Department of Homeland Security
 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 


Requirements for Reporting Homeland Security Grant 


Program Achievements 


OIG-12-92 June 2012
 

 

May 31, 2012 

Ms. Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

Office of Inspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

245 Murray Drive, S.W. Building 410 

Washington, D.C. 20528 

Dear Ms. Richards: 

Foxx & Company performed an audit of Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

requirements for states to report progress in enhancing first responder capabilities to 

prevent, deter, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other 

emergencies. The audit was performed in accordance with our Task Order No. 

HSIGAQ-10-P-0003, dated September 29, 2010. This report presents the results of the 

audit and includes recommendations to improve the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency’s oversight of states’ management of the Homeland Security Grant Program’s 

State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. 

Our audit was conducted in accordance with applicable Government Auditing Standards, 

2007 revision. The audit was a performance audit as defined by Chapter 1 of the 

Standards. 

We appreciate the opportunity to have conducted this audit. Should you have any 

questions, or if we can be of any further assistance, please call me at (513) 639-8843. 

Sincerely, 

Foxx & Company 

Martin W. O’Neill 

Partner 


 
 OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Washington, DC 20528 / www.oig.dhs.gov 

June 27, 2012 

MEMORANDUM FOR:	 Elizabeth M. Harman 

Assistant Administrator 

Grant Programs Division 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

FROM:	 Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 

SUBJECT:	 The Federal Emergency Management !gency’s 

Requirements for Reporting Homeland Security Grant 

Program Achievements 

Attached for your action is our final report, The Federal Emergency Management 

!gency’s Requirements for Reporting Homeland Security Grant Program Achievements. 

We incorporated the formal comments from the Office of Policy and Program Analysis in 

the final report. 

The report contains four recommendations aimed at improving the Federal Emergency 

Management !gency’s oversight of states’ management of State Homeland Security 

Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. Your office concurred with three 

recommendations and partially concurred with one recommendation. As prescribed by 

the Department of Homeland Security Directive 077-1, Follow-Up and Resolutions for 

the Office of Inspector General Report Recommendations, within 90 days of the date of 

this memorandum, please provide our office with a written response that includes your 

(1) agreement or disagreement, (2) corrective action plan, and (3) target completion 

date for each recommendation. Also, please include responsible parties and any other 

supporting documentation necessary to inform us about the current status of the 

recommendation. Until your response is received and evaluated, the recommendations 

will be considered open and unresolved. 

Consistent with our responsibility under the Inspector General Act, we are providing 

copies of our report to appropriate congressional committees with oversight and 

appropriation responsibility over the Department of Homeland Security. We will post 

the report on our website for public dissemination. 

Please call me with any questions, or your staff may contact John E. McCoy II, 

Deputy Assistant Inspector General for Audits, at (202) 254-4100. 

Attachment 
 

� �

� �

� �

�

�

�� �

�

�

� � � � �

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

TableofContents

Executive�Summary�............................................................................................................ 1
 

Background��........................................................................................................................ 2
 

Results�of�Audit��.................................................................................................................. 4
 

Milestone�Reporting�From�One�Grant�Year�to�the�Next��........................................ 5�

Programmatic�Impact�of�Fund�Reallocations�Not�Reported�During�Periods�of��

Performance��..................................................................................................... 7�
 

Conclusion .............................................................................................................. 9�
 

Recommendations��............................................................................................... 10�
 

Management�Comments�and�Auditors’�Analysis��................................................ 10�
 

Appendixes

Appendix�A:����Objectives,�Scope,�and�Methodology............................................ 14�

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

Appendix�C:�����Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�Funds�Distributed�FY�2002��

�Through�FY�2011� ......................................................................... 19�
 

Appendix�D:����Schedule�of�Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�Funds�................. 20�
 

Appendix�E:�����Report�Distribution�....................................................................... 21�
 

Abbreviations

DHS� Department�of�Homeland�Security�

FEMA� Federal�Emergency�Management�Agency

FY� fiscal�year

GAO� Government�Accountability�Office�

GPD� Grant�Programs�Directorate�

HSGP� Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�

OIG� Office�of�Inspector�General

SHSP� State�Homeland�Security�Program�

UASI� Urban�Areas�Security�Initiative�

www.oig.dhs.gov OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

ExecutiveSummary

During�fiscal�years�2002�through�2011,�the�Federal�Emergency�Management�Agency�(FEMA)�

distributed�over�$18�billion�from�the�Homeland�Security�Grant�Program.��Public�Law�110w53,�

Implementing�Recommendations�of the�9/11�Commission�Act�of�2007,�requires�the�

Department�of�Homeland�Security,�Office�of�Inspector�General,�to�audit�individual�states’�

management�of�State�Homeland�Security�Program�and�Urban�Areas�Security�Initiative�

grants.��The�Department�of�Homeland�Security�Office�of�Inspector�General�contracted�with�

Foxx�&�Company�to�audit�State�Homeland�Security�Program�and�Urban�Areas�Security�

Initiatives�grants�awarded�for�fiscal�years�2006�through�2008�to�Nevada,�New�York,�

Tennessee,�and�Texas.��As�a�result�of�these�audits,�the�Office�of�Inspector�General�

contracted�with�Foxx�&�Company�to�evaluate�FEMA’s�requirements�for�states�to�report�

progress�in�enhancing�first�responder�capabilities�to�prevent,�deter,�respond�to,�and�recover�

from�terrorist�attacks,�major�disasters,�and�other�emergencies.��Congress�and�the�

Government�Accountability�Office�have�expressed�concerns�over�the�measurement�of�

progress�in�achieving�needed�capabilities�with�Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�funds.���

FEMA�did�not�have�a�system�in�place�to�determine�the�extent�that�Homeland�Security�Grant�

