A Look Over the HorizonFEMA/Grant Programs Directorate

U.S. Department of Homeland SecurityU.S. Department of Homeland Security

Project Based Applications and Reporting; GPD Review

2

• In FY 2014, FEMA GPD began collecting project level information in the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) application

• Previously HSGP applications focused on broad “investments”

• Project level detail must be linked to specific capability gaps

• Port Security Grant Program (PSGP) and the Transit Security Grant Program (TSGP) currently collect project-level data but not in a standardized format

• In FY2016 all preparedness programs will include project based elements in applications and reporting.

• Also, in the near future all processes (application and reporting) will be consolidated in ND Grants 3.0

Project Based Applications and Reporting

HSGP Info Collection and Analysis: Application Reporting

4

FY 2014 BSIR Reporting--Links projects to a primary Core Capability in order to track the amount of funds spent to sustain existing capabilities or address capability gaps identified in the SPR

--Requires the applicant to submit milestones which will be utilized post-award for reporting and tracking progress

--Allows Grantee to check off milestones as they are completed

--Gives Program Analyst ability to analyze progress being made towards each individual project

5

The FY14 HSGP FOA did not require grantees to include all projects in their application; the FY14 FOA DID require that all projects are reported in the first BSIR.

$946,000,000 SHSP and UASI funding

$813,438,048 in projects included in the applications (85% of funding represented)

• 664 Investments• 2664 projects

The project-based information in the December 2014 BSIR and accompanying analysis will help ensure that:

1) Fusion center projects are effective

2) All projects are addressing capability gaps

3) All projects are feasible.

GPD review of December 2014 BSIR

Fusion Centers

DHS Intelligence and Analysis

• will review all fusion center projects.

• The new BSIR requires the grantee to link every FC project to a DHS recognized FC.

What, Who and How?Project/Core Capability

Alignment

FEMA NPD National Preparedness Assessment Division

• Conducts analysis on linkage between projects in the application and capability gaps in SPR

• Project/Core Capability Alignment will address part of the effectiveness question

Feasibility

GPD HSGP branch

Will review projects in BSIR to determine if they are:

• both feasible and effective at reducing the risks for which the project was designed

• (and) able to be fully completed within the 3-year period of performance.  

3 part process creates “flagged” list of projects

December 2014 BSIR contains questions that force grantee to align every fusion center project.

1. Which Fusion Center(s) does this project support?

• Drop-down list of 78 DHS recognized fusion centers

2. Fusion Center Capability Assessment Alignment

• Select Critical Operational Capabilities (COC) or Enabling Capabilities (EC).

3. Align project to specific COC or EC attributes

• select all that apply from dropdown list

HOW? - Fusion Center AnalysisDHS I&A State and Local

Program Office will compare this data with the baseline assessment data and annual FC report.

DHS I&A will flag projects of concern and identify corrective actions.

How? - Capability Gap Analysis

# of projects Criteria

71 Funding a Capability POETE Element to “Build” a Capability When the POETE Element is already rated in the SPR as a 5.

98 Funding a Capability POETE Element Rated in the SPR as "N/A".

9 Providing Over 25% of an Investment to a Capability Identified in the SPR as Low Priority.

178 Total “flagged projects out of 2664

In Oct. 2014, NPAD and GPD established very low threshold criteria for analyzing the alignment of core capabilities and project funding.

NPAD will repeat this analysis and flag projects accordingly.

HSGP PAs will use a tool to analyze “feasibility” on 4 criteria

1. Project Status – as reported by grantee

2. Does the project description provide sufficient info?

3. Sufficient progressive milestones for entire POP

4. PA overall feasibility determination

• #2 and #3 are insufficient information problems; the PA can’t tell if its feasible

• #1 and #4 suggest that on the information provided, the project may not be completed within the POP

HOW? - Feasibility Analysis

HOW and WHEN?: Communicating with Grantees

Consolidated letter from the PA It will includes the concerns found

in all 3 analyses The grantee is required to address

the issue with each identified project in the next reporting period (Summer 2015); this most likely will entail providing more project information.

