U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

64–698 PDF 2011

THE FUTURE OF FEMA’S GRANT PROGRAMS 

DIRECTORATE 

HEARING 

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY 

COMMUNICATIONS, 

PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE 

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES 

ONE HUNDRED ELEVENTH CONGRESS 

SECOND SESSION 

JUNE 29, 2010 

Serial No. 111–72 

Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security 

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/ 
(II) 

COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi, Chairman 

LORETTA SANCHEZ, California 

JANE HARMAN, California 

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

ZOE LOFGREN, California 

SHEILA JACKSON LEE, Texas 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

CHRISTOPHER P. CARNEY, Pennsylvania 

YVETTE D. CLARKE, New York 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California 

ANN KIRKPATRICK, Arizona 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

AL GREEN, Texas 

JAMES A. HIMES, Connecticut 

MARY JO KILROY, Ohio 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

VACANCY

VACANCY

PETER T. KING, New York 

LAMAR SMITH, Texas 

DANIEL E. LUNGREN, California 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

MICHAEL T. MCCAUL, Texas 

CHARLES W. DENT, Pennsylvania 

GUS M. BILIRAKIS, Florida 

PAUL C. BROUN, Georgia 

CANDICE S. MILLER, Michigan 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

STEVE AUSTRIA, Ohio 

TOM GRAVES, Georgia 

I. LANIER AVANT, Staff Director 

ROSALINE COHEN, Chief Counsel 

MICHAEL TWINCHEK, Chief Clerk 

ROBERT O’CONNOR, Minority Staff Director 

SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, 

AND RESPONSE 

LAURA RICHARDSON, California, Chairwoman 

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of 

Columbia 

HENRY CUELLAR, Texas 

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey 

EMMANUEL CLEAVER, Missouri 

DINA TITUS, Nevada 

WILLIAM L. OWENS, New York 

BENNIE G. THOMPSON, Mississippi (ex officio) 

MIKE ROGERS, Alabama 

PETE OLSON, Texas 

ANH ‘‘JOSEPH’’ CAO, Louisiana 

MICHAEL T. MCCaul, Texas 

PETER T. KING, New York (ex officio) 

STEPHEN VINA, Staff Director 

RYAN CALDWELL, Clerk 

AMANDA HALPERN, Minority Subcommittee Lead 
(III) 

C O N T E N T S 

Page 

STATEMENTS

The Honorable Laura Richardson, a Representative in Congress From the 

State of California, and Chairwoman, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................. 1 

The Honorable Mike Rogers, a Representative in Congress From the State 

of Alabama, and Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response .............................................................. 2 

WITNESSES

Ms. Elizabeth M. Harman, Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Department of Homeland 

Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 5 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 7 

Ms. Anne L. Richards, Assistant Inspector General for Audits, Office of the 

Inspector General, Department of Homeland Security: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 9 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 11 

Mr. Alan Patalano, Fire Chief, Long Beach Fire Department, Long Beach, 

California: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 18 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 20 

Ms. MaryAnn Tierney, Deputy Managing Director, Office of Emergency Management, City of Philadelphia: 

Oral Statement ..................................................................................................... 23 

Prepared Statement ............................................................................................. 25 

APPENDIX

Questions From Chairwoman Laura Richardson of California ........................... 43 

(1) 

THE FUTURE OF FEMA’S GRANT PROGRAMS 

DIRECTORATE 

Tuesday, June 29, 2010 

U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY, SUBCOMMITTEE ON EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS, PREPAREDNESS, AND RESPONSE, Washington, DC. 

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 10:00 a.m., in Room 

311, Cannon House Office Building, Hon. Laura Richardson [Chairwoman of the subcommittee] presiding. 

Present: Representatives Richardson, Cuellar, Pascrell, Cleaver, 

Rogers, and McCaul. 

Also present: Representative Austria. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The Subcommittee on Emergency Communications, Preparedness, and Response will come to order. 

The subcommittee is meeting today to receive testimony on ‘‘The 

Future of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate.’’ 

I will now recognize myself for an opening statement. 

Good morning. I want to welcome our panel of witnesses and 

thank them for testifying on today’s topic. 

GPD, also known as the Grant Programs Directorate, is now the 

Department’s one-stop shop for administering more than $4 billion 

annually in homeland security and emergency management grants. 

GPD plays a vital role in helping our State and local partners build 

the capabilities necessary to prepare for, protect against, and respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other disasters. 

We are especially looking forward today to hearing from GPD’s 

new assistant administrator, Ms. Elizabeth Harman, about her priorities for the office. Ms. Harman has inherited several significant 

management challenges at GPD, including high turnover and low 

morale. 

These challenges have been made more complex by Administrator Fugate’s focus on empowering the FEMA regions. I remain 

supportive of giving the regions greater operational responsibility 

when responding to disasters. However, FEMA officials in the field 

are much better equipped to respond to those situations than we 

are. 

However, non-disaster grant management is a uniquely different 

function than a disaster response. It is not clear to me how handing control over the grants to the regions will improve FEMA’s 

grant management function. Adding FEMA regions to the mix of 

actors threatens to overly complicate critical infrastructure grant 

programs. 
2 

Finally, Congress created GPD in part to ensure that DHS—and 

excuse all these acronyms, to people who might be here for the first 

time—was consistently applying its grants policies and rules. It 

will be very difficult for 10 FEMA regions to consistently interpret 

grant policies. Accordingly, there is a central question that we hope 

Ms. Harman will address this morning: What problem is FEMA 

trying to solve by decentralizing the grant management programs 

to the regions? 

Beyond the questions of regionalization, we want to hear from all 

witnesses their ideas for improving homeland security grant programs. The inspector general recently issued a report where he 

identified legislative, interagency, and State-level barriers that impede maximizing the value of DHS grants. We would like to understand how FEMA is addressing the IG’s recommendations and 

learn more about what impediments this subcommittee ought to 

consider. 

One grant challenge, that has recently been renewed and has 

gotten a lot of attention, has to do with spending the grant awards. 

For example, almost 50 percent of the fiscal year 2007 homeland 

security grant program—funds have not been spent. That number 

jumps to 78 percent for port security grants, which is of great concern to me in my district. That is an astonishing number when you 

consider the massive security needs at our Nation’s ports. 

In my district in California, the ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles handle 30 percent of the entire Nation’s shipping imports. 

The economic impact of a nuclear attack on the Port of Long Beach 

could initially exceed $1 trillion. Therefore, it is vital that we have 

the funds to put the necessary security in place. 

There are many reasons for these draw-down numbers, some of 

which the GPD can control and others that simply reflect the time 

it takes State and locals to move through the grant lifecycle. Nevertheless, the fact still remains: When Federal dollars are not being 

spent to fill critical security gaps, our communities—Americans— 

remain vulnerable. 

I am very pleased to see Chief Patalano, from my district in Long 

Beach, here with us today to speak on these issues. As fire chief, 

you know first-hand the importance of these grants and what they 

do for the city of Long Beach, so I look forward to your testimony. 

I would also like to welcome Ms. Tierney from Philadelphia, who 

I know brings a wealth of knowledge to emergency management. 

I invite you both to tell us where the grant process can be improved and how we can cut through the red tape so that our first 

responders have the resources they need. 

In conclusion, the subcommittee’s underlying goal this morning 

is to help FEMA improve the management of its grant programs. 

The Congress, FEMA, and grantees all have a role to play in reaching this goal, and I look forward to a productive dialogue with all 

the witnesses this morning. 

The Chairwoman now recognizes the Ranking Member of the 

subcommittee, the gentleman from Alabama, Mr. Rogers, for an 

opening statement. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. Thank you for 

calling this hearing. 
3 

I want to thank the witnesses for being here and taking the time 

to prepare for it. I know it is inconvenient, but it is very helpful 

to us to be able to draw on your expertise, so thank you for your 

time and commitment. 

This hearing is being held to look at FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate and the overall efficacy of the Department of Homeland 

Security’s grant programs. This is the first time that Ms. Harman 

has testified before the committee since she became the new assistant administrator for grants at FEMA. I want to welcome her and 

thank her for her service, both in her current capacity and as a 

former firefighter and paramedic. 

DHS grants are essential to increasing our Nation’s level of preparedness, and we must ensure that these programs are managed 

in an effective manner. 

I would first like to commend FEMA for the outreach they do 

with the State and local recipients of preparedness grants. Gathering insight and recommendations from States and localities is 

critical in helping GPD become more effective as the 3-year-old directorate continues to evolve. I encourage FEMA to continue emphasizing that level of stakeholder outreach. 

While FEMA has made progress in certain areas, the agency 

needs to improve its ability to manage the grant application and 

review process, conduct oversight of awards, and measure the effectiveness of grants in bolstering preparedness and response capabilities across the Nation. 

I am concerned that FEMA has still not developed tools to measure the Nation’s overall preparedness or assess the achievement 

and effectiveness of its grant programs, especially since the PostKatrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 and the 9/11 

Act, both of which required such performance metrics to be developed. While we recognize that it is not a simple task, developing 

these metrics is crucial to assessing the impact that these programs are having in protecting local communities. 

In addition, there seems to be a lack of clear vision as to how 

to integrate FEMA grant management with the recent push toward 

regionalization. Even with grant management functions largely 

centralized at headquarters, FEMA has not always evenly applied 

grant policies. Without a strong implementation plan and adequate 

resources, the continued delegation of responsibility to FEMA’s 10 

regional offices could lead to inconsistency in grant polices as well 

as a strain on resources in the regions as they try to carry out their 

normal duties. 

Last, I am concerned about the amount of time it takes for 

FEMA to conduct reviews and release funds under certain grant 

programs once those funds have been awarded. A 2009 GAO report 

found that mass transit security grant dollars were unavailable for 

up to a year or more, in some cases, after they have been awarded 

due to TSA and FEMA’s internal review processes. These delays 

are unacceptable. I am interested in looking at what steps can be 

taken to address these funding delays and mitigate the impact to 

State and local communities. 

I want to thank our witnesses again. 
4 

Madam Chairwoman, if you don’t mind, I would like to ask unanimous consent that Congressman Austria be able to sit with us on 

the panel and question the witnesses. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Without objection. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you. 

With that, I would yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Other Members of the subcommittee are reminded that, under committee rules, opening statements may by 

submitted for the record. 

I welcome our panel of witnesses today. 

I want to let you know that at approximately 10:30 we might 

have votes. If we all do a good job, hopefully we can get through 

your initial statements. Upon our return after votes, we can go into 

questions and hopefully minimize your time today. 

Our first witness is the Honorable Elizabeth Harman, assistant 

administrator for the Grant Programs Directorate. Her job consists 

of overseeing the management of more than 50 grant and financial 

assistance programs and representing approximately $4 billion in 

non-disaster grant funding annually. Ms. Harman comes to FEMA 

with over 20 years of experience in the emergency management 

community and it is my belief that her appointment was supported 

by both our Ranking Member and Chair. 

Our second witness, Ms. Anne Richards, is the assistant inspector general for audits at the Department of Homeland Security. 

Previously, Ms. Richards was the assistant inspector general for 

audits at the Department of the Interior and spent 5 years as the 

regional audit manager for the Central Region office, located in 

Denver, from 1984 to 1999, where Ms. Richards also served in a 

number of positions with the U.S. Army Audit Agency. 

Our third witness, Chief Alan Patalano, is the fire chief of Long 

Beach Fire Department in Long Beach, California. Our chief served 

as the deputy chief for the past 8 years and has worked with the 

city of Long Beach for more than 20 years. He is a member of Los 

Angeles/Long Beach UASI Working Group, which develops projects 

and allocates homeland security grant funds to area agencies in 

support of regional domestic preparedness and, may I add, that the 

program is in Tier 1 in some of the most critical risk assessment 

areas. 

Our final witness, Ms. MaryAnn Tierney, is the deputy managing 

director for the Office of Emergency Management in the city of 

Philadelphia. Since coming to Philadelphia in 2006, Ms. Tierney 

has overseen a transformation of the city’s emergency preparedness 

program, focusing on developing operational and emergency plans, 

conducting training and exercises, and building partnerships with 

the community. Ms. Tierney spent over 7 years with the New York 

City Office of Emergency Management and has extensive experience coordinating large, complex emergency response operations. 

We are pleased to have all of you present with us today and 

greatly appreciate your testimony. 

Without objection, the witnesses’ full statements will be inserted 

into the record. 

I now ask each witness to summarize his or her statement for 

5 minutes, beginning with Ms. Harman. 
5 

STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M. HARMAN, ASSISTANT ADMINISTRATOR, GRANT PROGRAMS DIRECTORATE, FEDERAL 

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY, DEPARTMENT OF 

HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. 

Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members 

of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Harman, and I serve as 

the assistant administrator for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s Grant Programs Directorate, or GPD. On behalf of 

Administrator Fugate, it is a privilege to appear before you today. 

Madam Chairwoman, I have served as GPD’s assistant administrator since March 2010. I have spent much of these last several 

months becoming better acquainted with GPD, with its people, and 

how it works on a day-to-day basis. 

GPD’s role is one of great responsibility. Its mission is to ensure 

that, through strategic use of Federal funding, our Nation is wellprepared to respond to and mitigate all-hazard events. Moreover, 

GPD must ensure that FEMA’s grant programs are administered 

responsibly, economically, and that each grant dollar improves our 

Nation’s capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment. 

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act centralized most of the Department of Homeland Security’s grant programs under GPD’s administration and oversight. This centralization allowed for a more integrated, coordinated, and transparent 

system of grant management. 

As part of this transition, FEMA continues to build the capacity 

to administer a new, different, and much larger grant portfolio program. This includes improving our systems for collecting and managing and reporting data, improving how we operate on a daily 

basis, including a thorough review of our most basic functions, such 

as program and financial monitoring, and maintaining a highly 

skilled, motivated, and dedicated staff. 

Since March, I have reviewed our processes, our operating procedures, and how GPD staff interacts internally and externally with 

our State and local partners and stakeholders. The goal is to ensure that GPD grant administration procedures are effective and 

responsible. 

While we are still in the preliminary phases of this review, I believe that, with the support we have from FEMA and DHS leadership, we can greatly improve our grant process. As part of our efforts to improve GPD, we must ensure that we have the capabilities in place to help us succeed. 

One of our most valuable assets is an exceptional staff. While decreased staffing levels in recent months has been a challenge, we 

are moving quickly to meet GPD’s staffing requirements. Within 

the first 2 months of my appointment here at GPD, 98 percent of 

our vacancies were announced. We fully expect to have all vacant 

positions filled within the coming months. 

Another critical component of GPD’s success is its ability to ensure that Federal grant dollars have been accounted for and that 

those grant dollars are meeting critical security needs across the 

country. We at FEMA and DHS are committed to doing this and 
6 

are working closely with the Preparedness Task Force created by 

the DHS fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act. 

We are also exploring new ways and systems to manage and report data we collect from grantees. We are committed to creating 

a more efficient and accurate system of collecting and reporting information. We are currently discussing system requirements and 

are in the process of determining funding needs and timelines for 

implementation. 

Last, GPD must be able to carry out this mission within a new 

and evolving FEMA structure. Administrator Fugate strongly believes that emergency management organizations are most responsive and effective when the authority to make operational decisions 

is delegated to those command levels in the field with boots on the 

ground. 

FEMA is putting in place the structure in which headquarters is 

responsible for the rules and tools of programs we manage, while 

the regions are becoming increasingly responsible for implementing 

these programs in the field. The responsibility of headquarters is 

to prescribe and develop systems in support of our National policy. 

Personnel in the region’s field are responsible for the actual policy 

implementation as well as preparing for, responding to, recovering 

from, and mitigating all hazards. 

I recognize there has been much discussion over the impact of 

empowering the regions as part of our strategy. Grant regionalization is in an early stage; it is a work in progress. We are currently 

assessing how FEMA grant programs will be structured and administered and how accompanying roles and responsibilities will be 

defined. Those determinations will be made on a careful study of 

each grant program’s requirements after we have a clear understanding of the benefits derived from having the program administered by the regions. 

In fiscal year 2010, FEMA assigned full responsibility for the implementation of six homeland security grant programs to the regions. Since moving these six programs to the regions, FEMA has 

provided the opportunity to step back and assess the regionalization of these programs, study the grant process and the various 

parts of the grant cycle, and to better understand how roles and 

responsibilities may best be shared between headquarters and regional staff. 

This has provided the opportunity for detailed discussions between headquarters and regional staff to better understand the opportunities for improvement, establish corrective actions, and identify best practices. I cannot emphasize enough how critical the inclusion of our State and local partners will be in our examination 

of regionalization and regional empowerment. 

