Department of Homeland Security
 

The State of Florida’s Management of State 


Homeland Security Program and Urban 


Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded 


During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 


OIG-12-13 November 2011
 
Office ofInspector General

U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Washington, DC 20528

Homeland

Security

NOV 2 3 2011

Preface

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment

to the Inspector General Act of 1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy,

efficiency, and effectiveness within the Department.

This report addresses the State of Florida's management of State Homeland Security

Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. It is based on interviews with

employees and officials of relevant agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a

review of applicable documents.

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We

express our appreciation to all of those who contributed to the preparation of this report.

!ku.t~;U Anne L. Richards

Assistant Inspector General for Audits /
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1
 

Background ........................................................................................................................ 2
 

Results of Audit ................................................................................................................. 2
 

The State of Florida’s Management Practices Were Generally Effective, but
 

Require Some Improvements ....................................................................................... 2
 

Subawards to Local Jurisdictions ................................................................................. 3
 

Recommendations ........................................................................................................ 3
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 3
 

Timeliness of Grant Fund Obligations and Expenditures ............................................ 4
 

Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 7
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 7
 

Establishing Measureable Goals and Objectives ......................................................... 8
 

Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 9
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 9
 

Sustainability of Local Projects ................................................................................. 10
 

Recommendations ...................................................................................................... 11
 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis .............................................................. 11
 

Innovative Practice—Measuring Preparedness ......................................................... 12
 

Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................... 13
 

Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..................................... 16
 

Appendix C: Homeland Security Grant Program Background ............................... 21
 

Appendix D: Florida’s Federally Designated Urban Areas ..................................... 22
 

Appendix E: Florida’s State Homeland Security Program Funding Process .......... 23
 

Appendix F: Major Contributors to this Report ...................................................... 25
 

Appendix G: Report Distribution ............................................................................ 26
 

Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FY fiscal year 

OIG Office of Inspector General 

SAA State Administrative Agency 

SHSP State Homeland Security Program 

UASI Urban Areas Security Initiative 

USAR Urban Search and Rescue 
 

OIG
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

Public Law 110-53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 

Commission Act of 2007, requires the Department of Homeland 

Security Office of Inspector General to audit individual states’ 

management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas 

Security Initiative grants. This report responds to the reporting 

requirement for the State of Florida. 

The objectives of the audit were to determine whether the State of 

Florida distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds effectively and efficiently 

and in compliance with applicable federal laws and regulations. We 

also assessed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the State of 

Florida’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond 

to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. 

The audit included a review of approximately $208 million in State 

Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative 

grants awarded to Florida during fiscal years 2007 through 2009. 

Generally, the State of Florida administered grant program 

requirements effectively and efficiently and in compliance with grant 

guidance and regulations. The State of Florida’s strategic plans 

linked goals and objectives to national priorities and Department of 

Homeland Security mission areas. Grant funds were spent on 

allowable items and activities, and adequate controls existed over the 

approval of expenditures and reimbursement of funds. We also 

identified one innovative practice related to preparedness 

measurement. 

However, improvements are needed in subawards to local 

jurisdictions, timeliness of grant fund obligations and expenditures, 

measureable goals and objectives, and sustainability of local projects. 

We made six recommendations to the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency that, if implemented, should strengthen 

program management, performance, and oversight. Written 

comments to the draft report are incorporated as appropriate and 

included in their entirety in appendix B. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 1 
Background

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) provides federal 

funding through the Homeland Security Grant Program to help 

state and local agencies enhance capabilities to prevent, deter,

respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and 

other emergencies. See appendix C for additional details regarding 

the Homeland Security Grant Program. 

The governor of the State of Florida designated the Florida

Division of Emergency Management as the State Administrative

Agency (SAA). The SAA is responsible for managing the grant 

programs in accordance with established federal guidelines and 

allocating funds to local, regional, and other state government 

agencies. The SAA subawarded Homeland Security Grant

Program funds to five urban areas, seven regions, and various state 

agencies. Florida’s five urban areas are illustrated in appendix D. 

The State received approximately $208 million in Homeland 

Security grant funds through fiscal years (FYs) 2007, 2008, and 

2009. This included approximately $97 million in State Homeland 

Security Program (SHSP) funds and approximately $111 million in 

Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI) grant funds. Appendix A 

provides details on the purpose, scope, and methodology for this 

audit.

Results of Audit 

The State of Florida’s Management Practices Were Generally 

Effective, but Require Some Improvements 

Generally, the State of Florida (State) did an efficient and effective job of

administering program requirements in accordance with grant guidance

and regulations. The State developed written procedures and protocols for 

the administration of the grant program, and implemented internal controls 

for the approval of expenditures and reimbursement of funds. The State 

also developed strategies that linked goals and objectives to the four

mission areas and eight National Priorities established by DHS. 

However, improvements in the following areas are needed to enhance the

State’s management of the grants:

Funds subawarded to local jurisdictions 

Timeliness of grant fund obligations and expenditures 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 2
Measureable goals and objectives

Sustainability of local projects

Subawards to Local Jurisdictions 

The State did not adequately calculate and award SHSP funds designated

for local jurisdictions in the 2009 grant year as required by grant guidance. 

