TOPICS
TOPICS
Governors protest changes to FEMA grant programs
A policy shift by the Homeland Security Department on how state and local governments can spend grants could put critical programs at risk of being stalled or killed, the National Governors Association said Monday.
But a department spokesman said Homeland Security is "undertaking a thorough review" of its grant efforts and downplayed tension with the nation's governors.
In a letter sent to Homeland Security and White House officials, the NGA complained that a recent policy change by the Federal Emergency Management Agency will prevent homeland security grants from being used to support current projects. The association believes the change will restrict the ability of state and local governments to sustain critical programs, and asked for the policy to be altered.
Without greater flexibility to use grant funds, "critical national capabilities that have been strengthened over the past several years, such as interoperable emergency communications, intelligence and information sharing, hazardous materials (HAZMAT) response and search and rescue, will be severely weakened or lost entirely," the letter said.
"For example, information technology projects that support interoperable communications systems or intelligence fusion centers are dependent upon the maintenance of software agreements, technology upgrades, and user fees throughout the life of the system," the letter added.
An NGA spokeswoman said the policy applies to using funding under the State Homeland Security Grant program and the Urban Area Security Initiative program -- two of the largest sources of national emergency preparedness grants.
She said the policy shift is also unfair because state and local governments are in the middle of their grant cycles. The states were notified of the policy shift Sept. 22, she said.
The department spokesman said Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano "appreciates the NGA letter and is committed to working with all of our partners for a more fully integrated and responsive process that recognizes the operational and fiscal needs of first responders."
COMMENTS
- Following the events of 9/11, hurricane Katrina, and a host of natural disasters issues, the Stakeholders and Users suggested changing the National Response Plan – both structural and substantive. Stakeholders advised Congress that the National Response Plan was bureaucratic, internally repetitive, insufficiently national in its focus, misunderstood by emergency managers, and missing collaborative operational capabilities. The National Response Framework (NRF) is a guide to how the Nation conducts all-hazards response. It is built upon scalable, flexible, and adaptable coordinating structures to align key roles and responsibilities across the Nation, linking all levels of government, nongovernmental organizations, and the private sector. Unprecedented, “The Framework” focuses it attention and spending (grants) priorities on “preparedness”, beginning at the local and state levels with emphasis on resource management (assets/volunteers & credentialing) and public-private collaboration. Its short and long term goals are “self-sufficiency” beginning at the local level. Its infancy begins with innovative/interoperable technologies with the ability to inventory and share predetermined public – private resources and people… weaning the current antiquated, costly, and time consuming systems of “spread sheets on hormones”, post-it-notes, faxes, phone trees, etc… JD Hamilton Posted November 2, 2009 8:56 PM
- I totally concur with William R. Cumming's remarks. It is incumbent upon jurisdictions when receiving a grant to initiate a program to properly budget follow-on operations and maintenance funding for the initiative. Reinaldo Luis Andujar Posted October 27, 2009 6:19 AM
- I have to wonder if this is a reaction to the headline news of some states abuses of these emergency FEMA funds. Since 2003, there has been a reoccurring if irregular spate of news on how individual states misappropriated these funds. While I DO believe that the local population can best address its own needs; I also know of our tendency to take advantage of federal largess. In department circles this is widely known as “use-or-lose”. We’ve all been there, particularly in the past 45 days. Fiscal year end always breeds a jump in extraneous funding projects. The balance of individual state needs determination versus insuring proper oversight of federal funds is always delicate. Is this a case of the states shooting themselves in the foot? How far should this administration go to insure these funds don’t end up low hanging fruit for the pork barrel projects of local legislatures? What do y’all think? Give them a free hand, a light touch at the wheel, or clamp down and make ‘em toe the line? Enquiring minds want to know… Tip off Posted October 21, 2009 10:07 AM
PROMO RIGHT: GBC
Advancing the business of government through analysis, insight and the sharing of best practices.
SPONSORED RESEARCH
Achieving a Greener Federal Government IBM
Federal Cybersecurity: Securing the Nation's Information IBM
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act: New Requirements for Tracking and Reporting Federal Workforce Data Kronos
Managing the Stimulus: A Candid Survey of Federal Program Managers Accenture and Microsoft
Improving Collaboration and Productivity in 21st Century Government: The Role of Communication for Government Executives Cisco
