September 15, 2006 • Volume 4 • Number 13

DHS Grant Reform

By Richard White, author of the United States Department of Homeland Security, An Overview

On October 18, 2005, the President signed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Appropriations Act of 2006, providing vital funding needed to ensure the safety and security of the United States. Through the DHS Preparedness Directorate’s Office of Grants and Training (G&T) (formerly the Office of State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness (SLGCP)), State and local organizations received approximately $2.5 billion in grant funding to build capabilities that enhance homeland security.¹ 2006 marked the first grant cycle in which the National Preparedness Goal shaped National Priorities and focused expenditures.

In the FY2005 DHS appropriations (P.L. 108-334), Congress directed DHS to allocate funding in the same manner as the FY2004 allocations. The minimum allocations were based on the formula of 0.75% of total appropriations guaranteed to each state, 0.25% of total appropriations guaranteed to each U.S. territory, and the remainder of total appropriations based on the states’

population percentage of the total national population. Each state received a minimum $11.25 million appropriation.²

On May 3, 2003, former DHS Secretary Tom Ridge testified that DHS used risk and threat assessments, location of critical infrastructure, and population as factors only for determining which metropolitan areas received funding from the Urban Areas Security Initiative (UASI).³ In August 2004, however, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9/11 Commission) questioned the way state and local homeland security assistance were allocated and argued that federal homeland security assistance should not “remain a program for general revenue sharing.”⁴

In the 109th Congress, a bill passed by the House (H.R. 1544, “Faster and Smarter Funding for First Responders Act of 2005”) and a bill (S. 21, “Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2005”) passed as an amendment to the Senate reported H.R. 2360 (FY2006 Department of Homeland Security appropriations) proposed to alter the formulas for allocating federal homeland security assistance to states and localities. Both bills proposed that the DHS Office of Domestic Preparedness (ODP) use risk factors in determining state and locality homeland

security assistance.⁵

The DHS Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) includes five separate grant programs:

·         State Homeland Security Grant Program, $544.5 million;

·         Urban Areas Security Initiative, $757.3 million;

·         Law Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program, $396 million

·         Metropolitan Medical Response System, $29.7 million

·         Citizen Corps Program, $19.8 million.⁶

In fiscal year 2006, DHS adopted a risk and effectiveness-based approach to allocating funding for certain programs within HSGP. This approach aligns federal resources with national priorities and targets capabilities established by the Interim National Preparedness Goal.⁷

The National Preparedness Goal stems from Homeland Security Presidential Directive #8 (HSPD-8) issued December 17, 2003.⁸ The Goal is meant to guide federal departments and agencies, state, territorial, local and tribal officials, the private sector, non-government organizations and the public in determining how to most effectively and efficiently strengthen preparedness for terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies.

Towards this end, the Interim National Preparedness Goal was released on March 31, 2005.⁹ The Interim National Preparedness Goal establishes a capabilities-based planning approach to provide capabilities suitable for a wide range of threats and hazards, within an economic framework that necessitates prioritization and choice. The approach derives a Target Capabilities List from a Universal Task List based on National Planning Scenarios.

The Target Capabilities List (TCL) is a set of thirty-six essential capabilities that should be developed and maintained, in whole or in part, by various levels of government to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks and major disasters. The list was derived by utilizing the National Planning Scenarios to identify the critical tasks that would need to be performed across the fifteen scenarios. ¹⁰

The National Planning Scenarios is a set of fifteen scenarios describing plausible terrorist attacks and natural disasters that would stretch the Nation’s prevention and response capabilities. The objective was to develop the minimum number of credible, high-consequence scenarios needed to identify a broad range of prevention and response requirements. The set of fifteen scenarios, while not exhaustive, is meant to be representative of a broad range of potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters. Collectively, they yield core prevention and response requirements that can help direct comprehensive preparedness planning efforts.¹¹

The Universal Task List (UTL) defines what tasks need to be performed by Federal, State, local, and tribal jurisdictions and the private sector to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from events defined in the National Planning Scenarios. Version 2.1 identifies approximately 1,600 unique tasks. ¹²

“Preparedness must be a shared responsibility,” said Tracy Henke, Assistant Secretary for the DHS Preparedness Directorate’s Office of Grants and Training. “State and local homeland security professionals from across the nation played a significant role in the design and implementation of this fiscal year’s grant program. By collaborating, we ensure consistency of effort and a common vision of preparedness.” ¹³

This common planning framework and the tools that support it allows us as a Nation to better understand how prepared we are, how prepared we need to be, and how we prioritize efforts to close that gap.¹⁴

1 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and

Application Kit”, December 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006hsgp.pdf.

2 Reese, Shawn (2005), “Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and

H.R. 1544, 109th Congress”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service of The Library of Congress,

updated July 13, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL32892.