The State combined UASI and SHSP funds and from the total, allocated 

80% to local jurisdictions. Based on its calculations, the State reported

that $10,759,279 (15%) of SHSP and UASI funds was kept by the State, 

and that $58,706,771 (85%) was obligated to local recipients. However, 

in actuality, the State obligated only $24,410,915 (71.6%) of the 

$34,109,500 SHSP award. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) program

guidance for the FY 2009 Homeland Security Grant Program states that

the SAA must obligate at least 80% of the funds awarded under SHSP and 

UASI separately to local units of government within 45 days of receipt of 

the funds. According to the State, it misinterpreted FEMA’s guidance and 

as a result combined the funds to meet the 80% requirement rather than 

ensuring that at least 80% of SHSP funds were awarded to local

jurisdictions. The difference between what was provided to local 

jurisdictions from SHSP funds and what should have been provided is 

approximately $2.9 million. Local jurisdictions could have used these 

additional funds to complete critical projects that further prepare, prevent,

deter, and respond to terrorist attacks, chemical/biological incidents, or 

natural disasters. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate:

Recommendation #1: Ensure that the State understands the grant 

guidance as it relates to subawarding funds to local jurisdictions. 

Recommendation #2: Direct the State to award the remaining 

$2.9 million of 2009 SHSP funds to local jurisdictions. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with recommendation 1 and with the intent of 

recommendation 2. Within 90 days of its response, FEMA will 

contact the Florida Department of Emergency Management to 

ensure the State understands pass through requirements. In 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 3
addition, FEMA will review the State’s process for calculating the

pass-through amount and require the state to comply with program 

requirements.

The Florida Department of Emergency Management indicated that

there was no distinction in the FY 2009 Homeland Security Grant 

Program Guidance and Application Kit that the SHSP and UASI 

programs should be separate in the 80/20 split calculation. The 

State indicated 100% of 2009 SHSP funds are already obligated 

via cost reimbursement subgrantee agreements. 

The corrective actions proposed by FEMA meet the intent of the 

recommendations. If properly implemented, the actions identified 

in the responses should address the conditions identified during the 

audit. These recommendations are considered resolved and open, 

pending final implementation of the proposed corrective actions. 

Timeliness of Grant Fund Obligations and Expenditures 

Obligation of Grant Funds

The State did not obligate grant funds promptly. For grant years 2007 and 

2008, the State did not issue award letters to subgrantees. It relied on its 

process to review and approve projects to be funded by SHSP grant funds 

as notification to SHSP subgrantees that funds had been obligated. (See 

appendix E for Florida’s funding process.) The State indicated that since 

2002, a FEMA representative has determined that this process was 

sufficient to meet its obligation requirement. 

FEMA’s program guidance for the Homeland Security Grant Program

requires that no less than 80% of the total grant funds available to local 

units of government be obligated by the State within 60 days of receipt of 

funds for FY 2007 and within 45 days for FYs 2008 and 2009. In 

addition, FEMA strongly encourages the timely obligation of funds from 

local units of government to other subgrantees. FEMA grant guidance 

states that four requirements must be met to obligate grant funds: 

There must be some action to establish a firm commitment on

the part of the awarding entity. 

 The subaward must be unconditional on the part of the 

awarding entity. 

 There must be documentary evidence of the commitment. 

The award terms must be communicated to the official grantee. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 4
 

 

These grant requirements were not met in grant years FY 2007 and 

FY 2008. Without obligation notifications, the subgrantees indicated that 

they generally considered the grant contract execution date as the date 

funds were obligated. However, because grant contracts and agreements 

must go through many levels of state and local review in some instances, 

grant contracts were executed more than 400 days after the State’s award 

date. 

For FY 2009, the State began to send letters of intent to obligate funds. 

However, turnover in the State’s legal department delayed award letters. 

We determined that the State obligated funds approximately 44 to 101 

days after the required 45-day limit had passed (see table 1). 

Table 1. Comparison of Florida’s FY 2009 Award Date to Subgrantee’s Obligation 

Dates 

Subgrantee Florida’s Award 

Date Obligation Date Days to 

Obligate 

Jacksonville UASI 8/21/2009 11/18/2009 89 days 

Tampa UASI 8/21/2009 11/18/2009 89 days 

Miami UASI 8/21/2009 01/14/2010 146 days 

Ft. Lauderdale UASI 8/21/2009 11/18/2009 89 days 

Department of Education 8/21/2009 11/19/2009 90 days 

Department of Health 8/21/2009 12/03/2009 104 days 

Department of Agriculture 8/21/2009 12/01/2009 102 days 

Department of Law 

Enforcement 8/21/2009 11/19/2009 90 days 

Note: “Obligation date” is based on information provided by selected subgrantees either 

through award letters or notification emails. Some subgrantees did not have information 

related to their grant obligations. 

Expenditure of Grant Funds 

Grant funds were not timely available for expenditure by subgrantees. We 

determined that on average it took 182 days for funds to be available to 

subgrantees. The delay in receipt of funds is attributed to the State’s 

lengthy approval process. Florida state law prohibits the subgrantees from 

expending any grant funds until they receive a fully executed grant 

agreement. 

Once the State receives the grant award notice from FEMA, it begins to 

draft grant agreements for each SHSP project selected for funding and for 

each UASI. The State begins by drafting the scope of work for each 

agreement. Next, the agreements are sent to the State’s legal department 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 5 
 

 

for review and approval. Once approved, the agreements, along with the 

award letters, are sent to the subgrantees. 

Each subgrantee must follow its respective processes for review and 

signature of the grant agreements. These processes vary depending on the 

city or county. For example, at the Tampa UASI, the grant official sends 

both the award letter and the grant agreement to the City of Tampa’s 

Council (which meets only twice a month) for approval. After receiving 

the City Council’s approval, the grant agreement is sent to the Mayor for 

signature, and then back to the State for signature. Each of these 

individual steps at the local jurisdiction can take one month on average to 

accomplish. 

At the State, the signed agreement undergoes a quality assurance review 

by both the finance and accounting section and the legal department. 

Once the quality review is complete, the agreement is returned to the 

finance and accounting grants section for encumbrance. The agreement is 

then prepared for final execution and signature by the SAA’s Division 

Director. Finally, a fully executed copy of the agreement is mailed to the 

subgrantees. 

