FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution Formulas: Issues for the 109th Congress Page: 4 of 6
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
The enhancement plan is a multi-year management plan that identifies state
homeland security objectives that are additional to G&T homeland security program
objectives and funding. The investment justification is to identify specific homeland
security needs from the enhancement plan that states wish to address using FY2006
HSGP funds. Additionally, the investment justification is to outline implementation plans
that will assist the states in enhancing and developing their homeland security
State applications will be evaluated and scored through a peer review process based
on the effectiveness of each state's enhancement plan to address its needs and the plan's
reduction of the state's overall risk. States will be notified of their total risk- and needs-
based funding allocation at the time of award.4
In August 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (9/11 Commission) criticized the allocation of federal homeland security assistance
and recommended that the distribution not "remain a program for general revenue
sharing."15 The former members of the 9/11 Commission, acting as private citizens
conducting the 9/11 Public Discourse Project, gave Congress and DHS, in its final report
dated December 5, 2005, a failing grade on distribution of homeland security funding to
Congress has still not changed the underlying statutory authority for homeland
security grants, or benchmarks to insure that funds are used wisely. As a result,
homeland security funds continue to be distributed without regard for risk,
vulnerability, or the consequences of an attack, diluting the national security benefits
of this important program.16
Almost immediately after DHS announced the FY2006 allocations, some states,
urban areas, and their congressional delegations complained about reductions in grants
as compared to FY2005.17 Members of Congress raised questions about the suitability of
the methods DHS used to allocate the grants, and they pursued those questions in
congressional oversight hearings.18
15 National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.
16 9/11 Public Discourse Project, Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, p. 1,
available at [http://www.9-1lpdp.org], visited Dec. 8, 2005.
17 See as examples "Lieberman Assails Homeland Security Grant Distribution," States News
Service, May 31, 2006; and Lara Jakes Jordan, "N.Y., D.C. Get Less Counterterror Funds,"
Associated Press, May 31, 2006;
18 Two hearings have been held since DHS announced state and urban area grant allocations on
May 31, 2006 -House Committee on Government Reform hearing on grants for the National
Capital Region, June 15, 2006; and the House Committee on Homeland Security hearing on DHS
Here’s what’s next.
This report can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Report.
FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution Formulas: Issues for the 109th Congress, report, July 28, 2006; Washington D.C.. (digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc816385/m1/4/: accessed October 18, 2018), University of North Texas Libraries, Digital Library, digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.