On Thursday, June 17 the Task Force on State and Local Homeland Security Funding released a report containing findings and recommendations. The task force found that state governments met their statutory deadlines in distributing homeland security grants to county and local governments. However, various impediments to rapid distribution of funds were found. The procurement processes of state and local governments, DHS reimbursement procedures and guidelines, a lack of national standards and urgent security needs were all found to have unintentionally delayed the distribution of funds to local and municipal governments. The task force recommended several steps to streamline and speed-up the grant distribution process, including the alteration of state and local procurement processes, the establishment of national standards for grant tracking and management and more effective use of DHS grants for securing short-tem and urgent threats. Throughout the report, the consensus nature of the findings and recommendations were stressed by the task force, which included governors, mayors, county and tribal officials. Placing blame on any single government entity or agency was specifically avoided as unproductive.

Responding to complaints that states had withheld or delayed distributing DHS grants to local and municipal governments, the task force examined the funding process of the DHS to state, county, municipal and tribal governments. Secretary Ridge instructed the task force to look at funding for first responders, catalog best practices and produce recommendations to streamline the distribution of funds. The distribution of $3.3 billion awarded by the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) between the fiscal years 2002 and 2003 was examined.

The report made the following findings:

• DHS and state governments fulfilled their requirement to make grant funds available to local governments within 45 days.
• The reimbursement requirements proscribed by the Cash Management Act of 1990 and DHS and Department of Treasury guidelines were found to be problematic to state and local governments.
• The need for the rapid acquisition of homeland security related goods and services conflicted at times with procurement procedures that stress deliberation.
• A lack of national standards governing the distribution, tracking and oversight of DHS grants added to the delays experienced.
• There are urgent and short-term security needs of a different nature than long-term planning and preparation.

In response to these finding, the report issued these recommendations:

• Congress should exempt DHS grants from the Cash Management Act of 1990 and allow funds to be provided up to 120 days prior to expenditures by state and local governments.
• State and local governments should alter procurement guidelines so that homeland security-related items may be acquired more rapidly. In many states, homeland security-related expenditures could be acquired under emergency authority, which streamlines procurement laws. In addition, state legislatures should work to compose an expedited authorization and appropriations process for homeland security expenditures.
• DHS should work to establish multi-state cooperative purchasing consortia to allow greater access by state and local governments to equipment and expand access the federal procurement systems such as the GSA schedule.
• State and local governments should be allowed to “piggy-back” on existing bulk purchasing agreements and should establish bulk purchasing procedures consistent with the State and Urban Area Homeland Security Strategies.
• DHS, in coordination with state and local governments, should establish national standards for grant funding and develop an automated grant tracking system. Minimum staffing recommendations for grant management personnel should be established.
• Congress should establish deadlines for obligating funds from one level of local government to another.
• The approved uses of SHSGP funds should be altered to improve response to short term security threats. DHS, other federal agencies, state and local governments should create a method for comprehensive risk assessment, allowing high-risk events and critical infrastructure to be identified.