Our decisions on regionalization will be driven by the same key 

concerns that drive all FEMA and GPD decisions: How do we better prepare our Nation for a natural disaster or terrorist attack? 

In conclusion, I would like to add a personal note. As a former 

volunteer and paid firefighter and paramedic, I have seen firsthand how these homeland security grants are being spent. I understand how important Federal funding is for preparing our communities, building capabilities at the local level, and ensuring the 

safety of our citizens and of our first responders. 
7 

My experience as a first responder gives me insight into the importance of including frontline responders of all disciplines into the 

design and planning of these grant programs. I am committed to 

the inclusion of our stakeholders in decision-making. The transparency of our processes and our ability to work closely with our 

State and local partners is critical to the success of GPD’s mission. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am happy 

to respond to any questions that you may have, Congressman Rogers, and any other Members as well. Thank you very much. 

[The statement of Ms. Harman follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH M. HARMAN

JUNE 29, 2010 

Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking Member Rogers, and Members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Harman and I serve as the assistant administrator 

for the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). On behalf of Administrator Craig Fugate, it is a privilege to appear 

before you today to discuss GPD’s present and its future. 

Madam Chairwoman, I have served as GPD’s assistant administrator since March 

2010. I have spent much of these last several months becoming better acquainted 

with GPD, with its people and how it works on a day-to-day basis. 

GPD’s role is one of great responsibility. Its mission is to ensure that through the 

strategic use of Federal funding, our Nation is well prepared to respond to and mitigate all-hazards. Moreover, GPD must ensure that FEMA’s grant programs are administered responsibly and economically, and that each grant dollar improves our 

Nation’s capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment. 

The Post Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) centralized 

most of the Department of Homeland Security’s (DHS) grant programs under GPD’s 

administration and oversight, allowing for a more integrated and coordinated system of grant management. Under PKEMRA, GPD became the one-stop-shop for 

grants management, providing credible leadership of FEMA’s grant programs, a 

more transparent processes, and collaborative partnerships with our stakeholders. 

GPD currently administers 52 distinct disaster and non-disaster grant programs. 

Each year, we award between 6,000 and 7,000 individual grants, totaling $7 to $10 

billion each year. 

FEMA is continuing to build capacity as we administer a new, different, and 

much larger portfolio of grant programs. This includes improving our systems for 

collecting, managing, and reporting data, improving how we operate on a daily 

basis—including a thorough review of our most basic functions such as program and 

financial monitoring—and maintaining a highly skilled, motivated, and dedicated 

staff. 

Also critical to GPD’s ability to achieve its mission is being able to show how each 

grant dollar improves our Nation’s capabilities and provides a strong return on our 

investment. We must work with our partners at the State and local level to provide 

both the outputs and outcomes of grants, underscoring how our investments are increasing preparedness. 

Lastly Madam Chairwoman, GPD must be able to carry out this mission within 

a new and evolving FEMA structure. This new structure, a key goal of Administrator Fugate, will not just empower the FEMA Regions, but more actively involve 

them in the day-to-day administration of FEMA’s programs. 

These then, are the four key principles for GPD: 

(1) To administer FEMA’s grant programs responsibly and economically. 

(2) To build and sustain the internal capabilities to ensure success. 

(3) To show how each grant dollar improves our Nation’s capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment. 

(4) To carry out our mission within a new and evolving FEMA structure. 

Since March, I have dedicated a good deal of time and energy into looking at how 

GPD does business. I have reviewed our processes, our operating procedures, and 

how GPD staff interacts internally and externally with our customers—our State 

and local partners and stakeholders. The goal is to ensure that GPD’s grant administration procedures are effective and responsible—beginning the process with the 

development of grant guidance and concluding with the close-out of individual 

grants. While we are still in the preliminary phases of this review, I believe that 
8 

with the support we have from FEMA and DHS leadership, we can greatly improve 

our grant process and how we do business. 

In our efforts to improve GPD operations on a day-to-day basis, we must ensure 

that we have the proper capabilities in place. One of our most valuable assets is 

an exceptional staff with the skills, knowledge, and motivation, to succeed. There 

is no question that GPD is comprised of dedicated professionals with years of experience in the planning, execution, management, and monitoring of Federal grant programs. 

While decreased staffing levels in recent months have been a challenge, with the 

support of FEMA and DHS leadership, we are moving quickly to meet GPD’s staffing requirements. We are actively recruiting additional Federal employees: We currently have 48 advertised staff position announcements and a new senior management position that will be announced shortly. Once these positions are filled within 

the next few months, GPD’s staffing level will be at its full authorized level of 192. 

Another critical component of GPD’s success is its ability to ensure that Federal 

grant dollars have been accounted for, and that those grant dollars are meeting critical security needs across the country. Given the size of this investment, it is important for GPD, as stewards of the taxpayers’ money, to assess what these dollars 

have bought, and what our investment has returned. At the end of the day, we need 

to be able to show how each grant dollar improves our Nation’s capabilities and provides a strong return on our investment. 

Madam Chairwoman, as this committee is aware, those of us at FEMA and at 

DHS are committed to doing this. Intuitively we can say that we are better prepared today than we have been in the past. We can point to such things as the 

amount and type of equipment that has been purchased. We can look at the improvements in physical security that we have made and the improvements in planning and training that we have put in place, and we conclude that we are better 

prepared. However, we are and will continue to do even more. Through the development and assessment of metrics, connecting the dollars we’ve spent to the results 

that our grant money has achieved, we can better evaluate our preparedness. 

Recognizing that it is important to take a comprehensive look at all our past efforts, the DHS fiscal year 2010 Appropriations Act instructed FEMA’s National Preparedness Directorate (NPD), in cooperation with the Department’s Office of Intergovernmental Affairs, to create and lead an effort to help us better understand preparedness and how best to invest preparedness dollars. With the creation of the 

local, State, Tribal, and Federal Preparedness Task Force (Task Force), FEMA and 

DHS are undertaking a comprehensive look at these questions. The report and recommendations of the Task Force are due later this year and will help move us closer 

to understanding how prepared we are and how best to dedicate preparedness resources. Further, as part of this effort, we are exploring new ways and systems to manage 

and report the data we collect from our grantees. GPD currently maintains several 

systems that were created at different times and collect different types of information. Too often, pulling and organizing data from these different systems is cumbersome and time-consuming. We are committed to creating a more efficient and accurate system of collecting and reporting information. We are currently discussing 

system requirements with both FEMA and DHS leadership and are in the process 

of determining time lines for implementation and funding requirements. Once these 

changes are implemented, they will provide us and the American people with a 

clearer understanding of how our grant dollars are being used and what results are 

being achieved. It will also give us a more effective tool to monitor the spending decisions made by grant recipients. 

Lastly Madam Chairwoman, GPD must be able to carry out this mission within 

a new and evolving FEMA structure. Administrator Fugate strongly believes that 

emergency management organizations are most responsive and effective when the 

authority to make operational decisions is delegated to those command levels in the 

field with boots on the ground. FEMA is putting in place a structure in which Headquarters is responsible for the ‘‘rules and tools’’ of the programs we manage, while 

the regions are becoming increasingly responsible for implementing those programs 

in the field. The responsibility of headquarters is to prescribe and develop systems 

in support of our National policy. Personnel in the regions and the field are responsible for the actual policy implementation as well as preparing for, responding to, 

recovering from, and mitigating all hazards. 

I recognize that there has been much discussion over the impact of empowering 

the regions as part of our strategy. Allow me to address this. Grant regionalization 

(that is, empowering the regions by providing them with increased responsibilities 

in the management and administration of the homeland security grant programs) 

is still in an early stage. It is a work in progress. We are currently assessing how 
9 

FEMA’s grant programs will be structured and administered, and how accompanying roles and responsibilities will be defined. These determinations will be 

made based on a careful study of each grant program’s requirements, and after we 

have a clear understanding of the benefits derived from having the program administered by the regions. 

In fiscal year 2010, FEMA assigned full responsibility for the implementation of 

six homeland security grant programs to the regions: The Emergency Management 

Performance Grant Program, the Emergency Operations Center Grant Program, the 

Regional Catastrophic Planning Grant Program, the Citizen Corps Grant Program, 

the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems Grant Program, and the Drivers License Security Grant Program. 

These programs have traditionally been characterized by high levels of local involvement in their development and administration through the use of local working 

groups, community councils, and State and local agencies. For example, there is the 

Citizen Corps Grant Programs’ reliance on State and local Citizen Corps Councils 

to determine uses of funds and to establish local program goals and objectives. Similarly, the Metropolitan Medical Response Systems (MMRS) Grant Program relies on 

local MMRS Working Groups to determine local program activities. The Emergency 

Management Performance Grant Program is also directly administered by State and 

local emergency management agencies. 

Moving these six programs to the regions provides FEMA the opportunity to step 

back and assess the success of grant regionalization, to study the grant process and 

the various parts of the grant cycle, and to better understand how roles and responsibilities may be best shared between headquarters and regional staffs. 

Moving these six programs to the regions also will provide the opportunity for detailed discussions between headquarters and regional staff to better understand opportunities for improvement, establish corrective actions, and identify best practices. 

This process will allow us to pilot the regionalization of these six programs with our 

State and local partners. 

I also cannot emphasize enough how critical the inclusion of our State and local 

partners will be to our examination of regionalization and regional empowerment. 

At the end of the day, our decisions on regionalization will be driven by the same 

key concern that drives all FEMA and GPD decisions—how do we better prepare 

our Nation for a natural disaster or terrorist attack. 

Madam Chairwoman, in conclusion I would like to add a personal note. As a 

former volunteer and paid fire fighter and paramedic, I have seen first-hand how 

these homeland security grants are spent. I understand how important Federal 

funding is for preparing our communities, building capabilities at the local level, 

and ensuring the safety of our citizens and our first responders. My experience as 

a fire fighter and paramedic gives me insight into the importance of including frontline responders of all disciplines in the design and planning of these grant programs. I am committed to keeping our stakeholders informed throughout the decision-making process. The inclusion of our stakeholders, the transparency of our 

processes, and our ability to work closely with our State and local partners is critical to the success of GPD’s mission. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my statement. I am happy to respond to any 

questions that you, Congressman Rogers and the other Members of the committee 

may have. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Ms. Richards to summarize her statement for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ANNE L. RICHARDS, ASSISTANT INSPECTOR 

GENERAL FOR AUDITS, OFFICE OF THE INSPECTOR GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY 

Ms. RICHARDS. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the subcommittee. I am Anne Richards. I am the assistant 

inspector general for audits for the Department of Homeland Security. Thank you for the opportunity to testify at this hearing on the 

future of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate. 

Today I will discuss four barriers that impact the effectiveness 

and efficiency of FEMA’s preparedness grant programs. I will also 
10 

briefly discuss our audit work in the areas of grants management 

and oversight in State and urban-area grants. 

The efficient and effective operation of preparedness grant programs is affected by several barriers within the Department. These 

include the way grant guidance is developed, the requirements of 

various grant applications, how those applications are reviewed, 

and the division of program management among multiple offices. 

First, guidance. FEMA issues separate annual guidance for each 

grant program. This practice complicates coordination and creates 

burdensome requirements for both FEMA and grantees. In addition, FEMA has established requirements that vary across programs, regardless of the similarities of the grant program, making 

it difficult for States to have a streamlined planning process that 

is consistent across all grant programs. 

Concerning the application process, States have to apply separately for each grant, even where activities overlap. Grant programs also have different application formats, requiring applicants 

to prepare and submit unique information for each program regardless of the similarities of the proposed activities. 

Regarding application review, FEMA’s ability to identify duplicative or redundant funding requests is limited because grant applications are reviewed one program at a time. FEMA’s review panels 

do not compare applications to other grant proposals submitted by 

the same grantee under different grant programs that fund similar 

activities. 

Another barrier is that the grant program management is split 

among several offices, creating organizational barriers to coordination. Although the Grant Programs Directorate is responsible for 

managing DHS preparedness grants, program-specific management 

is split among different directorates within DHS. FEMA has the 

lead for managing the review and approval processes and coordinating grant guidance, while other organizations within DHS identify the funding priorities, provide guidance, and participate in the 

review process. 

When these subject-matter experts reside outside of FEMA or 

when different organizations within FEMA are responsible for 

managing preparedness grants, the agency’s ability to coordinate 

across grant programs is impeded. 

On a positive note, FEMA has taken steps to coordinate application and investment reviews for four grants comprising the Homeland Security Grant Program. This practice has the potential for 

limiting duplication among the grant programs and ensuring that 

the States’ highest priorities are considered. 

There are other barriers to effective and efficient preparedness 

grant programs outside of FEMA’s control, such as legislative barriers and barriers at the State and local levels, but I will not discuss those today. 

I would also like to briefly summarize the audit work we conducted in the areas of grants management and oversight and State 

and urban-area grants. 

In the grants management and oversight area, we reported that 

FEMA did not consistently and comprehensively execute its two 

major oversight activities: Financial and program monitoring. This 

occurred, in part, because FEMA did not have sufficient grants 
11 

management staff and also because FEMA did not have comprehensive policies, procedures, and plans for oversight and monitoring. 

Congress has sought to address the unresolved human capital 

issues by mandating that FEMA identify its human capital needs 

and develop a plan to address those needs. FEMA has formed an 

Intra-Agency Grants Program Task Force that has developed a 

FEMA grant strategy to drive future enhancements in grant policies, procedures, systems, and processes. 

Finally, I would like to discuss our audits of State and urbanarea grants. The States and urban areas we audited in 2008 and 

2009 generally did an efficient and effective job of administering 

the grant program requirements, distributing grant funds, and ensuring that all available funds were used. 

However, we identified areas for improvement, with most States 

facing challenges and controls over personal property, monitoring 

and oversight activities, and planning activities, such as establishing measurable program goals and objectives. Other challenges 

include questioned costs, complying with Federal procurement 

practices, and financial planning, reporting, and support. 

We also identified nine effective tools and practices which we recommended be considered for use by other jurisdictions. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any questions that you or the Members of the subcommittee 

may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Richards follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ANNE L. RICHARDS

JUNE 29, 2010 

Chairwoman Richardson and Members of the subcommittee: Thank you for inviting the Office of Inspector General to testify at this hearing entitled ‘‘the Future 

of FEMA’s Grant Programs Directorate.’’ 

My testimony today will address challenges facing the Department, and specifically the Federal Emergency Management Agency, in mitigating redundancy and 

duplication among preparedness grant programs. The information provided in this 

testimony is contained in our March 2010 report ‘‘Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs’’ 

(OIG–10–69), and our March 2009 report ‘‘Improvements Needed in Federal Emergency Management Agency Monitoring of Grantees’’ (OIG–09–38). I will also discuss 

challenges facing the States and urban areas as addressed in our summary reports 

issued for fiscal years 2008 and 2009 Annual Report to Congress on States’ and 

Urban Areas’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs (OIG–09–17 and 

OIG–10–31). 

BACKGROUND

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) coordinates the Federal 

Government’s role in preparing for, preventing, mitigating the effects of, responding 

to, and recovering from all natural or manmade domestic disasters, including acts 

of terror. In fiscal year 2008, FEMA awarded more than $3 billion to State and local 

governments; territories; Tribal governments; and private, public, profit, and nonprofit organizations through preparedness grants and other financial assistance programs (referred to collectively as grants). DHS preparedness grants are intended to 

enhance preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation capabilities 

throughout the Nation by funding such items as planning, training, exercises, equipment, interoperable communications, and personnel costs. 

Within FEMA, the Grant Programs Directorate is responsible for business operations, training, policy, and oversight of all FEMA grants. This new directorate was 

created on April 1, 2007, in response to the Post-Katrina Emergency Management 

Reform Act of 2006, to consolidate the operations of all FEMA grants under a single 

organization. The Act consolidated not only grant operations, but also preparedness 
12 

grants that previously had program responsibility residing in various DHS organizations. 

The Grant Programs Directorate reviews, negotiates, awards, and manages 

FEMA’s preparedness grant portfolio; provides subject matter expertise in response 

to regional office and stakeholder inquiries; develops grant guidance and formulates 

risk methodology to support grant allocations; and analyzes investments. This Directorate also receives subject matter expertise through collaboration with offices 

within FEMA and other components of DHS. 

COMPARING AND COORDINATING PREPAREDNESS GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATIONS

The preparedness grant application process risks being ineffective because FEMA 

does not compare and coordinate grant applications across preparedness programs 

to mitigate potential duplications and redundancy. Barriers at the legislative, departmental, and State levels impede FEMA’s ability to coordinate these programs. 

Since grant programs may have overlapping goals or activities, FEMA risks funding 

potentially duplicative or redundant projects. 

