Office of Grants and Training 

Preparedness Directorate 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20531

1 

G&T Information Bulletin 

No. 202 February 8, 2006 

TO All State Administrative Agency Heads 

 All State Administrative Agency Points of Contact 

 All State Homeland Security Directors 

FROM: Tracy A. Henke 

Executive Director, Office of Grants and Training 

SUBJECT: Application Review and Scoring Approach for Fiscal Year (FY) 2006 Homeland 

Security Grant Program 

The FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) Application Kit was released on 

December 2, 2005, which outlines the application process that States and Urban Areas must use 

to request FY 2006 HSGP funding by utilizing an Investment Justification. The Investment 

Justification Template and the Investment Justification User’s Manual were both released on 

December 9, 2005. This Information Bulletin provides more detail on the application review 

process and scoring approach, as well as information on making final investment decisions. 

A. Review Process 

All Investment Justifications will be reviewed and scored by peer review panels, representative 

of States, Territories, Urban Areas, and Federal Agencies. Each peer review panel will include a 

balance of representation from each region (Eastern, Central, and Western) and from both large 

and small States. The peer review panels will review and score each individual Investment 

included in the Investment Justification, as well as the Investment Justification submission in its 

entirety. In addition, the peer review panels will review the Program and Capability 

Enhancement Plan to ensure alignment among Initiatives from the Enhancement Plan with 

proposed Investments. 

 

After reviewing Investments independently, the peer review panels will convene during the week 

of April 3, 2006, in the greater Washington, DC metropolitan area to discuss the findings of their 

review, and to develop final scores and comments for each Investment Justification. 

B. Scoring Approach 

Each Investment will be reviewed and scored using discrete criteria to determine how effective 

the proposed solution addresses the identified need. Evaluation criteria have been developed 
2 

based strictly on the guidance provided in the Investment Justification User’s Manual. The 

specific criteria that will be the basis for scoring are included as Appendix A to this Information 

Bulletin. Individual Investments will be reviewed against the evaluation criteria to determine a 

score. Then, the individual Investment scores will be averaged to determine the total Investment

score. Since individual Investment scores will be averaged, States and Urban Areas should 

only submit well planned and sound Investments. Submitting the maximum number of 

Investments may actually decrease the overall State/Urban Area score if all Investments are not 

sound. 

Additionally, the Investment Justification submission will be given an overall Investment 

Justification score based on the completeness, reasonableness, vision, and innovativeness of the 

proposed Investments. The overall Investment Justification score will be determined by: 

• Relevance to implementation of the National Preparedness Goal; 

• Connection to both the spirit and scope of the Enhancement Plan; 

• Extent to which the Investments portray a complete picture of plans for the homeland 

security program (for example, by demonstrating intra- or inter-state collaboration; 

appropriate management, governance, and stakeholder communication); 

• Innovativeness of the proposed solutions to address needs; and 

• Overall feasibility and reasonableness of the proposed solutions. 

Finally, each State and Urban Area will receive a risk score. The FY 2006 DHS risk 

methodology represents a major step forward in the analysis of the risk of terrorism, with 

tremendous gains made in both the quality and specificity of information and analysis 

incorporated within the model. Risk is treated as a function of three variables: 

• Threat, or the likelihood of a type of attack that might be attempted 

• Vulnerability, or the likelihood that an attacker would succeed 

• Consequence, or the impact of an attack occurring 

Fundamentally, the FY 2006 methodology addresses two separate, but complementary, types of 

risk: asset-based risk and geographically-based risk. Considered together, these two calculations 

provide an estimate of total terrorism risk, evaluating both risks to assets as well as risk to 

populations and geographic areas. 

This formula-driven risk score will be used along with the peer reviewer-given total Investment

score and overall Investment Justification score to determine final funding allocations. 

C. Final Allocations 

Upon conclusion of the review process, the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) will announce 

final allocation totals for each State and Urban Area by May 31, 2006. Separate amounts will be 

awarded for each grant program within the FY 2006 HSGP. States and Urban Areas will receive 

comments from the peer review panels for review and consideration along with their grant 

announcements. 

The State Administrative Agency (SAA) will have 60 days after receipt of the awards in which 

to submit a prioritization of Investments they intend to fund using their FY 2006 HSGP 
3 

allocations. The SAA must also submit a certification that funds have been passed through to 

local units of government (to include the identification of sub-grantees and sub-award amounts). 