The State attributed delays in the preparation of the grant agreements to 

extensive turnover of staff within its legal department during the FY 2009 

grant period. State officials also said that they provide a dollar amount 

that each subgrantee can expect to receive prior to the full execution of the 

grant agreements. The State believes that this notification complies with 

FEMA’s timeframes for obligating grant funds. However, subgrantees 

were instructed per the grant agreements to delay using grant funds until 

they received the fully executed grant agreements from the State. Table 2 

illustrates the time it took for subgrantee agreements to be fully executed 

in FY 2009. 

Table 2. Comparison of Subgrantee FY 2009 Obligation Dates to Date of Fully 

Executed Agreements 

Subgrantee Obligation 

Date 

Date Agreement 

Fully Executed 

Days to 

Execute 

Jacksonville UASI 11/18/2009 04/08/2010 141 days 

Tampa UASI 11/18/2009 04/14/2010 147 days 

Miami UASI 01/14/2010 11/24/2010 314 days 

Ft. Lauderdale UASI 11/18/2009 07/29/2010 253 days 

Department of Education 11/19/2009 04/28/2010 160 days 

Department of Health 12/03/2009 07/27/2010 236 days 

Department of Agriculture 12/01/2009 020/1/2010 62 days 

Department of Law Enforcement 11/19/2009 04/07/2010 139 days 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 6
 
 

 

Grant Date of Total Total Undrawn Percentage 

Year FEMA Grant Drawdowns Balance Undrawn 

Award Award 

2007 8/09/2007 $84,742,600 $57,613,272 $27,129,328 32% 

2008 8/25/2008 $77,483,211 $28,461,684 $49,021,527 63% 

2009 8/21/2009 $72,345,392 $2,138,613 $70,206,779 97% 

The delays in obtaining funds to procure goods and services have resulted 

in a large percentage of grant funds remaining unused within the 3-year 

performance period, making it necessary for the SAA to request grant 

extensions from FEMA or risk losing the funds. Table 3 illustrates the 

percentage of grant awards as of September 30, 2010, that had not been 

drawn down by the SAA for the grants awarded during FYs 2007–2009. 

Table 3. Florida Homeland Security Grant Program Drawdowns as of September 

30, 2010 

The SAA’s lengthy obligation process restricted the subgrantees’ ability to 

effectively plan and caused delays in expending grant funds, required 

grant extensions, and may have caused delays in expending future year 

grant funds. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, require the Director of the Florida Department of 

Emergency Management to— 

Recommendation #3 : Review its grant obligating process to 

identify ways to shorten the time needed to meet grant requirements. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with the intent of recommendation 3. Within 90 

days of the final report, FEMA will require the Director of the 

Florida Department of Emergency Management to conduct a 

review of the state's grant obligation process to identify 

efficiencies to shorten the time required to obligate grant funding 

to subgrantees. 

The Florida Division of Emergency Management plans to take this 

recommendation under consideration as it works towards the 

enhancement of the grant obligation process given a minimal 

staffing capacity. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 7 
 

 

The FEMA and Florida Department of Emergency Management 

responses include positive steps for implementing the 

recommendation. However, until a firm timetable for 

implementing the recommendation is provided, this 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open. 

Establishing Measureable Goals and Objectives 

The Florida Domestic Security Strategic Plan’s goals and objectives do 

not provide an adequate basis for measuring improvements in the State’s 

preparedness and response capabilities. The State measures the progress 

of individual projects funded by the Homeland Security Grant Program 

through an analysis of the percentage of funds expended. However, the 

State has not developed a baseline from which it can measure 

improvements. Also, its strategic goals and objectives do not provide 

sufficient information for measuring improvements to the State’s overall 

level of preparedness. 

For example, the State’s second objective under the Recovery goal is to 

ensure that sufficient lifeline services are available to safely support ongoing recovery activities. To meet this objective, the State lists the 

following implementation steps: (1) support local health care systems, 

agencies, and providers to develop continuity of operations plans; 

(2) work with communities to explore mitigation options for lifeline 

systems; and (3) coordinate debris removal and cleanup within impacted 

communities. Although the implementation steps provide additional 

information to help achieve the objective, they do not provide measurable 

standards for comparison, are not results-oriented to identify a specific 

outcome, and do not identify target dates for completion. 

DHS’s State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategy, Guidance on 

Aligning Strategies with the National Preparedness Goal, dated July 22, 

2005, states that the SAA or Urban Area Working Group should assess the 

strategy’s objectives to determine whether the measures are meaningful, 

the measurement methodology is sound, and the measures can be verified 

with reliable data. In addition, federal regulations for monitoring and 

reporting program performance require grantees to monitor grant- and 

subgrant-supported activities to assure that performance goals are being 

achieved.1 

The State and FEMA do not know what measurable progress is being 

made to improve preparedness and response capability or the amount of 

1 44 C.F.R. §13.40(a). 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 8 
 

 

 

additional funding and time that may be needed to ultimately achieve the 

goals and objectives. 

The State acknowledged the strategic plan’s lack of useful tools for 

measuring performance, but pointed out two mitigating factors: 

(1) FEMA approved the current strategies, including the existing 

performance measures, and (2) the State has been waiting for some time 

for promised FEMA assistance in developing useful performance 

measures. State officials recognized the importance and value of useful 

performance measures to gauge progress and help guide funding 

decisions. Thus, the State plans to hire a consultant to evaluate its process 

for selecting projects and help determine the best method for the State to 

measure its overall preparedness. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, require the Director of the Florida Department of 

Emergency Management to— 

Recommendation #4: Update its strategic plans to include goals 

and objectives that are specific, measurable, achievable, results 

oriented, and time limited. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with the intent of recommendation 4. FEMA is 

revising the guidance and the content of the Homeland Security 

strategy, which is anticipated for release in the fall of 2011. The 

Preparedness Grants Division will require the Florida Department 

of Emergency Management to update their Strategy and comply 

with revised Homeland Security strategy guidelines. 

