Politics of Homeland Security

One of the primary purposes of corporate blogs like this one is to generate discussion and provoke response. To date, in our short blog life we have not posed too many questions to our readers, but I do have some this morning.

A couple of reports were released earlier this year from DHS preparing to analyze spending and budgets created for the year. One report was updating the UASI list of vulnerable cities. For those unaware of the acronym, UASI stands for the “Urban Areas Security Initiative.” This program was designed to identify areas of need (based on infrastructure, population, port security, and a host of other factors) for federal grant monies issued by the “bank” of homeland security.

The report update replaces four cities in efforts to recognize the need for higher funding allotment to border security. On the surface, the cities being removed in favor of the new ones (Toledo, Baton Rouge, Louisville and Omaha replaced by El Paso, Tucson, Providence and Norfolk) are seemingly reflective of an effort to secure border and port cities. However, it does make me wonder: How much politicking is going on in Washington?

Here is an interesting metric for determining your vote for local politicians. “How much money can you win from the DHS lottery?”

Now I am being slightly humorous here, and yes, I do appreciate the need and encourage the programs for funding grants that can assist in offsetting costs for logistics, local police, and law enforcement. In today’s security environment it is sound theory to assume national security does include domestic policing, security, and intelligence gathering. The federal government, as is the policy promoted by the UASI analysis process, offers opportunities to apply for grants based on a selection process with a host of conditions and rules that are beginning to mirror IRS tax code. And as much as we all admire the IRS tax code, this entire process is smelling like pork to me.

Now I am not going to rip DHS for removing Baton Rouge, LA from the list even though it is also ranked as one of lowest in scoring for emergency communications (right down there with American Samoa), but I will point out yet again that DHS is a political organization and there are more justifications for grants than simply immediate need. Remember, also, this is a process to allow for cities to compete for funding not a guarantee that they will receive it.

QUESTIONS:
How is this process affecting your business, or is it? Does anyone prepare metrics for an influx of grant funds to your servicing area, and are you contacting facilities that could collect in order to generate new security-related business?