The final list of prioritized Investments must be chosen from the Investments included in the 

State’s or Urban Area’s Investment Justification submission; no new Investments may be 

proposed for funding. 

Peer reviewers will place a special condition(s) on Investments that fall below a certain score 

threshold at the time of the panel convention. If a State or Urban Area still intends to utilize FY 

2006 HSGP funds for a low-scoring Investment, the special condition(s) must be met before 

funding can be obligated towards that Investment. Further information for meeting the special 

condition(s) will be provided by the peer reviewers and the Preparedness Officer at the time of 

grant award. 

The signed award document with special conditions must be returned to G&T’s Office of Grant 

Operations (OGO). Each State’s obligation period must be met within 60 days of the award 

date. For more information on award and reporting requirements, refer to section V of the FY 

2006 HSGP Grant Guidance and Application Kit. 

A list of Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) is included as Appendix B to this information 

Bulletin, and will be updated as necessary. Additional questions may be directed to your 

Preparedness Officer or the Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk at askcsid@dhs.gov, 

1-800-368-6498. 
Appendix A 

A-1 

Appendix A: Investment Justification Review and Scoring Criteria for Solution 

Effectiveness 

I. Background 

Question Criteria 

I.A. Provide a summary description of 

this Investment and its purpose. 

• Shows clear purpose 

• Articulates clear end-result of using FY 2006 

HSGP funds 

• Describes expected outcomes 

• Explains how outcomes relate to the purpose 

• Explains how outcomes will be achieved 

I.B. Explain how the Investment will 

support the implementation of an 

Initiative(s) from the Program and 

Capability Enhancement Plan, and the 

achievement of goals and objectives from 

your State/Urban Area homeland security 

strategy(ies). 

• Relates to at least one Enhancement Plan 

Initiative 

• Clearly describes how the Investment relates to 

the Initiative(s) identified 

• Discusses the specific areas of the Initiative that 

are/will be addressed by the Investment 

• Draws specific linkages to at least one of the 

Homeland Security Strategy goals and objectives 

• Explains how the Investment supports 

achievement of identified goals and objectives 

I.C. List up to four National Priority(ies) 

this Investment primarily supports. 

• Selects appropriate National Priority(s) 

• The Investment directly supports the selected 

Priorities 

I.D. List up to six Target Capability(ies) 

from the Target Capabilities List this 

Investment primarily supports. 

• Selects at least one Target Capability 

• The Investment directly supports the selected 

Target Capabilities 

II. Regionalization 

Question Criteria 

II.A. Describe the geographic and 

demographic area(s) this Investment 

covers. 

• Clearly defines Geographic areas that are 

unambiguous 

• Clearly defines Demographic areas that are 

unambiguous 

• Describes how the areas were determined 

• Discusses whether or not the Investment has the 

potential to affect areas outside the identified 

geographic and demographic area 
Appendix A 

A-2 

Question Criteria 

II.B. Explain how the State/Urban Area 

is organizing to implement this 

Investment over the identified geographic 

area(s). 

• Discusses regional partnerships 

• Identifies specific multi-jurisdictional/disciplinary 

stakeholders 

• Describes the strategies that stakeholder groups 

have, or will employ, to effectively communicate 

and work together 

• Discusses mitigating duplication of effort 

• Leverages common solutions across multiple 

jurisdictions and disciplines to take advantage of 

all available strengths 

II.C. Discuss the collaboration process 

you have, or will establish, with other 

regions and jurisdictions (inter- and intraState) within or beyond the 

geographic/demographic area of this 

Investment. Discuss when and how you 

will engage stakeholders from those 

regions in specific support of this 

Investment. 

• Identifies collaboration processes and 

communication strategies with other regions 

• Explains why specific individuals/groups were 

selected to collaborate with 

• Explains how those outside individuals/groups 

will benefit 

• Puts forth a general collaboration strategy with a 

basic timeline 

• Explains operational activities or exercises that 

are being planned/developed with outside areas 

III. Impact 

Question Criteria 

III.A. Discuss anticipated impacts of this 

Investment and how the requested 

funding will help attain/achieve expected 

impacts. Consider the population and 

areas affected, and other entities 

(jurisdictions, disciplines) that could 

leverage the outcomes and impacts of the 

solution presented by this Investment. 

