A basic overview of the budget request is that it requests $39.5 billion in net discretionary funding and a separate $5.5 billion for the Disaster Relief Fund. According to a DHS release, the budget would “redirect” more than $850 million from reductions in overhead costs, travel, overtime and duplicative programs into major initiatives.
The budget request includes $769 million for the National Cyber Security Division, which works with state and local government and the critical infrastructure sector to help protect those assets. The budget would increase discretionary funding for Customs and Border Protection to $10.4 billion; FEMA, $4.5 billion; and the Science and Technology Directorate, $831 million.
The DHS says emphasis will be placed on building core capabilities to address “high-consequence events that pose the greatest risk to the security and resilience of the United States.” Further it says, “Grantees will map their proposed investments to one or more specific core capabilities and incorporate effectiveness measures that facilitate accountability.”
Grants will be consolidated (except Emergency Management Performance Grants and fire grants) into a comprehensive National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) to “enable grantees to develop and sustain core capabilities as outlined in the National Preparedness Goal instead of requiring grantees to meet the mandates from multiple individual, often disconnected grant programs.”
Grantees will get “multiyear program guidance,” from FEMA to increase the efficiency of the NPGP. And starting in 2013, grant awards will be based on “validated assessments of the needs and gaps for the jurisdiction and region where the project is implemented.” Projects will also be validated by a peer review.
Thumbs Up, Thumbs Down
The adoption of a “risk-and-need model” was applauded by the conservative Heritage Foundation. Under the model, FEMA will base funding allocations on threat/risk assessments, gap analyses and prioritized core capabilities. There will be emphasis on building those core capabilities nationally and regionally.
While it applauded the risk-and-need model, it labeled as “misguided” the practice of giving each state and territory a base level of funding with a population-driven formula, saying “it no longer makes sense.”
Some of the documents released in conjunction with the budget request point to a performance measurements and the establishment of a two-year period of performance with limited extensions. That was met initially with consternation from those who point out that such a requirement would lead agencies back to just buying stuff rather than planning.
Critics say that the two-year period is not enough time to plan, purchase and implement, and that by the time a grant is received and a product deployed, a good portion of the two-year period will have elapsed.
