 176,499,000 37,164,000 32,403,000 20,325,000 19,248,000 92,729,000 55,617,000 22,317,000 22,755,000 74,009,000 44,686,000 30,018,000 29,012,000 35,281,000 37,055,000 22,542,000 41,495,000 45,910,000 62,400,000 39,500,000 29,723,000 42,472,000 20,790,000 24,522,000 26,543,000 22,454,000 55,753,000 25,095,000 103,855,000 54,524,000 Grants per Capita ($) 7.59 8.26 30.42 7.60 10.70 5.03 8.25 9.36 25.17 33.72 5.55 6.50 17.93 16.97 5.87 7.26 10.22 10.68 8.62 8.27 17.41 7.60 7.14 6.21 7.87 10.35 7.49 22.86 14.18 12.21 17.61 6.49 13.53 5.42 6.55 % of Grants 100.00 1.67 0.88 1.87 1.31 7.95 1.67 1.46 0.92 0.87 4.18 2.51 1.01 1.03 3.33 2.01 1.35 1.31 1.59 1.67 1.02 1.87 2.07 2.81 1.78 1.34 1.91 0.94 1.10 1.20 1.01 2.51 1.13 4.68 2.46 % of Population 100.00 1.53 0.22 1.86 0.93 12.00 1.54 1.18 0.28 0.20 5.71 2.93 0.43 0.46 4.31 2.10 1.00 0.93 1.40 1.53 0.44 1.87 2.20 3.43 1.72 0.98 1.94 0.31 0.59 0.74 0.44 2.94 0.63 6.55 2.84 Population (7/1/2002) 292,617,433 4,486,508 643,786 5,456,453 2,710,079 35,116,033 4,506,542 3,460,503 807,385 570,898 16,713,149 8,560,310 1,244,898 1,341,131 12,600,620 6,159,068 2,936,760 2,715,884 4,092,891 4,482,646 1,294,464 5,458,137 6,427,801 10,050,446 5,019,720 2,871,782 5,672,579 909,453 1,729,180 2,173,491 1,275,056 8,590,300 1,855,059 19,157,532 8,320,146 Table D.2a (continued) 81 North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Law Enforcement State Grants ($) ($) 14,828,000 4,400,000 52,098,000 15,459,000 24,708,000 7,332,000 24,804,000 7,360,000 55,255,000 16,396,000 25,970,000 7,706,000 16,333,000 4,847,000 26,828,000 7,961,000 15,267,000 4,530,000 32,667,000 9,694,000 87,888,000 26,079,000 20,640,000 6,125,000 14,768,000 4,382,000 37,837,000 11,228,000 33,606,000 9,972,000 18,863,000 5,597,000 31,437,000 9,329,000 14,360,000 4,261,000 4,410,000 1,309,000 4,747,000 1,409,000 4,452,000 1,321,000 4,588,000 1,361,000 Citizen Corps ($) 308,000 1,082,000 513,000 515,000 1,148,000 539,000 339,000 557,000 317,000 679,000 1,826,000 429,000 307,000 786,000 698,000 392,000 653,000 298,000 92,000 99,000 92,000 95,000 Total Grants ($) 19,536,000 68,639,000 32,553,000 32,679,000 72,799,000 34,215,000 21,519,000 35,346,000 20,114,000 43,040,000 115,793,000 27,194,000 19,457,000 49,851,000 44,276,000 24,852,000 41,419,000 18,919,000 5,811,000 6,255,000 5,865,000 6,044,000 Grants per Capita ($) % of Grants 30.81 0.88 6.01 3.09 9.32 1.47 9.28 1.47 5.90 3.28 8.87 1.54 20.12 0.97 8.61 1.59 26.43 0.91 7.42 1.94 5.32 5.22 11.74 1.22 31.56 0.88 6.83 2.25 7.30 1.99 13.79 1.12 7.61 1.87 37.94 0.85 37.54 0.26 90.36 0.28 54.00 0.26 105.50 0.27 % of Population 0.22 3.90 1.19 1.20 4.22 1.32 0.37 1.40 0.26 1.98 7.44 0.79 0.21 2.49 2.07 0.62 1.86 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 Population (7/1/2002) 634,110 11,421,267 3,493,714 3,521,515 12,335,091 3,858,806 1,069,725 4,107,183 761,063 5,797,289 21,779,893 2,316,256 616,592 7,293,542 6,068,996 1,801,873 5,441,196 498,703 154,805 69,221 108,612 57,291 SOURCES: http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Table D.2b Homeland Security: ODP Grant Allocations Using USA Patriot Act 40/60 Formula, Fiscal Year 2004, If Reduced by 0.59 Percent Across-the-Board Spending Cut Proposed in 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report (as announced by DHS on November 3, 2003) 82 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire State Grants ($) 1,675,058,500 27,971,986 14,774,314 31,304,209 21,871,194 133,173,612 28,041,573 24,448,895 15,335,981 14,523,801 69,966,746 41,964,937 16,839,060 17,169,101 55,841,579 33,716,890 22,649,574 21,891,076 26,621,004 27,959,063 17,009,051 31,309,180 34,640,409 47,082,564 29,804,112 22,426,896 32,045,808 15,686,898 18,502,189 20,028,133 16,942,446 Law Envorcement Grants ($) 497,050,000 8,300,735 4,383,981 9,288,870 6,490,479 39,517,463 8,320,617 7,254,942 4,550,990 4,309,424 20,761,779 12,452,097 4,996,347 5,094,763 16,570,653 10,005,617 6,721,110 6,495,449 7,899,119 8,296,759 5,047,046 9,290,859 10,278,994 13,971,081 8,843,514 6,654,505 9,499,620 4,654,376 5,490,414 5,942,730 5,027,164 Citizen Corps Grants ($) 34,793,500 580,554 307,177 650,141 454,304 2,766,580 582,543 507,985 318,112 301,212 1,453,374 871,826 349,923 356,882 1,160,115 699,846 470,209 454,304 552,720 580,554 352,906 650,141 719,728 978,194 619,324 466,233 666,047 326,065 384,717 415,534 351,911 Total Grants ($) 2,206,902,000 36,853,275 19,465,472 41,243,221 28,815,977 175,457,656 36,944,732 32,211,822 20,205,083 19,134,437 92,181,899 55,288,860 22,185,330 22,620,746 73,572,347 44,422,353 29,840,894 28,840,829 35,072,842 36,836,376 22,409,002 41,250,180 45,639,131 62,031,840 39,266,950 29,547,634 42,221,415 20,667,339 24,377,320 26,386,396 22,321,521 $ per Capita 7.54 8.21 30.24 7.56 10.63 5.00 8.20 9.31 25.03 33.52 5.52 6.46 17.82 16.87 5.84 7.21 10.16 10.62 8.57 8.22 17.31 7.56 7.10 6.17 7.82 10.29 7.44 22.73 14.10 12.14 17.51 % of Grants 100.00 1.67 0.88 1.87 1.31 7.95 1.67 1.46 0.92 0.87 4.18 2.51 1.01 1.03 3.33 2.01 1.35 1.31 1.59 1.67 1.02 1.87 2.07 2.81 1.78 1.34 1.91 0.94 1.10 1.20 1.01 % of Population 100.00 1.53 0.22 1.86 0.93 12.00 1.54 1.18 0.28 0.20 5.71 2.93 0.43 0.46 4.31 2.10 1.00 0.93 1.40 1.53 0.44 1.87 2.20 3.43 1.72 0.98 1.94 0.31 0.59 0.74 0.44 Population (7/1/2002) 292,617,433 4,486,508 643,786 5,456,453 2,710,079 35,116,033 4,506,542 3,460,503 807,385 570,898 16,713,149 8,560,310 1,244,898 1,341,131 12,600,620 6,159,068 2,936,760 2,715,884 4,092,891 4,482,646 1,294,464 5,458,137 6,427,801 10,050,446 5,019,720 2,871,782 5,672,579 909,453 1,729,180 2,173,491 1,275,056 Table D.2b (continued) 83 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands State Grants ($) 42,067,330 18,934,623 78,361,921 41,139,834 14,740,515 51,790,622 24,562,223 24,657,656 54,928,996 25,816,777 16,236,635 26,669,715 15,176,925 32,474,265 87,369,461 20,518,224 14,680,869 37,613,762 33,407,725 18,751,708 31,251,522 14,275,276 4,383,981 4,718,993 4,425,733 4,560,931 Law Envorcement Grants ($) 12,482,914 5,618,653 23,252,993 12,207,548 4,374,040 15,367,792 7,288,741 7,316,576 16,299,264 7,660,535 4,818,403 7,914,030 4,503,273 9,636,805 25,925,134 6,088,863 4,356,146 11,161,755 9,913,165 5,563,978 9,273,959 4,235,860 1,301,277 1,400,687 1,313,206 1,352,970 Citizen Corps Grants ($) 873,814 393,664 1,627,342 854,926 306,183 1,075,616 509,973 511,962 1,141,227 535,820 337,000 553,714 315,130 674,994 1,815,227 426,469 305,189 781,363 693,882 389,687 649,147 296,242 91,457 98,416 91,457 94,440 Total Grants ($) 55,424,057 24,946,940 103,242,256 54,202,308 19,420,738 68,234,030 32,360,937 32,486,194 72,369,486 34,013,132 21,392,038 35,137,459 19,995,327 42,786,064 115,109,821 27,033,555 19,342,204 49,556,879 44,014,772 24,705,373 41,174,628 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,218,096 5,830,397 6,008,340 $ per Capita 6.45 13.45 5.39 6.51 30.63 5.97 9.26 9.23 5.87 8.81 20.00 8.56 26.27 7.38 5.29 11.67 31.37 6.79 7.25 13.71 7.57 37.71 37.32 89.83 53.68 104.87 % of Grants 2.51 1.13 4.68 2.46 0.88 3.09 1.47 1.47 3.28 1.54 0.97 1.59 0.91 1.94 5.22 1.22 0.88 2.25 1.99 1.12 1.87 0.85 0.26 0.28 0.26 0.27 % of Population 2.94 0.63 6.55 2.84 0.22 3.90 1.19 1.20 4.22 1.32 0.37 1.40 0.26 1.98 7.44 0.79 0.21 2.49 2.07 0.62 1.86 0.17 0.05 0.02 0.04 0.02 Population (7/1/2002) 8,590,300 1,855,059 19,157,532 8,320,146 634,110 11,421,267 3,493,714 3,521,515 12,335,091 3,858,806 1,069,725 4,107,183 761,063 5,797,289 21,779,893 2,316,256 616,592 7,293,542 6,068,996 1,801,873 5,441,196 498,703 154,805 69,221 108,612 57,291 SOURCES: Department of Homeland Security, funding announcement, November 3, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. Table D.3a Homeland Security: ODP Formula, High-Threat Urban, Mass Transit, and Port Security Grant Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004, As Enacted by 2004 Homeland Security Appropriations Bill (announced by DHS on November 3, November 13, and December 10, 2003) 84 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada New Hampshire Formula Grants $ per Formula Grants ($) Capita 2,220,000,000 7.59 37,072,000 8.26 19,581,000 30.42 41,488,000 7.60 28,987,000 10.70 176,499,000 5.03 37,164,000 8.25 32,403,000 9.36 20,325,000 25.17 19,248,000 33.72 92,729,000 5.55 55,617,000 6.50 22,317,000 17.93 22,755,000 16.97 74,009,000 5.87 44,686,000 7.26 30,018,000 10.22 29,012,000 10.68 35,281,000 8.62 37,055,000 8.27 22,542,000 17.41 41,495,000 7.60 45,910,000 7.14 62,400,000 6.21 39,500,000 7.87 29,723,000 10.35 42,472,000 7.49 20,790,000 22.86 24,522,000 14.18 26,543,000 12.21 22,454,000 17.61 Urban Grants ($) 675,000,000 0 0 12,200,204 0 135,708,491 8,646,361 9,632,961 0 29,301,502 37,187,212 10,744,248 0 0 34,142,222 10,151,880 0 0 8,987,662 14,346,633 0 15,918,745 19,131,723 13,754,597 20,108,247 0 24,080,699 0 0 10,531,025 0 Mass Transit Grants ($) 50,000,000 0 0 0 0 6,805,266 0 800,000 0 2,809,313 1,600,000 1,491,848 0 0 5,519,029 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,837,753 3,726,559 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security Grants ($) 179,025,900 1,098,571 758,569 0 0 33,704,614 0 3,825,565 0 0 7,625,747 4,237,611 4,247,966 0 6,916,500 353,760 51,600 221,540 1,439,578 23,552,896 836,403 5,586,150 3,005,829 897,263 813,100 2,245,740 158,800 0 0 0 1,355,000 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 3,124,025,900 38,170,571 20,339,569 53,688,204 28,987,000 352,717,371 45,810,361 46,661,526 20,325,000 51,358,815 