• Outlines high-level impacts of this Investment 

• Explains how HSGP funding will promulgate 

positive impacts of the Investment 

• Clearly links impacts and specific 

geographic/demographic areas outlined in II.A. 

• Identifies other jurisdictions/disciplines that may 

benefit, or makes clear that no other entities will 

benefit 

III.B. Discuss how the implementation 

of this Investment will decrease or 

mitigate risk. 

• Targets specific consequences, vulnerabilities, 

and threats 

• Provides a rationale of choices 

• Discusses how the Investment will mitigate each 

identified consequence, vulnerability, and threat 

• Discusses specific benefits of mitigating the 

consequence, vulnerability, or threat 
Appendix A 

A-3 

Question Criteria 

III.C. Describe what the potential 

Homeland Security risks of not funding 

this Investment are. 

• Explains the result of not implementing the 

Investment (considers the impact on current 

vulnerabilities or threats and if there will be any 

new risks) 

• Articulates that each vulnerability or threat will 

either increase, decrease, or stay the same without 

this Investment 

• Identifies specific vulnerabilities or consequences 

that will not be mitigated 

IV. Funding and Implementation Plan 

Question Criteria 

IV.A. Investment Funding Plan • Requests funding for this Investment only 

• Reasonably links grant sources and activities 

outlined in this Investment 

• Reasonably links allowable cost categories and 

activities outlined in this Investment 

• If applicable, identifies non-HSGP sources 

• Requests reasonable HSGP amount given the 

scope of the Investment 

IV.B. Identify potential challenges to the 

effective implementation of this 

Investment (e.g., stakeholder buy-in, 

sustainability, aggressive timelines). 

• Describes the necessary steps required for 

successful implementation 

• Describes potential implementation challenges 

• Explains why the identified implementation 

challenges are challenges to this Investment 

IV.C. Explain how the identified 

challenges will be addressed and 

mitigated. 

• Discusses each challenge with specific 

solutions/approaches 

• Discusses proactive measures 

• Discusses measures to mitigate challenges as they 

arise 

IV.D. Describe the management team, 

including roles and responsibilities, that 

will be accountable for the oversight and 

implementation of this Investment, and 

the overall management approach they 

will apply for the implementation of this 

Investment. 

• Links specific skill-sets to implementation and 

oversight of this Investment 

• Describes how the management roles and 

responsibilities will be assigned to the 

management team 

• Discusses organization and teamwork strategies to 

manage this Investment 
Appendix A 

A-4 

Question Criteria 

IV.E. Discuss funding resources beyond 

FY 2006 HSGP that have been identified 

and will be leveraged to support the 

implementation and sustainment of this 

Investment. 

• Identifies non-HSGP funding sources that will 

support the Investment 

• Discusses for what those other sources will be 

used 

• If no other funding sources are identified, explains 

why 

IV.F. Provide a high-level timeline, 

including milestones and dates, for the 

implementation of this Investment. 

Possible areas for inclusion are: 

stakeholder engagement, planning, major 

acquisitions/purchases, training, 

exercises, and process/policy updates. 

Space is provided for up to 10 

milestones, but not all 10 spaces may be 

necessary for the response. 

• Identifies only milestones that are critical to this 

Investment 

• Identifies milestones that are relevant only to this 

Investment, only to FY 2006 HSGP funds, and 

only to the 24-month award period 

• Keeps milestones to high-level 

• Includes major tasks and dates for all milestones. 

• Related Activities are relevant to this particular 

milestone 

IV.G. Describe the planned duration for 

this overall Investment. Discuss your 

long-term sustainability plans for the 

Investment after your FY 2006 HSGP 

funds have been expended, if applicable. 

• Gives an estimated total lifespan 

• If applicable, explains how this Investment will be 

funded after FY 2006 HSGP funds are expended 

• Addresses resources needs 

• Addresses critical governance needs 

• Lists critical milestones that occur after the FY 

2006 HSGP award period 
Appendix B 

B-1 

Office of Grants and Training 

FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program 

Application Review and Scoring Frequently Asked Questions

I. Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) Application 

Q. I.1: What should States include with their HSGP grant application? 

A. States will submit applications for FY 2006 HSGP funding through the online Grants 

Management System (GMS) at https://grants.ojp.usdoj.gov/. A complete HSGP 

application will include the State’s Program and Capability Enhancement Plan, a State 

Investment Justification, and one Investment Justification for each eligible Urban Area 

within the State. Each Investment Justification may contain up to 15 individual 

Investments. For information on eligible Urban Areas, see Office of Grants and Training 

(G&T) Bulletin No. 200, dated January 3, 2006. Applications should also include the SF424, DUNS number, and applicable Urban Area information. For further information on 

completing your grant application, please review the FY 2006 HSGP Grant Guidance and 

Application Kit. 

