The FY2011 Budget and Homeland Security Grant Funding
Congress recently passed a budget that cuts billions in spending through the end of the 2011 fiscal year. Among the federal departments and agencies that must make do with less is the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The highest risk cities continue to face the most significant threats, and DHS’ FY 2011 homeland security grants focus the limited resources that were appropriated to mitigating and responding to these evolving threats.
Q1: What are the changes to DHS’s Homeland Security Grant Program?
A1: On Thursday, May 19, DHS released details of its homeland security grant funding for FY 2011. In response to congressional budget pressures, DHS state and local preparedness grants were slashed by $780 million from FY 2010 levels. The reduction represents nearly a quarter of DHS grant funding and will accelerate the department’s implementation of “risk-based criteria” for grant distribution. Under this model, urban areas deemed most at risk of terrorist attacks and other disasters receive the lion’s share of grant funding. The Homeland Security Grant Program, established in 2003, has five subcomponents, which together provide funding to nonfederal entities for “planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise activities” relating to preparedness capabilities.
Q2: What do these changes in funding mean in the short term?
A2: Federal budget cuts coincide with DHS’s longer-term evolution toward a risk-based model for allocating state and local grants. The result is to shift a significant portion of funding from a large, diverse set of municipalities to a smaller group of major metropolises.
One area where this change will occur is in the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), one of the five subcomponents of the Homeland Security Grant Program. Established in 2003, UASI provides “at-risk” urban areas with funding for counterterrorism initiatives. UASI originally identified seven vulnerable urban areas: New York, Washington, D.C., Los Angeles, Chicago, San Francisco, Seattle, and Houston. By FY 2008, the set of entities receiving UASI funding had grown to include more than 60 urban areas. Because of recent budget cuts, however, the number of at-risk urban areas eligible for UASI funding in FY 2011 has been reduced by half, to 31.
Q3: What do these developments mean for the future of DHS grants to states and localities?
A3: Although changes to programs like UASI mean less funding for smaller states and localities, DHS has mechanisms in place to ensure that a broad range of nonfederal government entities still receive federal preparedness funding. For instance, the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP), another subcomponent of the Homeland Security Grant Program, ensures a minimum level of funding for all 50 states. Since 2003, more than $18 billion has been allocated under this program.
If executed correctly, DHS’s shift to a risk-based model for allocating grants could make the department more effective in lean fiscal times. Changes to programs like UASI merely reflect the reality that large cities are likelier terrorist targets than small towns. For a program such as UASI, which is focused predominantly on terrorism prevention, this change makes sense. By that same token, it is equally important that DHS and its subcomponents, like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), make risk-based decisions about the allocation of federal funds in areas like natural disaster preparedness. Accordingly, regions that are vulnerable to tornados, hurricanes, floods, and other natural disasters should be prioritized for these types of allocations.
Rick “Ozzie” Nelson is director of the Homeland Security and Counterterrorism Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Critical Questions is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2011 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
*This piece has been updated from its original published version.