139,141,959 72,090,707 26,564,966 22,755,000 120,586,751 55,991,640 30,069,600 29,233,540 45,708,240 74,954,529 23,378,403 64,837,648 71,774,111 77,051,860 60,421,347 31,968,740 66,711,499 20,790,000 24,522,000 37,074,025 23,809,000 Total Grants $ per Capita 10.68 8.51 31.59 9.84 10.70 10.04 10.17 13.48 25.17 89.96 8.33 8.42 21.34 16.97 9.57 9.09 10.24 10.76 11.17 16.72 18.06 11.88 11.17 7.67 12.04 11.13 11.76 22.86 14.18 17.06 18.67 Table D.3a (continued) 85 New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No. Mariana Islands U.S. Virgin Islands Formula Grants $ per Formula Grants ($) Capita 55,753,000 6.49 25,095,000 13.53 103,855,000 5.42 54,524,000 6.55 19,536,000 30.81 68,639,000 6.01 32,553,000 9.32 32,679,000 9.28 72,799,000 5.90 34,215,000 8.87 21,519,000 20.12 35,346,000 8.61 20,114,000 26.43 43,040,000 7.42 115,793,000 5.32 27,194,000 11.74 19,457,000 31.56 49,851,000 6.83 44,276,000 7.30 24,852,000 13.79 41,419,000 7.61 18,919,000 37.94 5,811,000 37.54 6,255,000 90.36 5,865,000 54.00 6,044,000 105.50 Urban Grants ($) 32,166,412 0 63,956,401 7,404,955 0 31,919,279 0 8,161,143 35,057,238 0 0 0 0 10,067,477 38,455,299 0 0 6,543,378 16,516,007 0 10,177,999 0 0 0 0 0 Mass Transit Grants ($) 0 0 17,484,581 0 0 800,000 0 0 3,925,651 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 0 0 800,000 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security Grants ($) 5,129,950 0 6,699,713 3,224,114 0 3,100,127 0 1,299,720 1,830,700 3,585,870 1,498,563 5,225,019 0 768,285 31,960,813 0 0 1,681,280 6,756,192 565,000 0 0 0 518,900 1,379,577 869,275 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 93,049,362 25,095,000 191,995,695 65,153,069 19,536,000 104,458,406 32,553,000 42,139,863 113,612,589 37,800,870 23,017,563 40,571,019 20,114,000 53,875,762 187,009,112 27,194,000 19,457,000 58,875,658 68,348,199 25,417,000 51,596,999 18,919,000 5,811,000 6,773,900 7,244,577 6,913,275 Total Grants $ per Capita 10.83 13.53 10.02 7.83 30.81 9.15 9.32 11.97 9.21 9.80 21.52 9.88 26.43 9.29 8.59 11.74 31.56 8.07 11.26 14.11 9.48 37.94 37.54 97.86 66.70 120.67 SOURCES: DHS 2004 first responder grant announcement, November 3, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF; DHS 2004 UASI grant announcement, November 13, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/UASI_FY04_Allocations.doc; DHS 2004 port security grant announcement, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/Port_Security_Spreadsheet.xls; U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table STEST2002-01, Washington, D.C., December 20, 2002. Table D.3b Homeland Security: ODP Formula, High-Threat Urban, and Mass Transit Grant Allocations, Fiscal Year 2004 (as announced by DHS on November 3, November 13, and December 10, 2003) If Reduced by 0.59 Percent Across-the-Board Spending Cut Proposed in 2004 Omnibus Appropriations Conference Report 86 United States Alabama Alaska Arizona Arkansas California Colorado Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Florida Georgia Hawaii Idaho Illinois Indiana Iowa Kansas Kentucky Louisiana Maine Maryland Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota Mississippi Missouri Montana Nebraska Nevada Formula Grants ($) 2,206,902,000 36,853,275 19,465,472 41,243,221 28,815,977 175,457,656 36,944,732 32,211,822 20,205,083 19,134,437 92,181,899 55,288,860 22,185,330 22,620,746 73,572,347 44,422,353 29,840,894 28,840,829 35,072,842 36,836,376 22,409,002 41,250,180 45,639,131 62,031,840 39,266,950 29,547,634 42,221,415 20,667,339 24,377,320 26,386,396 $ per Capita Urban Grants ($) 7.59 675,000,000 8.26 0 30.42 0 7.60 12,128,223 10.70 0 5.03 134,907,811 8.25 8,595,347 9.36 9,576,127 25.17 0 33.72 29,128,623 5.55 36,967,807 6.50 10,680,857 17.93 0 16.97 0 5.87 33,940,783 7.26 10,091,984 10.22 0 10.68 0 8.62 8,934,635 8.27 14,261,988 17.41 0 7.60 15,824,824 7.14 19,018,846 6.21 13,673,445 7.87 19,989,608 10.35 0 7.49 23,938,623 22.86 0 14.18 0 12.21 10,468,892 Mass Transit ($) 50,000,000 0 0 0 0 6,765,115 0 795,280 0 2,792,738 1,590,560 1,483,046 0 0 5,486,467 795,280 0 0 0 0 0 1,826,910 3,704,572 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security ($) 177,969,647 1,092,089 754,093 0 0 33,505,757 0 3,802,994 0 0 7,580,755 4,212,609 4,222,903 0 6,875,693 351,673 51,296 220,233 1,431,084 23,413,934 831,468 5,553,192 2,988,095 891,969 808,303 2,232,490 157,863 0 0 0 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 3,105,594,147 37,945,365 20,219,566 53,371,444 28,815,977 350,636,338 45,540,080 46,386,223 20,205,083 51,055,798 138,321,021 71,665,372 26,408,233 22,620,746 119,875,290 55,661,289 29,892,189 29,061,062 45,438,561 74,512,297 23,240,470 64,455,106 71,350,643 76,597,254 60,064,861 31,780,124 