Legislative Barriers to Coordination 

Three types of legislative barriers hinder FEMA’s ability to identify and minimize 

duplication and redundancy within preparedness grants. First, Congress enacts legislation for preparedness grants that have similar goals. Second, Congress appropriates funds on an annual basis for these grants and in most instances, the legislation mandates disparate application and award milestones. Finally, the annual appropriation law may contain Congressional earmarks that dedicate funds towards 

specific grant projects, precluding FEMA from coordinating grant programs. 

Multiple Grant Programs Have Similar Legislated Goals.—The 13 grant programs 

we reviewed during our audit have similar legislated goals. At a broad level, these 

programs provide Federal assistance to State and local governments, nonprofit organizations, emergency responders, and port and transit authorities to improve homeland security and emergency management capabilities. Specifically, the legislated 

goals of these grant programs focus on activities to prepare for or respond to acts 

of terrorism or other disasters. 

For example, States may request funding for planning projects through both the 

Urban Areas Security Initiative and the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant 

Program. While the goals for both programs are directed at improving preparedness 

planning in high-risk urban areas, the Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant 

Program is focused on all-hazards planning, while the Urban Areas Security Initiative is focused on responding to acts of terrorism. 

Disparate Milestones Are Legislatively Established.—Legislation also mandates 

grant application processing and award milestones; however, not all grants are set 

on the same schedule. When grant review periods and award dates overlap, FEMA 

may not have sufficient time to compare the numerous applications submitted by 

each State for similar or related projects to prevent duplication. While we are not 

advocating that all applications be due on the same date, we are identifying the disparate schedules as a potential barrier to FEMA’s ability to coordinate related 

projects. 

To illustrate, Figure 1 reflects the different legislated milestone requirements for 

the Urban Area Security Initiative and the Transit Security Grant Program during 

fiscal year 2008. Both of these programs may be used for costs to develop and implement homeland security support programs, and adopt on-going DHS National initiatives such as enhancing preventive radiological and nuclear detection programs. As 

shown in Figure 1, FEMA must make award decisions for the Transit Security 

Grant Program before completing its review of Urban Areas Security Initiative applications, inhibiting coordination of potentially related projects. 
13 

Congress Earmarks Funds for Specific Purposes.—Annual appropriation law may 

contain Congressional earmarks that fund specific grant projects. These earmarks 

limit FEMA’s ability to ensure Federal assistance is being provided to fund grant 

recipients’ most urgent homeland security and emergency management needs and 

priorities. They also inhibit FEMA’s ability for corrective action on potentially duplicative investments for grant recipients who received grants through normal riskbased application processes for purposes similar to the earmarked funds. 

Departmental Barriers to Coordination 

In addition to legislative barriers, FEMA faces Department-level challenges that 

impede its ability to coordinate grant applications across the many programs. Departmental barriers include: • Interpreting legislation, • Developing grant guidance, • Requiring investment justification details, • Reviewing applications, and • Coordinating with subject matter experts located in separate program offices. 

Grant-Related Legislation Requires Interpretation.—FEMA, or its predecessor organizations, created a barrier to coordination in establishing separate stand-alone 

grant programs to accomplish Congressional objectives. Typically, once Congress authorizes a grant to fund an emerging homeland security or emergency management 

need, FEMA develops a new and separate grant program. While the legislation did 

not direct FEMA to establish a separate program, FEMA interpreted the legislation 

as such. FEMA’s development of separate grant programs promotes fragmentation 

and complicates coordination at both the Federal and State level. 

Grant Guidance Is Developed for Individual Programs.—Creating individual guidance for each grant program deters coordination because the individual guidance 

documents establish a separate identity for each program and each grant application will be tailored specifically to the guidance. Grant guidance establishes the individuality and details the scope of a grant program. The substance of individual 

grant guidance includes identifying funding priorities, describing the application 

and review process, providing the investment justification template, and other yearto-year changes. While the FEMA Grant Programs Directorate has the main responsibility for issuing grant guidance, the directorate coordinates with individual program offices to develop the substance of the grant guidance for each individual grant 

program. With the exception of the Homeland Security Grant Program, which combines grant guidance for four interrelated grant programs into one guidance document, individual grant guidance results in a deterrence to coordination because of 

the number of organizations involved. 

Applications and Investment Justifications Request Different Levels of Detail.— Typically, the level of detail in grant applications and investment justifications is 

not sufficient for FEMA to identify potential duplication and redundancy. Investment justifications are a part of a grant application and provide a template for the 

applicant to describe the proposed project and demonstrate how it addresses deficiencies in current capabilities. However, the level of detail on each project makes 

it difficult to identify whether States are applying for similar projects under another 

grant program. The investment justification template for the State Homeland Security Program, for instance, does not provide grant applicants the ability to provide 

specific details on their proposed projects. The investment template covers topics in-
14 

cluding critical infrastructure, preparedness planning, and interoperable communications. It also requests a high-level purpose statement, funding plan, and outcomes. Without additional details, FEMA cannot readily identify whether similar 

projects submitted separate grant program applications overlap. 

Applications Are Reviewed At the Department Level Without Considering Other 

Grant Programs.—FEMA’s ability to determine whether the proposed grant application investments contain duplicative or redundant requests is impeded when grant 

applications and investment justifications are reviewed one program at a time. After 

a grant application is submitted, a review panel evaluates applications and proposed 

investments. While the panel compares the proposed investments to the grant guidance for that program, the panel does not compare proposals against applications 

for other grant programs submitted by the same grantee. 

With the availability of funds from numerous individual preparedness grant programs for similar purposes, applicants may apply for multiple grant programs for 

the same items to maximize their chances to fully fund a project. Of the 13 programs we reviewed, 11 allow applicants to purchase interoperable communications 

equipment, such as radios. Therefore, it is possible for a single organization within 

a State to receive funding from multiple grant programs for similar items. As one 

example, it is possible for a law enforcement organization to build a cache of radios 

through multiple grant programs, as shown in Figure 2 below. As these four programs undergo different review processes, FEMA cannot readily identify whether 

funds requested are for similar or overlapping projects. 

FEMA has taken initial steps to coordinate application and investment justification reviews for four individual grant programs. The Homeland Security Grant Program is comprised of four interconnected grant programs: (1) The State Homeland 

Security Program, (2) Urban Areas Security Initiative, (3) Metropolitan Medical Response System, and (4) Citizen Corps Program. During the review process, State 

and local peer reviewers evaluate and score applications and investment justifications for all four of the individual grant programs in a single application submission 

and review process. However, while State and local peer reviewers have the capability to perform an internal comparison of grant programs under the Homeland Security Grant Program, they do not have access to applications and investment proposals submitted in response to other grant programs with similar purposes or allowable activities. 

Separate Program Office Responsibilities Hamper Coordination.—Grant program 

management split among several offices creates organization barriers to coordination. Although the Grant Programs Directorate is responsible for managing DHS 
15 

preparedness grants, program-specific management is split among different directorates within DHS. FEMA has the lead for managing the review and approval processes and coordinating grant guidance, while separate organizations within DHS 

identify the funding priorities, provide guidance input, and participate in the review 

process. While each grant program has a guidance document defining the application and review process for the individual program, FEMA does not have an overarching policy to outline the roles and responsibilities for coordinating applications 

across grant programs. 

When subject matter experts, who define funding priorities and review investment 

justifications, reside outside of FEMA, the agency’s ability to coordinate across grant 

programs is impeded. For example, the Buffer Zone Protection Program is not coordinated with other grant programs at the Department level. This program provides funding to secure predesignated critical infrastructure sites, which are 

preselected by the DHS Office of Infrastructure Protection. Once DHS selects the 

sites, local officials work with site owners to develop security plans and identify 

equipment needed to implement the plan. Because FEMA does not have a process 

for ensuring applications are coordinated across grant programs, the Office of Infrastructure Protection is unable to validate with FEMA whether the applicant had requested similar equipment items under other grant programs. While FEMA relies 

on the subject matter expertise that these organizations provide, it cannot easily 

identify duplications in its grant programs without an overarching policy outlining 

roles and responsibilities for coordinating applications across grant programs and 

across the different organizations. 

State-level Barriers to Coordination 

FEMA encounters barriers at the State level that impede its ability to compare 

and coordinate grant applications and investments across preparedness programs. 

States do not have an overall grant strategy that identifies specific projects and 

their funding sources. Additionally, there is not one organization within the State 

that has visibility over all State entities that receive DHS financial assistance. 

Not All States Have Overall Grant Strategies.—The three States we visited did not 

have overall, comprehensive grant strategies. The States had various preparedness 

strategies or plans that address target capabilities and identify critical goals, objectives, and implementation steps. However, the plans did not specifically address 

how the States are using funds from the multiple DHS grants to improve homeland 

security preparedness. A more comprehensive plan could provide States a tool to 

promote coordination across the different grant programs which are now planned 

and accounted for separately. 

State-level Visibility Over All Grant Programs Is Not Centralized.—FEMA cannot 

rely on the States to coordinate all preparedness grant applications because grants 

are awarded to multiple organizations within the State. At the three States we visited, none of the States had an organization with visibility across all preparedness 

grant programs. Some grants are awarded through State administrative agencies 

while others bypass the State administrative agency and go directly to recipients 

such as port authorities, local fire departments, and first responders. The prerogative of each State to determine its own organizational structure may or may not coincide with the corresponding Federal grant program responsibility. Without the 

State having visibility over all preparedness grants, FEMA cannot rely on States 

to identify duplication and redundancy across DHS grant programs. 

EFFICIENCY OF GRANT APPLICATION PROCESSES

FEMA’s grant application processes are not efficient because application requirements, review processes, and timelines vary among the grant programs. These numerous processes and requirements can be burdensome on Federal and State resources because this creates redundant work for both Federal and State personnel. 

Therefore, coordinating and streamlining these application processes may help ensure the most efficient use of limited Federal and State resources. 

Inconsistent or Redundant Grant Application Requirements 

FEMA issues separate annual guidance to outline the application processes and 

requirements for each grant program which creates burdensome requirements on 

both FEMA and grantees as the requirements differ across grant programs. Additionally, the multiple application processes have redundant requirements. 

Grant Requirements for Similar Grant Programs Differ Significantly.—Requirements in grant guidance vary across programs, regardless of the similarities of the 

grant program, making it difficult for States to have a streamlined planning process 

that is consistent across all grant programs. Differences include program priorities 

and investment justification templates that must be followed. 
16 

While considerable potential overlap exists in the activities supported by DHS 

preparedness grant programs, the priorities for these programs may differ. For example, the fiscal year 2008 Urban Areas Security Initiative, Regional Catastrophic 

Preparedness Grant Program, and Emergency Management Performance Grant Program provide assistance to improve preparedness planning processes. However, each 

program focuses on a different priority. 

• The Urban Areas Security Initiative provides funds to high-risk urban areas to 

build an enhanced and sustainable capability to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism. 

• The Regional Catastrophic Preparedness Grant Program supports improved and 

expanded regional collaboration for all hazard and catastrophic events, including high-risk urban areas and surrounding regions. This program focuses on 

eight National planning scenarios identified by the Federal Government as the 

most urgent for planning purposes. 

• The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program also supports State 

and local all-hazards emergency management programs and encourages applicants to address National planning scenarios in their work plans, but is focused 

on evacuation planning, logistics and resource management, continuity of operations planning, and recovery planning. 

Since each preparedness planning program focuses on a different priority, States 

have to undertake three separate planning and grant application processes to request funding under each program. 

Grant programs also have different investment justification templates as part of 

the application process. This requires applicants to prepare investment justifications 

or documents with unique information for each program regardless of the similarities of the proposed funding activities. These varied templates and program documents may provide consistency for panels reviewing project proposals for the individual grant programs, but present an administrative burden for grant applicants 

who must prepare similar information in different formats. 

Grant Applications for Similar Programs Incorporate Redundant Requirements.— 

Grant applicants must perform redundant work to apply for DHS preparedness 

grants, which is burdensome and time-consuming. The use of the website grants.gov 

has streamlined the application process, but it still requires applicants to prepare 

and submit redundant information if an applicant applies for multiple grants. 

FEMA’s grant application process required each State Administrative Agency, the 

designated applicant for 10 of the 13 grant programs reviewed, to complete an online grant application seven times for the 10 grant programs. Submitting these similar documents multiple times may increase the State Administrative Agency’s opportunities for errors on these forms. The process for the seven grant programs included similar application, financial, and administrative compliance requirements. 

FEMA also requires State Administrative Agencies to use two on-line systems to 

complete and file investment justifications for the Homeland Security Grant Program. First, the State Administrative Agency must complete the State Homeland 

Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative investment justifications 

through the Department’s Grant Reporting Tool. Upon completion of the investment 

justifications, the State Administrative Agency must submit the official copy of its 

final investment justification through www.grants.gov with the grant application. 

While these on-line tools helped to streamline the application processes, they include an inefficient duplication of effort for both Federal and State grant administrators. 

Review Panels Differ Across Grant Programs 

Grant programs have separate review processes to evaluate funding requests for 

each grant program, which requires FEMA to convene multiple review panels to 

evaluate applications and investment justifications. For all programs, FEMA verifies 

the applicant’s compliance with administrative and eligibility criteria identified in 

each grant program’s application kit. FEMA then sends the eligible applications 

through an investment justification review process to evaluate the merits of proposed investments against grant guidance criteria. However, FEMA uses various 

types of reviews to evaluate proposed investments. The type of review and participants of the review panel are based on the grant program. For the 13 grant programs we reviewed, FEMA employed 6 different review processes, composed of different personnel such as Federal, State, and local government personnel; emergency 

responders; and members of National associations, as shown in the following table. 
17 

Grant Program Review Methodologies 

1. FEMA Review.—FEMA headquarters components and/or regional offices review investments and make award determinations. (Emergency Management 

Performance Grant Program) 

2. DHS Review.—DHS components outside FEMA, such as the Office of Infrastructure Protection review proposed investments. (Buffer Zone Protection Program Grant) 

3. Peer Review.—A panel of State and local representatives from across the Nation, such as subject matter experts with experience in fire and emergency response, review and score proposed investments. (Homeland Security Grant Program, Assistance to Firefighters Grants) 

4. Federal Review.—A panel of subject matter experts from across DHS, including components within FEMA and outside FEMA such as the DHS Office of 

Emergency Communications, review proposed investments. (Interoperable 

Emergency Communications Grant Program) 

5. National Review.—A panel of subject matter experts from across DHS, including FEMA, non-DHS Federal components, or National associations, review 

proposed investments. (Port Security Grant Program) 

6. Subject Matter Expert Review.—National subject matter experts with experience in law enforcement and emergency response review and score proposed investments. (Commercial Equipment Direct Assistance Program) 

These numerous panels create additional work for FEMA to request review panel 

members from Federal, State, and local organizations, depending on the grant program. FEMA must also train the numerous panels, provide review materials, oversee the panels, and compile panel results. Consolidating panels where grant programs have similar purposes or activities would provide a more efficient use of Federal, State, and local resources. 

Sequencing Existing Grant Application Timelines 

Grant timelines do not promote the most efficient application preparation and review because they are not arranged in the most optimal sequence. In many cases, 

the timelines are legislatively established and do not allow States the opportunity 

to logically develop investment justifications that address overarching needs or define target capabilities while simultaneously focusing on more narrowly focused programs. For example, law enforcement organizations that provide transit security 

may receive funding through the Transit Security Grant Program. These same organizations may also receive funding for law enforcement terrorism prevention-oriented planning, training, exercise, and equipment activities through both the State 

Homeland Security Program and the Urban Areas Security Initiative. While we 

have not defined the most optimal sequence for grant programs, an organized sequence would increase efficiency at the Federal level by allowing grant reviewers 

to use the outcome from various panels as they review their investments and also 

by reducing the time that States may spend developing investment justifications. 

This would also provide a better review at the State level to ensure that redundant 

projects are not duplicated across grant programs. 

RECOMMENDATIONS

We recognize that legislated requirements can complicate the application and review of Federal assistance programs. However, FEMA needs to identify alternate 

ways to improve its grant application and review processes operating within currently legislated requirements or work with Congress to modify the processes to ensure the most efficient and effective use of limited Federal resources. 

We recommended that the Federal Emergency Management Agency: 

• Identify preparedness grant programs that may overlap or duplicate other programs and ensure the application and review processes for these programs are 

coordinated to mitigate potential duplication and redundancy. 

• Document specific agency roles and responsibilities for cross-program coordination of grant application and review processes and ensure internal DHS coordination is in place. This may include establishing memorandums of agreement 

if roles are outside the Federal Emergency Management Agency. 