Program�funds�enhanced�the�states’�capabilities�to�prevent,�deter,�respond�to,�and�recover�

from�terrorist�attacks,�major�disasters,�and�other�emergencies�before�awarding�more�funds�

to�the�states.��FEMA�did�not�require�states�to�report�progress�in�achieving�milestones�as�part�

of�the�annual�application�process�for�Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�funds.��As�a�result,�

when�annual�grant�application�investment�justifications�for�individual�continuing�projects�

were�being�reviewed,�FEMA�did�not�know�if�prior�year�milestones�for�the�projects�had�been�

completed.��FEMA�also�did�not�know�the�amount�of�funding�required�to�achieve�needed�

preparedness�and�response�capabilities.���

Our�four�recommendations�call�for�FEMA�to�initiate�improvements�which,�when�

implemented,�should�help�strengthen�management,�performance,�and�oversight�of�ongoing�

individual�state�projects�funded�by�Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�funds.��FEMA�

concurred�with�three�recommendations�and�partially�concurred�with�one�recommendation.���

www.oig.dhs.gov 1 OIG-12-92 
 

������������������������������������������������������

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

Background

The�Department�of�Homeland�Security�(DHS),�FEMA,�awards�grants�through�the�

Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�(HSGP)�to�help�states�and�local�entities�enhance�

capabilities�to�prevent,�protect�against,�respond�to,�and�recover�from�terrorist�attacks,�

major�disasters,�and�other�emergencies.��Over�$18�billion�was�distributed�from�the�HSGP�

from�fiscal�years�(FY)�2002�through�2011�(see�appendix�C).

HSGP�grants�were�awarded�to�individual�states�based�upon�the�availability�of�program�

funds�and�needs�justified�in�state�annual�application�packages.��The�states�identified

their�needs�through�risk�and�vulnerability�assessments,�comparing�threats�to�existing�

capabilities.��National�priorities,�FEMA�guidance,�and�the�risk�and�vulnerability�

assessments�provided�the�basis�for�each�state’s�Program�and�Capability�Enhancement�

Plan.1

��This�plan�was�a�key�building�block�in�the�process�states�used�to�develop�

justifications�for�projects.2��The�Enhancement�Plan�included�statewwide�capability�goals�

and�objectives.�

States�are�faced�each�year�with�preparing�the�application�for�the�next�year’s�grant�while�

managing�multiple�years�of�grant�funds�already�received.��For�the�FY�2006�award,�the�

period�of�performance�for�all�HSGP�programs�was�24�months�from�the�date�of�award.��

The�period�of�performance�for�the�FY�2007�and�FY�2008�awards�was�36�months.��The�

funds�awarded�each�year�must�be�obligated�within�the�grant�program’s�designated�

period�of�performance.��Any�unobligated�funds�will�be�deobligated�at�the�end�of�the�

period�of�performance.��In�addition,�the�funds�awarded�each�year�must�be�separately�

accounted�for�and�not�cowmingled�with�previous�or�subsequent�year�awards.���

Table�1�depicts�the�overlapping�periods�of�performance�for�recent�grant�years�during

which�FEMA�awarded�new�grant�funds�to�the�States.�

1

�The�Program�and�Capability�Enhancement�Plan�was�included�in�the�FY�2006�and�FY�2007�applications�for�

HSGP�funds.��The�Enhancement�Plan�was�replaced�by�the�State�Preparedness�Report�for�FY�2008�

justifications,�and�incorporated�much�of�the�same�content�and�purpose�as�the�Enhancement�Plan.

2

�In�this�report,�“projects”�refers�to�the�activities�justified�by�the�states�in�annual�applications�for�

Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�funds.��Each�state�typically�prepares�investment�justifications�for�

several�projects�in�its�annual�application.����

www.oig.dhs.gov 2 OIG-12-92 
�����

���

� � � �

� � �

� � � �

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Table1:Periodsof Performance
 

GrantsFY2006throughFY2010 

FY�2006� FY�2007� FY�2008� FY�2009� FY�2010� FY�2011�

FY�2006�Award�

FY�2007�Award�

FY�2008�Award�

FY�2009�Award�

FY�2010�Award�

Active�Awards� 2*� 2� 2� 3� 3� 3**�

*�����Includes�the�second�year�for�the�FY�2005�award�

**���Includes�the�first�year�of�the�FY�2012�award�

AnnualAwardsProcess

The�process�for�awarding�HSGP�funds�to�individual�states�begins�with�FEMA�issuing�

guidance�to�the�states�for�the�preparation�of�applications�for�the�next�year’s�HSGP�grant�

funds.��Starting�in�FY�2006,�investment�justifications�for�individual�projects�were�

established�by�FEMA�as�the�method�for�states�to�annually�apply�for�HSGP�funds.��The�

states�were�required�to:�

•	 Assess�their�preparedness�needs�by�reviewing�existing�programs�and�capabilities;

and�

•	 Use�the�assessment�findings�to�develop�plans�and�formal�justifications�outlining�

major�initiatives�(capabilities)�for�which�the�states�would�seek�funding.��

Capability�improvements�identified�in�a�state’s�application�can�take�multiple�grants�and�

years�to�develop.��For�example,�the�achievement�of�statewwide,�interoperable�

communications�systems�for�first�responders�requires�several�years�of�planning,�

construction,�procurements,�training,�and�exercises.��Several�grant�awards,�with�

overlapping�periods�of�performance,�must�be�efficiently�and�effectively�managed�and

accounted�for�in�order�for�the�state�to�deploy�a�communication�system�with�the�desired�

interoperable�capabilities.��

InvestmentJustifications

FEMA�uses�the�investment�justifications�to�review�grant�applications�for�completeness,�

adherence�to�programmatic�guidelines,�feasibility,�and�how�well�the�proposed�solutions�

addressed�the�needs�identified�in�the�state’s�Enhancement�Plan.��FEMA’s�guidance�

recognizes�that�the�prioritized�project�justifications�and�the�associated�milestones�are�

www.oig.dhs.gov 3 	 OIG-12-92 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

important�tools�for�assessing�grant�performance�and�complying�with�national�

preparedness�reporting�requirements�

FEMA�guidance�requires�the�state’s�annual�application�to�include�investment�

justifications�for�up�to�15�projects.��Each�project�represented�a�needed�enhancement�to�

the�state’s�preparedness�and�response�posture.��The�total�for�all�projects�represented

the�amount�of�HSGP�funds�being�requested�by�the�state�for�the�next�year’s�grant�award.���

FEMA�required�the�states�to�identify�up�to�10�milestones�per�project�in�the�state’s�

annual�application.��The�milestones�included�for�each�project�must�be:�

•	 Critical�to�the�success�of�the�investment;�

•	 Discrete�to�the�investment;��

•	 Major�tasks�that�will�need�to�occur;�and�

•	 Completed�within�the�grant’s�period�of�performance.�

In�addition,�each�milestone�must�identify:�

•	 Planned�Start�Date:��The�earliest�action�to�be�taken�to�start�achieving�the�
 

milestone.�
 

•	 Completion�Date:��When�all�actions�related�to�the�milestone�will�be�completed.���

ResultsofAudit

FEMA�did�not�have�a�system�in�place�to�determine�if�the�HSGP�funds�enhanced�the�

states’�capabilities�to�prevent,�deter,�respond�to,�and�recover�from�terrorist�attacks,�

major�disasters,�and�other�emergencies�before�awarding�more�funds�to�the�states.�

FEMA�did�not�require�states�to�report�accomplishments�or�capability�enhancements�

achieved�from�HSGP�funds,�or�provide�progress�in�achieving�milestones�in�the�annual�

applications�for�HSGP�funds.��Furthermore,�FEMA�did�not�use�other�means�to�determine�

the�states’�progress�in�capability�enhancements�related�to�HSGP�funds.��When�

investment�justifications�for�individual�state�projects�were�being�reviewed�each�year�and�

HSGP�funds�were�being�awarded,�FEMA�did�not�have�information�showing�the�status�of�

prior�year�project�milestones�or�the�extent�of�additional�funding�required�to�complete�

projects�and�meet�milestones.��Tracking�accomplishments�and�milestones�are�critical�

elements�in�making�prudent�management�decisions�because�of�the�evolving,�dynamic�

changes�that�can�occur�between�years�or�during�a�grant’s�period�of�performance.���

www.oig.dhs.gov 4 	 OIG-12-92 
 

�� � �

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

Department of Homeland Security 

MilestoneReportingFromOneGrantYeartotheNext
 

FEMA�did�not�require�the�states�to�report�progress�in�achieving�milestones�from�

year�to�year�as�part�of�its�annual�project�justifications.��Milestones�for�a�state’s�

continuing�investment�projects,�included�in�the�next�year’s�application�package,�

were�not�comparable�to�those�in�the�previous�year’s�application�package.��The�

status�of�the�state’s�previous�year�milestones�was�also�not�included�in�the�

application�package.��As�a�result,�FEMA�could�not�determine�from�the�annual�

application�process�if�a�capability�had�been�achieved,�what�progress�had�been�

made,�or�how�much�additional�funding�was�needed�to�complete�individually�

justified�projects.���

Using�FY�2006�as�a�base,�we�compared�the�projects�in�the�state�application�

packages�for�four�states�for�FYs�2006,�2007,�and�2008�to�determine�the�number�

of�projects�that�continued�from�year�to�year.��Changes�in�the�project�names�

made�the�comparison�difficult.��We�concluded�that�most�projects�compared�

were�ongoing�for�several�years.���

•	 For�FY�2007,�40�of�the�49�projects�were�included�in�the�FY�2006�
 

application�packages.���
 

•	 For�FY�2008,�36�of�46�projects�were included�in�both�the�FY�2006�and�

2007�application�packages.�

We�also�reviewed�the�FY 2006�through�2008�investment�justifications,�included�

in�the�application�packages�for�the�four�states,�to�evaluate�the�extent�to�which�

progress�in�achieving�project�milestones�was�communicated�from�year�to�year.��

All�of�the�projects�reviewed�were�continuing�projects.��Our�review�focused�on�

large�investment�projects�continuing�from�year�to�year�for�each�state,�as shown�

in�table�2.���

Table2:ProjectsReviewed

Project� Nevada� New�York� Tennessee Texas�

Interoperable��Communications� X X X X

Improvised�Explosive�Device/�

Weapons�of�Mass�Destruction� X

Critical�Infrastructure�Program� X�

Intelligence/Information�Sharing�

and�Dissemination�–�Establishment�

of�a�Fusion�Center�

X� X�

www.oig.dhs.gov 5 	 OIG-12-92 
������������������������������������������������������

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

Our�review�showed�that�the�number�and�content�of�the�milestones�changed�

from�year�to year,�were�not�always�comparable,�or�were�not�able�to�be�tracked.��

The�four�states�did�not�discuss�in�the�annual�application�justifications�previous�

years’�milestone�achievements�or�if�the�start�and�end�dates�were�accomplished.��

We�attempted�to�compare�milestones�and�the�states’�achievement�for�more�

recent�years�(FYs�2009�and�2010)�and�found�that�that�the�same�condition�

existed,�and�we�were�unable�to�make�a�useful�comparison.���

State�officials�from�the�four�states�agreed�that�tracking�and�reporting�project�

milestone�achievements�is�important.��However,�milestones�in�the�annual�

application�investment�justifications�for�individual�projects�were�based�on�the�

statewlevel�estimated�funding�levels�when�their�annual�applications�were�

prepared.��State�officials�said�that�application�investment�justifications�and�

milestones�were�different�from�year�to�year�for�ongoing�projects�because�

investment�justification�guidance�and�national�priorities�change.���

FEMA�officials�acknowledged�that�communications�between�individual�states�

and�FEMA�do�not�include�the�status�or�achievements�of�the�state’s�capabilities�as�

identified�in�investment�justification�milestones.��The�officials�also�agreed�that�

status�information�at�this�level�was�not�included�in�other�documents,�such�as�the�

State�Preparedness�Reports,�which�report�higher�level�status�information�

concerning�the�state�preparedness.��Discussions�with�officials�who�have�served�

on�FEMA’s�Peer�Review3

�teams�agreed�that�FEMA’s�peer�review�process�only�

provided�for�the�teams�to�review�current�applications,�and�that�yearwtowyear�

comparisons�were�not�made�during�the�peer�review.���

Concern�over�the�measurement�of�progress�in�achieving�needed�capabilities�with�

Homeland�Security�Grant�Program�funds�has�been�expressed�by�the�Congress�

and�the�Government�Accountability�Office�(GAO).��On�October�27,�2009,�the�

House�Committee�on�Homeland�Security�held�a�hearing�on�FEMA�efforts�to�

measure�the�returnwonwinvestment�from�Homeland�Security�grants�and�the�

eligible�uses�of�preparedness�grants.���

During�this�hearing,�FEMA’s�Deputy�Administrator�for�National�Preparedness�said�

that�intuitively�FEMA�can�answer�the�question,�“How�prepared�are�we?”��The�

FEMA�Deputy�Administrator�said�that�FEMA�can�report�the�amount�and�type�of�

equipment�that�has�been�procured,�the�physical�security�improvements�that�

3

�FEMA�uses�state�officials�to serve�as�members�of�the annual�Peer�Review�Group.��The�Peer�Review�Group�

members�review�and�score�application�packages�received�from�the�states.��The�results�of�the�Peer�Review�

are�used�by�FEMA�officials�as�part�of�their�deliberations�of�award�amounts�to�the�individual�states.���

www.oig.dhs.gov 6 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

have�been�made,�and�the�planning�and�training�improvements�that�have�been�

achieved.��He�said,�however,�that�answering�intuitively�is�not�enough.��He�said�

that�neither�the�Grant�Programs�Directorate�(GPD),�or�it�predecessor�offices,�had�

asked�the�grantees�to�measure�outcomes�from�the�grants.��GPD�officials

concluded�in�the�GrantProgramAccomplishmentsReport,dated�May�2009,�that�

“To�better�manage�the�performance�of�preparedness�grant�programs�and�

maximize�their�capability�return�on�investment,�GPD�needs�to�have�access�to�

information�beyond�how�much�money�was�spent�and�what�items�were�

purchased.”�

On�March�17,�2011,�before�the�U.S.�Senate�Committee�on�Homeland�Security�

and�Governmental�Affairs,�the�GAO�Director�of�Homeland�Security�and�Justice�

Issues�testified�that�FEMA�has�made�limited�progress�in�assessing�national�

capabilities.��The�GAO�official�reiterated�an�April 2002�GAO�report�that�said�the�

need�to�define�measurable�national�preparedness�capabilities�is�a�wellw

established�and�recognized�issue.��Goals�and�performance�indicators�are�needed�

to�guide�the�nation’s�preparedness�efforts�and�help�to�objectively�assess�the�

results�of�Federal�investments.��The�GAO�official�also�noted�that�in�April�2009,�

GAO�recommended�that�FEMA�enhance�its�program�management�plan�with,�

among�other�things,�milestones�to�help�it�implement�its�capability�assessment�

efforts.���

ProgrammaticImpactofFundReallocationsNotReportedDuringPeriodsof

Performance

FEMA�did�not�require�the�states�to�report�the�programmatic�impact�of�changes�

in�expenditure�plans�or�the�use�of�awarded�grant�funds�during�a�grant’s�period�of�

performance.��FEMA’s�reporting�requirements�focused�on�financial�monitoring�of�

program�funds.��As�a�result,�FEMA�did�not�know�the�status�of the�States’�

programmatic�accomplishments�at�any�given�time�during�a�grant’s�period�of�

performance.�

Each�year,�the�states�included�individual�project�justifications�and�funding�plans�

as�part�of�their�application�for�grant�funds.��After�the�funds�were�awarded,�FEMA�

required�the�states�to�report�fund�reallocations�to�the�justified�projects.��The�

fund�reallocations�were�the�result�of�the�state�receiving�less�in�the�award�than�

was�included�in�the�state’s�application.��FEMA�also�required�the�states�to�report�

the�financial�status�of�grant�expenditures�during�the�grant’s�period�of�

performance.��However,�FEMA�did�not�require�the�states�to�report�the�

programmatic�impact�of�fund�reallocations�or�the�status�of�achieving�milestones�

www.oig.dhs.gov 7 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

identified�as part�of�the�individual�project�justifications.��As�a�result,�FEMA�was�

not�aware�of�the�status�of�the�state’s�achievement�of�capability�enhancements.���

The�states�prepared�their�investment�justifications�and�annual�application�

packages�for�FYs�2006�through�2008�without�knowing�what�funding�FEMA�would�

award�them.��In�consideration�of�national�goals�and�the�states’�needed�

capabilities,�the�states�identified�investment�projects�and�prepared�justifications�

as�if�there�would�be�no�funding�constraints.��In�FYs�2006�through�2008,�the�states�

were�awarded�considerably�less�than�was�requested�in�their�application�

packages.��As�a�result,�the�states�had�to�revise�their�expenditure�plans�for�the�

projects�after�their�original�application�had�been�submitted�to�FEMA.��

Appendix�D�compares�the�amounts�requested�with�the�amount�received�for�

FYs�2006�through�2008�for�the�four�states�sampled�in�our�audit.��Although�FEMA�

required�the�states�to�report�the�revised�financial�allocation�of�each�year’s

awarded�funds,�it�did�not�require�the�states�to�report�the�programmatic�impact�

of�the�reallocation.���

The�uncertainty�of�funding�levels�improved�in�FY�2009�when�FEMA�publicized�at�

application�time�that�a�state�could�anticipate�receiving�within�10�percent�of�the�

amount�that�was�received�in�FY�2008.��In�FY�2010,�FEMA�provided�the�states�with�

the�amount�that�would�be�awarded�before�the�application�process�began.��

However,�FEMA�could�not�guarantee�that�the�States�would�receive�the�exact�

level�of�funding�as�proposed.�

Although�these�changes�may�have�helped�to�mitigate�the�uncertainty�of�funding�

expectations,�it�did�not�eliminate�the�need�for�changes�to�expenditure�plans.��

Other�unpredictable�factors�can�affect�the�States’�capability�needs�and�priorities,�

such�as�new�leadership�(e.g.,�a�new�governor),�unexpected�disasters,�or�terrorist�

threats.��The�uncontrollable�events�cannot�be�predicted�when�the�state�is�

preparing�its�application�package�for�the�next�year’s�grant�funds.���

Each�year�the�states�adjusted�their�planned�use�of�the�funds�based�on�the�amount�

of�funds�received�and�priorities�at�that�point�in�time.��The�revised�expenditure�

plans�were�reported,�as�required�by�FEMA,�in�an�Initial�Strategy�Implementation�

Plan.��The�Initial�Strategy�Implementation�Plan�included�financial�information.��

However,�FEMA�did�not�require,�and�the�format�of�the�Initial�Strategy�

Implementation�Plan�did�not�allow,�states�to�report�the�programmatic�impact�of�

the�funding�changes.�

State�officials�we�interviewed�said,�and�FEMA�confirmed,�that�once�the�state’s�

original�investment�justifications�were�inserted�into�FEMA’s�electronic�reporting�

www.oig.dhs.gov 8 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

tool,�the�information�was�“frozen”�and�could�not�be�changed.��FEMA’s�system�

would�not�allow�a�state�to�change�the�milestones�or�other�nonwfinancial�

information�previously�entered�into�the�system�as�part�of�the�state’s�application�

package.���

We�also�noted�that�FEMA’s�required�Biannual�Strategy�Implementation�Reports�

(referred�to�as�progress�reports)�were�a�financial�monitoring�tool�that�only�

reported�the�state’s�progress�in�expending�each�year’s�awarded�grant�funds.��The�

Biannual�Reports�did�not�include�updates�on�milestone�status�or�programmatic�

achievements.��FEMA�officials�agreed�that�the�Biannual�Strategy�Implementation�

Report�is�primarily�a�financial�tracking�tool.