The Florida Department of Emergency Management stated the 

Florida Domestic Security Strategic Plan was just recently updated 

and approved by the Domestic Security Oversight Council, and 

that the plan has been sent to FEMA for approval. 

The FEMA and Florida Department of Emergency Management 

responses include positive steps for implementing the 

recommendation. However, until a firm timetable for 

implementing the recommendation is provided, this 

recommendation will remain unresolved and open. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 9 
 

 

Sustainability of Local Projects 

The State does not have contingency plans for some SHSP-funded projects 

in the event that federal funding is not available in the future. FEMA 

guidance does not require states to have contingency plans for SHSP- and 

UASI-funded projects and allows states to fund project sustainment costs 

with grant funds. Sustainability is a critical factor that will impact the 

State’s overall preparedness capabilities. The State places little emphasis 

on sustainability as a ranking factor when prioritizing SHSP projects. As 

a result, the long-term sustainment of capabilities and the completion of 

projects funded by multiyear contracts may be in jeopardy if future federal 

funding is not available or is significantly reduced. 

We reviewed 28 funded projects (15 UASI and 13 SHSP). All 15 UASIfunded projects included a description of other funding sources available 

or provided plans to obtain funding through other sources. However, 

approximately 54% (7 of 13) of SHSP-funded project templates reviewed 

indicated that if grant funds were not available, funding could not be 

assured and local funds could not be used to sustain the project (see 

table 4). 

Table 4. SHSP Projects without Sustainability 

Project Name 

Grant 

Year Funding Recipient 

Sustainment of State Agriculture 

Response Teams 2007 $ 200,000 

Department of 

Agriculture 

Sustainment of Equipment for 

Urban Search and Rescue (USAR) 2007 $ 1,408,010 Fire and Rescue 

Sustainment of Training 2007 $ 1,828,621 Fire and Rescue 

Florida Interoperable Network 2007 $ 2,500,000 

Department of 

Management 

Sustainment of Equipment for 

USAR 2008 $ 1,434,687 Fire and Rescue 

Sustainment of Training 2008 $ 1,956,477 Fire and Rescue 

Sustainment of Equipment for 

USAR 2009 $ 1,827,461 Fire and Rescue 

Total $ 11,155,256 

A closer review of these seven SHSP projects revealed that they funded 

sustainment costs for other ongoing projects. FEMA guidance allows 

states to fund project sustainment costs and generally does not require that 

they identify contingency plans for SHSP- and UASI-funded projects. 

Although the State’s funding process includes reviews of proposed 

projects by both local and state groups to identify those projects that best 

address the disciplines’ needs and capability gaps, the State does not 

require that sustainability be heavily considered when ranking projects for 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 10 
 

funding. For a detailed description of the State’s Domestic Security 

funding process, see appendix E. 

Without direction from the State, there is no assurance that the review 

groups will consider sustainability as a ranking factor when prioritizing 

SHSP projects. The long-term sustainment of capabilities and the 

completion of projects funded by multiyear contracts may be in jeopardy 

if future federal funding is not available or significantly reduced. 

Recommendations 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate, require the Director of the Florida Department of 

Emergency Management to— 

Recommendation #5: Review long-term and sustainment projects 

to ensure that they include contingency plans should federal 

funding be reduced or eliminated. 

Recommendation #6: Ensure that local funding committees place 

greater emphasis on sustainability when prioritizing projects for 

SHSP funding. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with the intent of recommendation 5. FEMA 

will require, within 180 days of receipt of the final report, the 

Director of the Florida Department of Emergency Management to 

develop a future funding plan that would provide for the 

continuance of critical projects without long term dependency on 

federal grant funding. 

FEMA concurred with the intent of recommendation 6. FEMA 

will recommend that the State of Florida work with local 

jurisdictions receiving funding to develop a future funding plan 

that would provide for the continuance of critical projects without 

long-term dependency on federal grant funding. FEMA will 

follow-up with the State within 180 days of the final report and 

request additional information on its future funding plan. 

The Florida Department of Emergency Management indicated that, 

per the 2012 Domestic Security Rules of Engagement, it has 

satisfied this recommendation. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 11 
 

 

 

The FEMA and Florida Department of Emergency Management 

responses include positive steps for implementing the 

recommendation. However, until a firm timetable for 

implementing the recommendation is provided, these 

recommendations will remain unresolved and open. 

Innovative Practice—Measuring Preparedness 

The Jacksonville UASI measures improvements in preparedness by 

evaluating their capabilities through gap analyses that are based on 

measured outcomes and an assessment of future needs. 

The Jacksonville UASI conducts an annual Gap Analysis that provides 

up-to-date information on the UASI’s current state of preparedness based 

on funding allocations. The Gap Analysis process measures progress 

through readiness indicators (target capabilities list) and quantifiable data 

(i.e., spending trends) to identify gaps in planning, training, exercise, and 

equipment. Each year, the UASI Urban Area Working Group Strategy 

and Initiatives Committee prioritizes the target capability list utilizing a 

tier system based on risk to the urban area. The prioritization results are 

then implemented immediately and incorporated into the Jacksonville 

UASI project worksheets and project scoring sheets for the next grant 

cycle processes. 

