Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management

Crisis and Emergency Management

January 2004 Volume 5 - Number 4

Related Sites:

Homeland Security...

Summary of Funding Programs to First Responders

By Anupa Gandhi

There are over two million first responders in the United States, including firefighters, police, and emergency medical technicians. Initiatives to protect our nation’s first responders have been in place prior to September 11^th, but now more than ever there is reason to keep them safe (www.whitehouse.gov). President Bush’s 2003 Budget proposed to spend over 3 billion dollars in this effort. This enormous increase of federal resources, distributed in part via the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), emphasizes homeland security in the areas of planning, equipment, training, and exercise (www.dhs.gov). The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) funding and grant programs to the first responder community are the most visible.

The Department of Justice oversees police and law enforcement. Housed within the Department of Justice is the Office of Justice Programs (OJP), which administers the funding and grants to state and local agencies. The OJP offers resources through four main areas: the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP), Bureau of Justice Assistance (BJA), National Institute of Justice (NIJ), and the Office for Victims of Crime (OVC). Together, these four components offer assistance and support for technical needs, equipment, and training for terrorist incidents and mass casualty events (www.ojp.usdoj.gov).

In addition to the four components listed above is the OJP’s Office of State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support, established in 1998 to assist local communities with preparing for a terrorist event. This State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program allocates funds to the state governor, who then designates which local first responder agency will receive them (www.ojp.usdoj.gov).

With the recent emphasis of first responder initiatives being counterterrorism preparedness, the Department of Homeland Security awards are even more visible than the DOJ’s various funding and grants programs already in place. Fiscal Year 2003 reflects the State Homeland Security Grant Program, authorizing expenditures on first responder communities. This program provides funding for activities including acquiring emergency equipment, counterterrorism exercises, and enhancing performance at the state and local levels. This funding program necessitates that at least eighty percent must be awarded to local communities, and only three percent of the total first responder allocation may be used on administrative costs. Detailed funding allocation is listed in Appendix A. (www.ojp.usdoj.gov).

The United States Fire Administration is undoubtedly the most widely recognized first responder community. Their grants are distributed through FEMA, also within DHS. The foremost funding program supporting the USFA is the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program. The goals of the assistance program include increasing the effectiveness of operations, health and safety, and new equipment in urban, suburban, and rural fire departments. For fiscal year 2003, Congress appropriated 750 million dollars to implement the program, and as of November 21, 2003, 406 million dollars to over 5800 fire departments had been awarded, a drastic increase in comparison with the 96 million in 2001, the first year of the program (www.usfa.fema.gov).

In 2001, the USFA created and implemented the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) Program, after meeting the requirements of the Defense Authorization bill that amended the Federal Fire and Prevention Act of 1974. The program was to identify fire departments lacking the resources needed to protect the communities they serve, and to provide direct financial assistance to assuage these needs. FEMA was charged with establishing the criteria of the one-year grants, and outlined six categories of application: training, wellness and fitness, firefighting vehicles, firefighting equipment, personal protective equipment, and fire prevention. (www.dhs.gov)

The six categories authorized the following areas of expenditure: training funds were to purchase curricula, props and equipment for training exercises or attendance at training forums. Wellness and fitness included the funding of medical services to ensure firefighting personnel were physically able to carry out their duties. Firefighting vehicle grants were for the purchase or refurbishing of firefighting vehicles or apparatus. Firefighting equipment grants were for the acquiring of communications and monitoring systems, personal protective equipment included equipment required by OSHA, and lastly, fire prevention was for establishing and enhancing prevention programs. Fire departments could apply for funding in up to two of the six categories. A detailed list of FY 2001 AFG awards is available in Appendix B (www.dhs.gov).

In 2002, the USFA narrowed the application categories to four: fire operations and firefighter safety programs, fire prevention programs, emergency medical services program, and firefighting vehicles acquisition program. These new categories reflect the following changes: fire operations and safety programs combined the FY 2001 areas of training, equipment, wellness and fitness, and personal protective equipment. Fire departments could apply for funding in one of the four categories. As of January 27, 2003, 335 million dollars had been awarded in grants. A detailed list of FY 2002 AFG awards is available in Appendix C. (www.dhs.gov)

In 2003, the grant categories remained the same, and the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program is looked upon as having largely succeeded in supporting and increasing the effectiveness of local fire departments nationwide. However, there are areas of the program that can be improved, according to the first assessment of AFG recently completed by DHS Office of the Inspector General. The report identified various areas for improvement including, but not limited to the following: 1) greater detail in determining the financial need of fire departments, 2) requiring fire departments to declare other federal funding to avoid duplication of funds, 3) develop funding with a regional approach to improve operations between states, 4) improving monitoring of grant recipients, and 5) ways of assessing the long-term effects of the program.

