Congress is again trying to come up with a common-sense method to allocate limited federal dollars to states for homeland security. The current funding formula still reserves too much money for states at little risk of terrorist attacks and not enough for more vulnerable states.
There is widespread misunderstanding about how the grant programs work. And no wonder.
Last year, for instance, Denver inexplicably dropped from ninth to No. 39 on the list of most at-risk cities, leading many to wonder why it was so far up the list in the first place, and why it dropped so far so fast. No other city on the 2003 list had such a dramatic change in ranking.
Before the drop, Denver ranked ahead of port cities like Philadelphia. There has been speculation the drop occurred because Rocky Flats had weapons-grade plutonium in 2003 that since has been shipped out of state, but federal officials aren’t in the habit of explaining themselves. They say cities move up and down, get added and even bumped off the top 50 list every year as more intelligence is focused on critical infrastructure and the threat posed by both domestic and international terrorism.
Whatever the reason for Denver’s shift, the entire Homeland Security funding structure has raised questions since the first grants were given out. Why, for example, are sparsely populated states like Wyoming eligible for seven times more anti-terrorism money per resident from the U.S. Department of Homeland Security than New York? Wyoming gets $37.74 per resident; New York gets $5.41 per capita.
The answer apparently is that a little goes a long way in Wyoming, which has a modest population. All states until now have received a minimum amount of dollars amounting to 0.75 percent of the total state grants. That’s whether or not an amateur sleuth can imagine a threat.
We’ve all heard about Alaska’s dilemma over how to spend $2 million in grants. Federal officials turned down Alaska’s request to buy a state aircraft with some of it. Some $233,000 went to buy emergency equipment, decontamination tents, night-vision goggles and rubber boots. Madisonville, Texas, population 4,200, used a $30,000 homeland security grant to buy a custom trailer that will be used during the annual mushroom festival in October for people who get overheated or injured. It will double as a command center during supposed emergencies.
Alaska and small towns in Texas are not alone, of course. Colorado officials claim to be spending their grant money wisely, but there is no way of knowing, since most of the records are confidential.
Legislation making its way through Congress would better ensure that homeland security grants are directed to areas where the threat of an attack is greatest. That makes a great deal of sense. Two measures now before Congress would reduce the state minimum from 0.75 to 0.25 percent.
In addition to state grants, major cities deemed the most at-risk receive money under an “urban area security initiative” program. The list had 30 cities in 2003 and 50 last year and again this year. So while New York, ranked the most at-risk city, received less per resident than Wyoming under the state grants, overall it received far more.
Colorado received $45 million in grants last year, including the urban grant money for the metro area. This year it will get $36.8 million, including $8.7 million in urban grants. Most of the money has gone to train fire, police and other law enforcement and to develop a statewide communications system.
We applaud the efforts to eliminate unnecessary spending from the homeland security grant process. National standards are needed to guide the distribution of funding to ensure that the most vulnerable areas are getting what they need.