In addition, the Gap Analysis process includes capability-based planning 

sessions, held by the Strategy and Initiatives Committee staff, to measure 

target capabilities and implementation tasks from the Jacksonville UASI 

Strategy. Each goal, objective, and implementation task is measured by 

Metropolitan Statistical Area completion percentages (0%, 25%, 50%, 

75%, and 100%) based on risks to the urban area. 

Through this process, the Jacksonville UASI can identify gaps by 

assessing and cataloging the risks faced by the UASI and the capabilities it 

has or will need to mitigate those risks. The gap between the risk and the 

capabilities will determine the UASI’s homeland security needs going 

forward and should form the basis for funding allocation. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 12 
 

 

 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

The purpose of the audit was to determine whether the State of 

Florida distributed and spent State Homeland Security Program 

and Urban Areas Security Initiative grant funds effectively and 

efficiently and in compliance with laws, regulations, and guidance. 

In addition, we assessed the extent to which grant funds enhanced 

the State’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and 

respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade 

disasters. 

The entire Homeland Security Grant Program and its five 

interrelated grant programs fund a range of preparedness activities, 

including planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, 

exercises, and management and administration costs. Because of 

the interrelationship of these grant programs, all were considered 

when evaluating the planning cycle and the effectiveness of the 

overall grant program. However, only State Homeland Security 

Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative funding equipment 

and programs supported by the grant funding were reviewed for 

compliance. Appendix C provides additional information on these 

grant programs. 

Table 5. Homeland Security Grant Program Awards 

FYs 2007 through 2009 

Program FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 Total 

State Homeland 

Security $25,460,000 $37,090,000 $34,109,500 $96,659,500 

Urban Areas 

Security Initiative $38,670,000 $37,509,500 $35,356,550 $111,536,050 

Subtotal $64,130,000 $74,599,500 $69,466,050 $208,195,550 

Law Enforcement 

Terrorism Prevention $18,180,000 N/A N/A $18,180,000 

Citizen Corps $625,584 $635,164 $630,795 $1,891,543 

Metropolitan Medical 

Response System $1,807,016 $2,248,547 $2,248,547 $6,304,110 

Total $84,742,600 $77,483,211 $72,345,392 $234,571,203 

Source: Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

The audit methodology included interviews with FEMA 

representatives as well as work at the SAA, all five urban areas 

that received grants, and various subgrantee locations. To achieve 

our audit objective, we analyzed data, reviewed documentation, 

and interviewed the key State and local officials directly involved 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 13 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology

in the management and administration of the State’s Homeland 

Security Grant Programs. We conducted site visits and held 

discussions with appropriate officials from selected state agencies,

urban areas, and local jurisdictions in order to determine whether 

program grant funds were expended in accordance with grant 

requirements and State-established priorities. 

In addition to the SAA, we contacted the following 18 subgrantee 

organizations: 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Recipients

Ft. Lauderdale 

Jacksonville

Miami 

Orlando 

Tampa

State Agencies

Department of Agriculture 

Department of Education 

Department of Financial Services–State Fire Marshal

Department of Health 

Department of Law Enforcement

Department of Management Services

Counties

Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office 

Miami-Dade County Emergency Management

Orange County Sheriff’s Office

Local Jurisdictions and First Responders

City of Delray Beach 

City of Ft. Myers 

City of Miami Urban Search and Rescue 

Tampa Police Department 

We interviewed responsible officials, reviewed documentation 

supporting SAA and subgrantee management of the awarded grant

funds (including expenditures for equipment, training, and 

exercises), and physically inspected judgmentally selected

equipment procured with the grant funds. 

We reviewed a judgmental sample of the grants expenditures

representing approximately 27% of the dollar value expended for

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009

Page 14
 

Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

the FY 2007–2009 grants to determine whether the expenditures 

were supported and allowable under the grants. We judgmentally 

chose specific equipment items to observe at the local sites where 

they reside. 

We conducted this performance audit between October 2010 and 

March 2011 pursuant to the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to generally accepted government 

auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and 

perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to 

provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based 

upon our audit objectives. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 15 
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 16 

l .~. I"'p mc"' uf Ilum.·..od "ccn,i'1

<01' C S' 1. SI<

\"'<l';f\!:'n><I. IK ~(~1~

SEP 13 1011

;1"1EMOI{ANDUM FOH: Am)c L. RiC"h;lnb

A~~i~I:1I11InsP<'cturGcn<:r:11 for Audil'

OITiel.' of liblX'(."[or GCII<.'ml

fRO.'1: David 1. K~l\lf[l'~ ../'

Dir<:clOf 'll'

Olrln' of Policy :lnd PI"O£ram i\naly... i~

SUBJEcr: lh·...j)()n-e 10 IJraft OKi I{cP0rl: TiI,- .'11111'> (lr Flor;,l" '.j' ,l/wwg<'"",m III

Slul,' 11"'11,,10/1" .'i",·"ril." l'rogmJIIlllld U,-hall An'<I.' .'11'( IIril\"

Imliilli...,., (jml!/~ A •...,,.,/,,I! "HJ"ili.~ ri'nd Y('UJ".,' 2(j()7 1111"",'.~h 2()(XJ

Tile Fcdcr;lI Emrrgcncy M;lI\agcml.'nl t\geney (FE1>'IA) ;Ipprcdales the DCIX'rllllcnl I)f llollicland

S~",·urily·... (DHS) arlit'e of In'p<:elOr (icnerar~ (DIG) n:\"icw of Ihl.' Simi' of Flo,-id,,'s /IIwwgelll"",

IIf Slil/e Ilol!leli/mISt"'lIrily l'rug,.,11IJ (SllS}') 111111 Urhw! 111"<'(/.1 .'i"{'Uril" 1";lilll;n'.,' (VASI) (;rlll!l~

""/lrd,," dllri",~ Filn" Yn'I".' 2(j()7 II/rollgh 2()(XJ. Bdow. you will lind '.lUI' 1"\."IXln'e 10 each of your

,ix n:C"<JIl1l1ICndalion, aimcd ;.1 pro~r;lIn ImpWI"CmCll1

()I(; ItCCUUllIIl'udaliulllIl: w~ re,'OIlHllcnd lh;lllhc As,j",ul1 Admini'lralor. (jranl Pr,,~r;l!n,

lJircdowlt' (GI'D) cn,ul"i' Ihal lht:: Slaw IHHkl"'l,mds ll1e gf<lI11 guid"l1t'c;l' iln:lalc' 10 .,uh;Lwanling

fund, 10 local juri'diction....

