FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution Methods: Issues for the 109th Congress

CRS Report for Congress
FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution
th
Methods: Issues for the 109 Congress
January 20, 2006
Shawn Reese
Analyst in American National Government
Government and Finance Division

Congressional Research Service ˜ The Library of Congress

FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution Methods:
Issues for the 109^th Congress
Summary
Homeland security assistance to states and localities is available from three
primary sources — the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI). In FY2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends
to allocate grants from these programs as follows:
^!From the SHSGP and LETPP programs, each state, the District of
Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico is to receive a base amount equal
to 0.75% of the total appropriations; each U.S. insular area, 0.25%.
The balance is to be allocated among the states, DC, and U.S. insular
areas based on DHS’s determination of risk and need.
^!From the UASI program, each eligible urban area is to receive a
grant based on DHS’s determination of risk and need.
In August 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (9/11 Commission) criticized the allocation of federal homeland security
assistance and recommended that the distribution not “remain a program for general
revenue sharing.” The former members of the 9/11 Commission, acting as private
citizens conducting the 9/11 Discourse Project, gave Congress and DHS, in their final
report dated December 5, 2005, a failing grade on the distribution of homeland
security funding.
Given this criticism, DHS’s development of a risk- and needs-based formula for
SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI, and its determination to allocate a guaranteed base to
states raise some policy questions that Congress may wish to address through
oversight of DHS’s administration of FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) grants. Some of the questions include the following:
^!Should states and U.S. insular areas receive a guaranteed minimum
or guaranteed base of SHSGP and LETPP funding?
^!Should homeland security grants be distributed solely according to
risk, or risk and need?
^!Does delaying the announcement of state and urban-area allocations
adversely affect their ability to plan and execute homeland security
activities?
^!Does DHS’s intention to group urban areas into regions hamper the
development of their homeland security planning?
This report will be updated when congressional or executive branch actions
warrant.

Contents
In troduction ..................................................1
FY2006 Distribution Methods....................................2
Risk ....................................................3
Need ....................................................4
Issues .......................................................4
Minimum Versus Base......................................5
Risk Versus Need..........................................6
Delayed Awarding of State and Urban Area Allocations...........6
Regional Urban Area Security Initiative Allocations..............7
List of Tables
Table 1. State Homeland Security Grant Program and Law Enforcement
Terrorism Prevention Program Base Allocations: FY2005 and
Estimated FY2006.............................................3
Table 2. FY2006 Urban Area Security Initiative Eligible Urban Areas........9

FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Distribution
th
Methods: Issues for the 109 Congress
Introduction
Homeland security assistance to states and localities is available from three
primary sources — the State Homeland Security Grant Program (SHSGP), the Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program (LETPP), and the Urban Area Security
Initiative (UASI). In FY2006, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) intends
to allocate grants from these programs as follows:
^!From the SHSGP and LETPP programs, each state, the District of
Columbia (DC), and Puerto Rico is to receive a base amount equal
to 0.75% of the total appropriations; each U.S. insular area, 0.25%.
The balance is to be allocated among the states, DC, and U.S. insular
areas based on DHS’s determination of risk and need.
^!From the UASI program, each eligible urban area is to receive a
grant based on DHS’s determination of risk and need.
The allocation method for FY2006 differs from that of earlier years. In FY2003¹
and FY2004, Congress required DHS to allocate 0.75% of total appropriations for
SHSGP and LETPP² to each state, with remainder of total appropriations to be³
allocated at the discretion of DHS. DHS chose to use the state’s population
percentage of the national population as the basis for this secondary distribution, and
to distribute a base amount of 0.25% to U.S. insular areas. Congress required DHS
to allocate FY2005 SHSGP and LETPP grants in the same manner as in FY2004.⁴
DHS is also changing the distribution method for UASI in FY2006. In FY2003-
FY2005, UASI discretionary allocations were distributed using credible threat,
presence of critical infrastructure, vulnerability, population, population density, law
enforcement investigative and enforcement activity, and the existence of formal
mutual aid agreements as funding formula factors.⁵ In FY2006, DHS intends to
allocate UASI funding using a risk- and needs-based formula. DHS also intends to
group major jurisdictions into single urban areas, requiring grouped jurisdictions to

¹ P.L. 107-56 (USA PATRIOT Act), Sec. 1014.
² For information on FY2006 appropriations for SHSGP and LETPP, see CRS Report
RS22050, FY2006 Appropriations for State and Local Homeland Security, by Shawn Reese.
³ P.L. 108-7, P.L. 108-11, and P.L. 108-90.
⁴ P.L. 108-334, Title III.
⁵ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office for Domestic Preparedness, Fiscal Year
2005 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidelines and Application Kit
(Washington: Nov. 2004), p. 1.