Q. I.2: What is the deadline for submitting FY 2006 HSGP applications? 

A. The deadline for submissions is March 2, 2006. No exceptions to the submission 

deadline will be made. 

Q. I.3: Can agencies other than the State Administrative Agency (SAA) apply for funding 

under the HSGP? 

A. The Governor of each State has designated one SAA, which has sole authority within the 

State to apply for and administer HSGP funds. The FY 2006 HSGP integrates the State 

Homeland Security Program (SHSP), Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI), Law 

Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), Metropolitan Medical Response 

System (MMRS), and Citizen Corps Program (CCP) into a single grant program. 

While only SAAs are eligible to apply for HSGP funds, SAAs should collaborate with 

the appropriate State and local stakeholders (as identified in both the FY 2006 HSGP 

guidance and the Program and Capability Review Guidebook) to develop their 

Enhancement Plan and Investment Justifications. In addition, SAAs will be responsible 

for submitting Investment Justifications on behalf of eligible Urban Areas for UASI 

funding. 

II. Program and Capability Review Enhancement Plan 

Q. II.1: How does the Enhancement Plan relate to and support the FY 2006 HSGP 

application process? 

A. The Enhancement Plan will help States identify strengths and weaknesses within their 

homeland security programs and capabilities, prioritize focus areas, and develop highlevel Initiatives to address the most critical needs. The Enhancement Plan is an 
Appendix B 

B-2 

enterprise-wide program management plan that describes how the State intends to 

address critical needs both within and across regions. In addition, the Enhancement Plan 

is the foundation for building an Investment Justification to request funding through the 

FY 2006 HSGP. States will determine what areas from the Enhancement Plan they wish 

to use FY 2006 HSGP funding to address, and then create an Investment Justification for 

that request. States are required to submit their Enhancement Plan as part of their FY 

2006 HSGP application. 

Q. II.2: What is the difference between an Investment (Investment Justification) and an 

Initiative (Enhancement Plan)? 

A. Initiatives are defined as the Statewide, cross-jurisdictional aggregation of related 

projects geared towards achieving a common State homeland security goal/objective, 

National Priority, and/or Target Capability. Initiatives will be developed as part of the 

Program and Capability Review process and will identify the means by which States (and 

regions/jurisdictions within that State) will address or maintain strengths or weaknesses. 

Initiatives will comprise the Enhancement Plan, which is intended to be a multi-year, 

multi-jurisdictional, multi-disciplinary, long term management plan that will leverage a 

variety of funding sources and resources. 

An Investment is the application of FY 2006 HSGP funding towards the achievement of 

one or more Initiatives identified in a State Program and Capability Enhancement Plan. 

Investments can support all or part of an Initiative, but must specifically describe how FY 

2006 HSGP funds will be utilized in the 24-month grant cycle. 

Q. II.3: How is the Enhancement Plan related to the Investment Justification review and 

scoring process? Will the Enhancement Plan be scored? 

A. The Investments proposed by States and Urban Areas in their Investment Justifications 

must relate back to an Initiative from the State’s Enhancement Plan. The Enhancement 

Plan is a required component of the FY 2006 HSGP application. While the Enhancement 

Plans submitted by the States will not be scored, they will be used by the peer reviewers 

to serve as a contextual reference for the Investments proposed in the Investment 

Justification. Peer reviewers will reference the Enhancement Plan during their review of 

the Investment Justifications to ensure that the proposed Investments align with the spirit 

and scope of the Initiatives outlined in the Enhancement Plan. 

Q. II.4: If a State or Urban Area references a multi-jurisdictional or multi-agency 

agreement (e.g., a Memorandum of Understanding/Agreement) in their Enhancement 

Plan or Investment Justification, should they include a copy with their grant 

application? 

A. States and Urban Areas should not include copies of agreements referenced in the 

Enhancement Plan or Investment Justification with their grant application, but should 

retain a copy of the document(s) on file for review by G&T Preparedness Officers upon 

request. 