FEMA�officials�said�the�monitoring�reports�provide�visibility�over�the�progress�

made�by�the�state�in�achieving�desired�capabilities.��However,�state�officials�we�

visited�said�that�FEMA’s�monitoring�visits�do�not�include�reviewing�the�state’s�

progress�in�achieving�annually�identified�investment�project�milestones.���

Our�review�of�monitoring�reports�supported�that�the�reports�were�not�a�source�

for�tracking�milestone�progress.��We�also�noted�that�FEMA’s�monitoring�protocol�

for�FYs�2006�through�2008�grants�limited�state�monitoring�visits�to�once�every�

two�years.��With�monitoring�visits�scheduled�every�two�years,�and�the�

monitoring�reports�not�being�completed�for�several�months�following�the�visit,�

the�results�of�the�visits�were�not�timely�or�current�for�reviewing�project�activity�

accomplishments�when�annual�applications�for�grant�awards�were�being�

reviewed.

Conclusion

Because�of�insufficient�information�on�milestones�and�project�accomplishments,�

FEMA�has�been�annually�awarding�HSGP�funds�to�states�for�ongoing�projects�

without�knowing�the�accomplishments�from�prior�years’�funding�or�the�extent�to�

which�additional�funds�are�needed�to�achieve�desired�capabilities.��Tracking�the�

states’�milestones�and�accomplishments�for�HSGPwfunded�programs�is�an�

important�management�control�for�FEMA�to�ensure�that�Federal�funds�are�used�

for�their�intended�purpose�and�that�enhancements�in�preparedness�capabilities�

are�being�achieved.�

The�requirement�that�the�states’�annual�applications�for�grant�funds�include

milestones,�with�planned�start�and�completion�dates,�offers�an�opportunity�for�

FEMA�to�evaluate�the�returnwonwinvestment�for�annual�State�Homeland�Security�

Program�(SHSP)�and�Urban�Areas�Security�Initiative�(UASI)�grant�awards.��If�the�

www.oig.dhs.gov 9 OIG-12-92 
���

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

states�were�required�to�report�the�status�of�milestone�activities�and�capability�

enhancement�accomplishments�from�previous�years,�FEMA�would�have

information�necessary�to�provide�Congress�on�the�status�of�national�

preparedness�capability�enhancements.���

Recommendations

We�recommend�that�the�Assistant�Administrator,�Grant�Programs�Directorate:

Recommendation#1:

Require�the�states�to�provide�a�comparison�of�the�status�of�previous�year�

milestones�along�with�the�creation�of�new�milestones�for�each�ongoing�project�

included�in�subsequent�years’�grant�application�packages.��

Recommendation#2:

Require�the�states�to�report�each�year�what�has�been�achieved�and�what�

remains�to�be�done�for�each�ongoing�project�requiring�additional�funding�as�it�

relates�to�enhancing�the�state’s�preparedness�and�response�capability.

Recommendation#3:

Modify�FEMA’s�grant�reporting�system�and�require�states�to�report�adjustments�

in�project�milestones�when�changes�in�funding�levels�or�state�priorities�affect�

ongoing�project�activities�during�a�grant’s�period�of�performance.�

Recommendation#4:

Develop�policies�and�procedures�for�FEMA’s�monitoring�program�to�track�

milestone�progress�and�accomplishments�achieved�with�FEMA�grant�funds,�and�

include�monitoring�visits�more�frequently�than�once�every�two�years.�

ManagementCommentsandAuditors’Analysis

FEMA�concurred�with�Recommendation�1,�and�commented�that�FEMA�will�adjust�

the�FY�2013�Investment�Justification�to�include�information�on�whether�an�

investment�is�a�continuation�of�an�existing�investment�from�a�previous�fiscal�

year.��The�Investment�Justification�will�request�information�about�the�scope�and�

milestones�of�the�previous�investment�and�if�the�investment�is�meeting�its�stated�

goals�and�objectives.��FEMA�believes�that�this�addresses�the�recommendation�

www.oig.dhs.gov 10 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

and�requests�the�recommendation�be�resolved�and�open�pending�completion�of�

the�stated�corrective�actions.�

The�FEMA�response�addresses�the�intent�of�the�recommendation.��It�implies�but�

does�not�say�that�the�status�of�individual�project�milestones�will�be�requested.��If�

properly�implemented,�the�corrective�actions�proposed�by�FEMA�should�resolve�

the�condition�identified�in�the�audit.��However,�the�response�does�not�include�a�

date�for�when�the�proposed�action�will�be�completed.��The�recommendation�will�

be�considered�unresolved�until�a�target�completion�date�for�implementation�has�

been�established.�

FEMA�concurred�with�Recommendation�2�and�commented�that�states�and�

territories�submit�assessments�of�current�capability�and�documentation�of�

outstanding�capability�gaps�in�annual�State�Preparedness�Reports.��In�2011,�

FEMA�redesigned�the�State�Preparedness�Report�assessment�with�two�important�

considerations.��First,�the�report�customizes�each�assessment�to�the�capability�

targets�that�are�relevant�to�the�jurisdiction�in�question.��Second,�the�report�

measures�current�capability�levels�for�each�of�the�31�core�capabilities�in�terms�of�

planning,�organization,�equipment,�training,�and�exerciseswwthe�same�elements�

that�are�used�in�grant�program�reporting�through�the�Biannual�Strategy�

Implementation�Report.��Grantees�are�required�to�demonstrate�how�proposed�

projects�address�gaps�and�deficiencies�in�delivering�one�or�more�core�

capabilities.��FEMA�believes�that�this�addresses�the�recommendation�and�

requests�the�recommendation�be�resolved�and�closed.�

FEMA’s�response�addresses�the�intent�of�the�recommendation.��However,�the�

assessments�of�current�capability�and�outstanding�capability�gaps�provided�by�

the�states�in�annual�State�Preparedness�Reports�are�at�a�higher�strategic�level�

than�the�specific�milestones�identified�in�Investment�Justifications�that�are�

critical�to�the�success�of�individual�projects.��Consequently,�the�State�

Preparedness�Reports�will�not�provide�FEMA�an�assessment�of�what�has�been�

achieved�and�what�remains�to�be�done�for�individual�projects.��These�reports�

also�do�not�include�the�funding�that�will�be�required�to�achieve�the�capabilities�

justified�for�individual�projects.����

FEMA�also�references�Biannual�Strategy�Implementation�Reports�in�its�response�

to�the�draft�report.��Because�Biannual�Strategy�Implementation�Reports�only�

include�financial�and�not�performance�information,�these�reports�will�not�

provide�an�assessment�of�what�has�been�achieved�and�what�remains�to�be�done�

for�individual�Investment�Justification�projects.��Because�FEMA’s�response�does�

www.oig.dhs.gov 11 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

not�address�the�level�of�reporting�intended�by�recommendation�2,�the�

recommendation�will�remain�unresolved�pending�appropriate�action�by�FEMA.�

FEMA�concurred�with�Recommendation�3�and�commented�that�FEMA�is�

currently�developing�and�completing�the�NonwDisaster�Grants�System,�scheduled�

to�be�completed�in�FY�2014.��The�new�system�is�moving�towards�a�projectwbased�

application�and�reporting�system�that�will�allow�FEMA’s�Grant�Programs�

Directorate�to�collect,�track,�and�measure�grantees�on�a�project�level.��Moving�to�

a�projectwbased�approach�will�allow�FEMA�to�measure�individual�project�

completion.��In�supporting�this�effort,�the�updated�NonwDisaster�Grants�System�

will�allow�the�grantee�to�report�to�FEMA�adjustments�in�project�milestones�

based�on�changes�in�funding�levels�or�state�priorities.��As�part�of�it�performance�

measurement�working�group,�FEMA�is�developing�a�conceptual�framework�for�

how�to�incorporate�projectwbased�reporting�into�the�current�grant�process.��This�

group�is�scheduled�to�complete�its�work�by�October�1,�2012.��FEMA�believes�that�

this�addresses�the�recommendation�and�requests�the�recommendation�be�

resolved�and�open�pending�completion�of�the�stated�corrective�actions.�

The�stated�intent�of�FEMA’s�NonwDisaster�Grants�System�is�responsive�to�the�

condition�reported�from�the�audit.��If�properly�implemented,�the�corrective�

actions�proposed�by�FEMA�should�resolve�the�condition�identified�in�the�audit.��

However,�the�response�did�not�include�a�target�completion�date�for�the�

deployment�of�the�new�system.��The�recommendation�will�remain�unresolved�

until�a�target�completion�date�for�implementation�has�been�established.�

FEMA�partially�concurred�with�Recommendation�4,�and�agreed�that�a�more�

robust�monitoring�process�needs�to�be�developed.��However,�the�ability�to�

conduct�onwsite�monitor�of�grantees�more�frequently�than�once�every�two�years�

may�not�be�feasible�given�the�budgetary�constraints�facing�FEMA.��FEMA�said�

that�the�performance�measurement�working�group�has�been�leveraged�to�

develop�a�single�standardized�process�by�which�all�preparedness�grantees�can�be�

monitored.��This�includes�developing�a�common�definition�of monitoring,�as�well�

as,�a�unified�approach�to�monitoring.��Furthermore,�this�group�will�incorporate�

the�projectwbased�approach�to�monitoring�that�will�provide�FEMA�with�better�

information�on�grantee�progress�towards�meeting�the�goals�and�objectives�of�

their�grants.��By�October�1,�2012,�the�working�group�will�be�able�to�provide�this�

information�to�FEMA�leadership�for�review.��In�addition,�this�information�can�be�

used�as�the�basis�for�technical�requirements�for�the�NonwDisaster�Grants�System.��

FEMA�will�provide�a�corrective�action�plan�in�the�response�to�the�final�report�and�

request�the�recommendation�be�unresolved�and�open�pending�the�plan.

www.oig.dhs.gov 12 OIG-12-92 


OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

If�properly�implemented,�the�corrective�actions�proposed�by�FEMA�should�

resolve�the�condition�identified�in�the�audit.��However,�the�recommendation�will�

remain�unresolved�until�a�target�completion�date�for�implementation�has�been�

established.�

www.oig.dhs.gov 13 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixA

Objectives,Scope,andMethodology

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

established�by�the�HomelandSecurityActof2002�(Public�Law�107w296)�by�amendment�

to�the�InspectorGeneralActof1978.��This�is�one�of�a�series�of�audit,�inspection,�and�

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

efficiency,�and�effectiveness�within�the�Department.�

The�objective�of�this�audit�was�to�evaluate�FEMA’s�requirements�for�states�to�report�

progress�in�enhancing�first�responder�capabilities�to�prevent,�deter,�respond�to,�and�

recover�from�terrorist�attacks,�major�disasters,�and�other�emergencies.��The�audit�

originated�from�audits�of�SHSP�and�UASI�grants�awarded�to�four�states�for�FYs�2006�

through�2008.��The�four�states�were�Nevada,�New�York,�Tennessee,�and�Texas.��The�

objectives�of�the�state�audits�were�to�determine�whether�the�states�distributed�and�

spent�grant�funds�strategically,�effectively,�and�in�compliance�with�laws,�regulations,�and�

guidance.�

To�accomplish�the�objective�of�this�audit�of�reporting�requirements,�we:�

•	 Reviewed�workpaper�files�from�the�audits�of�Nevada,�New�York,�Tennessee,�and�

Texas;�

•	 Identified�information�obtained�in�those�audits�that�related�to�states’�reporting�

on�improvements�in�preparedness�capabilities�as�a�result�of�activities�funded�by�

the�grants;�

•	 Researched�available�databases�and�websites�to�identify�preparedness�capability�

enhancementwrelated�reports�and�Congressional�testimonies;�and���

•	 Extracted�and�evaluated�the�relevant�information�and�prepared�a�report�on�the�

progress�in�meeting�milestones�that�the�states�reported�to�FEMA�in�grant�

application�packages.�

We�conducted�this�performance�audit�between�October�2010�and�July�2011�pursuant�to�

the�InspectorGeneralActof1978,�as�amended,�and�according�to�generally�accepted�

government�auditing�standards.��Those�standards�require�that�we�plan�and�perform�the�

audit�to�obtain�sufficient,�appropriate�evidence�to�provide�a�reasonable�basis�for�our

findings�and�conclusions�based�upon�our�audit�objectives.��We�believe�that�the�evidence�

obtained�provides�a�reasonable�basis�for�our�findings�and�conclusions�based�upon�our�

audit�objectives.���

www.oig.dhs.gov 14 	 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

This�audit�did�not�include�a�review�of�costs�claimed�and�we�did�not�perform�a�financial�

audit�of�those�costs.��Foxx�&�Company�was�not�engaged�to�and�did�not�perform�a�

financial�statement�audit,�the�objective�of�which�would�be�to�express�an�opinion�on�

specified�elements,�accounts,�or�items�of�the�four�states.��Accordingly,�Foxx�&�Company�

was�neither�required�to�review,�nor�express�an�opinion�on,�the�costs�claimed�for�the�

grant�programs�included�in�the�scope�of�the�audit.��Had�Foxx�&�Company�been�required�

to�perform�additional�procedures,�or�conducted�an�audit�of�the�financial�statements�in�

accordance�with�generally�accepted�auditing�standards,�other�matters�might�have�come�

to�their�attention�that�would�have�been�reported.��This�report�relates�only�to�the�

programs�specified�and�does�not�extend�to�any�financial�statements�of�the�four�states.�

While�the�audit�was�being�performed�and�the�report�prepared�under�contract,�the�audit�

results�are�being�reported�by�the�DHS�Office�of�Inspector�General�to�appropriate�Federal�

Emergency�Management�Agency�officials.�

www.oig.dhs.gov 15 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixB

ManagementCommentstotheDraft

LoS. I)tllarlnlcnl of lIomtland !i«urily 

\\ uhml11on. IX:' 1O-l12 

~8"' ... ",,-- FEMA 

MEMORA:-.IDUM FOR: Anne L. Richards 

AssisHmt Inspector General for Audits 

Office of Inspector General 

FROM: I:i"David J. Kaufman vtti:..~k", () io.; 

Oin .. -ctor 

Office of Policy and Program Analysis 

SUBJECT: Comments to OIG Draft Report. FEUA·s Requiremefl(sjor Reporting 

ffome/lIlld Security GrafJ/ Program Achic\'cmCI/fS 

Thank you for thc opportunity to comment on the draft report. The findings in the n 'J>Ort .. will be used 

( 0 strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of how we execute and measurc our programs. We 

recognize the need to continue to improve thc process. includi ng addressing the recommendations 

raised in this report. Our responses to the r<..'Commendations are as follows: 

OIG Recommen dation #1: We rccommcnd that the Assistant Administrator. Grant Programs 

Directorate require the states to provide a comparison of the status of previous year milcstom 'S .. along 

with the creation of new milcstones for each ongoing program included in subsequent years' grant 

application packages .. 

FEi'IA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. 

To meet this recommendation FEMA will adjust the Fiscal Year (FY) 2013 Investment Justification 

(I) to include infoOlla!ion 011 whethcr (In investment is:1 continuation o f an existing invcstment 

from a previous FY. The IJ will r<"'qucst information about the scope and milcslon<.."S of the previous 

investment and if the investment is meeting Its stated goals and obJcctives. This will allow FE\ltA 

31ldJor peer revicwers to evaluate the IJ and the proposed investment within the context of previous 

investments fOT the same activity. 

FEMA beheves that this addresses the recommendation and requests the recommendation be 

resolved and open pending completion of the stated corrective actions 

OIG Re('omnu ndation #2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate require the stales to report each year what has been achieved and what remains to be 

done for each ongoing program requiring additional funding as It relates to enhancing the state's 

preparedness and response capability. 

FEMA Respono;e: FEMA concurs with the recommendation 

www.oig.dhs.gov 16 OIG-12-92 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixB

ManagementCommentstotheDraft

Effective application of grant funding will result in the decrease of risk- gaps in required 

capability-ovcr time. The assessment of currenl capability and documentation of outstanding 

capability gaps. therefore. becomes a critical component 10 understanding grant e/lcctivcncss. Statcs 

and territories submit Ihis infonl1ation through the State IJrcparcdness Report (SPR). AI! states and 

territories Ihal receive federal preparedness assistance arc required to submit an annual SPR 

l capability asscssment to the Adminisir'J.tor. In 201 1. FEMA redesigned the SPR assessment with 

two important considerations. First. the SPR customizes each assessment to the eap:lbility targets 

Ihat arc relevant to the jurisdiction in question: these cupability targets currently come directly from 

the TH IRA. Second. the SPR measures current capability levels for each orthc 3 1 core capabilities 

in Icnns of planning. orguni..:ution. equipment. tra ining. and exercises- the samc clements that are 

used in grant project rcporting through the Biannual Strategy Implementation Rcport (BSIR). This 

results in up to 155 individual measures with which to track residual capabi lity gaps and to indicate 

the degrce of progress over tlmc as states continue to invest grant funding. Grantees arc required to 

demonstrate how proposed projects addrcss gaps and dcficiencies in delivcring one or more eorc 

capabilities. 

FEMA believes that this addresses thc recommendation and requests the recommendation be 

resolved and elosed. 

O IG Rccommcnd ation #3: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator. Grant Programs 

Directorate modify FEMA's grant reporting system and require states to report adjustments in 

program milestones whcn changes in funding levels or state priorities affect ongoing program 

activities during a grant's period ofperfomlancc. 

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommendation. 

FEMA is currently developing and complcting thc build out oflhc Non-Disastcr (ND) Grant Systcm. 