• Work with Congress and State grant administrators to identify opportunities 

and implement actions to streamline and standardize multiple preparedness 

grant program application processes. 

The Director of FEMA’s Office of Policy and Program Analysis provided written 

comments on a draft of this report. FEMA concurred with our recommendations and 

outlined plans and actions to implement our recommendations designed to improve 

the efficacy of these grant programs. 
18 

OTHER CHALLENGES IN MANAGING THE HOMELAND SECURITY GRANT PROGRAM

Public Law 110–53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 

of 2007, directed the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General 

to review and evaluate the grant management and oversight practices of the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. Improvements are needed in FEMA’s grants management and oversight infrastructure to ensure effective monitoring of grantees. 

Specifically, FEMA does not consistently and comprehensively execute its two major 

oversight activities, financial and program monitoring. This occurs, in part, because 

FEMA does not have sufficient grants management staff. Congress has sought to 

address these unresolved human capital issues by mandating that FEMA conduct 

an analysis and develop a plan of action. In addition, financial and programmatic 

monitoring policies, procedures, and plans are not comprehensive. 

FEMA’s financial and programmatic monitoring activities are critical parts of an 

effective grant oversight program. FEMA needs an appropriate oversight infrastructure to ensure that all financial and programmatic monitoring activities can be accomplished, as specified in its monitoring plans. Key components of this infrastructure include implementation of a strategic human capital plan and associated workforce analysis, adequate staffing, formal training, comprehensive policies and procedures, realistic and representative monitoring plans, consistent documentation of 

monitoring activities, and integrated grant management systems. 

Effective oversight will ensure that grantees have adequate internal controls, 

grant funds are being used as intended, grant programs are carried out as prescribed, and grantees are complying with the terms and condition of their grant 

award agreements. 

FEMA has formed an Intra-Agency Grants Program Task Force that has developed a FEMA Grants Strategy to drive future enhancements in grants policies, procedures, systems, and processes. The task force has identified projects including the 

development of comprehensive grant management monitoring policies and procedures for the FEMA directorates with program management and oversight responsibilities. 

Public Law 110–53, Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act 

of 2007, also required the Office of Inspector General to audit individual States’ 

management of State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiatives grants and annually submit to Congress a report summarizing the results of 

these audits. In the 2 complete years since the law was enacted, the States we audited generally did an efficient and effective job of administering the grant management program requirements, distributing grant funds, and ensuring that all of the 

available funds were used. 

However, individual audit reports identified areas for improvement, with the most 

States facing challenges in controls over personal property, monitoring and oversight activities, and planning activities such as establishing measurable program 

goals and objectives. Other challenges included questioned costs, complying with 

Federal procurement practices, and financial planning, reporting, and support. We 

also identified nine effective tools and practices used by five States that could be 

considered for use by other jurisdictions. 

Madam Chairwoman, this concludes my prepared remarks. I welcome any questions that you or the Members of the subcommittee may have. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Chief Patalano—I keep butchering your name, 

and I actually know you—to summarize his statement for 5 minutes. 

STATEMENT OF ALAN PATALANO, FIRE CHIEF, LONG BEACH 

FIRE DEPARTMENT, LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA 

Chief PATALANO. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and fellow 

Members of the committee. My name is Alan Patalano, and I am 

the fire chief for the city of Long Beach and a member of the LA/ 

Long Beach Tier 1 UASI Working Group. I would like to say thank 

you for holding this meeting. 

Emergency communications, preparedness, and response are 

high priorities for the city of Long Beach and the entire urban 

area, and I know you share these priorities as well. Long Beach is 

a proud member of FEMA Region 9, and we are working hard with 
19 

our cities and the State of California to improve our ability to mitigate or prevent a natural or manmade disaster. 

As you are well aware, our local area has very serious homeland 

security threats, including the port complex of Long Beach and Los 

Angeles. Long Beach refineries are responsible for one-third of the 

gasoline west of the Rockies. The port of Los Angeles contributes 

almost $226 billion annually to the National economy through 

trade. The ports of Los Angeles and Long Beach handle 30 percent 

of all U.S. shipping imports. 

Additionally, our region presents unique targets to acts of terrorism. As the center of the film and entertainment industry, the 

Southern California region is the face of iconic American culture. 

Over the past 4 years, the combined Los Angeles-Long Beach re- gion received over $400 million through UASI funds and the State 

Homeland Security Grant Program. These funds have been instrumental in increasing the overall capabilities within the region. 

Working in collaboration with 30 fire agencies, my department 

has upgraded existing communication capabilities, increased our 

capacity to treat multiple victims, developed urban search and rescue capabilities that are available for deployment to other areas 

through our very robust California mutual aid system, and implemented a hazardous materials team to protect our court complex. 

Our local police department has also benefited from homeland security funds. The capabilities of the SWAT team have been increased through the purchase of specialized equipment and PPE. 

The region has also improved communications interoperability and 

significantly increased intelligence-gathering capabilities. In addition, on automated license plate recognition system has been implemented that allows for rapid identification of suspect vehicles. 

Homeland Security funds have also increased the region’s capabilities to distribute medicine during a significant disaster, improved our local lab’s ability to detect and analyze chemical and biological threats, and improve securities at the many airports within 

the region, including Long Beach and LAX. 

Long Beach and the region strongly believe that Homeland Security dollars must be targeted to the areas of highest threat and 

need, and Long Beach is very supportive of DHS’s risk-based funding approach. 

Despite DHS’s intent to fund cities at highest risk, the LA-Long 

Beach urban area has experienced a decrease in UASI funding 

since 2006. During this time, our funding has decreased 13 percent 

overall. In comparison, over the same period, other UASI regions 

have grown by as much as 51 percent. 

It is important to remember the unique cultural, geographic, and 

economic aspects of the Los Angeles-Long Beach urban area. We 

strongly believe that the region needs more Homeland Security aid 

in our fight against terrorism, precisely because it is a high-value 

target and an attack would have enormous consequences that 

would be felt around the world. 

In terms of future needs, the region is counting on the support 

of the Federal Government to develop complete interoperable communications between public safety agencies within the region’s 

operational area. Long Beach supports additional dedicated funding 

for interoperable communications for all regions based on risk. 
20 

The capability that Long Beach and other cities have developed 

over the past decade must be sustained into the future. As we 

move forward, much of the equipment secured will eventually need 

to be replaced. We support allowing replacement of previously purchased equipment as an eligible grant use. 

Additionally, we appreciate the support of Congress to continue 

to provide Homeland Security funds without the burden of a 

matching requirement. Cities are not in the financial situation to 

afford any type of match. 

Speaking for the LA-Long Beach UASI, we also request that Congress and DHS reevaluate the allowances for administering grant 

programs. Currently, we are constrained to 3 percent of the total 

grant amount to administer the grant. The workload to administer 

the grants has increased, but the funds to support administration 

have decreased. A reevaluation of the 3 percent allowance could 

help local governments tremendously in handling the administrative duties of effective grant management. 

We enjoy a very good working relationship with FEMA Region 9 

representatives. Because of this relationship, we support FEMA’s 

concept of regionalization of some aspects of grant programs or 

functions. If the regions are supported with adequate personnel 

and flexibility, we believe that programs can be streamlined and 

issues addressed quickly. However, if the proposal simply creates 

another layer of approvals or review, this will significantly hamper 

effectiveness. We are optimistically awaiting the details of the proposal. 

Finally, Madam Chairwoman, I would like to thank you again for 

allowing this opportunity to share with the committee a few of the 

many activities that are going on in FEMA Region 9 in the LALong Beach UASI area. We wholeheartedly appreciate the support 

you have bestowed upon us throughout the years, and we look forward to continuing our partnership in the best interest of National 

security and protecting our communities. 

That concludes my remarks, and I stand ready to answer any 

questions. 

[The statement of Chief Patalano follows:] 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF ALAN PATALANO

JUNE 29, 2010 

Good morning Chairman Richardson and fellow Members of the committee. I 

want to first thank you for holding this hearing. Emergency communications, preparedness and response are high priorities for the city of Long Beach and the region 

and I know you share these priorities as well. Long Beach is a proud member of 

FEMA Region 9, an active member in the Mutual Aid system, and we are working 

hard with our local cities and the State of California to improve emergency communications, preparedness, and response in the unfortunate event of a natural or manmade disaster. 

As you are well aware, our local area has very serious homeland security threats, 

including foremost the Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles. Both Los Angeles and 

Long Beach continue to require significant Federal assistance to secure these two 

ports, which are incredibly valuable economic generators for the entire Nation. 

To give an example, Long Beach refineries are responsible for one-third of the gasoline west of the Rockies. The Port of Los Angeles contributes $226.9 billion annually to the National economy through trade, and the Ports of Los Angeles and Long 

Beach handle 30 percent of all U.S. shipping imports. According to a 2005 RAND 

study on the short-term and long-term economic impacts of a nuclear attack on the 

Port of Long Beach, the economic impact could initially exceed $1 trillion dollars. 
21 

Additionally, our region is uniquely vulnerable to other acts of terrorism. As the 

center of the film and entertainment industry, the Southern California region is the 

face of iconic American culture. The region puts on hundreds of events each year 

that are broadcasted to the rest of the world. While not permanent pieces of infrastructure, these high profile events with large clusters of people are targets for terrorists and need to be taken into greater consideration when evaluating risk. 

However, our Operational Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) Areas have been 

the beneficiary of Federal assistance to develop a significant preparedness and response capability to potential terrorist threats. Over the past 4 years, the combined 

Los Angeles/Long Beach local region received over $400 million dollars through 

Urban Area Security Initiative funds and the State Homeland Security Grant Program. These funds have been instrumental in increasing the overall capabilities of 

emergency operations in the Region. In the case of Long Beach, over the past 10 years Long Beach has received $61 

million dollars in Federal grant funding. These funds have come from eight programs including the Department of Defense, Office of Domestic Preparedness, Metropolitan Medical Response System, Office of Justice Programs, State Homeland Security Grant Program, Citizens Corps Program, Law Enforcement Tactical Planning 

and Preparedness, but mostly, from the Urban Area Security Initiative. The Urban 

Area Security Initiative has been instrumental in furthering emergency preparedness and protections for the city. Of the $61 million in Homeland Security funding 

Long Beach has received, $55 million was funded through the Urban Area Security 

Initiative. 

Specifically, the Long Beach Fire Department has upgraded existing communications capabilities at our state-of-the-art ECOC, or Emergency Communications and 

Operations Center. The addition of a command-and-control platform and the upgrade of radio equipment and technology will ensure that communications with 

partner response agencies are possible. These funds have also allowed us to work 

with fire agencies within our Operational Area. We have also standardized the Self 

Contained Breathing Apparatus, which is integral in keeping our public safety personnel safe as they work to bring others to safety. Additionally, we have added 

interoperable connectivity to our breathing equipment so that firefighters can assist 

each other. 

We have seen in disasters such as Hurricane Katrina, that the ability to move 

many people at once is absolutely necessary. Our Urban Area Security Initiative 

funds have allowed Long Beach and the region to increase our capacity to treat multiple victims with the deployment of Mass Casualty equipment and supplies. To this 

end, we have also used Urban Area Security Initiative funds and other Homeland 

Security grants to enhance our Urban Search and Rescue capabilities. 

The Port of Long Beach is a significant asset in our region. As the Port receives 

mass amounts of goods and supplies from around the world, we have, in cooperation 

with the Port and the region, secured the capabilities to deploy a Hazardous Materials Team equipped with protective equipment and medicines to keep our public 

safety employees safe while they work to protect the public and keep the Port complex functioning. However, despite some investment in this area, protecting international trade is a core responsibility of the Federal Government and a much larger 

commitment is needed to truly protect our community and the entire Nation. 

Our local police department has also benefited from Homeland Security grant 

funds. The capabilities of the SWAT team have been increased through the purchase 

of specialized equipment, personal protective equipment, and an armored vehicle. In 

coordination with other law enforcement agencies in the Operational Area, the region has secured communications equipment for interoperability and significantly 

increased intelligence capabilities by participating in the Joint Regional Intelligence 

Center. These funds have also implemented an Automated License Plate Recognition system that has given regional law enforcement agencies the ability to quickly 

identify vehicles within the city and apprehend individuals that pose a threat to our 

community. 

Homeland security funds have also increased the region’s capabilities to distribute 

medicine during a significant disaster with the development of Point of Dispensing 

sites throughout the Region. Funds have also been utilized to increase the capabilities of our local laboratory to analyze, detect, and rule out chemical and biological 

threats. 

The Los Angeles/Long Beach region is home to many airports, including Long 

Beach Airport. Homeland Security funds have increased security at Long Beach Airport with the installation of physical barriers and cameras. These homeland security 

upgrades have also been implemented at other airports in the region. 

Since the onset of the Homeland Security grants and even prior to the current 

Homeland Security model, Long Beach has focused on utilizing these funds to in-
22 

crease our region’s overall capabilities. We apply for and use these funds based upon 

risk and the ability to utilize awards in conjunction with local resources. 

Long Beach and the region strongly believe that Homeland Security dollars must 

be targeted to areas of highest threat and need, and Long Beach is supportive of 

the Department of Homeland Security’s risk-based funding approach to Homeland 

Security grants. Funding formulas that guarantee minimum amounts to all States 

regardless of risk should continue to be reduced significantly. 

Despite the Department’s intent to fund cities at highest risk, the Los Angeles 

and Long Beach Urban Area has consistently experienced a decrease in UASI funding since 2006. Even with a slight increase in funding in fiscal year 2010, funding 

has decreased 13 percent overall since fiscal year 2006. In comparison, over the 

same period, the Bay Area has received an increase of 51 percent, the New York 

region has increased 22 percent, and the Chicago region has increased 4 percent. 

It is important to remember the unique cultural, geographic, and economic aspects 

of the Los Angeles/Long Beach Urban area that are sometimes not taken into account. We strongly believe that the region needs more homeland security aid in the 

fight against terrorism precisely because it is a high value target for terrorists and 

an attack would have enormous consequences that would be felt around the world. 

In terms of future needs, the region is counting on the support of the Federal Government through Homeland Security funds to develop complete interoperability between public safety agencies within the Region’s Operational Area. This interoperability project is currently in the design phase and will need significant funding in 

the future to be successful. Long Beach supports additional dedicated funding for 

interoperable communications for regions based on risk, and not based on a formula 

that distributes funds to all States regardless of risk. 

As you all know, there are always many shifting management components whenever a disasters strikes. This is why training exercises during times of peace is so 

important. Long Beach and the entire region is counting on the Federal Government 

to continue to support training exercises so that we can be prepared to assist our 

communities and the Nation in the unfortunate event of a disaster. 

The capability that Long Beach and other cities have developed over the past decade must be sustained into the future. As we move forward, much of the equipment 

secured will eventually need to be replaced. Long Beach supports the Department 

allowing replacement of previously purchased equipment as an eligible grant use, 

as much of the equipment purchased under the first rounds of UASI grant funding 

will have to be eventually replaced to maintain the current level of response capability. 

Long Beach and the region area are also requesting that Homeland Security play 

a role in meeting our personnel costs. Emergency communications, preparedness, 

and response is a personnel intensive operation. The ability for us to move forward 

requires the continuous development and maintenance of personnel, training, and 

plans. 

Additionally, we appreciate the support of Congress to continue to provide homeland security funds without the burden of a matching requirement. Cities are not 

in the financial situation to afford any type of match, and much of the response personnel the Federal Government will require in the event of a National emergency 

will be the local first responders that local governments already provide for utilizing 

local funds. 

Long Beach also requests that Congress and the Department of Homeland Security reevaluate the administration allowances in the various grant programs. Under 

the UASI program for example, local regions are constrained to 3 percent of the 

total grant amount to administer the grant, while States are allowed to set aside 

up to 20 percent. This imbalance leaves local areas with very few funds to administer these complex grant programs, and a reevaluation the 3 percent allowance 

could help local governments tremendously in handling the administrative duties of 

effective grant management. 

We have enjoyed a very good working relationship with Region 9 representatives 

because they understand the complexity and needs of this area. Because of this relationship, we support FEMA’s concept of moving some grant programs or functions 

to the Regions. If the Regions are supported with adequate personnel and flexibility, 

we believe that programs can be streamlined and issues addressed quickly. However, if the proposal simply creates another layer of approvals or review, this will 

significantly hamper effectiveness and threaten the excellent relationship we have 

enjoyed to date. We are optimistically awaiting the details of the proposal. 

Finally, Chairwoman Richardson, I would like to thank you again for allowing 

this opportunity to share with the committee a few of the many emergency communications, preparedness, and response activities that are going on in FEMA Region 

9. We wholeheartedly appreciate the support you have bestowed upon us over the 
23 

years, and we look forward to continuing this partnership in the best interests of 

National security and protecting our communities. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you for your testimony. 

