Please forward this newsletter to others who might find it informative!

Lessons Learned from the Homeland Security Grant Application Review Process

Contributed by Scott Porter

Over the last few years, I've had the opportunity to represent the OEMA on the state's Domestic Preparedness Working Group or DPWG. Among other things, this group has formed the core of the review committee for the DOJ First Responder grants and the DHS State Homeland Security grants.

The grant review process is a very challenging and draining activity. Although it started very modestly in FY-99 with fewer than 20 applicants seeking about $600,000 in grant funds, it has grown rapidly to last year's extraordinary level of just under 300 applicants seeking in excess of $30 million.

Based on my experience with the process, there are a number of items that I'd like to share with you to, hopefully, increase your understanding of the process and improve the content of future grant applications.

The process:

• The grant review committee consists of the DPWG and several association representatives. The majority of the DPWG members are state agency reps. They come from OSP, OEM, DHS, DEQ, OANG, OR-OSHA and others. The association reps have included OEMA, OSSA (sheriffs), OACP (police chiefs), OFCA (fire chiefs), and AOC or LOC (county or city). For the last two grant processes, the group has also included a communications expert to provide advice to the committee on applications requesting communications equipment.
• Every member of the review committee is provided a copy of each application to study prior to the decision-making proceedings. That's where all of the copies you submit go.
• Prior to the decision-making process, the review committee identifies its funding priorities for the particular grant programs. For example, first responder PPE has been the group's number one priority since the grant programs began. Also high on the group's priorities have been detection, decontamination, and communications equipment. The priorities have stayed pretty consistent over the years except for the addition of new categories of eligible equipment and the new considerations brought on by fund availability for local planning and training.
• All of the grant applications are organized for review in a specific order. The first sort separates the state agency applications from the county and other local agency applications. The second sort is just for the county and local applications and is done by county risk rating. Each county has a risk rating based on information submitted with its homeland security needs assessment. The higher the county's risk rating, the higher the county and its local agency applicants are in the pecking order for application review. The third sort is alphabetical by jurisdiction name within each county.
• The review committee receives general instructions from the grant administrator to include any funding priorities and guidelines from the Governor and/or the Governor's Security Council. The committee also receives guidelines from the State Interoperability Executive Council (SIEC) to assist it with decisions regarding communications equipment.
• Unless disqualified by the grant administrator, every application is reviewed by the committee.
• When reviewing and acting on the applications, some consideration is given to previous awards made to the jurisdiction and to awards given to neighboring jurisdictions. Consideration is also given to the jurisdiction's ability to maintain the equipment or supplies requested.

The application:

• Follow instructions. The rules for spacing, font size, margins, appendices, cover pages, etc. exist for a reason. Some of the rules are there to ensure a level playing field, but many of them are there to preserve the sanity of the grant administrator and the grant review committee.
• More isn't necessarily better.
• Be specific. Answer the questions and provide the information requested in the application package. It may be or may sound redundant at times, but it matters.
• Describe your agency in brief fashion….services provided, customers served, geographic location, etc. It's not currently required in the application package, but a short description is extremely helpful to the individual reviewers. Not everyone knows the name, location, and service area of every city, fire district, 911 center, and water district in the state.
• Don't make the application an "all or nothing" proposal; make it "all or something in between." Break a project or equipment request into smaller pieces and prioritize the pieces accordingly. Remember that "all or nothing" is just that and you're likely to get nothing if you request it that way. Similarly, recognize that a "wish list" or "laundry list" of equipment, even if accompanied by a good strategy, presents a challenge for the grant review panel and undermines the request. Don't expect the panel to fund everything on the list and don't leave it up to them to decide what's most important. State your priorities and organize your request appropriately.
• When describing your CBRNE strategy, it's not asking for your communications strategy, your cyberterrorism strategy, or your PPE strategy. It's asking for a description of the comprehensive CBRNE incident strategy adopted by your county. That strategy should include elements for response, cyberterrorism, facility protection, etc. Also, remember that it isn't sufficient to say that you have a task force or coordinating council and have been meeting for years and have developed a strategy. That's good, but without a description of the strategy, the coordination statement alone weakens support for everything that follows.
• When asking for technical equipment or seeking funds for a complex project (especially communications), be sure to provide a description that the review committee can understand. One of the best communications packages I recall contained an excellent description of the project, a map showing repeater locations, propagation charts showing how communications would be enhanced, and a detailed list of equipment for each site. One of the worst simply asked for a large amount of money to fund a specific phase of an ongoing upgrade project and had no additional details. If the panel (even with technical advice and assistance) can't figure out what you're trying to do or how it's going to enhance your CBRNE incident preparedness, then the request is certainly doomed.
• When asked to summarize the CBRNE resources available to your jurisdiction, it's talking about what you own AND what is available to you through mutual aid and from state and federal agencies operating in your area. A detailed list is not required, but failure to mention other resources known to exist in your area may undermine your request.
• When asked to list or summarize the CBRNE response resources that you've already acquired through grants or local purchase, remember that it's not asking for just one type of resource, it's asking for all the resources. Again, it need not be a detailed list, but it should at least summarize the equipment by categories. To illustrate, many applicants in the FY-04 process were only seeking comms equipment so they limited their description of previously acquired CBRNE resources to comms only. This approach helped create or add to a perception that the request had nothing to do with supporting a CBRRNE incident strategy.