The ND Grants System will be developed via a phased approach and is not scheduled to bc 

completed until Fiscal Year 2014. As part of the devclopmcnt process. FEMA is moving towards a 

project based application and reporting system that will allow GPD to collect. track. and measure 

grantees on a projcetlcvel. Moving to a project bas(.-d approach will allow FEMA to measure 

individual projcct completion. Ln supporting this effort, thc updall.-d ND Gmnts System will allow 

thc grantee to report to FE\1A adjustmcnts in program mil estones based on changes in funding 

levels or stale priorities. As part of it perfOnllanee measurement working group, FEMA is 

developing a conceptual framework for how to incorporate project based reporting into the CUTTem 

grant process. This group is scheduled 10 complete its work by October I. 2012 and will be able to 

provide the "lD Grants development team with function reqUirements Umt can be used incorporate 

project based reportmg to ND Grants. 

FEMA believes that this addresses the recommendation and requests the recommendalion be 

resolved and open pending completion oflhe stated corrective actions 

OIG Recommendation #4: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate develop poliCies and procedures for FEMA's monitoring program to track milestone 

I Pubhc Law 10'}·295, Post·Katrina Emergency \ltanagcment Refonn Act of2006. *652(c}. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 17 OIG-12-92 
OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixB

ManagementCommentstotheDraft

progress and accomplishments ach icved with FEMA grant funds. and includc monitoring visits more 

frequently than oncc cvery two ycars. 

FE"I A Response: FEMA panially concurs with this recommendation. 

FEMA agrees that a more robust monitoring process nct:ds to be dcveloped. howcver the ability to 

conduct on·site monitor of grantces morc frequently than once cvery two years may not be feasible 

given the budgetary constraints facing FEMA. As fo r developing a more robust monitoring process. 

FEMA is leveraging it perfom1ancc measurement work ing group to develop a single standardized 

process by which all preparedness grantees can be monitored. TIlis includes dcveloping a common 

definition of monitoring. as well as. a unifiL'd approach to monitoring. Fun hennorc. this group will 

incorvorate thc project·based approach to monitoring that will provide FEMA with better 

infonnation on grantee progrt,'ss towards meeting the goals and objcctivt.'S ofthe!r grants. By 

October I. 2012. the working group will be able 10 provide this infonnation to FEMA leadership to 

review. In addition. this infonnation can be ust.-d as the basis for technical req uirementS lor the ND 

Grants System. 

FEMA will provide a com.:etivc action plan in the response to the final report and request the 

rccommendation be unresolved and open pending the plan. 

Again, we thank you fo r the opportunity to review and comment on your findings conceming the 

Draft Report. F£MA"S Reqlliremellts/or Reportillg /lomeland Security Grant Program 

Achicl'cmclIIs. Please fccl free to contact Gina Norton of FEMA 's GAO/OIG Audit Liaison Oftice 

at 202·646·4287. with any questions or eoncems. 

www.oig.dhs.gov 18 OIG-12-92 


OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixC

HomelandSecurityGrantProgramFundsDistributedFY2002

ThroughFY2011

HomelandSecurityGrantProgramFundingDistribution
 

FiscalYears2002Through2011 

FiscalYear AnnualDistribution

2002� $315,700,000�

2003� $2,700,174,557�

2004� $2,924,200,994�

2005� $2,344,934,631�

2006� $1,670,921,920�

2007� $1,666,460,000�

2008� $1,698,959,000�

2009� $1,714,300,154�

2010� $1,786,359,956�

2011� $1,289,296,132�

TOTAL $18,111,307,344�

www.oig.dhs.gov 19 OIG-12-92 
�� � �

�� � �

�� �� �� �� �� ��

��

��

�� �� �� �� �� ��

�� � �

�� � �

�� �� �� �� �� ��

��

��

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixD

ScheduleofHomelandSecurityGrantProgramFunds

ScheduleofSHSPandUASIGrantAwards 

FiscalYears20062008 

SampledStates 

Sampled Fiscal RequestAwardDifferencePercent

StateYear (Millions)� Awarded

Nevada� 2006� $54.90�� $15.90�� $39.00�� 29%

2007� $31.30� $14.90� $16.40� 48%

2008� $44.70� $18.40� $26.30� 41%

New�York�� 2006� $870.70�� $155.60�� $715.10�� 18%

2007� $370.60�� $178.40�� $192.20�� 48%

2008� $349.20�� $230.80�� $118.40�� 66%

Tennessee� 2006� $105.20�� $9.00�� $96.20�� 9%�

2007� $33.70� $12.80� $20.90� 38%

2008� $63.50� $19.10� $44.40� 30%

Texas�� 2006� $205.80�� $61.10�� $144.70�� 30%

2007� $208.90�� $92.90�� $116.00�� 44%

2008� $375.90�� $137.30�� $238.60�� 37%

www.oig.dhs.gov 20 OIG-12-92 
 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

 Department of Homeland Security 

AppendixE

ReportDistribution

DepartmentofHomelandSecurity

Secretary�

Deputy�Secretary�

Chief�of�Staff

Deputy�Chief�of�Staff

General�Counsel�

Executive�Secretary�

Director,�GAO/OIG�Liaison�Office�

Assistant�Secretary�for�Office�of�Policy�

Assistant�Secretary�for�Office�of�Public�Affairs

Assistant�Secretary�for�Office�of�Legislative�Affairs�

FederalEmergencyManagementAgency

Administrator�

Assistant�Administrator,�Grant�Programs�Directorate�

Federal�Emergency�Management�Agency�Audit�Liaison�

Grant�Programs�Directorate�Audit�Liaison�

OfficeofManagementandBudget

Chief,�Homeland�Security�Branch���

DHS�OIG�Budget�Examiner

Congress

Congressional�Oversight�and�Appropriations�Committees,�as�appropriate�

www.oig.dhs.gov 21 OIG-12-92 
 

 

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

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

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

our OIG Office of Public Affairs at DHS-OIG.OfficePublicAffairs@dhs.gov. For 

additional information, visit our OIG website at www.oig.dhs.gov or follow us on Twitter 

@dhsoig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

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

or noncriminal misconduct relative to Department of Homeland Security programs and 

operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603 

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

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

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigation - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive SW, Building 410 

Washington, DC 20528 

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