Executive Summary
September 29, 2003
One month after the September 11, 2001 attacks on the nation, The U.S. Conference of Mayors brought together more than 200 mayors, police and fire chiefs, emergency managers and public health officials in a summit meeting to draft a sweeping "National Action Plan for Safety and Security in America's Cities." This Plan included a call for a block grant to provide federal funds directly to cities to help them meet the extraordinary costs of heightened security following the attacks — costs they were covering exclusively with local revenues. From that time until March 2003, when the federal appropriations bill enacted by Congress and the supplemental appropriation enacted the following month provided funding for several state and local homeland security programs, the mayors were engaged in unrelenting efforts to secure a mechanism that would get funding directly to local first responders without it being either diluted or delayed. The bills enacted did not include the direct funding sought, but did provide significant funding for first responders and timetables to be followed by the Department of Homeland Security and the states in their distribution of the funds.
thout it being either diluted or delayed. The bills enacted did not include the direct funding sought, but did provide significant funding for first responders and timetables to be followed by the Department of Homeland Security and the states in their distribution of the funds.
Because of the importance to cities of the federal homeland security funding, The U.S. Conference of Mayors, meeting mid-June in Denver, announced that it would be monitoring the federal plan for the distribution of these funds — a plan which relies largely on the states to distribute the funds to localities. Conference leaders determined that the foundation for the monitoring initiative would be a survey of the nation's principal cities on 1) the Fiscal Year 2003 federal funding they are receiving or expect to receive through the states, 2) the adequacy of their involvement in the process used by their state to distribute this funding, and 3) the extent to which their top local security priorities are being addressed through this process.
Mayors' concerns about state administration of federal homeland security funding are grounded in many cities' past experience with their states in other areas of public service delivery. A particular concern was that states would not be providing the specific resources — including technology and equipment — that mayors know are most needed in their individual cities to meet their greatly increased security responsibilities. Another concern was that the federal homeland security funds would be distributed through a system in which state decision-makers traditionally view counties, rather than cities, as the focal points of emergency and disaster response.
The ten homeland security funding programs covered in the survey were those for which applications had been solicited from states and a few other entities by the federal government through late July — the time at which the survey was circulated among the cities. The survey requested information that described the situation in the cities as of August 1. Responses to the survey were obtained from 168 cities located in all 50 states, Puerto Rico, and the Northern Mariana Islands. Cities as small as University Heights (OH), population 14,146, and as large as New York City are included. Responses were submitted by mayors, police chiefs, fire chiefs, emergency management officials, and analysts familiar with homeland security programs and funding.
Federal First Responder/Critical Infrastructure Funding Ñ $1.5 Billion
As of August 1, 90 percent of the survey cities had not received this first responder/ critical infrastructure funding through their states.
37 percent of the cities had been notified that funds would be received, but 53 percent had neither received funds nor been notified that they would.
Officials in two-thirds of the cities (66 percent) reported that other jurisdictions in their area had received first responder/critical infrastructure funding that could contribute to their cities' security efforts. The largest group of these officials (85 percent) said this funding was going to their county; 77 percent said it was going to one or more area cities.
In 58 percent of the cities, officials said they had not been given an adequate opportunity to influence their states in regard to how these funds would be used in their cities; in 57 percent of the cities, officials said they had not been given an opportunity to influence the use of the funds in their areas.
Officials in 30 percent of the cities said the allowable uses of the funds will not address their top security priorities.
State Domestic Preparedness Funding Ñ $556 Million
As of August 1, 80 percent of the survey cities had not received this domestic preparedness funding through their states.
About half (51 percent) of the cities had been notified that funds would be received (and a few of these cities have indicated that they have since received their funding), but 29 percent had neither received funds nor been notified that they would.
Officials in nearly three-fourths of the cities (74 percent) reported that other jurisdictions in their area had received domestic preparedness funding that could contribute to their cities' security efforts. The largest group of these officials (89 percent) said this funding was going to their county; 79 percent said it was going to one or more area cities; 75 percent said it was going to one or more area counties.
In more than half (52 percent) of the cities, officials said they had not been given an adequate opportunity to influence their states in regard to how these funds would be used in their cities; in just under half of the cities (49 percent), officials said they had not been given an opportunity to influence the use of the funds in their areas.
Officials in 40 percent of the cities said the allowable uses of the funds will not address their top security priorities.