I now recognize Ms. Tierney to summarize her statement for 5 

minutes. 

STATEMENT OF MARYANN TIERNEY, DEPUTY MANAGING DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, CITY OF 

PHILADELPHIA 

Ms. TIERNEY. Good morning, Chairwoman Richardson, Ranking 

Member Rogers, and Members of the committee. I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the important subject of the 

future of GPD. 

My name is MaryAnn Tierney, and I am the director of emergency management in the city of Philadelphia. Today, I am going 

to discuss with you the role of FEMA regional offices and the need 

for coordination and consistency throughout the grant-making process, as well as several aspects of the Homeland Security Grant Program managed by GPD. 

To the extent possible, Federal departments, State administrative agents, and applicants should synchronize their efforts. For example, agencies like DHS, HHS, and DOJ should coordinate grant 

guidance to ensure funding supports National priorities and is mutually complementary. In addition, applicants should be jointly reviewed to avoid funding that is duplicative or working at cross purposes. 

Similarly, SAAs within the State should be required by their 

funders to meet, discuss, and together review applications and 

monitor project implementation. Applicants should be required to 

undergo similar coordination activities. 

For example, equipment purchased, regardless of funding source, 

should be governed by similar requirements, such as the use of an 

authorized equipment list. The DHS authorized equipment list 

identifies equipment meeting specific standards that may be purchased utilizing DHS grant funds and insures operability, especially for highly technical equipment used for emergency communications. Currently, the use of such a list is not required by all 

Federal departments. This could result in purchasing communications equipment that does not meet interoperability standards and, 

therefore, might not work with communications equipment purchased with other grants. 

I have attached a copy of FEMA’s May 2009 report to Congress 

that is an excellent roadmap for improving the grant-making process. This report’s recommendations emphasize the need for coordination amongst all parties and offers options for how this can be 

achieved. 

FEMA regional offices that are properly staffed and adequately 

supported by GPD can enhance the overall grant-making process 

on a micro level. However, this must be coupled with centralized 

management and macro-level coordination across regions to ensure 

consistency. 

Regional offices can serve as conveners, facilitators, and possibly 

the primary point of contact for grants, provided there is centralized management and monitoring of policy interpretation and im-
24 

plementation. Guidance should be developed that creates boundaries and allows for flexibility to accommodate the many unique 

needs of applicants. Similar guidance should be provided to SAAs 

to ensure grant programs are being implanted as intended and consistently within a State. 

GPD should be commended for issuing Information Bulletin 336, 

which provided a logical and balanced policy for utilizing grant 

funds for sustainment. However, GPD should revise Information 

Bulletin 329 and develop a more manageable process for environmental and historic preservation review. Construction, which typically prompts an EHP review, is not an allowable activity under 

the Homeland Security Grant Program. Rather, most projects involve equipment, purchases, and professional services contracts. 

More needs to be done to facilitate funding for projects over multiple grant periods. Currently, projects can be funded for a given 

grant period but are assigned an artificial end date to coincide with 

the expiration of the grant, which may or may not match the actual 

end date of the project. This can complicate strategic planning and 

may result in a more expensive project. 

It is essential that management and administration funding be 

sufficient to meet the need to manage projects and the back-office 

activities that bring those projects to fruition. For example, the 

Philadelphia urban area may be juggling up to $60 million at any 

given time. Organizations of this size cannot function like a momand-pop pizza shop. We use M&A funds to retain professional staff 

and also provide for a fiscal agent to ensure that grant reporting 

requirements are met and grant funds are spent appropriately. 

I want to emphasize that the GPD programs provide an enormous opportunity to improve preparedness. For example, the Philadelphia urban area has invested over $20 million in the development of a four-State, 11-county interoperable communications systems, known as SECOM Net. This network patches existing radio 

systems together through a network of secure microwave communication towers. Whether you are in a 911 center, an emergency operations center, or at the scene, you can communicate with any response organization, regardless of their location in the region. 

The value of SECOM Net is both in the technology provided and 

the governance structure established to plan, manage, and maintain the network. It is an excellent example of improving preparedness by coupling planning with resources provided by the GPD programs. 

In conclusion, solely examining GPD and its role in the grantmaking process can create the false impression that tweaking one 

cog in the wheel will enable the Nation to better counter threats 

and respond to emergencies. Coordination beyond GPD is necessary. Likewise, the grant-making process can be enhanced by 

connecting central management to regional involvement. 

I once again thank you for the opportunity to testify. I am happy 

to answer any questions you may have. 

[The statement of Ms. Tierney follows:] 
25 

PREPARED STATEMENT OF MARYANN E. TIERNEY

JUNE 29, 2010 

Good morning Mr. Chairman and Members of the subcommittee. I want to thank 

you for the opportunity to testify on the important subject of the future of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Grant Programs Directorate (GPD). 

My name is MaryAnn Tierney and I am the Director of Emergency Management 

in the city of Philadelphia. I have been in this position since November 2006. Prior 

to that, I was the Assistant Commissioner for Planning and Preparedness with the 

New York City Office of Emergency Management where I worked from 1999 until 

2006. Attached to this testimony is a detailed biography for your reference. Today 

I am going to discuss with you the need for coordination and consistency in the 

grant-making process as well as the potential role of FEMA Regional Offices in this 

process. Additionally, I will provide testimony on specific aspects of the Homeland 

Security Grant Program (HSGP) managed by the GPD. Lastly, I will explain how 

the Philadelphia Urban Area Workgroup (UAWG) sets priorities and will highlight 

a project that has been funded by the HSGP. To the extent possible given regulatory 

and/or statutory constraints, Federal departments, State Administrative Agents 

(SAA), and applicants should coordinate their efforts at every step of the grant-making process to more effectively prepare the Nation to prevent, respond to, recover 

from, and mitigate threats and risks. At the Federal level this should involve coordinating the development of grant guidance between agencies like the Department of 

Homeland Security (DHS), the Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS), 

and the Department of Justice (DOJ) to ensure that funding supports National 

homeland security and emergency preparedness priorities and is complementary towards one another. Additionally, during the grant application review process, jurisdictions or their component agencies should be required to detail all actual or potential funding sources. Applicants seeking multiple funding sources should be reviewed through an interagency process to ensure funds are not working at 

crosspurposes nor are duplicative. 

I have attached to my testimony a copy of the ‘‘Interagency Report on Preparedness Grant Programs.’’ This report was provided to Congress by FEMA in May 2009. 

While I find the entire report to be an excellent roadmap to improving the grantmaking process, I want to draw your attention to the following recommendations: 

• Recommendation 4.—Coordinate across Federal agencies during program development to set clear, coordinated goals for preparedness-related programs that: 

(a) Support recipients’ development of clearly defined goals and milestones for 

use of awarded funds and (b) facilitate the measurement of recipient performance and program outcomes. 

• Recommendation 5.—Coordinate across Federal agencies to: (a) Apply consistent 

evaluation standards to the evaluation of program progress and end results, 

and (b) account for the resources and effort needed to sustain capabilities. 

• Recommendation 8.—Federal agencies should improve pre-award information 

sharing about requested, pending, and awarded grants to facilitate greater 

transparency of programs, reduce the data entry burden for applicants and recipients, and allow awarding agencies to make more informed allocation decisions. 

• Recommendation 9.—Congress should authorize Federal agencies to streamline 

the grants coordination process through official agreements such as Memorandums of Understanding. 

• Recommendation 11.—Coordinate across Federal agencies administering relevant homeland security programs to agree on the use of a standardized format 

and structure for guidance and reporting requirements, specifically inclusion in 

guidance of: (a) An acronym and definition list, (b) clear language defining application, reporting, and performance expectations, and (c) a multi-agency list 

of relevant homeland security grant programs. 

• Recommendation 12.—Coordinate across Federal agencies to provide a consolidated public resource of information related to homeland security grant programs such as application forms, reporting materials, and program requirements. If this capability is not developed in Grants.gov, departments that administer relevant grant programs should provide on their public website a consolidated source of related grant program information, including all relevant resources on Grants.gov, guidance, application and reporting requirements, related documentation, and systems used by recipients to submit this information. 

Similarly, the SAAs for different grant funding streams should be required by 

their funders to meet, discuss, and develop multi-agency State strategies as well 

as conduct an interagency process to review applications and monitor program 
26 

and project implementation. Lastly, applicants should be required to undergo 

similar coordination activities in the development of applications and in the implementation phase of programs and projects. 

For example, equipment purchased, regardless of funding source, should be governed by similar requirements, such as by requiring all grant funding sources utilize 

the Interagency Advisory Board Standardized Equipment List (SEL) or the DHS 

Authorized Equipment List (AEL). The DHS AEL identifies which equipment may 

be purchased utilizing DHS grant funding and ensures that equipment purchased 

meets specific standards. The use of standards ensures equipment can be made 

interoperable. This is especially important when equipment is highly technical, such 

as communications equipment. Currently, the use of such a list is not required by 

all Federal departments’ homeland security or emergency preparedness grant programs. This can result in purchasing communications equipment with one grant 

that does not meet industry standards for interoperability and therefore cannot 

work with communications equipment purchased with another grant. 

Recommendation 10 of the ‘‘The Interagency Report on Preparedness Grant Programs’’ supports this by stating, ‘‘Federal agencies should work jointly to develop 

robust national standards for describing the functionality and performance characteristics of preparedness resources and capabilities for use by relevant homeland security grant programs to enable cross-program coordination.’’ I do not advocate 

handing over the grant-making process to FEMA Regional Offices. This will result 

in a haphazard and disjointed system that will frustrate SAAs and applicants alike. 

I do believe that FEMA Regional Offices properly staffed and with adequate support 

from GPD, could add substantial value. FEMA Regional Offices provide an opportunity to enhance the grant-making process on a micro-level. However, this must 

be coupled with centralized management and macro-level coordination across regions. It is important that the grant-making process be centrally managed, with 

input from FEMA Regional Offices, to ensure consistency. FEMA Regional Offices 

should serve as conveners and facilitators for many of the multiparty coordination 

groups I described above during various steps of the grant-making process. Additionally, FEMA Regional Offices maintain the day-to-day relationships with stakeholders and should serve as the primary point of contact for grants, provided there 

is centralized management and monitoring of policy interpretation and implementation. A tool to ensuring consistent application of policy would be to develop and provide implementation guidance and options that creates boundaries for FEMA Regional Offices to operate in and allows for flexibility to accommodate the many 

unique needs of applicants. Similar implementation guidance and options should be 

provided to SAAs to ensure grant programs are being implemented as intended and 

consistently within a State. Recommendation 13 of the ‘‘The Interagency Report on 

Preparedness Grant Programs’’ supports this by stating, ‘‘Federal agencies should 

provide more consistent training and technical assistance offerings to recipients and 

Federal staff who administer programs in the areas of technical/information technology needs (e.g., Grants.gov training) and grants management (e.g., program management), including sharing of best practices within and across programs and agencies.’’ I would like to now turn from policy and process-oriented comments to specific 

aspects of GPD managed grants. GPD should be commended for issuing Information 

Bulletin 336, which provided a policy for utilizing grant funds for sustainment. The 

policy is logical and balanced. GPD should revise Information Bulletin 329 and develop a more manageable process for environmental and historic preservation review. The policy adopted is similar to the one utilized by another FEMA grant program—the Public Assistance Program. Since the Public Assistance Program typically involves construction projects, a very rigorous process is in place to ensure environmental and historic preservation considerations are addressed. Construction is 

not an allowable activity under HSGP, and most projects involve equipment purchases and professional services. Projects funded over multiple grant periods should 

be addressed. Currently, projects can be multi-year within a given grant period, but 

it is as if a wall exists at the end of that grant period and a project is assigned 

an artificial end date that may not match the actual end date of the project. This 

prevents applicants from the kind of strategic thinking many in the field advocate 

for. 

The last specific component of HSGP I want to address is funding for Management and Administration (M&A). The Philadelphia Urban Area utilizes M&A funds 

to properly manage the tens of millions of dollars that are received. This includes 

having professional staff on hand to manage the work of the UAWG and assist 

stakeholders with managing and executing projects as well as retaining a fiscal 

agent to ensure that grant reporting requirements are met and grant funds are 

spent appropriately. Organizations like this cannot function like a mom-and-pop 

pizza shop. In business terms, they are multi-million dollar operations that require 
27 

competent staff and robust systems. To provide perspective, in any given year at 

least three grant periods are open. For the Philadelphia Urban Area, that can mean 

juggling up to $60 million dollars in various stages of being utilized, from bidding 

to closeout. It is essential that M&A funding be in place to ensure an operation like 

this does not falter, and that the funding equal the need to manage the many programs and projects as well as the back-office activities that bring those programs 

and projects to fruition. With all that said, I want to emphasize that grants programs like those managed by the GPD provide an enormous opportunity to improve 

preparedness. I have seen first-hand the incredible leaps forward that have been 

made to build capabilities in a thoughtful and judicious manner. The Philadelphia 

UAWG is organized around discipline-specific workgroups that develop and execute 

projects and an Executive Board that provides oversight and coordination. The annual HSGP application is developed through a process that emphasizes building on 

existing programs and projects, while allowing for worthwhile innovations to surface 

and receive funding. The Executive Board aligns its priorities with National priorities and prioritizes funding programs and projects that address these priorities. 

Further, the Philadelphia UAWG emphasizes regional partnership and collaboration, with some projects involving up to four States and eleven counties in the greater Delaware Valley region. The project I want to highlight involves the development 

of a multi-State, multi-county interoperable communications network, known as 

SECOM Net. Since 2002, the Philadelphia UAWG has invested over $20 million to 

build and enhances interoperable communications capabilities. SECOM Net allows 

eleven counties in four States to communicate on a secure microwave network. This 

communication can occur between 911 Centers, Emergency Operations Centers, or 

person-to-person on the scene of an emergency, through the microwave network that 

patches together existing radio systems. Currently, SECOM Net is integrating the 

communication networks of university police departments and port partners. Future 

plans for SECOM Net include a capability to transmit data in addition to voice. The 

value of SECOM Net is not just in the technology that has been purchased, but also 

the governance structure that the Interoperable Communications Workgroup has established to plan for, manage, and maintain the network. It is an example how 

thoughtful planning coupled with funding to resource what is needed can lead to 

improved preparedness. 

In conclusion, solely examining GPD and its role in the grant-making process can 

create the false impression that tweaking one cog in the wheel will enable the Nation is to better counter threats and respond to emergencies. As I have described 

above, the nature of homeland security grants is complex and requires coordination 

beyond DHS to include other Federal departments, the SAAs, and the applicants 

themselves. Likewise, central management is not the enemy. Centralized management can be enhanced by closely connecting regional involvement to the grant-making process. Lastly, the revision to the maintenance and calibration policy is an example of how GPD can effectively respond to the concerns of applicants while remaining careful stewards of taxpayer dollars. The environmental and historic preservation policy is an example of where more needs to be done to balance those 

needs. M&A is a valuable tool that allows grantees to focus on work rather than 

paperwork. A more stable funding process tailored for projects that span multiple 

grant periods would allow applicants to think more strategically about how and 

what is funded. 

Once again thank you for the opportunity to testify, I am happy to answer any 

questions you may have 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much for your testimony. 

I want to thank all the witnesses for your testimony, and remind 

each Member that he or she will have 5 minutes to question the 

panel. I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes. 

Votes have been called, and we have approximately 13 minutes 

plus the time to get there. What I would like to do is myself and 

Ranking Member Rogers through in these first 10 minutes, and 

then when we come back the Members would be first up, which 

should only take about a 20-minute vote, if everyone is in agreement. 

Okay. The first question I would like to ask is for Ms. Harman. 

I am only going to take 2 minutes; maybe then we can get more 

people through. 
28 

Ms. Harman, you heard some of Ms. Tierney’s very direct suggestions, as well as our chief. Are you willing to consider looking at 

their suggestions and getting back to us in writing your responses 

on ways that you might incorporate them? 

Ms. HARMAN. Absolutely. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. Thank you. 

My second question has to do with regionalization. Ms. Harman, 

Chairman Fugate announced back in July 2009 this whole idea of 

regionalization. I really want to get a sense from you what is really 

the objective that we are attempting to reach by conducting regionalization. What is the problem that you are anticipating solving? 

Ms. HARMAN. I don’t see any problems quite yet, but what I see 

us doing is strengthening FEMA as a whole. We are—and I will 

quote Administrator Fugate, as he speaks—FEMA is one part of a 

team that ultimately plays in this large scale of responding to disasters, providing assistance, helping build capabilities. We are one 

part of that. We have 10 fingertips, 10 regions, to extend and provide customer service to our grantees and stakeholders. I don’t 

think those have been used effectively and efficiently in the past. 