3 Reese, Shawn (2005), “Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and

H.R. 1544, 109th Congress”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service of The Library of Congress,

updated July 13, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL32892.

4 Reese, Shawn (2005), “Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and

H.R. 1544, 109th Congress”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service of The Library of Congress,

updated July 13, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL32892.

5 Reese, Shawn (2005), “Homeland Security Grant Formulas: A Comparison of Formula Provisions in S. 21 and

H.R. 1544, 109th Congress”, CRS Report for Congress, Congressional Research Service of The Library of Congress,

updated July 13, 2005. Retrieved from http://www.opencrs.com/document/RL32892 .

6 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “DHS Announces $1.7 Billion in Homeland Security Grants”, Office of

the Press Secretary, May 31, 2006. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=5667&print=true.

7 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “DHS Announces $1.7 Billion in Homeland Security Grants”, Office of

the Press Secretary, May 31, 2006. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=5667&print=true.

8 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “HSPD-8 Overview”, Office of Domestic Preparedness Support.

Retrieved September 3, 2006 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/assessments/hspd8.htm.

9 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “HSPD-8 Overview”, Office of Domestic Preparedness Support.

Retrieved September 3, 2006 from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/assessments/hspd8.htm.

10 Department of Homeland Security (2005) “Interim National Preparedness Goal”, March 31, 2005 . Retrieved

from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/assessments/hspd8.htm.

11 Department of Homeland Security (2005) “Interim National Preparedness Goal”, March 31, 2005. Retrieved

from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/assessments/hspd8.htm.

12 Department of Homeland Security (2005) “Universal Task List: Version 2.1”, Office of State and Local

Government Coordination and Preparedness. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/UTL2_1.pdf .

13 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “DHS Announces $1.7 Billion in Homeland Security Grants”, Office of

the Press Secretary, May 31, 2006. Retrieved from

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=43&content=5667&print=true .

14 Department of Homeland Security (2006) “FY 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and

Application Kit”, December 2005. Retrieved from http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/odp/docs/fy2006hsgp.pdf.

September 15, 2006 • Volume 4 • Number 13

Are you a change agent? Do you work with one? Does your organization need one?

By Daniel P. Forrester, Director, Sapient Corporation

Change agents are becoming a strong force in the government. The War on Terror has created urgency for innovative ways to protect America and its citizens, and innovative government managers are rising to the challenge.   This is why Sapient embarked on a 9 month study to better understand these important leaders.  The following describes some of the key findings from our research and analysis white paper entitled:  “The Government’s New Breed of Change Agents, leading the War on Terror, “and provides personal insights from some of the change agents we talked with, regarding how to identify change agents, and how to be an effective change agent. 

This new breed of government executive can improve current ways of doing business by helping organizations to see things from a different perspective – and by helping to motivate organizations to move in a new direction or adopt a new process. Change agents know how to engage the bureaucracy around them with care and detail. They see new possibilities and know how to create and communicate a clear, compelling vision to help organizations get to required outcomes with individuals, the inner team, and the wider system.

“A change agent has a very clear focus on what he wants to get for the organization. He realizes that processes and culture have to change to achieve the objectives. He assesses the situation, sees what’s at stake, finds the significant issues, and focuses,” said Dr. Pete Rustan, Director, Advanced Systems and Technology, National Reconnaissance Office.

In order for an organization to grow, those within it must change the way they do business -- how they achieve set objectives, their perspective, how they behave and certainly their methodologies.

“The key to a change management strategy is first analyzing the likely winners and losers,” said the General Services Administration’s John Sindelar.  “Determine the decision-makers and the power holders behind the visible power symbol. Collaborate to influence both winners and losers. Align incentives as catalysts for support. Create as many win-wins as possible, and be willing to ‘sacrifice’ and be satisfied by getting part or most of what you want.”

“And remember,” he added, “that a carefully thought-out communication strategy is a must. It requires overt messages as well as a more tactical, offline strategy.”

Lynn Torres, formerly with the United States Navy, Office of Naval Research Industrial and Corporate Partners Program, emphasized the value of understanding where you are in the bureaucracy and the potential ramifications that policy plays in enacting a vision or agenda.

“While all potential change agents have a great vision, they will eventually brush up against the infrastructure,” said Torres. “A successful policy interpretation or policy/law change, with willing participants from a spectrum of disciplines, will be required to push the program to long-term change.”

Enacting organizational change requires an astute ability to pinpoint talent, get people to buy into vision, create the right teams, and set high performance standards. “Technology and education don’t make the difference. People make all the difference,” said Pete Rustan of the National Reconnaissance Office. “What we are going to be able to do 30 or 50 years from now depends on the people that we have right now."

Trust and diversity of indepth skills were cited as particularly important in assembling teams.

