developing a sector NIAP. In addition, each department and agency of the federal government was responsible for developing its own CIP plan for protecting its portion of the federal government's critical infrastructure. The federal department and agency plans were assimilated with the sector NIAPs to create one comprehensive National Infrastructure Assurance Plan. Additionally the national structure must ensure there is a national CIP program. This program includes responsibilities such as education and awareness, threat assessment and investigation, and research. The process includes assessments of: Protection - Can be defined as the state of being defended, safeguarded, or shielded from injury, loss, or destruction from natural or unnatural forces. Vulnerability – The quality of being susceptible to attack or injury, warranted or unwarranted, by accident or by design. Risk – The possibility or likelihood of being attacked or injured. Mitigation – The ability to alleviate, reduce, or moderate a vulnerability, thus reducing or eliminating risk. Controversy There have been public criticisms of the mechanisms and implementation of some security initiatives and grants, with claims they are being led by the same companies who can benefit, and that they are encouraging an unnecessary culture of fear. Commentators note that these initiatives started directly after the collapse of the Cold War, raising the concern that this was simply a diversion of the military-industrial complex away from a funding area which was shrinking and into a richer previously civilian arena. Grants have been distributed across the different states even though the perceived risk is not evenly spread, leading to accusations of pork barrel politics that directs money and jobs towards marginal voting areas. The Urban Areas Security Initiative grant program has been particularly controversial, with the 2006 infrastructure list covering 77,000 assets, including a popcorn factory and a hot dog stand. The 2007 criteria were reduced to 2,100 and now those facilities must make a much stronger case to become eligible for grants. While well-intentioned, some of the results have also been questioned regarding claims of poorly designed and intrusive security theater that distracts attention and money from more pressing issues or creates damaging side effects. An absence of comparative risk analysis and benefits tracking it has made it difficult to counter such allegations with authority. In order to better understand this, and ultimately direct effort more productively, a Risk Management and Analysis Office was recently created in the National Protection and Programs directorate