Q. II.5: Do States have to use the template format provided for the Enhancement Plan and 

Initiatives, or can they develop their Enhancement Plan in their own format? 
Appendix B 

B-3 

A. States are strongly encouraged to utilize the template provided in order to complete their 

Enhancement Plan. However, they are not required to use the template since the 

Enhancement Plan is meant as a program management tool for the State. 

If a State develops its own format for the Enhancement Plan, it still must address the 

five questions in the Initiative Plan Template, but can add additional information as 

necessary. The State must also still complete and submit the Enhancement Plan Analysis 

Summary Sheet, and the Enhancement Plan Cover Sheet as part of the FY 2006 HSGP 

application. 

Q. II.6: Should Urban Areas develop and submit their own Enhancement Plans? 

A. Urban Areas should not complete separate Enhancement Plans; their needs should be 

addressed in the State’s Enhancement Plan. The Investment Justification is the only 

document Urban Areas should be submitting separate from the State, and their 

Investments must be tied back to the State’s Enhancement Plan. 

Q. II.7: As part of the Program and Capability Review and Enhancement Plan 

development, can a State exceed the recommended three to five additional priority 

capabilities identified in their homeland security strategies to include capabilities that 

are a priority for Urban Areas? 

A. The State may elect to address more than the recommended 3-5 additional priority 

capabilities. This supplemental analysis should be integrated into the overall program 

plan and approach included in the Enhancement Plan. 

III. Investment Justification 

Q. III.1: What is the Investment Justification and how does it support the FY 2006 grant 

application process? 

A. The Investment Justification will be the method by which States and Urban Areas 

formally request FY 2006 HSGP funding across three HSGP programs: SHSP, LETPP, 

and UASI. Additionally, States must use the Investment Justification to demonstrate 

their planned use of funds for MMRS and CCP. 

Through the Investment Justification, States and Urban Areas will describe specific 

funding and implementation approaches that will help achieve Initiatives outlined in the 

Program and Capability Enhancement Plan, which results from the Program and 

Capability Review. The targeted application of FY 2006 HSGP funding towards the 

achievement of an Initiative from the Enhancement Plan is called an Investment. States 

and Urban Areas will use the Investment Justification to request funding they wish to 

allocate to those areas from the Program and Capability Enhancement Plan they have 

identified as priorities in the near-term. 

Investments will be evaluated based on the effectiveness of a State’s plan to address 

priorities it has outlined in the Enhancement Plan, thereby reducing overall risk. This 

approach creates incentives for States and Urban Areas to develop innovative solutions 
Appendix B 

B-4 

and effectively leverage HSGP funds in the management and implementation of their 

overall homeland security program. 

Q. III.2: Will any additional assistance be provided to States and Urban Areas in 

completing the FY 2006 HSGP application and Investment Justifications? 

A. DHS will not be offering technical assistance on completing the HSGP application, since 

the grants are competitive. Additionally, as described in Information Bulletin #199, G&T 

Preparedness Officers are not permitted to aid States with developing their Investment 

Justifications. 

Q. III.3: How should multi-State efforts be accounted for in the Investment Justification? 

A. If two or more States plan to request funding for a multi-State effort, each State will be 

responsible for documenting this effort in their Investment Justification, as well as the 

amount of requested funding that will be allocated to their State in this effort. 

If one State is requesting total funding for an Investment on behalf of other States, each 

State is still required to document this effort in their Investment Justification; however, 

only one State is responsible for requesting funding. States requesting the funding should 

clearly indicate how funds will be distributed amongst all States involved in the multiState effort. Participating States that are not requesting funds should not fund the 

Investment Funding Plan, but should explain the relationship with the other State that is 

requesting the funds related to the multi-State effort in their Investment Justification. 

Q. III.4: Is there a limit to the amount of HSGP funding States can request in their 

Investment Justifications? 

A. States and Urban Areas are not limited in the amount of funding they can request; 

however, each individual Investment, as well as the overall Investment Justification, will 

be reviewed and evaluated to ensure that funding requests are reasonable and justified. 

To that end, States and Urban Areas must ensure that the amount of funding requested 

directly links to the key activities and needs outlined in their Investment, and that 

estimated costs for these activities are realistic. In addition, States and Urban Areas 

should clearly indicate how other resources will be leveraged to support the proposed 

Investment. Furthermore, States will know the actual allocation amounts for MMRS and 

CCP before the application deadline. These exact figures should be reflected in the 

State’s Investment Justification. 