I think we can strengthen them. I think we can provide the rules 

and tools at our headquarters. With the proper, training, outreach, 

monitoring, and mentoring with our FEMA regional partners, I 

think you will see better customer service in the end to the States, 

to the transit folks, to the port authorities as well. 

Together, if they can conduct the monitoring and the boots on the 

ground within the regions, we can gather much more data to provide up to us to help us better assess where we are and how prepared we are. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Harman, I just heard what you said. I 

stayed up until 1:00 in the morning reading all this information. 

I still don’t think, though, you have answered the question. 

Ms. HARMAN. Okay. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I think everyone would pretty much agree that, 

from a regional perspective, it would clearly be more helpful, if a 

disaster occurs, to have the people who have the authority to respond. We all agree with that. 

What we are talking about specifically is the grant program. If 

you are mentioning regionalization in terms of monitoring and 

making sure the dollars are being spent where they should, we all 

agree with that. However, we are talking about the very basics of 

sending out an application, reviewing an application, and determining the dollars. 

Is that something that is best placed in a regional perspective? 

Could you answer that question very directly? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. We actually have a working group that is 

going to be put together and will be kicking off later, mid-July— 

it will be a conference call—and have a face-to-face meeting August 

3 through 5. That will consist of one member from each region, as 

well as stakeholders, if we can, and headquarters personnel. 

The grant process is a very long process, and I don’t think the 

entire process is well-suited to be placed in the region, whereas 

parts of it may be more appropriate, whereas the drafting of the 

guidance, creation of guidance, application period, peer-review 

process, possibly all the way up through award could occur within 
29 

headquarters. The beginning of that process could have a lot of 

interaction with our regional partners, but maybe we take care of 

the award at headquarters. 

Once that award is given and the proper tools and staffing and 

resources within each region, that could then be handed down to 

the regions to be that first point of contact for any grantee if they 

have questions on their grant—what the guidance means, what 

their investment justifications mean and how they go about attaining that and meeting what they said they were going to do in the 

grant. 

So I don’t see a whole piece of every grant program—the whole 

entire package. I see pieces of it, in a partnership fashion. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Harman, I might suggest that—you said 

you may include a stakeholder. I would suggest that you do. 

Ms. HARMAN. We would like to, yes. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The other point I would make is, keeping in 

mind what the AG’s comments are I think would be most helpful. 

Mr. Rogers, I will recognize you for 5 minutes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Harman, you talked about 98 percent of the vacancies that 

you have in the Department are now posted. 

Ms. HARMAN. Correct. 

Mr. ROGERS. How many vacancies is that? 

Ms. HARMAN. We were just under 50. I can get you that exact 

number. Roughly 25 percent of our workforce of 192 full-time personnel, almost 50, in the high 40s. 

Mr. ROGERS. Is there a particular sphere where those vacancies 

occur? Is it management? 

Ms. HARMAN. Unfortunately, they are throughout. Right now, I 

am significantly lacking some senior management. We are missing—our deputy assistant administrator left not long after I came 

on-board, as well as several significant leadership positions, branch 

chiefs, within our Financial Division left. 

Mr. ROGERS. The mid-level, upper-level management positions 

throughout the Department have been problematic, keeping those 

people. 

Ms. HARMAN. Right. 

Mr. ROGERS. What unique challenges do you think you are going 

to face in trying to get people of the caliber you want to fill those 

positions and retain them? 

Ms. HARMAN. Right. It is an interesting concept, coming in and 

looking at the management style that has been used in the past. 

From my perspective, it has been a very top-down approach with 

management, leading to some of the vacancies, I believe. I don’t 

think our employees have been empowered. I don’t think they have 

been given the opportunity for continuing education, for training, 

to have more of an engagement in the process, understanding what 

that is; which then, of course, leads to morale. 

So it is a vicious cycle that, right now, we are trying to break. 

We are very fortunate to have the support of FEMA leadership. 

The first week I came on-board, I met with our HR department. 

Vacancy announcements were posted. All, I think, but four positions were posted within the first 2 months. Everything now has 
30 

been posted. I have a full day of interviews scheduled tomorrow 

with the rest of the staff. 

I am very pleased to see that. We have support all the way up 

through the DHS leadership, as well, on that. 

Mr. ROGERS. I know, throughout the Department, employee surveys on job satisfaction are done. What is the most recent time that 

surveys were done in your Department, do you know? 

Ms. HARMAN. Within the directorate, I can’t answer that. I can 

get back to you on that. But there has been one done within 

FEMA, organization-wide. 

Mr. ROGERS. Since you have been there? 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes. We have had an opportunity to—we were 

asked to give time for our staff to take on hour out of their day 

to provide comments on where FEMA is going. 

You see a lot of similarities across directorates, where, you know, 

most of the time, the employee is not really familiar with: What are 

my roles and responsibilities? Truly, what am I charged with? 

Mr. ROGERS. So you have had a chance to have that information 

presented to you and review it? 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes. Yes. 

Mr. ROGERS. Okay. Good. 

Ms. HARMAN. Additionally, we have also had two additional 

workforce analyses conducted within the Grant Programs Directorate, and I am working with that data, as well. 

Mr. ROGERS. Again, we see this consistently throughout the Department. I would be very interested in, during your period of time 

there, to see that done annually so that you can start trying to 

track shortcomings. Because we see a lot of institutional knowledge 

go out the door as we lose these mid- and upper-level people, and 

we have to figure out how to keep them. 

Ms. HARMAN. Agreed. 

Mr. ROGERS. One other point before I let my time go. I represent 

a rural Congressional district. As you know from being a former 

firefighter, most rural areas of the country depend on volunteer departments. In fact, in my Congressional district, the overwhelming 

number of first responders are volunteers. They depend heavily on 

these DHS grants. 

Can you talk to me about that area of the grant process and 

what you see are its shortcomings and what we can do to make 

sure that those needs are met? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. As you know, the majority of the funding 

that comes out of the Grant Programs Directorate goes through the 

State Homeland Security Grant Program, the UASI Program. 

Those dollars go directly to the State administrative agency, as 

designated by the Governor in each State. Those SAAs are required 

to work within their State to identify areas of greatest need of 

where those dollars should go. 

Unfortunately, at times, what happens and what has been 

brought to my attention and from my experience in the past is that 

those small, rural areas are sort of left out. They don’t have a seat 

at the table. They may not be in an area of high risk. They may 

not be a high priority for that particular State. 

It is important for us and in my position now to teach individuals 

like that and organizations how to leverage existing dollars that 
31 

are out there. You have the State Homeland Security moneys and 

the UASI moneys that I mentioned, but you also have an AFG program which bypasses the State. So there are pros and cons to 

that—— 

Mr. ROGERS. How are you going to teach them? 

Ms. HARMAN. It is a lot of outreach. A lot of it is relationship 

building. A lot of it is having a seat at the table. 

I have had an opportunity to be at a lot of different conferences 

now and speak. You hear from the folks who have money, and then 

you hear from folks who don’t have the money. It is—they don’t 

have a seat at that table. I ask them, are you at the table when 

the State is making the decisions on where those dollars are going? 

Most of the time, they don’t. They need to have that. 

Mr. ROGERS. Good. Good answer. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. I yield back. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

I gave back 50-plus seconds on the time. The Chairwoman will 

now recognize other Members for questions they may wish to ask 

the witnesses. In accordance with our committee rules and practices, I will recognize Members who were present at the start of the 

hearing, based on seniority of the subcommittee, alternating between the Majority and Minority. Those Members coming in later 

will be recognized in the order of their arrival. 

The Chairwoman will now recognize for 5 minutes the gentleman 

from New Jersey, Mr. Pascrell. But please keep in mind, we are 

down to 3 minutes and 52 seconds left to vote. Although, 300 Members have yet to vote. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Absolutely. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Assistant Administrator Harman, it took us a 

long time to get people who are involved, both policemen and firemen, in homeland security. So we decided to finally go bottom-up. 

Therefore, I am thankful that you are in the position that you are 

in, being both a volunteer and career firefighter. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. So I am sure you will appreciate the question I 

am going to ask. 

Ms. HARMAN. I will let you know. Thank you. 

Mr. PASCRELL. The homeland security grant activity receiving 

the largest cut in the—you knew what I was going to ask—fiscal 

year 2011 budget proposal are the two firefighter assistance 

grants—probably, according to third-party evaluations, two of the 

most efficient, proficient programs in the entire Federal Government. 

Ms. HARMAN. Uh-huh. 

Mr. PASCRELL. You are agreeing with me? 

Ms. HARMAN. I would agree with you on that, yes. 

Mr. PASCRELL. I mean, we worked it out that way. The staffing 

for adequate fire and emergency response, the SAFER Act, and the 

Assistance to the Firefighter Grant Program, AFG, that collectively 

the two programs would receive $610 million. That is $200 million 

less than in fiscal year 2010. We are going backwards. 

We fought so hard, Members from both sides of the aisle, both 

sides, to make sure that this was an adequate response. Consid-
32 

ering you get about $3.5 billion in application, we are definitely 

going backwards. 

I want you to explain to the committee the agency’s decision to 

cut the money. 

Ms. HARMAN. Thank you for your question. 

Although I was not present and have been on-board about 31⁄2

months now, unfortunately I did not have the opportunity to participate in the budget process and the submission process on that. 

As I understand, the budget that was submitted from FEMA was 

higher than prior years’ submissions from FEMA. But, still, that is 

less than what is being asked for by your committee. That is something I can certainly look into in the future. I am not sure, I 

haven’t been educated on that process yet, but we can certainly 

look into that. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Madam Chairwoman, I think this is of great importance for people on both sides of the aisle who have made this 

a major priority. We should be funding the programs that are efficient and proficient and looking at those programs that aren’t 

working well. 

Here we have the biggest—going through the programs that are 

doing the best. This is peer-oriented. We save a lot of money in 

doing that. It has been fair. We don’t have the usual rural-versuscity flak. I mean, this, from the very inception, has been done the 

way it should have been done, the way all programs should be 

done. No politics are involved since Congressmen like myself cannot get involved in its evaluations. 

What are we doing? It makes no sense. So I would like for you 

to go back and tell your superiors that it makes no sense. 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes, sir. Will do. 

Mr. PASCRELL. Thank you very much. 

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Pascrell. 

In light of the fact that we now have 17 seconds to vote, but 200 

Members have yet to vote, the committee will stand in recess to 

allow Members to vote on the floor. I believe we have two votes before us. The committee will reconvene in 10 minutes, after the conclusion of the last vote in this series of floor votes. 

[Recess.] 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The hearing will come to order. 

I recognize myself for as much time as I might need to go 

through several questions. 

First of all, Ms. Harman, I want to come back to a couple of 

things. We were a little rushed because votes were called, and I 

want to make sure for the record some things were clear. 

Mr. Pascrell was stating to you his concern of the cuts, regarding 

specifically the firemen programs. Your response was, was that the 

overall budget was suggested to be increased for DHS. But I don’t 

think you really answered the point of his question, which was, 

specifically, as we move forward, do we have an understanding 

from you of the value of the firemen grants section and an understanding that you will work with us to ensure that those levels 

stay at the appropriate full-year 2010 numbers as we move forward? 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes. I will do my best for that. 
33 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you. 

Again, I wanted to be clear that Ms. Tierney, I think, spent a lot 

of good time going through some specific, very basic things that 

could be done to improve what is happening for the first responders 

and stakeholders. You committed to going through that. The chief 

also laid out several options for you to consider, and you said you 

would get that back to the committee in writing. 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes, I will. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I also wanted to come back to he mentioned 

that Tier I has experienced a decrease in funding, however in the 

second tier there has actually been an increase. Can you give us 

any thoughts as to why that is happening and how we can expect 

that to revert back to its original goals? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. As you are aware now, the UASI pot of 

money is a static pot of money right now. The budget that is being 

proposed for next year, I believe there is not any significant increases or decreases. The formula that is looked upon for all of the 

UASI cities—there are currently 64—is being looked at for the fiscal year 2011 cycle. Actually, all risk formulas across the board will 

be looked at to ensure that they are clear, solid business processes, 

and risk is truly a factor. There is currently fresh data that is 

being used to associate risk with each city as it is on there. The 

Secretary has asked us to look at those risk formulas, and then 

there will be a determination made on the 64 cities that are currently on there on how that is going to fall out. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So will you follow up with the chief to give an 

understanding of why it was down in this last year and how we 

can ensure that that doesn’t happen again? When we talk from a 

risk assessment, there really isn’t a larger problematic area in 

terms of ports and water treatment facilities and the many other 

issues that we have in that particular area. 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. We can work together on that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. I also wanted to clarify for the record 

what has been of much question for this committee is the regionalization. As I understood you to say, before I gave back my time trying to allow for other committee Members, you did not see the regionalization rollout to include the actual granting of the awards 

or the reviewing of the awards and that it was done more from a 

monitoring perspective. I don’t want to put words in your mouth, 

but could you re-clarify for the record what your thoughts are at 

this point? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. I certainly, as the Assistant Administrator 

for the Grant Programs Directorate, have a vision of how I would 

like to see it, but it is important for me also to hear from the working group that is being put together on really, truly what is feasible 

and what is going to work. 

I think if you were to graph out the grant process from the drafting of the grant guidance all the way out through closeout and all 

of those different boxes in there, I think there are parts of that that 

belong at headquarters, there are parts of it that are shared, and 

there are certain parts that belong in the regions. Up through and 

including award, I believe the majority of those functions should 

stay at headquarters to allow us to maintain standardization, provide rules, and tools. 
34 

We certainly will have to have interaction with the regions when 

it comes to the applications and the States as they are applying 

and they are writing their investment justifications, we go through 

peer review processes on the various programs. It is important for 

them, because they do have that boots-on-the-ground perspective of 

what is going on in those States in the regions that they are responsible for to provide us some clarity on where we are going in 

the grant programs. 

But up and to award, there are a lot of administrative processes, 

including Congressional notifications and things like that that are 

probably more suited to stay at headquarters. I think once that 

award is made, it goes out to the regions, we provide the rules and 

tools saying, hey, these are some new grantees, or here are your 

high-risk grantees, or here are folks that you really need to monitor this year. We sort of tier that and help them in that approach 

so that they can truly be that face-to-face contact with all of the 

grantees. 

So that is just my concept. We will be able to solidify that 

through the work of the working group. 

I have had an opportunity talk with all of our 10 regional administrators about 2 weeks ago in Boston at their meeting. They are 

very open to this. They are very excited about the fact that we are 

including them in the process and having them help drive where 

this goes. So I think that is important. But that is my concept, but 

I want to hear from the stakeholders and the working group. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Richards, based upon what Ms. Harman 

has just laid out, what would be your thoughts on that in light of 

what you have already considered? 

Ms. RICHARDS. Well, as you know, we haven’t had a chance to 

look at what FEMA’s working group hasn’t put together yet. Without the blueprint that they put together of how they are going to 

regionalize, I am really not in a position to offer comments on their 

regionalization plan. 

In general, regionalization, as Ms. Harman has described it, is 

very feasible from our point of view, but until we can see the details, I really cannot form an opinion of how well it would work. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So at what point, Ms. Harman, do you anticipate releasing this information? I think in my notes it said there 

is going to be a rollout in July, which is next month. 

Ms. HARMAN. We solicited to the regional administrators to provide us one name from each region. We are still selecting input 

from specific personnel within the grant program directorate of 

who is going to participate on that, as well as trying to identify our 

stakeholders in that as well. There will be a conference call scheduled in late July, so that the working group should be put together 

by mid-July, conference call late July, face-to-face meeting August 

3–5. I believe that region 9 has offered to host that for us. I see 

them getting together, putting this information together, and hopefully we can start rolling out for fiscal year 2011. 

Now, what that rollout means is up to the working group. We are 

still working with resource deficiencies, staffing deficiencies, so I 

don’t see any need to rush any of this. I want to take a very slow, 

methodical approach so that everyone has an opportunity to provide input on where this should go, how it should go, what pro-
35 

grams should go to the regions, at what time should they go to the 

regions. It is really much a work in progress right now; and if I 

can work with you and your staff, I would be more than happy to 

do that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, Ms. Harman, if you could provide the 

committee at least a preliminary rollout, that you anticipate so 

that we can, as we interact with you in the upcoming months, continue to have this discussion that would be most beneficial. 

But let it be said that, from my perspective at least, regionalization from the response perspective, I completely concur; from a 

monitoring of grants, I completely concur; but from everything 

other than that, I do not. So, hopefully, we will see the working 

group echo those concerns and we will see that reflective in your 

policy. 

