{
  "id": "RL33241",
  "type": "CRS Report",
  "typeId": "REPORTS",
  "number": "RL33241",
  "active": false,
  "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
  "versions": [
    {
      "source": "EveryCRSReport.com",
      "id": 311617,
      "date": "2006-01-20",
      "retrieved": "2016-04-07T19:19:11.836029",
      "title": "FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution Methods: Issues for the 109th Congress",
      "summary": "Homeland security assistance to states and localities is available from three primary sources --\nthe State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention\nProgram (LETPP), and the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI). In FY2006, the Department of\nHomeland Security (DHS) intends to allocate grants from these programs as follows:\n    From the SHSGP and LETPP programs , each state, the District of\nColumbia\n(DC), and Puerto Rico is to receive a base amount equal to 0.75% of the total appropriations; each\nU.S. insular area, 0.25%. The balance is to be allocated among the states, DC, and U.S. insular areas\nbased on DHS's determination of risk and need.  \n    From the UASI program , each eligible urban area is to receive a grant based\non DHS's determination of risk and need.  \n In August 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11\nCommission) criticized the allocation of federal homeland security assistance and recommended that\nthe distribution not \"remain a program for general revenue sharing.\" The former members of the\n9/11 Commission, acting as private citizens conducting the 9/11 Discourse Project, gave Congress\nand DHS, in their final report dated December 5, 2005, a failing grade on the distribution of\nhomeland security funding.\n Given this criticism, DHS's development of a risk- and needs-based formula for SHSGP,\nLETPP, and UASI, and its determination to allocate a guaranteed base to states raise some policy\nquestions that Congress may wish to address through oversight of DHS's administration of FY2006\nHomeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) grants. Some of the questions include the following:\n   Should states and U.S. insular areas receive a guaranteed minimum or guaranteed base\nof SHSGP and LETPP funding?  \n   Should homeland security grants be distributed solely according to risk, or risk\nand need?   \n   Does delaying the announcement of state and urban-area allocations adversely\naffect their ability to plan and execute homeland security activities?  \n   Does DHS's intention to group urban areas into regions hamper the\ndevelopment of their homeland security planning?  \n This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions warrant.",
      "type": "CRS Report",
      "typeId": "REPORTS",
      "active": false,
      "formats": [
        {
          "format": "HTML",
          "encoding": "utf-8",
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/RL33241",
          "sha1": "fbf5589551534c7309271025b472af87a5ea3a17",
          "filename": "files/20060120_RL33241_fbf5589551534c7309271025b472af87a5ea3a17.html",
          "images": null
        },
        {
          "format": "PDF",
          "encoding": null,
          "url": "http://www.crs.gov/Reports/pdf/RL33241",
          "sha1": "26ebd7efd6ec7451688979b8398ece790c88add3",
          "filename": "files/20060120_RL33241_26ebd7efd6ec7451688979b8398ece790c88add3.pdf",
          "images": null
        }
      ],
      "topics": []
    }
  ],
  "topics": [
    "Appropriations",
    "Intelligence and National Security"
  ]
}