 

Q. III.5: Should Urban Areas submit a separate Investment Justification? 

A. Eligible Urban Areas are responsible for completing an Investment Justification that 

requests only UASI funds. The appropriate State SAA will submit the Urban Area’s 

Investment Justification as an attachment to the State’s HSGP grant application in GMS. 

States should not request UASI funds in their Investment Justifications on behalf of 

Urban Areas. If the State will retain and manage a portion of UASI funds, Urban Areas 

should indicate this in their Investment Justification. 

 
Appendix B 

B-5 

Q. III.6: Are the Urban Areas that are eligible for sustainment funding in FY 2006 

required to complete an Investment Justification? 

A. All 46 eligible Urban Areas (including those identified as “sustainment only” Urban 

Areas) must complete an Investment Justification to receive consideration for FY 2006 

UASI funding. 

Q. III.7: In the Investment Justification, how should the State account for the amount 

awarded for MMRS and CCP? Should a single Investment be completed for MMRS 

and CCP, or can those funds be accounted for within other Investments? 

A. States should account for the exact amount of MMRS and CCP funding awarded in their 

Investment Justifications, and use the Investment Justification to explain their plans for 

their awarded amounts under these two programs. States can account for their MMRS 

and CCP funding in a single Investment to represent the total of the MMRS and CCP 

funds; they may also spread them across several Investments. In all cases, the total 

MMRS and CCP funding for the entire Investment Justification must equal the allocation 

amounts communicated by G&T. 

IV. Application Scoring and Review 

Q. IV.1: How will the FY 2006 HSGP applications be reviewed and scored? 

A. Each Investment Justification will be reviewed and scored by a peer review panel, made 

up of State, Urban Area, and Federal representatives. The review and scoring will focus 

on how well the proposed solution in each Investment meets the identified need (outlined 

in the Enhancement Plan), and the completeness and comprehensiveness of the 

Investment Justification submission as a whole; these two together will constitute the 

need score. Additionally, each State and Urban Area will receive a risk score, derived 

from a comprehensive formula. Together, risk and need will determine how SHSP, 

LETPP and UASI grant funding is allocated. For SHSP and LETPP, each State and 

Territory will receive a base amount of funds with additional funds allocated based on the 

risk and need scores. There is no such base for UASI funding. 

Q. IV.2: How will peer reviewers be selected? How will peer reviewers be placed on 

panels? 

A. To ensure a fair and equitable peer review process, each State, Territory, and Urban Area 

has been asked to identify representatives who are able and eligible to participate in the 

peer review process. Representatives from Federal agencies will also participate in the 

panel review. Peer review panelists will be selected to create panels that are comprised 

of individuals from a variety of disciplines, levels of government, and regions. In 

addition, panelists will be selected based on their level of experience, familiarity with a 

broad range of homeland security issues, and familiarity with the HSGP. Careful 

consideration will be made in selecting and placing peer reviewers to avoid potential 

conflicts of interest. 
Appendix B 

B-6 

Q. IV.3: To what extent will the State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies be 

used during the review and scoring process? 

A. The Investment Justification asks States and Urban Areas to explain how each individual 

Investment relates to the high-level goals and objectives outlined in their State/Urban 

Area Homeland Security Strategies. While the linkages drawn between the Investment 

and the goals and objectives will be verified, the strategies themselves will not factor into 

the review and scoring process. 

V. Information Security 

Q. V.1: How will information security be addressed during the peer review process? 

A. All information received from the States and Urban Areas in the Investment Justifications 

will be treated as sensitive and For Official Use Only (FOUO). DHS staff, and all peer 

reviewers, must meet the requirements for handling sensitive and FOUO information and 

comply with the handling and use of this information as outlined in DHS Management 

Directive 11042.1: Safeguarding Sensitive but Unclassified (For Official Use Only) 

Information. Also, all peer reviewers will be required to sign a Non-Disclosure 

Agreement prior to viewing any information in the Investment Justifications. 

Q. V.2: Will Statewide Enhancement Plans and Investment Justifications be available to 

the public in whole or in part under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)?