determine allocations within the urban areas. Eleven urban areas that received UASI
funding in FY2005 are not eligible to apply for funding for new homeland security
projects, but they may apply for sustainment funding to complete homeland security
projects begun in previous years (see Table 2, note). Finally, DHS intends to
authorize urban areas to apply for funding for homeland security projects that have
dual-use ( for terrorist incidents or natural disasters) capabilities, such as evacuations,⁶
and search and rescue teams.
FY2006 Distribution Methods
In October 2005, for FY2006, Congress appropriated $550 million for SHSGP,
$400 million for LETPP, $740 million for high-threat, high-risk urban areas — part
of $1.2 billion for UASI — and amounts for other state and local homeland security⁷
assistance programs. Congress required DHS to allocate 0.75% of total funds
appropriated for SHSGP and LETPP to each state, DC, and Puerto Rico. The
distribution method for the remainder of appropriations for SHSGP and LETPP is at
the discretion of DHS. Additionally, Congress authorized the allocation of UASI⁸
funding to be at the discretion of DHS. On December 2, 2005, DHS issued its
Fiscal Year 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and
Application Kit to provide information and guidance on state and local homeland
security grant programs.
The FY2006 guidance states that DHS elected to provide the 0.75% of total
appropriations as a base (instead of as a minimum) to states, DC, and Puerto Rico
under SHSGP and LETPP.⁹

⁶ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
press conference, Jan. 3, 2006, available at [http://homeland.cq.com], visited Jan. 4, 2006.
The term “dual-use” refers to homeland security projects or activities that are primarily for
terrorism response but could be used in the event of a natural or technical disaster, whereas
the term “all-hazards” refers to a project or activity that is not primarily for terrorism or
disasters.
⁷ P.L. 109-90 (FY2006 DHS appropriations), Title III. Other grant programs include
Assistance to Firefighters, Emergency Management Performance Grants, and Citizen Corps.
Other UASI programs include port, rail, intercity bus, and trucking security grants. These
other UASI programs are by application; there is no distribution formula.
⁸ P.L. 109-90 (FY2006 DHS appropriations), Title III.
⁹ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of Grants and Training, Fiscal Year 2006
Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application Kit (Washington:
Dec. 2005), p. 52.

Table 1. State Homeland Security Grant Program and Law
Enforcement Terrorism Prevention Program Base Allocations:
FY2005 and Estimated FY2006
(amounts in millions)
States and U.S. Insular AreasFY2005 BaseAllocationsFY2006 EstimatedBase Allocations
^Each^s^t^at^{e, D}^C^{, an}^{d Pu}^ert^o^Rⁱ^co^$11.25^$7.13
^{U.S. Virg}ⁱⁿ^Is^lan^d^s^,^A^m^erican^Sam^o^a,^$1.20^$0.80
^Gu^am^{, an}^{d th}^{e North}^e^rn^Marian^{a Is}^lan^d^s
^T^o^t^a^l^bas^e^am^ouⁿ^t^$589.80^$374.00
^S^o^u^rce:^A^m^ounts^ba^s^e^d^oⁿ^C^R^S^c^a^l^c^u^la^tions^of^FY^{2005 (}^P^.L^{. 108-}³³⁴⁾^a^{nd FY}^{2006 (}^P^.L^{. 109-}⁹⁰⁾^D^H^S
^a^ppr^opr^ia^tions^f^o^r^SH^SG^P^a^{nd L}^E^T^P^P^.
Additionally, DHS has chosen to allocate the remainder of total appropriations
based on risk and need. The guidance also states that UASI funds will be allocated
based on risk and need; in FY2003, FY2004, and FY2005, UASI funds were¹⁰
allocated based on risk only.
State and local risk will be determined by DHS using a risk and needs formula
developed by the Office of Grants and Training (G&T) — formerly the Office for
State and Local Government Coordination and Preparedness — in conjunction with
other DHS and federal entities. Distribution of SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI funding
will be based on this risk and needs formula. The exact formula, however, is not
publicly available at this time and may not be available in the future due to its
possible security classification.
Risk. As defined by DHS, its risk calculations are based upon:
^!the consequences of a specified attack on a particular asset;
^!the vulnerability of that asset to that particular threat; and¹¹
^!the threat to that asset.
The DHS risk formula is to consist of two risk calcualtions:
^!asset-based risk, which uses threat values derived from U.S.
intelligence community assessment of threats to specific critical
infrastructure; and
^!geographic-based risk, which uses values based on inherent risks
associated with geographic areas (i.e., states or urban areas), taking
into account such factors as international borders, terrorism
reporting and investigations, and population density.

¹⁰ Ibid.
¹¹ Ibid., p. 53.