Along with improvements needed within the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program, some can argue that improvements are necessary in the area first responder funding as a whole. House Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox, R-California, says that first responder spending must be re-evaluated and even restrained. As part of his proposed amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is the “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act.” This act would establish a new grant system for first responders, leaving pre-September 11^th programs in place. Chairman Cox maintains that the homeland security funding being distributed to first responders should be based on the terrorist threat level of the locality, rather than giving every state a fixed percentage of funding. The current method based on population, results in gross disproportions. For example, Wyoming, a state widely considered not to be at a high terrorist threat level, has the largest per capita spending from federal resources, $35.31, whereas New York and California, likely targets, receive $5.05 and $4.68 per person, respectively. The new system would be based on terrorist risk analysis, which in itself is a huge challenge both technically and politically. Although Cox agrees that it would not be easy to tell a community they do not deserve as much money as another, he maintains that first responders should not be faced with choosing between their homeland security responsibilities and their ongoing missions of natural disasters. (www.govexec.com)

Other lawmakers argue that there is a lack of leadership in first responder issues, in spite of having information on the problems that face them. During a joint hearing of the Government subcommittees on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, and on Technology, Information Policy, Intergovernmental Relations and the Census, lawmakers Adam Putnam, R-Florida, and William Macy, R-Missouri, claimed that there are too many involved at the federal level, and no one wanting to take responsibility. According to Putnam, “Homeland security grants have very few strings attached that require [interaction] of equipment across regions and states, or with the federal government.” (www.govexec.com)

Every day, first responders put their lives at risk to protect our local communities. They are at the frontlines of emergency incidents and as such, deserve the support of federal resources to strengthen their efforts. Funding for first responders has many initiatives already in place, such as the Assistance to Firefighters Grant program. Since September 11^th, many of these initiatives have been understandably geared towards terrorism and mass casualty preparedness. This emphasis on homeland security reflects the struggle that will continue to plague the future of emergency management; the pull between inevitable natural emergencies like hurricanes, tornadoes, and floods, and the imminent threat of terrorist attack. Terrorism is inarguably a large part of emergency management’s future, but first responders should not have their daily efforts at protecting civilians against natural emergencies compromised as a result. It can even be said that in order to be effective at dealing with terrorist attacks, first responders need to be able to maintain the all-hazards approach to their response efforts. Better risk analysis is imperative to ensure accurate fund allocations, and basing it on the terrorist threat level of each locality seems to be a practical one. However, this is a complex solution, and one that is not quickly implemented. The Department of Homeland Security is still young, and hopefully their funding efforts will continue to be successful, especially with better assessment and monitoring capabilities in place.

Executive Summary of Funding Programs to First Responders

By Anupa Gandhi

Federal funding to the law enforcement and fire sectors of the first responder community comes from the Department of Justice (DOJ), Office of Justice Programs (OJP) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) grants to FEMA and the United States Fire Administration (USFA).

The OJP offers resources through four main areas: the Office for Domestic Preparedness, Bureau of Justice Assistance, National Institute of Justice, and the Office for Victims of Crime. Together, these four components offer support for technical needs, equipment, and training for terrorist incidents (www.ojp.usdoj.gov). A fifth component, the State Domestic Preparedness Equipment Program allocates funds to the state governor (www.ojp.usdoj.gov).

The DHS awards to FEMA and USFA include one of the most widely recognized first responder funding resource: the Assistance to Firefighters Grant (AFG) program. This program seeks to increase the effectiveness of nationwide fire departments. In November 2003, 406 million dollars to over 5800 fire departments had been awarded, more than quadrupling the awards from 2001, the first year of the program (www.usfa.fema.gov).

The USFA created the AFG program as part of the Federal Fire and Prevention Act of 1974. The program was to identify fire departments lacking the resources needed to protect the communities they serve, and to provide financial assistance to meet these needs. The categories of the grants were as follow: training, wellness and fitness, vehicles, equipment, personal protective equipment, and prevention. Fire departments could apply for funding in two of these categories (www.dhs.gov). In 2002, the categories were condensed into four: operations and safety, prevention, emergency medical services, and vehicles acquisition, allowing fire departments to apply for funding in one of the four categories. The AFG program is considered successful, however there are areas of the program that can be improved, according to the first assessment of AFG completed by the DHS Office of the Inspector General. The report identified the need for: 1) greater detail in determining the financial need of fire departments, 2) requiring fire departments to declare other federal funding, and 3) develop funding with a regional approach.

Some may also argue that improvements are necessary in the area first responder funding as a whole. House Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox, R-Calif., says that first responder spending must be restrained. As part of his proposed amendment to the Homeland Security Act of 2002, is the establishment of a new grant system for first responders based on the terrorist threat level for each locality rather than giving every state a fixed percentage of funding. The current method based on population, results in gross disproportions; New York and California receive the least per capita spending from federal resources. This new system presents a huge challenge both technically and politically. (www.govexec.com)

Funding for first responders has many initiatives already in place. Since September 11^th, many of these initiatives have been geared towards terrorism preparedness. This emphasis on homeland security reflects the struggle that will continue to plague the future of emergency management: the pull between natural emergencies and terrorism preparedness. Terrorism is inarguably a large part of the country’s future, but first responders should not have their daily efforts to protect civilians against natural emergencies diminished in the face of it. Better risk analysis is imperative to ensure accurate fund allocations, and basing it on the terrorist threat level of each locality seems to be a practical one. However, this is a complex solution, and one that is not quickly implemented. The Department of Homeland Security is still young, and hopefully their funding efforts will continue to be successful, especially with better assessment and monitoring capabilities in place.