Just released today are a series of documents that speak to the future of homeland security grants. See the Washington State Emergency Management Association (WSEMA) web page for a quick listing.
The one I concentrated on is the FY 2013 National Preparedness Grant Program Vision Document When all of the changes envisioned in this document are executed it will be a tumultuous two years as people and organizations adapt to the changing strategy and processes that will be significantly different.
Here's a few things I picked up on:
- There had been a lot of talk about involving the FEMA Regions in the grant process. That will now happen, not so much from administering the grants (that could still come I guess), but with doing project reviews and establishing the Regional Threat Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment (THIRA). This is the first time that I've seen "region" defined for grant purposes as meaning the FEMA Regions.
- It says that FY 2012 (grants still to be announced), "...will prepare grantees for the transition to new requirements in FY 2013."
- They are establishing a two year period of performance with very limited extensions. I hate this one! Most of the issues with spending money is jumping through the flaming administrative hoops that exist. If they expect to see work done in two years from the time they announce the grant they better be ready to shovel the money out the door. It also means that we will be back to buying stuff instead of planning, since planning takes more time than the grant period will allow. It is said that you can have it "Good, Fast or Cheap--pick two." By choosing "Fast" as one of the criteria I think they will be sacrificing the quality of the products produced. Consultants will like this too since you won't be able to hire an individual, get them up to speed on a project and then execute the project in a timely manner. Just going through the consultant selection process will take up to 2-3 months before they can start work. Yikes! Basically, you will really have a one year performance period--maybe, in which to do the work.
- They used the words "cross-jurisdictional and readily deployable state and local assets" multiple times in the document. All of which sounds like "response resources" teams and equipment. Again, back to buying "stuff" that can be deployed. They did include the words "multipurpose" so that it is an all-hazards approach.
- I don't think they used the term "performance measurement" but it is found throughout the document. Core capabilities are the baseline, the THIRA adds to it and then if they used the word "accountability" once, they used it ten times in the document. Another term used was "effectiveness measures that facilitate accountability."
- Grants will be consolidated except for EMPG and Fire /Grants.
- They intend to use a "project based monitoring" in order to improve accountability.
- How much money you have turned back in the past will be taken into account as to how much you should get today.
- It looks like critical infrastructure/Key Resource Protection grants will be allocated based on a national review panel. This will impact transit and port security grants.
In summary--I can't wait to read how the FY 2012 grant funds will be allocated and administered!
