Early in the establishment of the Urban Area Securities Initiative (UASI) funding was given to selected large cities. Then appropriately, DHS required in subsequent grants that future "urban area" grantees be comprise of core cities, core counties and then expanded to include additional, mostly adjacent counties.
In my personal experience this move to look at "regions" vs. just larger cities in themselves was a wonderful move in the right direction. I believe "regions" should reflect the socio-economic make-up of the people, businesses, and governments that relate to one another every day.
The recent selection of a smaller number of Urban Areas to receive catastrophic planning grant funds is another significant move in the right direction. If you check out how many, if not most homeland security funding has been used, it has been for equipment. In some cases there has been some planning accomplished, but normally not significantly and certainly not looking for catastrophic disaster planning. These new grant funds for planning can be used for both terrorism and natural disastersâ"another great move in the right direction.
Here's the hitch. Perhaps to encourage more "regionalization" UASIs have now been "directed?" (this may be too strong a word) to include more geographic areas (counties and cities) into their catastrophic planning grants. Will these new geographic areas have the same interests as the originally established regional entities? As you go further out, you start mixing urban and rural communities and this then can be a more challenging environment to work in, because the interests and issues are not always the same.
I guess time will tell the tale on if this was a good move or not. For now, my "antenna is up" and it will be an interesting process to watch unfold.
Top
In my personal experience this move to look at "regions" vs. just larger cities in themselves was a wonderful move in the right direction. I believe "regions" should reflect the socio-economic make-up of the people, businesses, and governments that relate to one another every day.
The recent selection of a smaller number of Urban Areas to receive catastrophic planning grant funds is another significant move in the right direction. If you check out how many, if not most homeland security funding has been used, it has been for equipment. In some cases there has been some planning accomplished, but normally not significantly and certainly not looking for catastrophic disaster planning. These new grant funds for planning can be used for both terrorism and natural disastersâ"another great move in the right direction.
Here's the hitch. Perhaps to encourage more "regionalization" UASIs have now been "directed?" (this may be too strong a word) to include more geographic areas (counties and cities) into their catastrophic planning grants. Will these new geographic areas have the same interests as the originally established regional entities? As you go further out, you start mixing urban and rural communities and this then can be a more challenging environment to work in, because the interests and issues are not always the same.
I guess time will tell the tale on if this was a good move or not. For now, my "antenna is up" and it will be an interesting process to watch unfold.