“Surround yourself with smart people you can trust, especially if you don’t have the background,” advised an anonymous Chief Technology Office from the Intelligence Community. “Also, quickly understand as much as you can about the internal politics, what drives and motivates people. I’m less political and more technical. It’s important to understand the outside politics. Also, you’ve got to learn how stakeholders view your organization. Those are the most important things.”

A subtle but important area that came up repeatedly was the importance of listening.

“Leaders who don’t listen will not lead in the long run,” said Jerry Hultin, former Navy Under Secretary.

The Navy’s Lynn Torres explained that she “listens with her ears and eyes.” By listening with her eyes, Torres was referring to the ability to read people’s faces and gain an understanding of what they are not saying in words but expressing or even suppressing.

“Sometimes you need to use an existing mechanism or create a new one to standardize the listening function and the ability to view and understand the entire organizational landscape,” said Dr. Paul O’Connell, a professor and Associate Dean at Ion College.

In essence, change takes place on three levels: The individual, the team or the (small) organization, and the wider system or organizational unit. Learning and acceptance of the need for change must be facilitated on all three levels to be successful, according to Sandy Levine, President of Advice Unlimited, a public relations firm that works with technology firms and the government. “In order to sustain and grow as an organization and as individuals within, what are the procedures, what is the know-how we need to maintain and where do we need to change? And how can we manage a change that is in harmony with the values we hold as individuals and organizations?” said Levine.

Levine suggested using communication tools to help build bridges with the different audiences that need to be influenced, to ensure a sense of involvement at every level and increase participation and acceptance of change. “Communication is key in helping people adapt to something new – they must feel their opinion is valued, they have input, and they have some sense of control and influence. We use effective communication tools to engage all the different audiences, such as internal newsletters, town meetings, posters, brochures, websites, etc. Our goal is to get as many people as possible involved and engaged, so they begin to not only accept but embrace the recommended change.”

Below are some guidelines and actions, outlined by Levine, for this challenging but valuable effort:

·         Jump in. The first step is the hardest, but you’ll survive! As the late Admiral Cebrowski so aptly put it: “Be bold, be fast and be specific.”

·         The simpler the mission statement the better.

·         Build a team. Seek out those who are great negotiators and positive people to help keep momentum going and spread the positive attitude needed to go further and build new attitudes and processes.

·         Pick people with relevant skills and high energy levels.

·         Toss out the rulebook. Change calls for a new and innovative response.

·         Shift to an action-feedback model. Plan and act in short intervals. Talk about lessons learned immediately, and incorporate those new approaches in the next wave.

·         Ask for volunteers. You’ll be surprised at who shows up–and by what they can do.

·         Find a good straw boss or team leader, and stay out of the way.

Remember, the task of change management is to bring order to a messy situation. You are creating an environment that encourages and nurtures productivity to help your organization better serve its constituents through improved processes and procedures. Change can be painful, yet it usually brings improvements. And it can be implemented in a way that inspires acceptance–and even enthusiasm–if it is approached and handled well.

To better get to know the mindset of a change agent and learn best practices, please join in the ongoing dialogue at www.governmentchangeagents.com, or email Daniel Forrester at changeagents@sapient.com. For more information on using communication tools to improve acceptance and involvement with the change process, please visit www.adviceunlimited.net/chgmgmt.htm or email Sandy Levine at slevine@adviceunlimited.net.

Appreciation

The late Vice Admiral Art Cebrowski, a man who clearly had a vision for changing the underlying assumptions of the DoD when he served as the Director of the Office of Transformation, provided this advice to leaders stepping into positions of power:

·         Be bold. Don’t try to do it unless it looks impossible. You have to pick up the things that look really hard. Other people will have done everything else.

·         Be fast. No transformational leader ever looks back and regrets moving too fast.

·         Be specific. If you lack specificity, your subordinates will be able to change your message to suit their own purposes.

Implement A Strategic Marketing Plan

To effectively implement significant change within an organization, the group’s leadership must understand where it is trying to get to and think through how best to get there. Advice Unlimited, working with Public Sector Communications, helps by generating a comprehensive strategic marketing plan for an organization, complete with competitive analysis, customer input, and a strategic audit. This intensive effort provides a strategic and tactical roadmap for the organization's marketing approach, from key messages, potential problem areas, and greatest strengths, to tactical activities that will most effectively exploit strengths and protect weaknesses to help the organization achieve its stated goals and objectives.  This comprehensive effort is available for purchase as a project from Advice Unlimited’s GSA Schedule Contract #GS-23F-0210M, SIN 541-5, for $28,715.37.   SPECIAL for EFFECTIVE GOVERNMENT SUBSCRIBERS: mention that you read this article in Effective Government and purchase this product for only $24,990.00! Contact Sandy Levine at 301-924-0330 or slevine@adviceunlimited.net.