The Fed. Emerg. Mgmt. Agency (FEMA), awards grants to fire depts. and other org. for equipment, staffing, and other needs. As of July 2009, FEMA had received 25,000 and 22,000 applications for its FY '07 and '08 fire grant programs, respectively, and had awarded more than 5,000 grants in both years. This is a review of the application and award process for these grants, and addresses the: (1) extent to which FEMA has met statutory and program requirements for distributing the grant funds; (2) actions FEMA has taken to provide assistance to grant applicants and involve the fire service community in the process; and (3) extent to which FEMA has ensured that its grant process is accessible, clear, and consistent with requirements, incl. its grant guidance.
The U.S. gov¿t. has a history of employing health surveillance to help limit malady, loss of life, and economic impact of diseases. Recent legislation and presidential directives have called for a robust and integrated biosurveillance capability; that is, the ability to provide early detection and situational awareness of potentially catastrophic biological events. The Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission Act directed a report on the state of biosurveillance and resource use in federal, state, local, and tribal governments. This report addresses: (1) federal efforts that support a national biosurveillance capability; and (2) the extent to which mechanisms are in place to guide the development of a national biosurveillance capability. Illustrations.
Since 2002, the Dept. of Homeland Security (DHS) has distributed over $19 billion in homeland security grants to enhance the nation¿s preparedness and response capabilities. FEMA is responsible for all preparedness efforts including allocating and managing these grants. This testimony examines: (1) the process and methods to allocate homeland security grants to state and local governments; (2) how DHS communicates with states and localities in making grant allocation decisions; (3) what challenges affect the expeditious spending of DHS grant funds by states and localities; and (4) the extent that DHS measured program outcomes as part of its efforts to monitor the expenditure of grant dollars. Includes recommendations. Charts and tables.