	Scope and Methodology

GAO is currently conducting several reviews related to first responder  grants. Another effort is focused on intergovernmental efforts to manage fiscal  year 2002 and 2003 grants administered by the Office for Domestic  Preparedness (ODP) within the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The reports by  DHS OIG and the House Select Committee examined the distribution of  homeland security grant funding to states and local governments to  understand what obstacles—if any—prevent the expeditious flow of grant  funding from the federal government to state and local governments. The largest of these grants were the State Homeland  Security Grant Programs and the Urban Area Security Initiative grants. A key goal of first responder funding should be developing and  maintaining the capacity and ability of first responders to respond  effectively to and mitigate incidents that require the coordinated actions of  first responders. However, a major challenge in  administering first responder grants is balancing two goals: (1) minimizing  the time it takes to distribute grant funds to state and local first  responders and (2) ensuring appropriate planning and accountability for  effective use of the funds. There are a number of sequential steps common to the distribution of ODP  State Homeland Security Grants from ODP to the states and from the  states to local governments. Congress appropriates funds. 9. Generally, the DHS OIG report and the report of the House  Select Committee on Homeland Security found similar causes of delays in  getting funds to local governments and first responder agencies. Generally, neither the IG report nor the House Select  Committee report found that the delays were principally due to ODP’s  grant management procedures and processes. The DHS OIG found that in fiscal years 2002  and 2003, ODP reduced the time it took to make on-line grant application  guidance and applications available to states, process grant applications,  and award the grants to states after applications were submitted. For the three  states we examined, we found that the time between the enactment of the  appropriation and ODP’s award of the grant to these states declined from 8  months in fiscal year 2002 to 3 months for fiscal year 2003 State Homeland  Security Grant Program, Part I, and 2 months for fiscal year 2003 State  Homeland Security Grant Program, Part II. Most States Met Deadline for Subgranting Funds But Some Local Jurisdictions Were Not Prepared to Spend Funds

As reported by the DHS OIG, Congress adopted appropriation language for  the fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant, Part II, that required  states to transfer 80 percent of first responder grant funds to local  jurisdictions within 45 days of the funds being awarded by ODP. However, according to the  DHS OIG report, this action had a limited effect because most states met  the 45-day deadline by counting funds as transferred when the states  agreed to allocate a specific amount of the grant to a local jurisdiction,  even if the state had not determined how the funds would be spent or  when contracts for goods and services would be let. In the three states we examined,  we also found that states had certified they had allocated funds to local  jurisdictions within the required 45-day period. Various Local Legal and Procedural Requirements Took Time

According to the DHS OIG, state and local governments were sometimes  responsible for delaying the delivery of fiscal year 2002 grant funds to first  responders because various governing and political bodies within the  states and local jurisdictions had to approve and accept the grant funds. One city was notified on July 17, 2003  that grant funds were available for use, but the city council did not vote to  accept the funds until November 7, 2003. Both the DHS OIG report and House Select Committee report noted that  state and local procurements have, in some cases, been affected by delays  resulting from specific procurement requirements. Some states purchase  equipment centrally for all jurisdictions, while others sub-grant funds to  local jurisdictions that make their own purchases.
Why GAO Did This Study

The terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, highlighted the critical role first responders play at the state and local level when a disaster or emergency strikes. In fiscal years 2002 and 2003, Congress appropriated approximately $13.9 billion for domestic preparedness. A large portion of these funds were for the nation's first responders to enhance their ability to address future emergencies, including potential terrorist attacks. These funds are primarily to assist with planning, equipment purchases, training and exercises, and administrative costs. They are available to first responders mainly through the State Homeland Security Grant Programs and Urban Area Security Initiative grants. Both programs are administered through the Department of Homeland Security's Office for Domestic Preparedness. In this testimony, GAO addressed the need to balance expeditious distribution of first responder funds to states and localities with accountability for effective use of those funds and summarized major findings related to funding distribution delays and delays involving funds received by local governments, as presented in reports issued by the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security. The testimony incorporated supporting evidence on first-responder funding issues based on ongoing GAO work in selected states.

What GAO Found

The reports of the Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the House Select Committee on Homeland Security examined the distribution of funds to states and localities. Both reports found that although there have been delays in getting federal first-responder funds to local governments and first-responder agencies, the grant management requirements, procedures, and processes of the Office for Domestic Preparedness (ODP) were not the principal cause. According to the OIG's report, in fiscal years 2002 and 2003, ODP reduced the time required to provide on-line grant application guidance to states, process grant applications, and make grant awards. For example, for fiscal year 2002 grants, it took 292 days, on average, from the time the grant legislation was enacted to the awarding of grants to states. For fiscal year 2003 grants, the total cycle was reduced to 77 days, on average. According to the reports, most states met deadlines for subgranting first-responder funds to local jurisdictions. The fiscal year 2003 State Homeland Security Grant Programs and Urban Area Security Initiative required states to transfer 80 percent of first-responder grant funds to local jurisdictions within 45 days of the funds being awarded by ODP. Most states met that deadline by counting funds as transferred when states agreed to allocate a specific amount of the grant to a local jurisdiction, the OIG's report found. The House Select Committee staff concurred. And in the three states GAO examined, states certified they had allocated funds to local jurisdictions within the 45-day period. Delays in allocating grant funds to first responder agencies are frequently due to local legal and procedural requirements, the OIG's report found. State and local governments sometimes delayed delivery of fiscal year 2002 grant funds, for example, because governing and political bodies within the states and local jurisdictions had to approve and accept the grant funds. GAO's work indicated a similar finding. In one state GAO reviewed, roughly four months elapsed from the date the city was notified that grant funds were available to the date when the city council voted to accept the funds. Both reports GAO reviewed found that state and local procurement processes have, in some cases, been affected by delays resulting from specific procurement requirements. While some states purchase first-responder equipment centrally for all jurisdictions, in some instances, those purchases are made locally and procurement may be delayed by competitive bidding rules, among other things. It is important to note that those who manage homeland security grants to states and local governments must balance two sometimes competing goals: (1) getting funds to states and localities expeditiously and (2) assuring that there is appropriate planning and accountability for the effective use of the funds.