66,317,901 20,667,339 24,377,320 36,855,288 Total per Capita ($) 10.61 8.46 31.41 9.78 10.63 9.99 10.11 13.40 25.03 89.43 8.28 8.37 21.21 16.87 9.51 9.04 10.18 10.70 11.10 16.62 17.95 11.81 11.10 7.62 11.97 11.07 11.69 22.73 14.10 16.96 Table D.3b (continued) 87 New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Oregon Pennsylvania Puerto Rico Rhode Island South Carolina South Dakota Tennessee Texas Utah Vermont Virginia Washington West Virginia Wisconsin Wyoming American Samoa Guam No.Mariana Islands Virgin Islands Formula Grants ($) 22,321,521 55,424,057 24,946,940 103,242,256 54,202,308 19,420,738 68,234,030 32,360,937 32,486,194 72,369,486 34,013,132 21,392,038 35,137,459 19,995,327 42,786,064 115,109,821 27,033,555 19,342,204 49,556,879 44,014,772 24,705,373 41,174,628 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,218,096 5,830,397 6,008,340 $ per Capita Urban Grants ($) 17.61 0 6.49 31,976,630 13.53 0 5.42 63,579,058 6.55 7,361,266 30.81 0 6.01 31,730,955 9.32 0 9.28 8,112,992 5.90 34,850,400 8.87 0 20.12 0 8.61 0 26.43 0 7.42 10,008,079 5.32 38,228,413 11.74 0 31.56 0 6.83 6,504,772 7.30 16,418,563 13.79 0 7.61 10,117,949 37.94 0 37.54 0 90.36 0 54.00 0 105.50 0 Mass Transit ($) 0 0 0 17,381,422 0 0 795,280 0 0 3,902,490 0 0 0 0 0 795,280 0 0 795,280 795,280 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Port Security ($) 1,347,006 5,099,683 0 6,660,185 3,205,092 0 3,081,836 0 1,292,052 1,819,899 3,564,713 1,489,721 5,194,191 0 763,752 31,772,244 0 0 1,671,360 6,716,330 561,667 0 0 0 515,838 1,371,437 864,146 Total Grants Announced to Date ($) 23,668,527 92,500,371 24,946,940 190,862,921 64,768,666 19,420,738 103,842,101 32,360,937 41,891,238 112,942,275 37,577,845 22,881,759 40,331,650 19,995,327 53,557,895 185,905,758 27,033,555 19,342,204 58,528,292 67,944,945 25,267,040 51,292,577 18,807,378 5,776,715 6,733,934 7,201,834 6,872,487 Total per Capita ($) 18.56 10.77 13.45 9.96 7.78 30.63 9.09 9.26 11.90 9.16 9.74 21.39 9.82 26.27 9.24 8.54 11.67 31.37 8.02 11.20 14.02 9.43 37.71 37.32 97.28 66.31 119.96 SOURCE: Department of Homeland Security, funding announcements, November 3, 2003, and November 13, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ FY04_State_Grants.PDF; conference report to accompany the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2004 (H. Rept. 108-401); U.S. Census Bureau, State Population Estimates: April 1, 2000 to July 1, 2002, Table ST-EST2002-01, December 20, 2002. http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/FY04_State_Grants.PDF and http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/UASI_FY04_Allocations.doc. Appendix E Homeland Security: Federal Grants and Redistributions Within California, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 FEDERAL FORMULA GRANTS AND CALIFORNIA Table E.1 Homeland Security: Grants Redistributions Within California, State and Local Homeland Security Formula Grants (as of August 4, 2003) State Agency Funds Distribution State Agency Highway Patrol National Guard Forestry and Fire Protection Health Services Food and Agriculture Environmental Protection Agency Governor’s Office of Emergency Services (Grant Administration and State Strategy) Subtotal Local Agency Funds Distribution County Alameda Alpine Amador Butte Calaveras Colusa Contra Costa Del Norte El Dorado Fresno Glenn Humboldt Imperial Inyo Kern Kings Lake Lassen Los Angeles Madera Marin Mariposa Mendocino Merced Modoc Mono Monterey Napa Nevada Orange Placer Plumas Riverside Sacramento San Benito San Bernardino San Diego San Francisco San Joaquin San Luis Obispo San Mateo Amount ($) 8,958,080 5,336,802 3,186,428 1,170,291 104,992 161,000 1,753,407 20,671,000 3,403,913 52,712 131,886 521,659 145,157 94,171 2,280,637 112,373 421,997 1,936,458 110,636 337,734 388,350 91,179 1,625,646 355,197 187,411 128,345 22,421,072 343,989 611,335 89,116 247,722 554,622 70,926 79,870 982,167 340,974 264,702 6,727,564 667,757 96,783 3,873,364 2,985,940 176,226 4,159,003 6,689,008 1,824,467 1,425,122 624,303 1,657,276 90 Table E.1 (continued) Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Cruz Shasta Sierra Siskiyou Solano Sonoma Stanislaus Sutter Tehama Trinity Tulare Tuolumne Ventura Yolo Yuba Subtotal Total Amount ($) 969,703 3,927,836 632,373 435,615 57,891 149,528 973,380 1,109,446 1,129,609 236,615 179,241 79,814 915,882 176,674 1,824,243 456,518 190,863 82,684,000 103,355,000 SOURCE:_http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_ SessionID=@@@@1519845839.1062440442@@@@&BV_EngineID=eadciedlghkh bemgcfkmchcog.0&iOID=51640&sTitle=GOVERNOR+DAVIS+ANNOUNCES+ $119+MILLION+FOR+HOMELAND+SECURITY+08042003&sFilePath =/govsite/press_release/2003_08/20030804_PRO3344_HOMELAND_SEC_ FUNDS.html&sCatTitle=Press+Release. 