A founder of the key homeland security grant program looks back at his handiwork and provides tips on grants and getting the most out of procurement dollars.
A few excerpts:
This year marks the fifth year of existence of DHS, as well as of the UASI program. To this day, the program undergoes changes and sometimes withering criticism concerning DHS’ application of the risk-based funding formula and funding decisions. As I look back now from the perspective of the private sector, I see that, while many UASI jurisdictions, in partnership with their states, do an excellent job of running their programs, there are always lessons learned and best practices to be conveyed.
The three core issues
To develop and run a productive UASI program, state and local leaders must focus on three main issues: establishing a governance and management structure; developing a homeland security strategy and implementation plan based on risk and need; and creating a process to develop, track and measure specific investments to enhance homeland security based upon that strategy and implementation plan.
Governance and management
We decided upon a system of checks and balances that would require the cities, counties and state agencies to work together in order to actually spend the grant money.
A key functional area that often gets overlooked by most UASI jurisdictions and state and local governments is procurement.
For some UASI jurisdictions, the inability to quickly, efficiently and effectively spend grant funds results in serious delays in building the capabilities needed to increase homeland security. Most often, the delays have little to do with federal or state government rules. Rather, they are the result of antiquated local procurement laws and regulations that require time consuming and bureaucratic procedures to be followed that often add little value to the process.
During my time at DHS, we didn’t require written and specific investment justifications to be submitted prior to awarding UASI funding (or any other funding) to states and urban areas. Beginning in 2005, DHS created this process and made it quasi-competitive, awarding funds based on an urban area’s terrorism risk profile and the quality of its investment justifications as scored by state and local peer review panels.
While I’ve taken issue with some of the specifics of how DHS manages this process, in total, I agree with its overall purpose of requiring significant pre-planning by states and urban areas consistent with their strategies and implementation plans before they get access to federal funds.
The lesson from all this: The investment justification process must be viewed as the culmination of a comprehensive, year-long, homeland security planning and implementation process and not simply as a 90-day event in order to ask for money from the federal government.
Most homeland security operators don’t want to even try to fully understand their procurement process. The rules are often a cumbersome morass built incongruently atop each other, with many rules written because someone did something foolish in the past that must be prohibited in the future. Despite the unpleasantries of procurement, designing an effective procurement strategy is essential to acquiring the products and services needed to protect the homeland.