Three Year Period of Performance

12

3 Year POP Grantees continue to make progress on drawing down large

grant balances. From September 2012 through April 2015 (32 months) the balance of unspent grant funding decreased from $8.7 billion to $980 million (an 89% reduction).

Since August 2012, the Grant Programs Directorate has received 526 extension requests (of which 4 were withdrawn) 275 have been approved (52%), 163 have been partially denied (18%) 88 have been denied (30%)

De-obligated an estimated $717,030,819 due to denied extension requests

13

However…

Grant projects must be: both feasible and effective at reducing the risks for which

the project was designed; (and) able to be fully completed within the 3-year period of

performance. Three year POP under scrutiny for reversion to high grant

balances Grantees can continue to expect that GPD will have a

rigorous extension review process

14

Programmatic Monitoring

15

Monitoring GPD now uses First Line Review to assess risk and need for

advanced monitoring Prior Problems New Grantee/Change in grant staff Audit history Responsiveness on reporting Time since last visit Issues noted in financial monitoring

100% of preparedness grants undergo First Line Review Site visits based on degree of risk

16

Civil Rights/Civil Liberties/Privacy

17

Unmanned Aerial Systems

Presidential Memorandum to Executive Agencies: Promoting Economic Competitiveness While Safeguarding Privacy, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties in Domestic Use of Unmanned Aircraft Systems

“Require that State, local, tribal, and territorial government recipients of Federal grant funding for the purchase or use of UAS for their own operations have in place policies and procedures to safeguard individuals' privacy, civil rights, and civil liberties prior to expending such funds.”

18

Unmanned Aerial Systems

Expect to be required to submit copies of your CR/CL/Privacy policies when requesting permission to purchase

Moratorium on UAS request approval until issuance of Information Bulletin outlining approval requirements

19

White House Law Enforcement Equipment Working Group

20

LE Equipment Working Group

Outgrowth of perceived “militarization” of law enforcement agencies

Intended to achieve better coordination of requirements for equipment provided or funded by Federal agencies

DHS-FEMA and DOJ grant programs, DOD 1033 program Recommendations Pursuant to Executive Order13688 -

Federal Support for Local Law Enforcement Equipment Acquisition issued on May 18

21

Prohibited Equipment

Tracked Armored Vehicles Weaponized Aircraft, Vessels, and Vehicles Firearms and ammo of .50‐Caliber or Higher Grenade Launchers Bayonets Camouflage Uniforms – urban camo prohibited, woodland

and desert camo & solid color uniforms OK Camo uniforms are the only prohibited item previously

allowable under FEMA grant programs

22

Controlled Equipment – Currently Allowed under FEMA grants Manned Aircraft, Fixed Wing Manned Aircraft, Rotary Wing Unmanned Aerial Vehicles Armored Vehicles, Wheeled Tactical Vehicles, Wheeled Command and Control Vehicles Explosives and Pyrotechnics Breaching Apparatus (e.g. battering ram or similar entry

device)

23

Controlled Equipment – Not Allowed Under FEMA Grants Specialized Firearms and Ammunition Under .50‐Caliber

(excludes firearms and ammunition for service‐issued weapons)

Riot Batons (excluding service‐issued telescopic or fixed‐length straight batons)

Riot Helmets Riot Shields

24

Controls

Apply to law enforcement agencies and entities purchasing for LEAs

Prior approval from FEMA required: Certification of LEA policies, procedures, training and after

action reporting Detailed justification required Civilian governing body approval required Regional sharing arrangements – all partners must comply

Restrictions on transfer, sale, return and disposition of controlled equipment over and above current federal regulations (44 CFR Part 13 & 2 CFR Part 200)

25

Way Forward

Information Bulletin with immediate effect Incorporation into the FY 2016 NOFOs Revisions to AEL grant notes

26

27

Questions?