FEM,\. Hc~pon....., 10 RCfUrnnll'ndaliun #1: f'F\1A concul"' wilh lhi, recommendation,

Wilhin 90 day' or deli\~ry or lhi, I\"ron-.e. FEMA Willt'unl'll;l Ihc Florida Depallment 01

Enwrgcncy 1I1an;lt crncnl 10 CI"IIf"C lhe S(;l1c unJcI,t,lIld, pas,-thl'ough rc(!uiremcn". FEMA

rcquc..." thai this rc<:ommcndalloll be rcsoln'd and UpCIl. pcnding Ihe oul\'omc of dLS<:u'.'l\)n, with

Florida

OIG l~c("Ol11m('nd:l\ion112: We recommend thaI the A...,i~lanl Adnlllli'ln.llor. Gr.1lI1 Pn..l.l!J';Illl'"

Din'clorHlc dircctlhc SI;lte 10 a""ilFd lhe relll;linlllg $1.9 million or 100') SHSP fllll,h ('local

J\ln-.dil:lIOlb
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 17 

,

FE.' 1,\ I~('sponsc to RCl'omllwndalion #2: I'E1I.·1A concurs "'ith the intent ufthis n:conlmclIllation,

Within 90 days of ddi\'cry of this Tl'Spon;;c, FEMA will review Florida"s proce" lor cakulating the

pass-through :111)00111 and require Florida to comply ",j1h program requirements, FE\·I,\ T""qll!;,l,

Ihal this rcroll1l1\cnd:,tion b" r~'Solwd and open. pending the n:vicw and implcmmtation of any

cOITective action.

OIG RI'COllll11Cndation #3: We rc.::ommcnd that the Assis[:llll Administr.llor. Grant rrogrmus

Directorate, require the Dircrtor of the Florida Department of Emergency Managcmcnl 10 review its

grail! ohligating prQl;COSS to identify ways to shorten the lime Ill'C<:k'tl to IlIl'C! gram Tt:Xluircmcnts_

!'EMA Response to Rccollllllcnd:llioll #3: FE\1A concurs with Ill<: intent ofthis recommend3tion.

Within 90 days of receipt of the tinal report Vi,l gr,llltl'C notification letter. the Director ofthe F1orid~

Department of Erncrgcl1<':Y Management is required TO conducT a review ofthe state's grant

obligation process to ideruify ctlieicneies to shor1en the time required to obligate gram funding to

sub-graruees. FEMA requests thai this rc<.:omm<.:nd:l1ion be resoll'ed and open. pemling the review

,llld implementation of any idcruilk~l process adjustments.

OIG Recommendation #4: We rO-"1:ommend thal the Assistant Administr:ttor. Grant Programs

Din;'Ctorat<.:. rO-"tIuire the Din..'Ctor ofthe Florida D'-1Jal1lll<.:m of Emergency Managl'llent update its

strategic plans to indude goals and obJO-'Ctives thm arc specific. mcasur;lble, :lehicvable, results

orientl"(t, and time limited.

rEMA ResllollsC to RI'commcllll:ltion #4: FEMA concurs with the intcl1tllfthis rt'Connnendation.

The Nationall'reparl'dnt'Ss Directorate (NI'D), the FEMA entity rcsponsihlc for the homeland

SI..'Curity str-ltCgy (HSS) and its guidance, is revising the guidance and the coruent of HSS, which is

anticipatt'd for relcase in t~lll of 2011 in :njvmtcc ofthe FY 2012 Homeland SecuriTy Grant I'rogram

(HSGI') application cycle. The I'reparc<\ness Grants Division (I'GD) within FEMA's GI'D will

rt'quire the Director of the Florida Division of Emergcncy Managemenlto revise Florida's HSS to

comply with the revised guidelines developt'<.l by NPD, FEMA believes this satisfies the intent of

the fl'l:Ommendatioll and requC!its that This reconllncndation be re'ol"l'<.l :md open, pending the

re\'ision of Florida's Homeland St'Curity Strntegy.

OIG RI'COlllmClldatiOll #5: We reCOllll11end Ihat the Assislant Administrator. Grant Programs

t)ir<..'l:lorate, require Ii'll' Director ofthe Florida Dellar1ment of Emergency \'farmgemenl to review

long.tenn and sustainment projects to ensure that They include contingency plmls ~ho\lld federal

funding be rt'duced or eliminated.

FEl\IA Response to Recomnwndation #5: FEMA concurs with the intent ofthis recommendation.

Florida is not in violation of regulations or grant rt-qUtfements by not having a sustainment plan.

Thc issue of long-tenn sustainment ofinitiatives IS a cross-cutting issue That <;hould be discu-~sed al

the highcsl1cvels of DBS.

