This is the same hearing I blogged on last week National Preparedness Grant Program (NPGP) Foibles At least I see the reporter writing the article read and heard the same thing I did. In reality the only organizations that really like the new proposal are states that will have the responsibility for allocating the funds and administering the programs.
If I were a state I think that they should do the following to establish trust in the process:
- Everyone who has received grant funds in the past needs organizational (association?) representation in the process of determining the allocation of funding.
- Those disciplines/organizations like ports and transit agencies that are new to state allocation strategies need to be brought on board.
- The same is true for the THIRA that is required to be accomplished. "FEMA has proposed that funds be distributed based on risk examinations by each state called a Threat Hazard Identification Risk Assessment (THIRA). There are no details yet as to whether states would be required to provide local governments with any role in the THIRA examination. FEMA would then choose which projects to fund from each state’s THIRA based on national priorities." National League of Cities
- Transparency in the allocations is necessary. You can't have a body that makes recommendations that are passed forward to only have the final decisions made in the proverbial "smoke filled room" where the "big boys" decide who gets what.
- Larger metropolitan areas will try to throw their political weight around to influence the allocation process. I agree with the risk allocation strategy, but that does not make it simply a one way street of Brinks Armored Cars headed to the big city with funds to replace Urban Area Strategy Initiative (UASI) dedicated funding.
- This a great example of when the process is key to having outcomes that are more acceptable to the majority of organizations.
- Another strategy is attempt to piss everyone off so that no one feels like they "won the day."
Maybe the best option might be to have state-wide "Grant Games" (Think Hunger Games) where you try to kill your opponents off and win the money prize. We could televise the competition and cities and counties would cheer on their representatives participating in the mayhem. We could charge an admission fee to replace the reduced 2012 Federal funding--but then, the Feds would want a cut of the revenue too.