A. In most instances, documentation submitted as part of an application or request for 

Federal funding must be made available to the public under FOIA guidelines. While the 

designation of information as For Official Use Only (FOUO) does not imply that the 

information is already exempt from disclosure under FOIA, requests under FOIA for 

FOUO information will be reviewed and processed in the same manner as any other 

FOIA request. However, there are exemptions to FOIA in cases where information 

released to the public may compromise the health or safety of individual citizens, or 

national security as a whole. To that end, much of the information contained within the 

Statewide Enhancement Plan, and most of the information contained within the State or 

Urban Area Investment Justification will have to be redacted, or eliminated, from any 

documentation provided to the public under FOIA. 

VI. Funding Allocation 

Q. VI.1: Which FY 2006 grant program allocations are based, in part, on risk and need? 

A. The grant programs that will be allocated based, at least in part, on risk and need are: 

SHSP, UASI, and LETPP. Each State and Territory will still receive a base allocation 

under SHSP and LETPP according to the USA PATRIOT Act formula, with the 

remainder of funds allocated based on risk and need. All UASI funding will be allocated 

based on risk and need. MMRS funding will continue to be distributed evenly among all 

MMRS jurisdictions; CCP will continue to be a formula-based program. 
Appendix B 

B-7 

Q. VI.2: How will funding for SHSP, UASI, and LETPP grants be allocated to States 

based on risk and need? 

A. Based on direction from Congress, each State and Territory will receive a base allocation 

under SHSP and LETPP according to the USA PATRIOT Act formula. The remainder 

of funds will be allocated based on: 1) an analysis of risk at the State and Urban Area 

level, and 2) the effectiveness of State and Urban Area grant proposals in addressing their 

identified homeland security needs. All UASI funding will be allocated based on risk 

and need. States and Urban Areas will address their homeland security needs in their 

Investment Justifications. 

VII. Post Award Procedures 

Q. VII.1: When will FY 2006 HSGP awards be made? How will States be notified of their 

allocated funds? 

DHS will evaluate the grant applications from March through May of 2006. G&T will 

announce final allocation totals for each State and Urban Area by May 31, 2006. The 

grant will be awarded to the respective SAA. The total FY 2006 HSGP award will be 

comprised of 5 separate allocations for each grant program within the FY 2006 HSGP. In 

addition to standard grant award materials, States and Urban Areas will receive 

comments from the peer review panels for review and consideration along with their 

grant awards. 

Q. VII.2: If an Investment is rated poorly, is a State or Urban Area precluded from 

applying HSGP funding to that Investment? 

A. When FY 2006 HSGP grants are awarded, States will receive one amount for each of the 

HSGP programs (SHSP, UASI, LETPP, MMRS, and CCP). States will then have 60 

days after the award date to advise G&T on how they intend to use the award. While 

States and Urban Areas will not be prohibited from using FY 2006 HSGP funds on 

poorly-rated Investments, a special condition will be placed on the grant award. States 

may not fund poorly-rated Investments without addressing these specific concerns 

identified through the peer review process, as well as sufficiently considering highlyrated Investments before considering poorly-rated Investments. States must work with 

their Preparedness Officer to address these concerns effectively in order to lift the special 

condition and apply funding to the Investment. 

Based on the award allocation, States and Urban Areas may fund all or part of their 

proposed Investments. However, States and Urban Areas can only fund activities and 

projects identified in their Investment Justification, and may not fund other activities not 

accounted for in their initial Investment Justification submission to G&T. 

Q. VII.3: What if a State or Urban Area, due to a disruptive event or significant change in 

circumstance, is compelled to discontinue funding to a particular Investment and/or 

reallocate funding to a new or different Investment at some point during the FY 2006 

HSGP grant cycle? 
Appendix B 

B-8 

A. In the event that a State or Urban Area is compelled to re-prioritize their funding 

allocation, the State or Urban Area should immediately contact its Preparedness Officer 

for further instructions. 

VIII. Resources 

Q. VIII.1: Where can I find related Information Bulletins, such as those identifying the 

Urban Areas eligible to receive FY 2006 UASI funding? 

A. All Information Bulletins published by G&T are available at: 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/bulletins.htm

Q. VIII.2: Who should States contact with additional HSGP-related questions? 

A. Further questions may be directed to your State’s Preparedness Officer or to the 

Centralized Scheduling and Information Desk (CSID) at askcsid@dhs.gov or 800-368-

6498.