The big winners appear to be nonprofits and law enforcement.
Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP): State Homeland Security Program—provides $415 million to support the implementation of risk-driven, capabilities-based state homeland security strategies to address capability targets.
Awards are based on statutory minimums and relative risk as determined by DHS/FEMA’s risk methodology.HSGP: Urban Area Security Initiative: provides $615 million to enhance regional preparedness and capabilities in 36 high-threat, high-density areas. Awards are based on relative risk as determined by DHS/FEMA’s risk methodology.
Interesting that protecting critical infrastructure has not bubbled up to be a priority (note: election security is a designated infrastructure). We must wait for some dramatic attack to happen for that to occur.
For both the state homeland and urban area grants, 30% of the awards must address the six priority areas of cybersecurity; soft target and crowded places; information and intelligence sharing; domestic violent extremism; community preparedness and resilience; and election security. Additionally, 35% of these grants must be dedicated to law enforcement terrorism prevention activities, and 80% of these grants must be obligated from the state to local or tribal governments within 45 calendar days of receipt.
Intercity Passenger Rail: provides $10 million to Amtrak to protect critical surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and increase the resilience of the Amtrak rail system. Award made per congressional direction.
Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) Program: provides $355.1 million to assist state, local, tribal, and territorial emergency management agencies in obtaining the resources required to support the National Preparedness Goal’s associated mission areas and core capabilities to build a culture of preparedness.
The following grants are competitive, and exact awards will be announced later this year:
HSGP: Operation Stonegarden: provides $90 million to enhance cooperation and coordination among state, local, tribal, territorial, and federal law enforcement agencies to jointly enhance security along the United States land and water borders.
Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program: provides $15 million to eligible tribal nations to implement preparedness initiatives to help strengthen the nation against risk associated with potential terrorist attacks and other hazards.
A big increase for nonprofits, likely coming from lobbying for the funding.
Nonprofit Security Grant Program: provides $305 million to support target hardening and other physical security enhancements for nonprofit organizations that are at high risk of a terrorist attack. This year, $152.5 million is provided to nonprofits in UASI-designated urban areas, and $152.5 million is provided to nonprofits outside of UASI-designated urban areas located in any state or territory.
Port security funding was once at $400 million, but it has stayed steady in recent years at $100 million.
Port Security Grant Program: provides $100 million to help protect critical port infrastructure from terrorism, enhance maritime domain awareness, improve port-wide maritime security risk management, and maintain or re-establish maritime security mitigation protocols that support port recovery and resiliency capabilities.
Transit Security Grant Program: provides $93 million to owners and operators of public transit systems to protect critical surface transportation and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.
Intercity Bus Security Grant Program: provides $2 million to owners and operators of intercity bus systems to protect surface transportation infrastructure and the traveling public from acts of terrorism and to increase the resilience of transit infrastructure.
Another plus for law enforcement coming out of SHSP and UASI funding.
“The law requires that at least 25% of the combined funds for the State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) be dedicated to Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Activities (LETPA). Last year, for the first time, we increased that minimum requirement to 30%, resulting in a $51.5 million increase from the prior year. This year, we are increasing the LETPA minimum requirement once again, to 35%. In total, LETPA funding will increase by $103 million — from $257.5 million to $360.5 million— over a two-year period
The number of included urban areas has fluctuated widely. It was really constricted in recent years and is now being expanded again.
This year, the Urban Area Security Initiative will enhance regional preparedness and capabilities by funding 40 high-threat, high-density urban areas. This includes four additional urban areas who will receive funding to build and sustain capability based on an evolving threat environment. This represents Congressional intent to limit these funds to those urban areas that represent up to 85% of nationwide risk.
When you take the money, you have to follow the grant guidelines.
DHS has identified six national priority areas in the FY 2023 grant cycle: cybersecurity; soft targets and crowded places; intelligence and information sharing; domestic violent extremism; community preparedness and resilience; and election security.
Grant recipients under the State Homeland Security Program and Urban Area Security Initiative will be required to dedicate a minimum of 30% of their awards across these six priority areas. Fifteen percent is required through minimum spend amounts for five priority areas, and recipients have flexibility on how to allocate the remaining 15% across the six priority areas: cybersecurity (no minimum spend); soft target and crowded places (3%); information and intelligence sharing (3%); domestic violent extremism (3%); community preparedness and resilience (3%); and election security (3%).
Really, EMPG is the grant that has the most flexibility.
After extensive consultation with grantees leading up to this announcement, DHS is focused on balancing the need to invest in high priority areas with giving jurisdictions the flexibility to make prioritization decisions based on their own assessments of their needs.
