DHS

I was on vacation last week in Grand Cayman, soaking up the sun and enjoying the freedom of "unplugging" myself from the constant connectivity that we all know and love/hate. Now I'm back, adjusting to the rainy and cold weather here in Maine and trying to catch up with all the news. I just saw that on May 19, the Department of Homeland Security announced its grant guidance and application kits for 2011 preparedness grants.

These 12 grant programs total $2.1 billion for states to prepare for terrorist attacks, disaster and other emergencies. These programs include State Homeland Security Program, Urban Areas Security Initiative, Transit Security Grant Program, Port Security Grant Program, Emergency Management Performance Grants, and more. All preparedness grant applications are due no later than June 20, 2011, except for Transit Security Grant Program applications, which are due no later than July 5, 2011.

However, fewer cities and states will be eligible for these grants and DHS has slashed the budget by $780 million from 2010 funding levels. Also, DHS has removed 30 cities from the list of urban centers receiving anti-terror funding, leaving only 31 high-threat urban areas eligible to receive grants this year, according to this AP report. Rep. Peter King, chair of the Homeland Security Committee, said in a statement that the cuts and allocations are a result of "this difficult fiscal climate."

Here's how the program worked out in 2010, according to the AP: 54 smaller cities were eligible to split almost $310 million in funding. Ten larger, higher-risk cities, like New York and Washington, vied for about $525 million. Thirty cities in 23 states and Washington will now share more than $662 million dollars. The lion's share, about $540 million, will be split by the 10 largest cities.

Obviously, there are several state leaders who are not happy with the DHS cuts:
Texas has been hit the hardest, according to this article: Austin, El Paso and San Antonio will lose a combined $14.5 million in Urban Areas Security Initiative grants, the largest dollar amount of any state.

Also, Sen. Joe Lieberman objects to the cut, which will halve Connecticut's security funds. "I understand that everyone must sacrifice to bring our federal deficit under control," Lieberman said in a statement. "But I do not support cutting the budget on the back of our national security, particularly since foreign and homegrown terrorists will continue to strike us at home."

Also included in the cities losing money are Providence, R.I., and Tucson, Ariz. Providence's city emergency management director, Peter Gaynor, told the AP he was perplexed by the decision, especially given intelligence culled from the raid in Pakistan earlier this month, calling the wholesale loss of funding "a complete shock."

According to this AP article, there are ten states left with no cities receiving funds after New Orleans, Honolulu and Indianapolis were cut.

Here's a little background about the program: The grant program was launched in 2003 in response to security threats in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Initially the money was available only to New York City, Washington, Los Angeles, Seattle, Chicago, San Francisco, and Houston. But since 2008 more than 60 cities have been awarded the risk-based grants.

The mounting national debt means the government has to make hard decisions about what programs to cut, but do you think these relatively drastic cuts to security funding are a result of fiscal responsibility or rising complacency? Or is this a way to direct limited funds to the cities that are at the highest risk? That's what New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg told the AP. Bloomberg says that with resources for the program dwindling, "it's even more important to stop thinly spreading the money around the country without taking risk into account." He says "targeted cities like New York" must be the priority. Might be easy for him to say, considering this region of New York will continue to receive about the same amount - $151.5 million.

Complaints about aviation security will never end. Whether it's pissed off pilots or alleged high-doses of radiation from screening devices (certainly worthy of double-checking, don't get me wrong), there's always some sort of drama unfolding in the aviation security space.

Many security professionals would tell you (and have told me, as a matter of fact) that enhanced security measures in airports was a knee-jerk reaction to the events of 9/11. Was it an overreaction? Yeah, probably. But 9/11 was an event that changed the risk landscape in our country forever and made us all realize our gaping vulnerabilities. There are ongoing accusations that aviation security is just "security theater," but I strongly disagree, as I suspect most security professionals would. No one would ever say the Transportation Security Administration is perfect or that it's capable of stopping every person with ill intent. That's an impossible task. The TSA has admittedly gone through some serious trial and error to make the system work, and fails regularly in a very public way. Heck, the agency was so embattled it took a year and five months just to find someone who was willing to run it.

I just read a very interesting announcement that there could be some HUGE security changes coming down the pike. The U.S. Travel Association just finished up a year-long analysis of ways to improve air travel security and screening procedures. In case you're not familiar with this organization, they're a 2,100-member organization that "leverages the collective strength of those who benefit from travel to grow their business beyond what they can do individually" (which would mean pretty much any company, right?).

Recommendations based on this study were released in a report titled “A Better Way: Building a World Class System for Aviation Security.” An important recommendation to Congress was the need to authorize TSA to implement a new, voluntary, government-run trusted traveler program that utilizes a risk-based approach to checkpoint screening, with the goal of refocusing resources on the highest risk passengers. I think that would be smart and a lot of businesses would support bringing back a trusted traveler program for frequent travelers.

Also, an extremely important measure was in regards to the procurement of technology. With the ongoing debacle of whole-body imaging, the panel suggested that the TSA should develop a comprehensive strategy for implementing necessary checkpoint technology capabilities and that Congress should provide multi-year funding plans for TSA to execute this strategy. This kinda seems like a no-brainer, but apparently it isn't.

I thought the mention of developing risk-management methods and tools, while a very vague statement, could be critical as well. To me, this means adopting more of an Israeli approach to security. Pretty much every aviation security expert I've ever spoken to has acknowledged that the Israeli's have superior security measures, but such a system just isn't feasible due to the amount of air travelers in the U.S., especially if the goal is to IMPROVE efficiency for passengers. I understand and agree with that, but think the TSA could stand to improve its behavior detection training and other methods to identify travelers who may pose a risk (it's not profiling people, so just stop saying it).

Anyway, just to put an exclamation point on the report, here's what former Department of Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who was also a chair of this panel had to say: “A strong aviation security screening system must feature several characteristics, including efficient methods of deterring and interdicting terrorists and criminals; tailored security based upon risk assessment; frequent, clear communication with the traveling public; and cost-effective use of resources.”

Will anything come from this report? Hard to say not knowing.