FEMA suggC!its the followiltg OOrTeClive action:

Within 180 days ofret::cipt ofthe final report vi;! grantet:: notification letter, the Director ofthe

Florida Department of Emergency Management develop a future funding plan that would provide

for the CQlllllluancc of critical projects without long term dependency on federal grant funding.
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 18 

J

f'EMA bclic\'c~ thi~ ~a(bfjcs Ihe' intent of the fl','ommcndalion ,md n.'que"ls Ih"l thi,

rccol1Ullcl1(lalion be I"<:.,oll'<:d "nd open pc,I(1ing 'lI1pkl11<:I1I"I;011 of Ihe ,wtcd l"Urre("!;,·c "dioll'_

OIG RCCOIllIllClld;'lioll #6: We rcCO'lHlll'ncllh"t Ihe .'\"j,I:1I1I Adl1lini~lr"lor. Granl Prognlilis

Directorate. require the Director of the f'loridn IXp,lIlllWll1 of Emcrgcncy 1'.'lanagcllll'nt <:Ihun: Ih'l!

local fuuding committees place greater cmph",;, on 'IlQainabililY 11'1";11 prioririling project, for

SHSP funding.

FE,\IA Wl'SIJIlIlM' 10 RN"Ollllllendalion #6: 1010),-1'\ ,'oncur, wilb Ihe intent of this rccUmrnl'II([;,lioll.

II is a """'d and pro"ct;,"c [HI"iIlCS.' pwclicc tu dc\'dul} llpliun, fur tlie potenti,,1 rcdll<:liull and or

change in prillr;!y for grant funded :lcl;vil;es: Ihercrore, il ;s rcconulll'n(ied that Ihe $1;,le of Florid:,

work \\';Ih local juri~liel;on" rcl"eiving fuuding 10 develop;' flllllrc funding plan llial wuuld pruvi<k

for lllc conl;lIuam:c of n;ticli projecl' wilhOlU long-Ierlll dCj:I<:mknq' on federal gr;lIlt funding.

FE~"" i, ~en"ilive 10 Ihe challenge~ \Ili~ may present in lhe curren! cwnomic dirn,u<:. However.

FEMA will follow-up wilh Ihe SW!<: within IIlO lbys ofdelivcry ufthe final repOri via gramee

nOlilicatiun !c'uer and rcqllC~1 addilional information on it~ ftJlure funding pl:'I!.

We lhank yOll for Ihe "pportunily 10 review an,ll'{)l1Hllenl on Ihc rcl'<:ll1ll1lcndalions you have

provi(kd FEMA rq;arding this Draft Rcpon. Should you I};lYe any questions COl1ccrning this

n::'ponse. please contact Brad Sherka. Chief AudiT Li~ison. 202-646-130R.
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 19 

STATE OF FLORIDA

DIVISION OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

RICK seon BRVAN KOON

-~ "'""" Augusl1, 2011

Anne l Richards

US Department or Homeland Secur~y

Alln. Office 01 Inspector General

245 Murray Drive, sw, Bldg 410

Washington, DC 20539

Dear Ms, Richards:

The Florida Division of Emergency Management is in receipl of the Draft Report. The Siale of Florida's

Management of Stele Homeland Security Program and Ur~n Area Securiry Inilialive GrBnts Awarded

During Fiscal year 2007 through 2009 _ For Ofru;ial Use Onlydaled June 20, 2011. Bolow you will tind

the requested comments to your recommendations.

Rtcommendaflon #1: Ensure Ihat rhe Stale undarslands the grant guidanco as il mlales to subawarding

funds /0 local jurisdlcrkms.

Page 46 of the Fiscal Year 2009 Homeland Security Granl Program Guidance and Application Kit states:

The SM must obligate 01 least 80 percenl oflhe funds awarded under SHSP and VASllo local unirs of

government within 45 days of receipr of Ihe funds. Please IlOte there was no dislincliOfllhal those two

programs should be separale in tho 80/20 split calculation. Furthermore, UASI and SHSP both /all under

lhe HSGP umbrella and Page 46 also Slales: The State's p;lss-through period musr be met wirhin 45

days of fhe award dale for the HSGP.

Recommendation"1: Direct thq Slare 10 award the remaining $2.9 million of 2009 SHSP funds to loca/

jun'sdicfions,

100% of the 2009 $HSP tunds are already obligated via cost reimbur5OffiQf1t sub grant agreements.

Recommendationl!J: Review its granf obligating process /0 identify ways to shoften tho time needed to

mfJet grant requirements,

The Florida Division of Emergency Management will take this recommendation undllf considllfation as we

work towards If'>o enhancement of the grant obligalion process given a minimal staffing capacily.

Recommllndllflon 14: Updare its strategic plens to im:lude go<lls and objoctiV$slhat are specific,

measurable, achievab/(l, rosulrs oriented, and time limired.

Florida's Domeslic Security Strategic Plan was just recently updatod and approved by the Domestic

8ecurijy Oversight Council. The plan has boon sent to FEMA fO( approval.

Recommendation #5: Review Iong-Ierm and sustainment projecrs to ensure that they include

contingency plans should fodomi funding be rnduced or eliminated.

Per the 2012 Domeslic Secur~y Rules of Engagement, we have satiSfied this rocommendation.

flORIOA RECOVERl OffiCE • DIVISION HEIIDQ~IIHTEHS STille LOGISTICS RESPONSE ClNTER 36 S'.I;•• 1)'1.' nB Shum.rd 0 •• B.ol•••rd np2 0;'0<'.'" R." L••• M.,y. Fl 3n4$·$~O' Toll.h •••••, fl eoo,' 'a,us., ,..

32309·2'00 Orllnd 31109·$631 ToI' : •• Fl 500·488,jOI8

lIlI.. EIQlidIQI...w P'O
 

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 20 

Ms, Anne L. Richards

August 1. 2011

Page Two

Recommendation 1/6: Ensur9 that local funding committoos pllJCO greatoromphasis on sustain"bilily

wh9n prioritizing proj9cls for $HSP funding.

