Included in the grants was a $35 million increase in Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding of from 2007, and $205 million more than President George W. Bush requested. The Port Security Grant Program was fully funded for the first time at $400 million, and a new Interoperability Grant Program promises $50 million in grants to develop interoperable radio communications.
If state and local governments have not decided on the priorities and spending plans for grant funds they may receive, they're behind the eight ball - planning should begin about a year in advance of grants announced for the upcoming fiscal year.
Here are some strategies that may help you obtain the most funding possible for your government entity.
Be Precise
Whether it's fiscal '08 or '09, potential grant recipients should develop precise investment justifications (IJ) that outline plans and timetables for their priorities under their Homeland Security Strategy (which needs to be in line with the state's strategy). Projects started in past grant cycles should be evaluated: Where is it as far as project completion? An IJ should be prepared that allows for either its successful completion or the continuation of work to adhere to the schedule originally developed.
All local governments, whether in a UASI or not, should also follow the same process, spelling out their funding needs to accomplish projects that have been approved by the state.
It's very important that local governments know and understand exactly how the state will evaluate and determine its grant funding allocation process. With 56 states and territories, this gives rise to 56 methodologies on "who gets what" in the local government funding process.
Some states are clear about how they'd like the money spent, and the locals then need to be clear in planning how they will follow suit. Other states often leave it up to the local officials as to how they would like to spend the money. In that case, locals must articulate through a complete project description/plan exactly "the what, why and how" of their grant fund needs.
The best-case scenario includes a formal process at the state level where local representation has input into the process, where possible, so that all concerns are heard and taken into account for the total homeland security process, including grant funding allocation. It's critical for everyone at the table to put politics aside and understand that personalities take a back seat to the important projects that benefit all citizens at the state and local levels.
The Right People
If a local jurisdiction is unsure of the state's strategy, timetables, priorities and motivations, opening a line of communication with the "right people" within the state homeland security infrastructure is a definite priority.
The State Administrative Authority (SAA) is the office that administers the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grant funds to the local government entities. If you're a department within the local government, or a member of an organization and feel left out of the overall homeland security process, the first step is to call your local government and ask to talk with the department or person who handles the homeland security program. If that doesn't work, call your state's department of public safety, department of emergency management or other department that would handle these types of issues and ask, "Who is my SAA for homeland security matters?" Then call the SAA directly and ask about how to be included in the process.
Unfortunately one of the biggest problems with this process is a lack of communication. In most cases, this isn't from a lack of trying, but a lack of the "right people" being involved. We all have enough to do, and sometimes people are sent to important meetings as what I call "placeholders." These people contribute little to the process, and in some cases make decisions lacking the needed expertise. This can and does create gaps in knowledge and local-level involvement on issues and programs that they really need to know and understand.
A key to developing a good investment/project plan is to include milestones with realistic dates. It's like writing a project report, as if you were trying to sell a project to your boss. You might want to do a Critical Path Method where you say, "This is where we need to be to be at this point in time, and this is the amount of money I'm going to need to get us there." If you don't get all the funding you need, then this changes the critical path to project completion. Then show a new completion date and show the time change throughout the timeline for the new successful project completion date.
If you're planning for tomorrow, you're not planning to achieve a goal other than spending a certain amount of grant funding. When I dealt with local governments at the state level in this process, it amazed me that I was told local government couldn't plan in advance because it didn't know how much money it was going to get. That amounts to planning to spend a certain amount of money, not planning to achieve a critical project or goal important to your homeland security strategy.
Locals - or states for that matter - shouldn't wait to see how much money they might get before making a list of priorities to accomplish. Priorities should be outlined, starting with Priority No. 1 and proceeding down a list to whatever number of priorities you feel will accomplish your homeland security goals and objectives. When the funding is known, then follow what I call the "checkbook approach" to allocate your new funds.
Start with a balance, let's say $50,000. Your No. 1 priority will cost $5,000, No. 2 will cost $24,500, No. 15 will cost $12,500, and No. 20 will cost you $9,850. So now you're $1,850 in the hole. You put in $1,850 of county funds to complete the projects; you did priorities No. 15 and No. 20 at this time because of costs that could be fit into the remaining grant funds.
Plan Ahead
Planning should be done at least 12 to 13 months ahead or even beyond that. Let's say, for example, you're digging wells, and that was one of 10 priorities you wanted to start working on. You know you need to dig 500 wells over a period of time - say five years. You probably won't get enough money to dig all 500 wells in one year. You determine that you can dig 100 to 110 wells a year, so you'll need a funding stream of four to five years. So you have incremental goals of digging 100 to 110 wells each year and a total goal of digging 500 wells. You figure the incremental costs and the total costs for the project and include them in the investment/plan.
Flexibility is important in this process, because priorities can and do shift. Goals and objectives might have to be re-examined every year. You may have to shift priorities up or down a couple of spaces in any given year; but you shouldn't have your No. 1 priority in, say, 2008 drop to No. 10 in 2009. If there's not continuity, someone isn't planning well.
All of these elements affect the quality of your state's investment/plan, or IJ, which will receive a final "grade" from DHS. You'll be awarded grant money based partly on that grade and how it compares to the needs of the other jurisdictions you are competing against. The number of investments/plans you develop should be the number that you can successfully accomplish in any one grant period. Don't do a mediocre job on 15 plans and be unable to achieve only a percentage of them; do eight really well that you have a reasonable probability of completing successfully. The number shouldn't have a bearing on how much funding you receive. If it's a priority, it's a priority.
Your investment/plan should be precise, and easy to read and understand; some jurisdictions hire outside writers and editors to help with the process. Keep in mind, however, that no one should know your problem or solution better than you.
It's critical to consider previous feedback from your state, if there is any, and to have a consistent theme throughout the investments/plans for how the money will be spent.
For any questions pertaining to funding, please e-mail funding@govtech.com. All questions - with answers from Julian Gilman - will be published in the spring issue of Emergency Management.
