U.S. Officials Say All State Plans In, National Assessment Due in Months

By Joe Fiorill
Global Security Newswire

WASHINGTON — In what would be a major acceleration of a process experts call crucial to improving U.S. terrorism and WMD response, U.S. Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge told members of Congress yesterday that his department will produce a national assessment of the terrorist threat within three months (see GSN, Jan. 30).

Homeland Security Department officials had previously indicated that the assessment, which the department is required to conduct under the 2002 law that created it, would take three to five years.

As states and cities vie for control of post-Sept. 11, 2001, federal dollars for emergency responders, the national assessment is expected to allow the department’s Office for Domestic Preparedness to distribute its grants in a more targeted way. The current formula for the office’s major grant program is based on a combination of per-state minimums and population differences.

A central part of the national assessment process, the consolidation by the Office for Domestic Preparedness of statewide homeland security strategies and assessments, is progressing quickly, the head of the office said today at a state emergency management directors’ meeting.

Director Suzanne Mencer said all states have submitted their plans and that the office is reviewing them quickly, with “very few rejected outright.” Chris Rizzuto of the office added that of 56 plans from U.S. states and territories and the District of Columbia, 30 have already been either fully or conditionally approved.

Last month, Mencer’s office extended indefinitely the deadline for a crucial component of the assessment process, state verification of raw data provided by localities.

The verification, meant to streamline spending, could be a considerable task, according to state officials who have complained of receiving what amount to “wish lists” from local jurisdictions. Representative Chris Shays (R-Conn.) alluded to the problem at yesterday’s hearing, prompting Ridge to reply, “We need to pare the wish lists down to needs.”

In an interview today, though, Rizzuto said state plans being approved by the office do not consist of “wish lists.”

“I think ‘wish list’ is a very strong term. This is not a wish list,” Rizzuto said.

At a meeting slated to take place March 1-2 here, Office for Domestic Preparedness and state officials are to discuss the data validation process, which Rizzuto called “an option” for the states. “It would be useful for us,” he said in an interview today.

John Cohen, president of the Homeland Security Leadership Alliance’s board of advisers, called it crucial that validation be conducted systematically. Cohen, who advises state and local governments on homeland security concerns, said state and local officials see a need for consistency in assessments around the country.

“They recognize that it would be a somewhat flawed approach to have some people validate the information and not have others validate the information, because then, what you get is an inaccurate national picture,” Cohen said.

Mencer told state officials today that her office is “in the process of forming a group, a task force, to look at how to validate the information in these strategies.” Rizzuto said states will probably be given about two months after the March 1-2 meeting to conduct the verification.

It remains unclear whether the verification delay will slow the national threat assessment process itself. The assessment is being conducted not by Mencer’s office, but by the department’s Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection Directorate.

Cohen said that if next month’s data validation meeting is used to help make threat and vulnerability assessments more consistent around the country, the Homeland Security Department could make good on Ridge’s prediction of a national threat assessment within months. Cohen called it important that state and local information be a primary driver of the national assessment.

“I’m not really sure how ― if we don’t have a consistent methodology that’s used to collect and document threat, vulnerability and risk ― we can effectively determine, within our country, which communities are most at risk,” Cohen said.

“Any threat and vulnerability assessment that does not incorporate data from state and local governments would be fatally flawed,” he said.

Meanwhile, Rizzuto said, the office is hoping within a month to begin paying out grants, which in fiscal 2004 will not be contingent on the verification step or on any national threat assessment. “I think we’ve all kind of realized,” said Cohen, “that 2004 is a transition year. … What they should be doing is using 2004 as the year that they introduce and create this level of consistency.”

As the Office for Domestic Preparedness strives to dole out its grants in a more targeted manner, the funds in question are dwindling, and much money that has already been allocated is apparently failing to reach first responders.

The Bush administration last week submitted a fiscal 2005 budget proposal that would cut the office’s funding by about $600 million, to $3.6 billion, despite predictions last year by Ridge that the office’s budget would grow over the short term to more than $7 million annually.

In discussing the cut, both Ridge and House Select Committee on Homeland Security Chairman Christopher Cox (R-Calif.) have said billions of dollars already allocated remain unspent.

Mencer today cited two primary factors slowing distribution of the funds. The involvement of some state legislatures’ appropriations committees, she said, is slowing the process in certain states. In others states, she said, “It’s not set up very well to get the money out, because all of the people aren’t at the table.”

“We’re ready to distribute every penny,” Ridge told the House committee yesterday.

“The logjam, I believe, is there’s no single distribution mechanism between states and the local communities. … It varies from state to state, [but] the federal government is ready to cut the checks,” Ridge said.

Mencer said equipment purchases have up to now been the priority for grant spending but training and exercises are now becoming more important. 

“I see it kind of like a pendulum here,” Mencer said. She said that until now, state and local governments have been asking, “How many toys can we possibly buy?”

Back to top
About Newswire  |  Contact National Journal  |  Re-Use Guidelines © Copyright 2008 by National Journal Group, Inc. The material in this section is produced independently for NTI by National Journal Group, Inc. Any reproduction or retransmission, in whole or in part, is a violation of federal law and is strictly prohibited without the consent of the National Journal Group, Inc. All rights reserved.