On
June 24, the U.S. House of Representatives passed its first-ever
homeland security appropriations bill. The bill fragments the
distribution of grants for state and local governments and
decreases the flexibility required to implement the national
homeland security strategy. Congressional appropriations should
allow for "one-stop shopping" by state and local governments
seeking grant assistance while also giving the Bush Administration
the ability to ensure that the most critical needs are met first.
Grant programs in the legislation should be consolidated.
Meanwhile, Congress should focus its efforts on the structural
reforms needed to make the grant process streamlined and
effective.
The
Administration's fiscal year (FY) 2004 budget request bundled a
number of disparate federal grants for state and local homeland
security efforts into two major programs, totaling about $5
billion: one in the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS)
for biomedical preparedness and the second in the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) for emergency responders, critical
infrastructure protection, and counterterrorism. Within the DHS,
$3.5 billion in proposed grants was to be administered by the
Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP). This consolidation was a
step in the right direction, reducing the number of entry points
and requirements for state and local governments. In addition,
bundling the grants under the ODP would give the department the
flexibility to target resources at reducing the greatest risks and
vulnerabilities.
Attempting to boost support to state and
local government, the House appropriations bill for the DHS added
about $0.9 billion in grants to the President's FY 2004 budget
request. Some additional spending seems prudent. There is little
question that creating an adequate national capability to respond
to a range of terrorist attacks is a daunting fiscal challenge.
On
the other hand, simply spending a few more dollars will neither
close the gap quickly nor ensure that the money is spent
effectively and purposefully. In this respect, the House bill does
not measure up because it will distribute grants in a manner that
will virtually ensure that monies will not be used as efficiently
as possible.
Unity of
Command
For example, the House bill shifts firefighter assistance
grants ($0.75 billion) from the ODP (as the Administration has
proposed) to the Emergency Preparedness and Response Directorate.
These grants are now administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Agency. Giving the ODP oversight of the program would
have allowed the office to ensure that grants were used to meet
homeland security needs, targeted at the most critical
vulnerabilities, and balanced with the other emergency responder
grant programs administered by the ODP. Shifting the program to
another directorate destroys the unity of command needed to
maximize the effectiveness of the limited funds available.
Even
within the grants administered by the ODP, the House legislation is
overly prescriptive, setting specific criteria for how the funds
should be spent rather than allowing the Administration to focus on
the most important strategic priorities. For example, the House
bill allots $0.5 billion for discretionary grants for high-density
and high-threat areas. In other words, only about 12 percent of DHS
grant money is targeted directly at the most likely victims of a
terrorist attack. This makes little sense; grant distribution
should be based on a formula specifically designed by the DHS to
implement national strategy.
Congress should also require that the
department quickly establish broad national standards for emergency
response. This provision, stripped from the Homeland Security Act,
is essential to the process of smart spending. Without real
standards, there is no way to determine the nation's most important
unfunded needs. Standards are also essential for determining levels
of readiness and are the only viable measure of how much spending
is enough.
Performance-Based Budgeting
With a strategy and real performance standards, the
Administration can move to performance-based budgeting for homeland
security. This form of budgeting would set the performance goals
that must be achieved without specifying exactly how to accomplish
the mission, giving states and local governments maximum
flexibility in determining how best to meet their unique security
needs. It would also provide a basis for measuring what kind of
emergency response capacity the federal government is buying and
allow Congress to focus on its proper role--overseeing how
effectively the programs are meeting the nation's needs--instead of
using earmarked appropriations to micromanage homeland security
spending.
Congress can also help by requiring
federal agencies, particularly the DHS and the HHS, to harmonize
their grant processes so that states and local governments do not
have to submit duplicative plans and requirements. Having to
produce only one type of document and one set of plans will greatly
facilitate achieving the goal of one-stop shopping for domestic
security assistance.
Recommendations
The House needs to get back on track. Disbursing grant
funds to meet too many demands risks spending a little on
everything and not providing much security for anything. Grant
programs should be consolidated as much as possible to give the
Administration the flexibility to meet the most urgent
requirements. Meanwhile, to improve the grant process, Congress
should:
- Restore
the Administration's proposal for the ODP to manage all grants and
refrain from earmarking grant funds;
- Move
the ODP to the DHS Office of State and Local Government, thus
giving the department a true one-stop shop;
- Refine
the national strategy to identify critical needs and implement a
grant distribution formula that meets those requirements;
- Establish national standards and a
mechanism for measuring the level of preparedness and the
effectiveness of existing grant programs; and
- Require
the DHS and the HHS to harmonize and simplify their grant
management requirements, thereby reducing duplication and wasted
effort.
Conclusion
Organization, structure, strategy, standards, and
discipline are just as important, if not more so, over the long
term than how much money is being spent. In the end, they will be
the difference between just another federal assistance program and
a real national security tool for better protecting American lives
and property.
James Jay
Carafano, Ph.D., is Senior Research Fellow for National
Security and Homeland Security in the Kathryn and Shelby Cullom
Davis Institute for International Studies at The Heritage
Foundation.