91 Table E.2 Homeland Security: Grant Redistributions Within California, Critical Infrastructure Protection Grants, Overtime Amounts (announced on August 4, 2003) State Applicant State Agency Funds Distribution 22nd District Agricultural Association/CDF&A Berkeley, University of California, PD California Highway Patrol Chico, California State University, PD Davis, University of California, PD Department of Transportation Fresno, California State University, PD Humboldt State University PD Irvine, University of California, PD Military Department Northridge, California State University Pomona, California State Polytechnic University, PD San Diego, University of California San Francisco State University PD San Francisco, University of California, PD San Jose State University PD Santa Barbara, University of California, PD Sonoma State University Stephen P. Teale Data Center Office of Emergency Services Subtotal Amount ($) 7,133 18,312 6,942,120 3,666 15,829 124,399 2,004 4,585 5,478 587,213 26,217 9,412 1,672 39,041 18,569 13,960 9,181 2,818 6,887 111,504 7,950,000 County Alameda Contra Costa Contra Costa Contra Costa Fresno Humboldt Imperial Imperial Imperial Inyo Inyo Kern Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Local Applicant Local Agency Funds Distribution Oakland, City of Concord, City of, PD Richmond PD San Ramon Valley FPD Fresno, City of, PD Eureka PD Calexico, City of, PD Imperial County Airport Imperial County Sheriff Bishop PD Inyo County Kern County Sheriff’s Dept. Alhambra, City of, PD Beverly Hills, City of, PD Burbank, City of, PD Glendale, City of Amount ($) 424,243 51,023 7,478 7,142 17,193 5,876 7,088 7,053 23,638 14,490 6,252 8,824 14,282 61,089 43,744 40,563 92 Table E.2 (continued) County Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Marin Orange Orange Orange Orange Orange Riverside San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Joaquin San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo San Mateo Santa Barbara Santa Clara Santa Clara Santa Clara Shasta Stanislaus Tulare Ventura Yuba Subtotal Total Grand total Local Applicant Amount ($) Glendora, City of 1,233 Long Beach Unified School District 4,387 Long Beach, City of 150,775 Long Beach Harbor Department—Security Division 41,423 Los Angeles County 85,875 Los Angeles, City of 1,364,094 Mountains Recreation and Conservation Authority 9,231 Torrance, City of, PD 38,352 West Covina, City of 102,989 Marin Municipal Water District 9,808 Anaheim, City of 141,058 Costa Mesa, City of, PD 652 Fullerton, City of, PD 55,182 Orange County Sheriff’s Department 301,083 Santa Ana, City of, PD 13,027 Palm Springs City—International Airport 4,582 El Cajon, City of, PD 14,453 North County Transit District 109,048 San Diego Unified Port District Police 33,259 San Diego, City of 218,447 San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District 346,995 San Francisco, City and County 3,330,319 Stockton, City of 6,135 Broadmoor Police Protection District 5,903 San Carlos, City of, PD 2,608 San Mateo County Sheriff’s Department 53,554 San Mateo, City of, PD 32,126 Santa Barbara, City of 76,891 Mountain View, City of, PD 1,164 San Jose, City of 252,587 Santa Clara County Sheriff 62,686 Redding, City of 9,123 Stanislaus County Sheriff 3,921 Tulare County Sheriff’s Department 220,633 Ventura, County of 32,193 Yuba County Operational Area 7,020 7,882,796 15,832,797 119,187,797 SOURCE: http://www.governor.ca.gov/state/govsite/gov_htmldisplay.jsp?BV_ SessionID=@@@@1519845839.1062440442@@@@&BV_EngineID= eadciedlghkhbemgcfkmchcog.0&iOID=51640&sTitle=GOVERNOR+DAVIS+ ANNOUNCES+$119+MILLION+FOR+HOMELAND+SECURITY+0804% 2f2003&sFilePath=/govsite/press_release/2003_08/20030804_PR03344_ HOMELAND_SEC_FUNDS.html&sCatTitle=Press+Release. 93 Table E.3 California Recipients of TSA Port Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2003 Grantee Benicia Port Terminal Company Harbor Deptartment of the City of Long Beach City of Long Beach Total Terminals International Pier T Long Beach City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles Harbor Department Trans Pacific Container Service Corp. Pacific Harbor Line, Inc. Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Vopak Terminal Los Angeles Inc. West Basin Container Terminal, Inc. Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Los Angeles Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Shell Oil Products, U.S. Martinez Refinery Port of Oakland Total Terminals International Berth 55-56 Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland Port of Redwood City Port of Richmond San Diego Unified Port District Red and White Fleet Port of San Francisco Golden Gate Bridge, Highway and Transportation District Stockton Port District California Ammonia Company City of Vallejo California Total U.S. Total California as a % of U.S. City Benicia Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles/ Oakland Martinez Oakland Oakland Oakland Redwood City Richmond San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco Stockton Stockton Vallejo Grant ($) 20,000 9,820,000 200,163 665,000 800,000 1,189,961 95,000 1,440,000 1,070,000 1,246,000 1,754,650 1,034,000 200,000 1,600,000 476,000 376,000 75,000 91,000 1,435,750 41,450 3,375,000 520,000 336,204 150,000 500,000 28,511,178 169,055,136 16.87 SOURCE: http://www.tsa.gov/public/display?theme=40&content=90. NOTE: Differs from $75 million in port security grants from the Office of Domestic Preparedness. 94 Table E.4 Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, Fiscal Year 2003 California Grantees, as of October 3, 2003 95 Fire Department Name Alameda County Fire Department Alturas Rural Fire Protection District Amador Fire Protection District American Canyon Fire Protection District Annapolis Volunteer Fire Department Antelope Volunteer Fire Company Beckwourth Fire Protection District Beginnings Volunteer Fire Department Biggs Fire Department Blue Lake Fire District Bodega Bay Fire Protection District Butte County Fire Department California City Fire Department Camptonville Fire Department Carmel Valley Fire Protection District City of Costa Mesa Fire Department City of Needles Fire Department City of Riverside Fire Department City of Santa Cruz City of West Sacramento Coffee Creek Volunteer Fire Company Copco Lake Fire Protection District Crest Forest Fire Protection District Davis Creek Rural Fire Protection District Desert Hot Springs Volunteer Fire Company East County Fire Protection District Encinitas Fire Department Eureka Fire Department Foothill Fire Protection District Fullerton Fire Department Georgetown Fire Protection District Glenn Codora Fire Gridley Fire Department Half Moon Bay Fire Protection District City San Leandro Alturas Jackson American Canyon Santa Rosa Red Bluff Beckwourth Redway Biggs Blue Lake Bodega Bay Oroville California City Camptonville Carmel Costa Mesa Needles Riverside Santa Cruz West Sacramento Coffee Creek Montague Crestline Davis Creek Desert Hot Springs El Cajon Encinitas Eureka Brownsville Fullerton Georgetown Glenn Gridley Half Moon Bay FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Emergency medical services Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Emergency medical services Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 208,302 192,600 85,562 45,450 5,677 67,500 35,707 48,960 27,383 50,614 89,640 297,798 260,042 74,130 83,970 91,709 48,326 179,946 21,266 107,334 228,150 15,892 138,980 14,310 22,500 85,005 701,629 54,322 198,000 85,890 175,500 32,175 49,815 64,477 Date Award Announced 7/25/03 10/3/03 8/8/03 7/25/03 6/12/03 8/15/03 8/1/03 6/27/03 6/19/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/22/03 9/12/03 6/12/03 9/12/03 8/29/03 9/12/03 9/5/03 8/15/03 8/29/03 10/3/03 8/15/03 8/29/03 9/5/03 6/19/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 9/19/03 8/29/03 8/1/03 6/12/03 9/12/03 6/19/03 9/12/03 96 Table E.4 (continued) Fire Department Name Hayfork Volunteer Fire Department Hughson Fire Protection District Humboldt #1 Fire Protection District Huntington Beach Intermountain Volunteer Fire and Rescue Department Kettenpom Zenia Volunteers Keyes Fire Protection District Kingsburg La Honda Fire Brigade La Porte Volunteer Fire Department Lake County Fire Protection District (Lakeshore) Lake Pillsbury Fire Protection District Lakeland Village Volunteer Fire Co., Inc. Lakeside Fire Protection District Lakeville Volunteer Fire Department Linda Fire Protection District Lindsay Fire Department Loma Linda Fire Department Loomis Fire Protection District Marina Department of Public Safety Mariposa County Fire Department Mayacamas Volunteer Fire Department Merced County Fire Department Modesto Fire Department Mount Shasta Vista Volunteer Fire Co. Muir Beach Volunteer Fire Department Newark Fire Department Niland Fire District North County Fire Protection District North San Juan Fire Protection District North Tahoe Fire Protection District Olancha Cartago Fire Department Ophir Hill Fire Protection District Orange County Fire Authority Orcutt Fire Protection District City Hayfork Hughson Eureka Huntington Beach Ramona Zenia Keyes Kingsburg La Honda La Porte Clearlake Potter Valley Lake Elsinore Lakeside Santa Rosa Marysville Lindsay Loma Linda Loomis Marina Mariposa Santa Rosa Merced Modesto Montague Muir Beach Newark Niland Castroville Nevada City Tahoe City Olancha Cedar Ridge Orange Orcutt FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire prevention Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 10,557 129,483 164,105 24,502 40,500 21,505 225,000 49,005 75,636 18,000 187,515 42,768 7,403 21,504 92,000 123,003 26,113 31,500 153,445 124,325 39,915 4,860 119,700 179,408 46,800 40,364 39,848 60,157 178,776 171,000 189,000 16,200 60,003 750,000 121,400 Date Award Announced 7/25/03 8/15/03 8/22/03 8/22/03 8/15/03 6/19/03 7/3/03 7/11/03 9/19/03 10/3/03 10/3/03 7/25/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/18/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/25/03 8/1/03 10/3/03 7/3/03 8/1/03 10/3/03 7/3/03 10/3/03 8/22/03 7/3/03 8/15/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/18/03 8/29/03 7/18/03 9/12/03 97 Fire Department Name Orleans Volunteer Fire Department Painted Cave Volunteer Fire Department Peardale–Chicago Park Fire Protection District Pechanga Fire Department Pleasant Valley Fire Company Porterville Fire Department Ramona Fire Department Redlands Fire Department Redwood Coast Fire Protection District Rincon Valley FPD Ripon Consolidated Fire District Rodeo Sacramento River Fire Protection District Salinas Fire Department San Bruno San Francisco Fire Department San Juan Bautista Volunteer Fire Department San Luis Obispo City Fire Department Santa Barbara County Fire Department Santa Fe Springs Fire Department Santa Margarita Fire Department Santa Paula Fire Department Sebastopol Fire Department Seiad Valley Volunteer Fire Department Tulare County Turlock City Fire and Emergency Services Valley Ford Volunteer Fire Department Ventura County Fire Protection District Weott Volunteer Fire Department Wilmar Volunteer Fire Department Windsor Fire Protection District Winters Fire Protection District Woodlake Fire Protection District Zamora Fire Protection District Total Table E.4 (continued) City Orleans Santa Barbara Grass Valley Temecula Dorris Porterville Ramona Redlands Manchester Santa Rosa Ripon Hercules Colusa Salinas San Bruno San Francisco San Juan Bautista San Luis Obispo Santa Barbara Santa Fe Springs Santa Margarita Santa Paula Sebastopol Seiad Valley Visalia Turlock Valley Ford Camarillo Weott Petaluma Windsor Winters Woodlake Zamora FEMA Grant Category Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Firefighting vehicle Fire prevention Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Firefighting vehicle Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Fire operations and firefighter safety Federal Share ($) 16,978 225,000 195,300 63,465 6,801 136,170 53,316 156,371 29,700 182,696 22,973 216,000 211,970 193,200 9,386 211,975 83,706 412,200 416,236 160,334 98,100 129,870 74,175 31,145 125,149 45,710 99,900 447,143 15,750 19,128 18,972 38,169 50,012 63,091 Date Award Announced 6/27/03 9/12/03 9/12/03 6/27/03 7/25/03 8/22/03 10/3/03 9/12/03 9/26/03 9/26/03 9/5/03 8/22/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/1/03 8/15/03 9/5/03 10/3/03 8/29/03 7/25/03 7/3/03 7/3/03 8/8/03 9/26/03 9/5/03 8/29/03 9/26/03 8/8/03 8/29/03 6/12/03 8/22/03 9/26/03 8/22/03 11,733,952 98 Table E.5 California Recipients of TSA Port Security Grants, Fiscal Year 2004 Grantee Valero Energy Corporation Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. Total Terminals International—Pier T, Long Beach Total Terminals International—Pier T, Long Beach Vopak Terminal Long Beach, Inc. City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Hornblower Cruises and Events Long Beach Container Terminal, Inc. Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Shell Oil Products US Alameda Corridor Transportation Authority Shell Oil Products US, Martinez Refinery Tesoro Refining and Marketing Company APM Terminals North America, Inc. Eagle Marine Services, Ltd. Port of Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland Seaside Transportation Services, Port of Oakland SSA Terminals, LLC Port of Oakland Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Oxnard Harbor District/Port of Hueneme Chevron Products Company ConocoPhillips International Matex Tank Terminals Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. City Benicia Carson Carson Carson Carson Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Long Beach Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles Los Angeles area (various) Martinez Martinez Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland Oakland, Alameda Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Port Hueneme Richmond Richmond Richmond Richmond Grant ($) 710,400 222,936 250,000 150,000 2,860 627,354 548,642 2,029,750 533,667 1,654,546 3,000,000 1,737,145 3,000,000 96,000 215,000 75,348 51,187 240,807 2,860 601,080 382,500 65, 185 208,000 96,000 250,000 853,350 48,300 150,000 65,000 