Out of respect for Mr. Cleaver, who was here earlier, I am going 

to recognize him for 5 minutes; and then return for my last questions. 

So Mr. Cleaver from Missouri is recognized. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. Richards, and maybe to some degree the chief, I am a former 

mayor, and mayors do not appreciate, no matter what political affiliation, the fact that money flows from Washington to State capitals. In fact, we would like to have Governors eliminated from the 

plan. What generally happens is that the money goes into the 

State; and, unlike cities, the States may have multiple departments 

that handle Homeland Security issues but the question is always 

standards. Is there something that we can do that would make 

sure that even if a State has two or three different State departments deal with Homeland Security issues that they operate with 

the same standards that come from the Homeland Security office 

or FEMA office here in Washington? 

Ms. RICHARDS. That is one of the barriers that we recognize in 

our report, that in some States they don’t have a coherent view 

that would allow all the players from the State to have a seat at 

the table to apply for and receive the grant money. I don’t have an 

answer for you on how to fix that, but we have recognized that as 

a barrier and have tried to work with FEMA to help them work 

with the States to try and clarify the situation as well as FEMA 

can through its guidance on how the monies are to be distributed. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Chief, do you find that there is a question in California where Sacramento is operating the grants program but they 

may have three different departments involved? 

Mr. PATALANO. In the State of California, they do have a fairly 

robust Office of Emergency Services that manages the grant programs. However, we do see that there is a little bit of a disconnect 

between several of the groups that are involved in that process; 

and certainly several of the larger UASIs have recommended or 

suggested that direct funding to Tier I UASIs might be a way to 

limit the burden on the State and also improve the efficiency of the 

program. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Ms. Harman, realizing that this is an issue—or 

maybe it is an issue for people like me but maybe not all over, but 

do you have any suggestions on what we can do to standardize the 
36 

way State departments function so that there won’t be inconsistencies? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. As I shared with Mr. Rogers today, a lot of 

it has to do with building those relationships at the State level and 

having a seat at the table. There is only so much that the Federal 

Government can do within particularly the grant program directorate under the guidelines that are set forth in the legislation of 

specifically who gets the money and then providing the guidelines 

of how that money should go down. We want to do our best to allow 

States the flexibility to identify their own unique risks within their 

State and learn to build the capabilities specifically that they need. 

For example, if you are in one State, maybe you don’t have an 

earthquake problem, you may not have hurricane problems over 

here. We want to give them flexibility to do that. Then in turn it 

becomes a balancing act to make sure that they do have the proper 

people at the table. But without forcing them to do that—which I 

am not sure if that is something we could do or should do—I don’t 

think it would be well received from the grantees and the stakeholders as they continue to ask for flexibility with their grant dollars. I have to ask them continually, please have a seat at the 

table, request people to have a seat at the table, and for those who 

are not getting funding, go find your seat at the table. 

But I think we can do a better job of showing people and teaching people how to leverage existing dollars out there that aren’t 

necessarily Homeland Security dollars. They may be coming from 

HHS, DOT, DOE. There are a variety of grant dollars out there 

that if you can’t get one from one spot you can get it from the 

other, and I think we have a responsibility to show our stakeholders how to do that until there is a different type of system 

under which we are working. 

Mr. CLEAVER. I don’t know whether we can dictate to States either. I don’t think so. But it is an issue that I think deserves some 

attention. 

One final question, and it is related to the number of contractors 

compared to the number of employees. Now, there has been suggestion that we have one for one, but that is not in concrete. 

Ms. HARMAN. I have not heard that suggestion. I believe the 

grant program directorate has 192 full-time Feds that are authorized. As I mentioned before, we are missing just under 50 of those, 

which I am hoping to bring on board, and hopefully no one else 

leaves. We will try to fix that, too. 

Contractor-wise, we are about 210 contractors. We have been 

asked by the division of our administrator, Fugate, to build a workforce, build a team, allow people to come in at lower GS levels to 

build that institutional knowledge so that one day they are the 

folks running the show and have senior management. 

We have been asked to insource as much as possible. We have 

begun that effort with several different contracts that we see to be 

long-term contracts of supporting mechanisms, where we will convert those folks into Federal employees, and there is a cost savings 

to that. So you will see that FEMA-wide. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. I yield back, Madam Chairwoman. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Thank you, Mr. Cleaver. 
37 

Coming back to the staffing question and following up with Mr. 

Cleaver, contractors you said approximately 210, and regular Government staff you only have 192. So, clearly, that builds not just 

to the rumor but to the fact. 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. The second question I would say, out of the 50 

vacancies, how many of those would you see being in the region? 

Ms. HARMAN. The current vacancies are vacancies within the 

Grant Programs Directorate. There are vacancies within each region. Of course, there are additional resources that will be needed 

in each region. We have been asked by Deputy Administrator 

Serino to provide positions to the regions. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. How many? 

Ms. HARMAN. A total of 15 from the preparedness, from the PNP. 

I believe from ours was six positions from within the Grant Programs Directorate, and I believe that was offset because of the 

number of contractors that we are going to be insourcing. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So, according to my notes, the regions currently have a total of 65 staffers with the role of preparedness and 

grant management administration. Is that correct? 

Ms. HARMAN. I can get back to you on that. I don’t have the specific numbers. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Well, then, according to the—I think it was the 

Governors—wait a second—well, I believe Ms. Richards and then 

there is another group that had also highlighted that, currently, 

with the regions with their own existing assignments—okay, at the 

request of Congress, the National Academy of Public Administration, NAPA, initiated a panel in October, 2008, to evaluate FEMA’s 

efforts to build robust regional offices. NAPA surveyed the regional 

staff and found that regions themselves felt that they did not have 

the staff or expertise necessary to fulfill their current grant management duties. Further, regions indicated that there were lengthy 

delays in receiving guidance from FEMA headquarters on how to 

implement their grant responsibilities. 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. I am not familiar with that report. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. So what would you say to that in light of your 

vacancies that you have and in light of the potential of additional 

responsibilities that you are seeking to put on if already they felt 

they couldn’t do the job? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. What I like about our regions is they are 

very engaged in the FEMA mission and what we are there to do. 

The enhancements of customer service to our stakeholders is very 

important to everyone. So I want to be sure when we are regionalizing and we are giving more responsibilities to the regions, it may 

not occur in every region at the same time because of the resource 

issues, because of the staffing issues, because of the current physical space issues. 

We are going to have to take a very slow, almost customized approach to build up to true regionalization and what it is that we 

define as regionalization, again, whether that is every grant program, some grant programs. But the resources have got to be taken 

into account to do that. Otherwise, we are just going to provide 

poor customer service. 
38 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Richards, what do you view as the problem 

for the grant drawdown? 

Ms. RICHARDS. Insofar as the grantees being able to receive the 

money? 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Yes. 

Ms. RICHARDS. I don’t have any specifics with me today. I would 

have to get back to you on that. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Harman, do you have an explanation of 

what the problem is? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. On the grant drawdowns, we hear a lot of 

concern on grant drawdowns, that money has been obligated but 

has not yet been drawn down. I want to throw always caution out 

that the drawdown of grant dollars is not always a good indicator 

of performance. In cases of purchasing equipment, such as in our 

ASG programs where it is a quick piece of equipment, nothing has 

to be ordered; you don’t have to go through some sort of city council 

procurement process or anything like that. So that goes much 

quicker, and the drawdown rates increase. 

When you are dealing with large capital projects, such as the 

transit security program and the port security program, those are 

long-term capital projects that require lots of planning, environmental historic preservation reviews, budget reviews, constantly a 

lot of negotiations and working with our partners to figure out 

what is the project and how do we get to the end. And on large capital projects it is not uncommon for the majority of those dollars 

to be drawn down at the end of their grant period, which typically 

is a 36-month period of performance. 

So the money is available to be drawn down usually, but we are 

also in a system that allows for reimbursement. So the money has 

to be spent before it can be requested for drawdown. So most of 

those capital projects, the money is not going to be spent until later 

on. Much of the time in that period of performance is going to be 

spent planning. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Chief, what would you say are some of the 

problems with the grant drawdown? 

Mr. PATALANO. I think I would echo Ms. Harman’s comments on 

a lot of those issues. We are doing the planning for a project that 

might be large scale and cover the regions, so you have to involve 

a lot of stakeholders in the procurement process and you have to 

follow each city’s guidelines as the way that they procure and 

spend. So we are spending, in essence, the city’s money ahead of 

time and then seeking the reimbursement once that has been done. 

So we don’t enter into the project until the money has been awarded to us, and then we start the planning process since we don’t 

want to plan for a project that we are not going to then institute. 

So that is one of the issues. 

There are a lot of internal processes that have to go on with each 

individual jurisdiction, and so I think that adds some of the 

timeline that is included in the time it takes us to spend some of 

the projects. So we have been very supportive, and we appreciate 

the extensions that would go for a larger-scale project. 

I think we are going to see continued problems with grant 

drawdowns as we move into more complex regional projects. They 

just take longer to do. 
39 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Ms. Tierney, did you want to add anything in 

terms of the grant drawdown problem? 

Ms. TIERNEY. No. I would just agree with Chief Patalano that the 

projects that we are dealing with now are multi-county, multi-year 

projects that involve millions of dollars, not just buying boots and 

suits. So the procurement is very difficult, especially when you 

cross county lines. Procurement rules differ according to different 

counties, and that can make things more difficult. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Cleaver, did you have a second round of 

questions? 

Mr. CLEAVER. I do have one question I would ask of Ms. Tierney 

and then Ms. Harman. 

Can you give me one pro and one con with regard to the grants 

management function? 

Ms. TIERNEY. I think one pro that I saw this year, I found the 

process to be much more efficient this year than in years past. I 

have been dealing with these grants for 7 years now. So I think 

over time, as the grant program directorate grows into its own, 

things are becoming more efficient and effective. I think that is one 

good thing, that we are seeing positive steps towards improving 

processes and a willingness to make changes when it is necessary. 

I think one con—and I know, Chairwoman Richardson, you disagree with this to some extent—is the lack of regional involvement 

in the grants process. I think that on a day-to-day basis, I interact, 

the State interacts with people from the FEMA region, FEMA region 3; and those relationships are really valuable in terms of monitoring the projects and assisting with maybe overcoming some of 

these hurdles that we have discussed today. I think it is a balance 

that needs to be struck. 

I agree that just dumping the grant program management into 

the regions would create a lot of inconsistency across regions and 

would make it very difficult to manage them centrally. So I think 

there is definitely a role for central management like maybe Ms. 

Harman said, up to award; and then, from there, project monitoring and implementation would be handled at the regional level. 

But I think that the regions do play a valuable role in the grants 

process. 

Mr. CLEAVER. Thank you. 

Ms. Harman. 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. With regard to pros—and we are looking at 

the grant programs directorate as a whole? 

Mr. CLEAVER. Yes. 

Ms. HARMAN. I think the pro that we have right now going for 

us, we have a lot of money to manage. The people that get that out 

the door are the people that currently work there. And, honestly, 

I don’t know how they do what they do with the resources that we 

have right now, being down as many folks as we are and working 

with some of the multiple systems that we are working with until 

we can streamline that. We have some very dedicated staff that 

truly believe in the FEMA mission and have been there through 

evolving structures, through mergers, and different management 

styles—and I mentioned earlier, styles that I don’t particularly care 

for that is very top down. We have folks there that believe in the 
40 

mission, want to learn, want to contribute, and want to be empowered. That is going to get us where we need to be in the end. 

As far as the con, the overall grant process is a very arduous 

process to get grant guidance together, to have applications and 

systems and just getting everything out the door. There is not a 

whole lot we can do about it, but we can streamline where we can. 

But the system is the system. So it is not the best system to work 

in, but we do with it the best that we can right now. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. I just have a few last questions. 

Ms. Harman, it has been explained, and I went before the Budget Committee regarding Department of Homeland Security. I, like 

many Members of this committee, expressed our concern with the 

reduction in fire grants. 

I also want to note for the record my concern of the safe port as well. It originally had $400 million that was authorized. However, 

for the full year 2011, it was only requested $300 million. Some of 

those same problems—and I won’t go through them again—that we 

discussed about the fire grants are equally with the ports. I and 

many people view that, other than the airports, it is probably one 

of our greatest vulnerabilities. So to again look at cutting some of 

these key areas where we have had great success, where we have 

managed to maintain and avoid a disaster, to not see that reflective in terms of a budget priority is very concerning. So I wanted 

to say that for the record. 

The second thing that I wanted to mention had to do with Ms. 

Richards’ report where she talks about some of the barriers that 

the regions and stakeholders are finding—legislative barriers, organizational barriers, and State-level barriers to coordination. A couple of the recommendations that she provides is document-specific 

agency roles and responsibilities for cross-program coordination of 

grant application and review processes and ensure internal DHS 

coordination is in place. This may include establishing memorandums of agreements if roles are outside of FEMA. Have you considered that as of yet? 

Ms. HARMAN. Yes, and we are actually under way with some of 

that, particularly with TSA, who is our partner with the transit, 

as well as Coast Guard. We even had an offer from the Coast 

Guard to provide us reservists to help us with our monitoring right 

now while our staffing levels are low, and we are working up an 

interagency agreement with them right now. 

So, yes, I have directed not only TSA to be done quickly but the 

port and then any other partners where FEMA takes the lead on 

most of the grant programs, but we do require partnerships and relationships with subject matter experts. So I do intend to establish 

MOUs with all of them. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Okay. My final question, Ms. Harman, I have 

said a couple times now in hearings, and every time when I say 

it people are always somewhat surprised, but with you being new, 

I think it is important to say again, and that is the whole thing 

with COG, continuity of government. 

When I was on the city council for 6 years, in the State legislature for 6 months, and now in Congress, no one—and I will repeat 

even to this day even though I have said it publicly at least three 

times—no one has ever said to me, if something happens, where do 
41 

I go and what do I do? No one has said that. So one of the other 

parts of importance within your jurisdiction is the continuity of 

government. When we look at the problems of what happened with 

Katrina, all we have to do is turn on the news right now and look 

at the oil spill. You’ve got Governors who everyone is pointing different fingers. 

Where does COG fit in your grant process, and has there been 

a priority to understand that beyond it just being on paper that 

there is real work that must be done from the Federal, State, and 

local level to get governments all working correctly in the event of 

a disaster? 

I had the same situation in American Samoa when we had the 

earthquake and the subsequent tsunami, where you have a Governor who was supposed to do one thing, and the Governor may not 

necessarily be the right person to make all of those decisions. So 

what are we doing to address COG in your grants that you have 

so far? 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure. Continuity of government clearly is very important. We have a lot of grants to get out of the door. There might 

be emergencies that pop up and catastrophic events that pop up in 

a variety of different regions at different times; and it is important 

that, although there are emergencies and there are things to do 

there, that we are still getting grants out the door to build capabilities and preparedness in other areas of the country. We can’t stop 

to do that. That is very, very important. 

COG was one of the first things I was introduced to when I came 

to FEMA 3 months ago. We had an exercise at Mount Weather that 

executed some of that, where we tested that; and I believe you had 

an opportunity to visit us at that time. So it is at the top of the 

list of things to do. Our COG program is in the process within the 

grant program directorate. We are currently being updated with 

new personnel, names, and things like that. There has also been 

some training that has occurred as well. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. But where specifically in the grants that are 

available would a local government or a State be able to utilize 

funding for COG development? 

Ms. HARMAN. I believe COG development can be utilized under 

the State Homeland Security program, the UASI program. Of 

course, we have EMPG, which is providing emergency managers 

out there to plan for things like this. Of the 50-some different programs, I am sure there are a variety of others as well, but those 

would be the main. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. If you could provide that back to the committee, what your recommendations would be, because that is an 

area that I plan on working on. 

Ms. HARMAN. Sure, will do. 

Ms. RICHARDSON. Mr. Cleaver, any further questions? 

Mr. Rogers. 

All right. I thank the witnesses for their valuable testimony and 

the Members for their questions. The Members of the subcommittee may have additional questions for the witnesses; and we 

will ask you to respond in a timely fashion, preferably in less than 

2 weeks, in writing to those questions. 
42 

Hearing no further business, the hearing is adjourned. 

[Whereupon, at 12:00 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned.] 
(43) 

A P P E N D I X 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA FOR ELIZABETH

M. HARMAN

Question 1. You indicated in response to a question that the Grant Programs Directorate is forming a working group to evaluate which grant functions to shift from 

FEMA headquarters to the ten regions. What is FEMA’s timetable for receiving, reviewing, and acting upon the recommendations made by the working group? 