Urban Area Security Initiative for High Threat Areas Ñ $600 Million
Officials in more than one-third of the survey cities (36 percent) which are in, or are mutual aid partners with, the 30 urban areas receiving funding through this Initiative said they have not been involved in the state planning process for the use of the funds.
Among those involved in the planning process, 38 percent did not believe they had a satisfactory opportunity to influence how the funds will be used.
One-third of the cities (34 percent) do not believe that other local governments in their area will be able to use the funds they receive to address their top security priorities.
In 40 percent of the cities, officials do not expect to receive funds through the Initiative.
44 percent of the cities indicate that their state is exercising its option to keep a portion of this program's funds to complement state assets that assist urban areas.
Officials in one-fifth of the cities said they have gotten an indication that their city or area would receive less funding under other homeland security programs because they are receiving funds under the Urban Area Security Initiative.
Public Health Emergency Preparedness and Hospital Preparedness Ñ $1.37 Billion
Officials in nearly half the survey cities (48 percent) do not believe their city government or health department had an adequate opportunity to participate in their state's planning process for public health and hospital preparedness activities to be funded through this program.
The same number of officials do not believe their state's plan adequately reflects their priorities for use of these funds.
In 83 percent of the cities, officials anticipate that the health department serving their residents will be funded through this program; officials in 82 percent of the cities expect that one or more of their hospitals will receive funding.
Airport Law Enforcement Reimbursement
Among the survey cities which provide law enforcement assistance to an airport, 37 percent of the airport operators have not been reimbursed for additional law enforcement costs associated with security at airport checkpoints.
For those airports which have been reimbursed, 40 percent of the cities report that the airport operator has not provided this reimbursement to the city government.
Port Security Grant Program Ñ $245 Million
Officials in just over half the survey cities (52 percent) having a port that is receiving funding through this program said they were responsible for providing security or other services to that port.
Of these cities, 58 percent said they were not receiving funding through the program.
Mass Transit Security Grant Program Ñ $65 Million
Officials in well over half of the survey cities (54 percent) being served by one of the 20 "highest risk" transit systems funded through this program said they were responsible for providing security or other services to that system.
Among these cities, 69 percent said they were not receiving funding through this program.
Officials in 44 percent of the cities said their state was exercising its option to keep a portion of the program funds to complement state assets at transit sites.
Emergency Management Performance Grants Ñ $165 Million
As of August 1, nearly two-thirds of the survey cities (65 percent) have neither received emergency management funds from their states nor been notified that they will receive them.
Officials in 55 percent of the cities reported that other jurisdictions in their area have not received funding through this program that will contribute to their cities' security efforts.
Officials in two-thirds of the cities (67 percent) do not feel they were given an adequate opportunity to influence how the funds will be used in either their cities or their areas.
Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program Ñ $248,375 per State
As of August 1, 82 percent of the survey cities have neither received pre-disaster mitigation funds from their states nor been notified that they will receive them.
Officials in 62 percent of the cities reported that other jurisdictions in their area have not received funding through this program that will contribute to their cities' security efforts.
Officials in 69 percent of the cities do not feel they were given an adequate opportunity to influence how the funds will be used in either their cities or their areas.
Community Emergency Response Teams Ñ $19 Million
As of August 1, emergency managers and citizens in half of the survey cities were participating in a CERT Program, receiving 20 hours of training in disaster preparedness, basic disaster operations, fire safety, and light search and rescue.
City Involvement in State Planning Processes
Officials in 34 percent of the survey cities said their states had not involved them in the development of the statewide preparedness needs assessments required by the former federal Office for State and Local Domestic Preparedness Support in 2000.
Officials in 42 percent of the cities said they were not involved in the development of the statewide domestic preparedness strategies, also required by that agency.
37 percent of the cities do not believe their local interests were fairly represented in their states' development of the required needs assessments.
38 percent of the cities do not believe their local interests were fairly represented in their states' preparedness strategies.
In 44 percent of the cities, officials said their states had not requested an updated local needs assessment, as required in the July 1, 2003 guidance from the new Office for Domestic Preparedness.
Just under half of the cities (49 percent) said their states had not invited them to become involved in development of an updated homeland security strategy, as required in the new ODP guidance.
Based on recent years' experience in working with their states, about one-third of the survey cities (34 percent) expect minimal involvement, and seven percent expect no involvement at all, in their states' homeland security planning processes. Another 34 percent anticipate some involvement, and 24 percent expect substantial involvement.
|