41,850 166,320 40,000 115,000 3,000,000 218,400 100,000 197,000 Table E.5 (continued) 99 Grantee Port of Richmond, California ConocoPhillips Sacramento—Yolo Port District Sacramento—Yolo Port District Sacramento—Yolo Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District San Diego Unified Port District Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Blue and Gold Fleet, L.P. Metropolitan Stevedore Company Port of San Francisco Hornblower Cruises and Events Kinder Morgan Energy Partners, L.P. SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC SSA Terminals, LLC West Basin Container Terminal Westway Terminal Company, Inc. City of Los Angeles Harbor Department Port of Stockton Port of Stockton Agrium U.S. Inc. Pasha Stevedoring & Terminals, L.P. Valero Energy Corporation California total U.S. total California as a % of U.S. City Richmond Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento Sacramento San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Diego San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco San Francisco, Berkeley San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro San Pedro, Los Angeles Stockton Stockton Sacramento Wilmington Wilmington Grant ($) 2,583,700 211,200 321,400 50,000 243,800 71,500 200,000 190,000 500,000 89,681 50,000 525,798 500,000 80,000 45,000 60,000 90,000 158,500 450,000 299,420 150,000 224,400 150,000 150,000 269,600 300,000 308,000 979,628 1,176,500 100,000 350,000 100,000 980,000 33,704,614 179,025,900 18.83 SOURCE: DHS grant announcement, Department of Homeland Security Announces $179 Million in Grants to Secure America’s Ports, December 10, 2003, http://www.dhs.gov/interweb/assetlibrary/ Port_Security_Spreadsheet.xls. PPIC BOARD OF DIRECTORS RAYMOND L. WATSON, CHAIRMAN Vice Chairman of the Board The Irvine Company EDWARD K. HAMILTON Chairman Hamilton, Rabinovitz & Alschuler, Inc. GARY K. HART Founder Institute for Educational Reform California State University, Sacramento WALTER B. HEWLETT Director Center for Computer Assisted Research in the Humanities DAVID W. LYON President and CEO Public Policy Institute of California VILMA S. MARTINEZ Partner Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP CHERYL WHITE MASON Chief, Civil Liability Management Los Angeles City Attorney’s Office ARJAY MILLER Dean Emeritus Graduate School of Business Stanford University KI SUH PARK Design and Managing Partner Gruen Associates CONSTANCE L. RICE Co-Director The Advancement Project THOMAS C. SUTTON Chairman & CEO Pacific Life Insurance Company CYNTHIA A. TELLES Department of Psychiatry UCLA School of Medicine CAROL WHITESIDE President Great Valley Center PPIC ADVISORY COUNCIL MARY C. DALY Research Advisor Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco CLIFFORD W. GRAVES General Manager Department of Community Development City of Los Angeles ELIZABETH G. HILL Legislative Analyst State of California HILARY W. HOYNES Associate Professor Department of Economics University of California, Davis ANDRÉS E. JIMÉNEZ Director California Policy Research Center University of California Office of the President NORMAN R. KING Executive Director San Bernardino Associated Governments DANIEL A. MAZMANIAN C. Erwin and Ione Piper Dean and Professor School of Policy, Planning, and Development University of Southern California DEAN MISCZYNSKI Director California Research Bureau RUDOLF NOTHENBERG Chief Administrative Officer (Retired) City and County of San Francisco MANUEL PASTOR Professor, Latin American & Latino Studies University of California, Santa Cruz PETER SCHRAG Contributing Editor The Sacramento Bee JAMES P. SMITH Senior Economist RAND California Institute for Federal Policy Research 419 New Jersey Avenue, SE, Basement Level Washington, DC 20003 Tel: 202/546-3700 Fax: 202/546-2390 www.calinst.org Public Policy Institute of California 500 Washington Street, Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: 415/291-4400 Fax: 415/291-4401 www.ppic.org ISBN 1-58213-099-X" ["post_date_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:07" ["comment_status"]=> string(4) "open" ["ping_status"]=> string(6) "closed" ["post_password"]=> string(0) "" ["post_name"]=> string(10) "ff_104trff" ["to_ping"]=> string(0) "" ["pinged"]=> string(0) "" ["post_modified"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 02:37:07" ["post_modified_gmt"]=> string(19) "2017-05-20 09:37:07" ["post_content_filtered"]=> string(0) "" ["guid"]=> string(52) "http://148.62.4.17/wp-content/uploads/FF_104TRFF.pdf" ["menu_order"]=> int(0) ["post_mime_type"]=> string(15) "application/pdf" ["comment_count"]=> string(1) "0" ["filter"]=> string(3) "raw" ["status"]=> string(7) "inherit" ["attachment_authors"]=> bool(false) }