Answer. The working group met at the beginning of August and provided recommendations to GPD leadership. FEMA leadership approval is expected by the end 

of September. Once FEMA leadership approval is obtained, an implementation plan 

will be developed during early fiscal year 2011. 

Question 2. In December 2009, Deputy Administrator Manning told the committee 

that FEMA, in coordination with other DHS components, was re-evaluating the risk 

formula that informs homeland security grant allocations. What is the status of that 

review? Do you anticipate any changes to the risk formula for the fiscal year 2011 

grant cycle? 

Answer. FEMA has been reviewing and evaluating the risk formula that informs 

homeland security grant allocations in coordination with the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis, Office of Infrastructure Protection, and the Risk Management 

Division. At this time no decisions have been made regarding changes to the risk 

formula for fiscal year 2011 grant cycle. 

Question 3. In September 2009, FEMA announced that it was extending the Environmental and Historic Preservation (EHP) review process to the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP). In practice, this means that State and local grantees 

must complete time-consuming EHP reviews for all of their grant projects, even if 

they will have no adverse impact on the environment. The committee understands 

that FEMA has drafted a rule to exclude the majority of HSGP-supported grant 

projects from EHP reviews. When will FEMA finalize this categorical exclusion? 

Answer. GPD’s Grant Development and Administration Division (GD&A) has recently finalized the GPD Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA), which 

has resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for certain grant activities under all Programs administered by GD&A. The FONSI will reduce the number 

of projects that require an information submittal for an EHP review. The analysis 

in the PEA document will serve as the EHP documentation for those certain types 

of projects; therefore grantees will not need to provide further EHP documentation 

for those projects. GDA has developed an EHP review process to streamline the review period for all projects not covered by the PEA. These projects will be triaged 

to determine whether an environmental assessment is required. If a further review 

reveals that a project can be categorically excluded, that action is quickly taken so 

that funds for the project can be released. As is current policy, projects requiring 

an environmental assessment will be sent to the applicable FEMA Region for action. 

The GDA EHP program continues to provide outreach and education to grantees to 

explain the EHP process and regularly receives feedback on ways to make it as 

grantee-friendly as possible. 

Question 4. Please describe which FEMA grants support continuity of government 

operations and how that support is generally carried out at the State and local level 

with FEMA’s grants. 

Answer. Several FEMA/GPD preparedness grant programs, including the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) and its associated sub-programs support continuity of government (COG) operations. COG activities are also supported under 

the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG). Activities undertaken at 

the State and local level utilizing HSGP and EMPG funding include developing/refining COG plans and procedures, executing tabletop and functional exercises to test 

COG plans, providing communications equipment to essential Government personnel, renovating facilities to act as alternate Emergency Operations Centers 
44 

(EOC), and, in the case of HSGP, target hardening of critical Government infrastructure. 

Question 5. Please provide the current number of vacant permanent full-time positions within the Grants Program Directorate at headquarters and discuss how many 

full-time filled and vacant positions will be moved to the Regions. 

Answer. The Grant Programs Directorate currently has 34 vacant permanent fulltime positions. The vacant positions have all been advertised through USAJobs, lists 

of qualified applicants have been compiled and reviewed and interviews with candidates have been or are being scheduled. As of July 2, 13 job offers have been made 

and accepted. These individuals are all currently in the FEMA security clearance 

process. GPD envisions this first round to on-board no later than pay period 18 (August 29, 2010). 

GPD has supported the enhancement of FEMA’s regions by transferring six vacant positions to regions. As part of enhancing the FEMA regions, FEMA has also 

convened a working group to determine which portions of the grant life cycle will 

be moved to the regions, which will remain at headquarters and which will be 

shared with the regional offices. This working group is expected to provide recommendations to FEMA leadership by the end of September. FEMA leadership approval is expected by the end of September. Once FEMA leadership approval is obtained, an implementation plan including personnel resources will be developed during early fiscal year 2011. 

Question 6. At the hearing, Chief Patalano, Ms. Tierney, and Ms. Richards, offered several recommendations to FEMA and Congress for improving the management of the homeland security grant program, including: 

Lifting the statutory 3 percent limit on the amount of grant funding a recipient 

can retain for management and administrative purposes to 5 percent; 

Coordinating the development of State and local grant guidance between the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and the Department of 

Health and Human Services in order to ensure the Federal preparedness grants are 

not duplicative or working at cross-purposes; 

Developing a more manageable process for completing Environmental and Historic Preservation reviews for preparedness and critical infrastructure grant programs; 

Providing more flexibility to grantees to use grant funds to support multi-year 

homeland security projects; 

Permitting grantees to use a greater share of their homeland security grants for 

personnel; and 

Developing memorandums of understanding that describe the roles and responsibilities of each DHS-component in the grant-making process. 

What are FEMA’s views on these recommendations and what steps has FEMA 

taken, if any, to implement these recommendations? 

Answer. Below is an update on the steps that FEMA has taken to implement the 

recommendations that were offered during the hearing: 

1. Lifting the statutory 3 percent limit on the amount of grant funding a recipient can retain for management and administrative purposes to 5 percent.—This 

change was adopted in many of the GPD grant programs for fiscal year 2010. 

Almost all of the fiscal year 2010 preparedness grant program Guidance and 

Application kits include a provision that allows for grantees and their subgrantees to utilize up to 5 percent of their award for management and administrative (M01&A) costs. These programs include: HSGP, NSGP, RCPGP, DLSGP, 

THSGP, IECGP, EOC, TSGP, IPR, FRSGP, and IBSGP. Others allow for 5 percent M&A at the grantee level and 3 percent at the sub-grantee level. These 

include: EMPG and PSGP. BZPP allows for 5% M&A at the grantee level. 

2. Coordinating the development of State and local grant guidance between the 

Department of Homeland Security, Department of Justice, and the Department 

of Health and Human Services in order to ensure the Federal preparedness 

grants are not duplicative or working at cross-purposes.—DHS and HHS cochair a grants coordinating committee representing 20 agency offices with 

health and medical preparedness grant programs. This committee meets monthly by conference call and twice yearly in person. Committee activities can lead 

to identifying and avoiding overlaps in funding, to assisting grantees, and to 

leveraging and coordinating our various programs. Representatives from FEMA 

have also started meeting regularly with DOJ to coordinate the law enforcements aspect of programs such as the Homeland Security Grant Program 

(HSGP) and Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) Grants & Office of 

Justice Program’s Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program. 

3. Developing a more manageable process for completing Environmental and 

Historic Preservation reviews for preparedness and critical infrastructure grant 
45 

programs.—GPD’s Grant Development and Administration Division (GD&A) 

has recently finalized the GPD Programmatic Environmental Assessment 

(PEA), which has resulted in a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for 

certain grant activities under all Programs administered by GD&A. The FONSI 

will reduce the number of projects that require an information submittal for an 

EHP review. The analysis in the PEA document will serve as the EHP documentation for those certain types of projects; therefore grantees will not need 

to provide further EHP documentation for those projects. GDA has developed 

an EHP review process to streamline the review period for all projects not covered by the PEA, These projects will be triaged to determine whether an environmental assessment is required. If a further review reveals that a project can 

be categorically excluded, that action is quickly taken so that funds for the 

project can be released. As is current policy, projects requiring an environmental assessment will be sent to the applicable FEMA Region for action. The 

GDA EHP program continues to provide outreach and education to grantees to 

explain the EHP process and regularly receives feedback on ways to make it 

as grantee-friendly as possible. 

4. Providing more flexibility to grantees to use grant funds to support multi-year 

homeland security projects.—FEMA/GPD encourages the use of preparedness 

grant funding to support multi-year homeland security projects, and program 

funding is allowable over multiple years in most cases. 

5. Permitting grantees to use a greater share of their homeland security grants 

for personnel.—The Personnel Reimbursement for Intelligence Cooperation and 

Enhancement (PRICE) of Homeland Security Act (Public Law 110–412) directed 

FEMA/GPD to allow for up to 50 percent of grant funding to be used for personnel costs. FEMA/GPD responded by including this provision in all grant 

guidance kits that include personnel costs as one of the allowable costs. 

6. Memorandums of understanding that describe the roles and responsibilities 

of each DHS-component in the grant-making process.—MOA’s are in place between FEMA–GPD and the Office of Infrastructure Protection for the Buffer 

Zone Protection Program and FEMA–GPD and Office of Environmental and 

Historical Preservation to coordinate the implementation of requirements under 

the National Environmental Policy Act. Further, an MOU between FEMA GPD 

and DHS’s Screening Coordination Office is being considered for the REAL ID 

and the Driver’s License Security Grant Programs. The MOA’s detail the roles 

and responsibilities of the various offices to maintain effective communication 

and collaboration for complete and successful development and implementation 

of the various grant programs. Under the Agreements, FEMA–GPD retains its 

primary responsibility for grant program development and administration, and 

the other offices retain their primary responsibility for subject matter expertise, 

policy development, program implementation and strategic oversight. We are in 

the process of developing MOA’s with other organizations. 

QUESTIONS FROM CHAIRWOMAN LAURA RICHARDSON OF CALIFORNIA FOR ANNE L. 

RICHARDS

Question 1. The 9/11 Act directs the Inspector General to annually complete audits of individual States’ management of the Homeland Security Grant Program. 

Has the Office of the Inspector General been able to identify any common challenges 

with grant management that multiple States are struggling with, particularly the 

process for drawing down funds? If so, what are your recommendations to FEMA 

for addressing those challenges? Did rural States or States with large populations 

of volunteer first responders encounter different or more complex challenges managing grants then States with more urban areas or paid professionals? 

Answer. The 12 States and 1 urban area we audited in 2008 and 2009 generally 

did an efficient and effective job of administering the grant management program 

requirements, distributing grant funds, and ensuring that all of the available funds 

were used. However, we identified common challenges and made recommendations 

to improve grants management functions, with most States facing challenges in controls over equipment and property, monitoring and oversight activities, and planning activities such as establishing measurable program goals and objectives. Other 

more localized challenges included questioned costs, complying with Federal procurement practices, and financial planning, reporting, and support. 

Our completed audits did not identify challenges regarding the drawdown of 

funds, or any differences in the complexity of challenges between rural States and 

States with more urban areas. Challenges and recommendations included: 
46 

Equipment and Property.—Our audit reports identified equipment and property 

weaknesses and included recommendations to strengthen property controls within 

the homeland security grant management programs. Some examples include: • Unauthorized expenditures were charged to Federal funds because the agency 

did not sufficiently review the acquired items to ensure compliance with grant 

terms. • The State did not establish policies for controlling centrally purchased equipment distributed to local jurisdictions, resulting in a lack of equipment accountability. • The State did not ensure that subgrantees established and maintained effective 

control and accountability systems. 

Monitoring and Oversight Practices.—Monitoring and oversight weaknesses were 

cited in most State audit reports, resulting in recommendations to improve the 

States’ monitoring and oversight of grant programs and processes. The reports noted 

that several States have implemented proactive measures to improve their monitoring and oversight processes, including developing policies, procedures, and program monitoring guidance; performing equipment reviews; and preparing a formal 

subgrantee guide for site monitoring efforts. Noted weaknesses included: • States’ emergency management organizational structures did not change with 

the addition of new homeland security grant responsibilities, resulting in monitoring and oversight weaknesses. • Lack of written plans to monitor financial or programmatic performance against 

strategic goals, and therefore had insufficient assurance that program goals 

were being achieved or that grant funds were being properly expended. • Infrequent monitoring and site visits to subgrantees. • Monitoring generally did not cover programmatic issues, only financial issues. 

Measurable Program Goals and Objectives.—A common challenge was for States 

to establish specific, measurable program goals and objectives linking the State’s 

strategy and subgrantees’ use of grant funds to acquire equipment, training, and exercises. Our audit reports included recommendations to improve grant management 

procedures, demonstrate progress in achieving goals and objectives, and measure 

improvements in local jurisdictions’ capabilities in terms of equipment, training, and 

exercises. Without measurable goals and objectives, the States: (1) Could not adequately evaluate the relative impacts that grant funds had on first responders’ ability to respond to terrorist attacks or natural disasters, (2) lacked important tools 

for allocating grant funds and providing oversight to subgrantees, and (3) were unable to assess first responder capabilities or justify continued grants. 

Questioned Costs.—Our audit reports identified over $3.5 million in questioned 

costs, and made recommendations to resolve or recover the expenditures. Examples 

included: • Ineligible costs (unauthorized equipment, unauthorized purpose). 

• Equipment used for unauthorized purposes, or not being utilized or maintained 

as intended. 

• Unapproved transfers and commingling of grant funds. 

• Accrued interest earned on grant funds not remitted to the Federal Government. 

• Lack of supporting documentation. 

Federal Procurement Practices.—States did not ensure that Federal procurement 

regulations were followed at the subgrantee level, resulting in recommendations to 

establish and implement procedures to ensure Federal requirements are followed by 

grant recipients. Specific examples include: 

• Required cost analyses not performed for noncompetitive procurements contracts. 

• State not notified of noncompetitive procurements, as required prior to awarding the contracts. 

• Contract awarded to the firm that developed the specifications for the contract, 

creating an organizational conflict of interest and undermining full and open 

competition. 

Financial Planning, Reporting, and Support.—The State audit reports identified 

areas where financial planning and reporting controls were not properly implemented. States have already taken actions to implement the recommendations and 

improve their processes. 

Question 2. Since the inception of the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) 

following 9/11, grantees have been challenged to quickly spend—or ‘‘drawdown’’— 

their grant awards. What steps could FEMA and States take to expend their HSGP 

grant awards in a more expeditious manner? 

Answer. While FEMA has taken steps to permit States to expend their Homeland 

Security Grant Program funds more expeditiously, other actions are needed to 
47 

streamline the grant review and approval process in order for grantees and subgrantees to receive their funds in a timely manner. 

In 2005, FEMA incorporated the application process of four complementary grant 

programs into the Homeland Security Grant Program: 

• State Homeland Security Program; 

• Urban Areas Security Initiative; 

• Citizen Corps Program; 

• Metropolitan Medical Response System. 

In 2010, the Operation Stonegarden program was added to the Homeland Security 

Grant Program. While the grant programs retained their distinct and separate identities, the Homeland Security Grant Program provides a single application kit and 

program guidance to facilitate coordination and management of State and local 

homeland security funding. This also helps ensure that available funding is leveraged for maximum impact. 

Our March 2010 report titled ‘‘Efficacy of DHS Grant Programs,’’ identified areas 

where improvements are needed to improve the effectiveness and efficiency of all 

of FEMA’s preparedness grant programs, specifically involving application timelines, 

application submission requirements, and application review panels. 

Existing Grant Application Timelines Are Not Arranged Optimally.—Grant 

timelines do not promote the most efficient application preparation and review because they are not arranged in the most optimal sequence. In many cases, the 

timelines are legislatively established and do not allow States the opportunity to 

logically develop investment justifications that address overarching needs or define 

target capabilities while simultaneously focusing on more narrowly focused programs. Although the scopes of these programs may overlap, we did not identify a 

consistent pattern in the current sequence that would allow States to develop investment justifications for similar programs or related projects in a logical and efficient order. 

Inconsistent or Redundant Grant Application Requirements Preclude Efficient 

Planning.—FEMA issues separate annual guidance to outline the application processes and requirements for each grant program which creates burdensome requirements on both FEMA and grantees as the requirements differ across grant programs. Requirements in grant guidance vary across programs, regardless of the similarities of the grant program, making it difficult for States to have a streamlined 

planning process that is consistent across all grant programs. Grant programs have 

different investment justification templates as part of the application process. This 

requires applicants to prepare investment justifications or documents with unique 

information for each program regardless of the similarities of the proposed funding 

activities. These varied templates and program documents may provide consistency 

for panels reviewing proposed project proposals for the individual grant programs, 

but present an administrative burden for grant applicants who must prepare similar 

information in different formats. 

Review Panels Differ Across Grant Programs.—Grant programs have separate review processes to evaluate funding requests for each grant program, which requires 

FEMA to convene multiple review panels to evaluate applications and investment 

justifications. For all programs, FEMA verifies the applicant’s compliance with administrative and eligibility criteria identified in each grant program’s application 

kit. FEMA then sends the eligible applications through an investment justification 

review process to evaluate the merits of proposed investments against grant guidance criteria. However, FEMA uses various types of reviews to evaluate proposed 

investments, depending on the grant program, and include Federal, State, and local 

government personnel; emergency responders; and members of National associations 

on the review panels. These numerous panels create additional work for FEMA to 

request review panel members from Federal, State, and local organizations, depending on the grant program. FEMA must also train the numerous panels, provide review materials, oversee the panels, and compile panel results. Consolidating panels 

where grant programs have similar purposes or activities would provide a more efficient use of Federal, State, and local resources. 

Æ