The DPWG met in late September and began discussing the FY-05 grant application and review processes. Although very little is known about what the federal requirements will be or how much money will be provided for specific programs, the DPWG learned a lot from the FY-04 process and intends to make changes in FY-05 that will improve the application package and the application review process. The group is also considering changes that may significantly reduce the number of applications while improving local and regional planning and coordination and still allowing all eligible units of government to be included in the process.

If you have thoughts on how any of these elements of the overall grant process can be improved (including the grant application package, panel makeup, grant review process, funding priorities, etc.), please don't hesitate to shoot them my way.

Scott Porter, Director
Office of Consolidated Emergency Management
for Washington County
porterns@tvfr.com

Training Opportunities:

Exercise Design and Evaluation – Salem
October 25-29
Register: Send FEMA form 75-5 application to OEM via local emergency manager

ICS Finance – Ridgefield, WA
November 30 – December 1
Register: Deborah Needham, CRESA
(360) 737-1911, ext. 3962

Incident Command System (ICS) Series – Oregon City
(Introduction, Operations, Planning, Logistics, Command and EOC Integration)
Register: Send FEMA form 75-5 application to OEM via local emergency manager

Forums and Workshops:

Crisis Communications Forum – Hillsboro
November 4, 8:00 a.m. – 4:15 p.m.
Cost: $75.00 (includes a continental breakfast, lunch, speaker handouts and a copy of "Jane's Crisis Communications Handbook")

Come spend a day with nationally-recognized communicators and leave better prepared to make every word count. Speakers will focus on "the message" from development to delivery. You will receive relevant and practical information that will enable you to communicate more effectively under pressure. Attendance is a must for anyone in the public or private sector who may need to appear before the media. The future of your organization may be at stake: are you ready?
Register: See event details and register on-line at www.easyevents.com

Circle future OEMA membership meetings on your calendar:

November 18, 2004, 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Dexter Dam in Lowell, Oregon
Tour of dam following meeting

February 17, 2005, 11:00 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Bonneville Dam in Bonneville, Oregon
Tour of dam following meeting

April 27, 2005, 8:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m.
OEMA/APWA Joint Conference
Seven Feathers Casino Resort in Canyonville, Oregon

For more information, contact Mary Davis (503.642.0382 or davisma@tvfr.com).

Emergency managers have found these Web resources useful:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CERT/
http://www.all-hands.net/pn/index.php

If you know of any others you'd like to recommend, please email Sue Patterson – patterse@tvfr.com and she'll put them in the next O.E.M.A. Newsletter.

Meet the Newest OEMA Members:

Miguel Ascarrunz, Director
Portland Office of Emergency Management

Cheryl Bledsoe, Homeland Security Coordinator
Clackamas County

Major Patrick Christian, Chief – Critical Infrastructure Protection
Oregon Army National Guard

Rod Conway, Deputy Fire Marshall
Keizer Fire District

Jennifer Fouhy, Sr. Admin Specialist
Washington County

Glenda Hales, EM Coordinator
Coos County

Cindy Kolomechuck, EM Coordinator
Clackamas County

Ben Lapp, Owner
Tactron, Inc.

Kevin Lapp, Security Ops Supervisor
Albany Research Center USDOE

Carol Lewis, Community Development Director
City of Sweet Home

Michael Lueck, EM Coordinator
City of Tigard

Mark McKay, EM Coordinator
Lane County Sheriff's Office

Michael Park, EM Specialist
Intel

David Rankin C.E.G.
GeoDesign Inc.

Tripp Robinson, Emergency Manager
Intel

Mikayla Rossiter, Code Enforcement Officer
City of Sweet Home

Paul Seitz, Sr. Program Educator
Washington County

Craig Smith, EM Coordinator
Malheur County

Sharon Sorensen CBCP
Regence Blue Cross Blue Shield of OR

Sheriff Gene Stron, Emergency Services Coordinator
Clatsop County

Beverlee Stilwell, Director
OR Department of Homeland Security

We are now 157 members strong!

Attention OEMA Members:

Have you paid your dues? If in doubt, please contact Patty Hopkins, OEMA Treasurer – (503) 823-3738 or phopkins@ci.portland.or.us.