PElf the 2012 Domestic Secur~y Rules of Engagom(lnt, we have satisfied this recommendation.

If you have any Questions or reQuire addilional informalion, ploaso contact Tina Quick. Communily

Program Administrator at 850-413-9974.

R(lspcclfully.

~;-=..~---~-

Division of Emergency Management
Appendix C 

Homeland Security Grant Program Background 

The Homeland Security Grant Program provides federal funding to 

help state and local agencies enhance their capabilities to prevent, 

deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major 

disasters, and other emergencies. The Homeland Security Grant

Program encompasses several interrelated federal grant programs 

that together fund a range of preparedness activities, including 

planning, organization, equipment purchase, training, and 

exercises, as well as management and administration costs. 

Programs include the following: 

State Homeland Security Program provides financial 

assistance directly to each of the states and territories to

prevent, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and 

other catastrophic events. The program supports the 

implementation of the State Homeland Security Strategy to

address the identified planning, equipment, training, and 

exercise needs. 

Urban Areas Security Initiative provides financial 

assistance to address the unique planning, equipment, 

training, and exercise needs of high-risk urban areas, and to

assist in building an enhanced and sustainable capacity to 

prevent, respond to, and recover from threats or acts of 

terrorism and other disasters. Allowable costs for the urban 

areas are consistent with the State Homeland Security 

Program. Funding is expended based on the Urban Area 

Homeland Security Strategies.

In addition, the Homeland Security Grant Program includes other 

interrelated grant programs with similar purposes. Depending on 

the fiscal year, these include the following: 

Metropolitan Medical Response System 

Citizen Corps Program 

Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (through 

FY 2007) 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009

Page 21
 

Appendix D 

Florida’s Federally Designated Urban Areas 

Source: Florida Department of Emergency Management. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 22 
 

Appendix E 

Florida’s State Homeland Security Program Funding Process 

Florida developed a funding strategy and process that is fully 

integrated with its Domestic Security Strategy. The funding 

process is designed around the ten emergency preparedness 

disciplines of agriculture/environment, campus security, fire 

rescue, community health surge, emergency management, 

interoperable communications, law enforcement prevention, law 

enforcement response, medical surge, and public information. The 

funding process coordinates participation by several regional and 

statewide committees to recognize the unique needs of 

municipalities and counties statewide. 

There are ten funding committees, one for each discipline with 

representation from each region, that develop project templates for 

grant fund consideration. Additionally, each Regional Domestic 

Security Task Force designates up to two members to represent the 

region; each Urban Area may designate one member; and state 

agencies may designate up to two members to represent them on 

the funding committees. The committees meet to discuss regional 

preparedness needs identified through capability assessments, and 

to ensure that the proposed project templates are based on 

preparedness needs in accordance with the Florida Domestic 

Security Strategic Plan. Once approved by the funding 

committees, the project templates are submitted to the SAA, which 

in turn provides them to a Peer Review panel and Voting Delegates 

for prioritization and voting. 

The Peer Review panel is composed of one member from each of 

the ten disciplines for statewide representation and one 

spokesperson for the State’s five UASIs. The SAA provides each 

peer review panel member with the proposed project templates, the 

regional gap analysis, the evaluation criteria, and a scoring sheet to 

document the panel’s scores. For each proposed project template, 

the Peer Review panel considers elements such as previous 

funding, whether the template includes implementation steps and 

sustainability, and other project details. The Peer Review panel 

discusses its findings and develops scores and comments. The 

Peer Review panel’s score determines 30% of each project’s final 

score. 

The Voting Delegates are 62 members, including members of the 

State Working Group Executive Board Unified Coordinating 

Group, the Regional Domestic Security Task Forces, and 

representatives of select disciplines. Although the Voting 

Delegates are not provided set criteria, the State indicated that they 

examine each project template for alignment with the Florida 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 23 
 

Appendix E 

Florida’s State Homeland Security Program Funding Process 

Domestic Security Strategic Plan, critical sustainment, viability, 

prior funding status, and project detail. Voting Delegates rank and 

prioritize projects and assign a score that accounts for 70% of the 

final score used for prioritizing all project templates. The 

prioritized list is submitted for approval to the State Working 

Group Executive Board and the Domestic Security Oversight 

Council, which consist of major department heads and advisory 

groups to Florida State Agencies. 

The two groups review and approve the prioritized project list 

before they submit it to the Governor’s office for approval. The 

requested budget, once signed by the Governor, is added to the 

appropriations bill, and the Florida Legislature approves the list. 

The application for federal grant funding is submitted to FEMA. 

When the award is received, if the amount is less than the 

requested amount, a “post-award” meeting is held to determine 

final allocation of funding for each project. 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 24 
 

Appendix F 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Jewel Butler, Director 

Yesi Starinsky, Audit Manager 

Michael Staver, Auditor-in-Charge 

Armando Lastra, Program Analyst 

Jeanette Hyatt, Program Analyst 

Jose Benitez-Rexach, Auditor 

Sue Vernier, Auditor 

Virginia Feliciano, Referencer 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009 

Page 25 
 

Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Audit Liaison 

Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

The State of Florida’s Management of State Homeland Security Program and
 

Urban Areas Security Initiative Grants Awarded During Fiscal Years 2007 through 2009
 

Page 26
 
 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General 

(OIG) at (202)254-4100, fax your request to (202)254-4305, e-mail your request to our 

OIG Office of Public Affairs at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@dhs.gov, or visit our OIG 

websites at www.dhs.gov/oig or www.oig.dhs.gov. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal 

or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland Security programs and 

operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202)254-4292 

• E-mail us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigation - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.