Need. State and urban-area homeland security needs will be assessed through
a capability review, which is currently underway. The review is intended to help
states and urban areas determine their own homeland security capabilities as
compared against criteria identified and explained in the National Preparedness¹²
Goal. Each state and urban area is to evaluate its homeland security program and
its ability to meet its own homeland security needs.¹³ Following the review, each
state and urban area is to submit a Program and Capability Enhancement Plan and
an Investment Justification with its FY2006 Homeland Security Grant Program
(HSGP) application.
The Program and Capability Enhancement Plan is a multi-year management
plan that identifies state and urban-area homeland security objectives that are
additional to G&T homeland security program objectives and funding. The
Investment Justification is to identify specific homeland security needs from the
enhancement plan that states and urban areas wish to address using FY2006 HSGP
funds. Additionally, the Investment Justification is to outline implementation plans
that will assist the states and urban areas in enhancing and developing their homeland
security capabilities.¹⁴
DHS will evaluate and score state and urban-area applications through a peer
review process based on the likely effectiveness of each state and urban area’s
enhancement plan in addressing its needs and the plan’s reduction of the state and
urban area’s overall risk. DHS will notify states and urban areas of their total risk-
and needs-based funding allocations at the time of the awards.¹⁵
Issues
In August 2004, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States (9/11 Commission) criticized the allocation of federal homeland security
assistance and recommended that the distribution not “remain a program for general
revenue sharing.”¹⁶ The former members of the 9/11 Commission, acting as private
citizens conducting the 9/11 Discourse Project, gave Congress and DHS, in their final
report dated December 5, 2005, a failing grade on the distribution of homeland
security funding:
Congress has still not changed the underlying statutory authority for homeland
security grants, or benchmarks to insure that funds are used wisely. As a result,
homeland security funds continue to be distributed without regard for risk,

¹² For information on the National Preparedness Goal, see CRS Report RL32803, The
National Preparedness System: Issues for the 109^th Congress, by Keith Bea.
¹³ Fiscal Year 2006 Homeland Security Grant Program: Program Guidance and Application
Kit, p. 53.
¹⁴ Ibid.
¹⁵ Ibid.
¹⁶ National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission
Report (Washington: GPO, July 2004), p. 396.

vulnerability, or the consequences of an attack, diluting the national security¹⁷
benefits of this important program.
Given this criticism, DHS’s development of a risk- and needs-based formula for
SHSGP, LETPP, and UASI, and its determination to allocate a guaranteed base to
states raise some policy questions that Congress may wish to address through
oversight of DHS’s administration of FY2006 HSGP grants. Some of the questions
include:
^!Should states and U.S. insular areas receive a guaranteed minimum
or guaranteed base of SHSGP and LETPP funding?
^!Should homeland security grants be distributed solely on the basis
of risk, or risk and need?
^!Does delaying the announcement of state and urban area allocations
adversely affect their ability to plan and execute homeland security
activities?
^!Does DHS’s intention to group urban areas into regions hamper the
development of their homeland security planning?
Minimum Versus Base.¹⁸ DHS has decided to provide a guaranteed base to
every state, DC, and each U.S. insular area from SHSGP and LETPP funding.
Congress authorized DHS discretion in determining if the 0.75% of total
appropriations guaranteed to states, DC, and Puerto Rico is to be either a minimum¹⁹
or a base.
If DHS were to use a 100% risk-based formula in determining state allocations,
a minimum is the smallest allocation each state would receive. Were the risk-based
calculations to result in any state allocation less than the statutorily defined
minimum, the allocations for states receiving more than the minimum would be
reduced proportionally, so that all states would receive at least the minimum.
A base is an amount guaranteed to each state without regard to risk or need.
After allocation of base amounts, states might receive further funding based on risk
and need.
Policy options for the method of grant allocation could include a guaranteed
base, a guaranteed minimum, or neither. That is, policymakers may choose to decide
whether (1) to provide every state with the same amount of base funding, and then
allocate the remainder of total appropriations based on risk and need; (2) to allocate
total appropriations based on risk and need, and then if a state does not receive a
certain amount or percentage (minimum), provide additional funding to the state to
meet this amount or percentage, with proportional reduction of funding to the other

¹⁷ 9/11 Public Discourse Project, Final Report on 9/11 Commission Recommendations, p.

1, available at [http://www.9-11pdp.org], visited Jan. 4, 2006.

¹⁸ For an in-depth discussion on minimum versus base, see CRS Report RL33050, Risk-
Based Funding in Homeland Security Grant Legislation: Issues for the 109^th Congress, by
Shawn Reese.
¹⁹ P.L. 109-90, Title III.

states; or (3) to allocate funding to states based 100% on risk and need. Congress,
however, would not be addressing the critics (e.g., the 9/11 Commission) of its
present funding formula by continuing to provide states with a guaranteed base or
minimum.
Risk Versus Need. DHS has elected not to use a 100% risk-based formula
for allocating the remainder of total appropriations for SHSGP and LETPP following
the distribution of state base amounts, and total appropriations for UASI. Instead,
DHS has developed a two-part approach to determining state and urban-area
allocations. This approach consists of a DHS risk assessment and a state and urban
area’s justification of need for funding. DHS has not informed states and urban
areas, through its FY2006 guidance, what percentage of funds will be allocated based
on risk and what percentage of funds will be allocated based on need.
One could argue that by not allocating strictly on risk, DHS has not addressed
the critics, such as the 9/11 Commission, in its 2004 report, who advocate a purely
risk-based allocation of homeland security funding. By coupling need with risk,
DHS might be providing funding to states and urban areas that do not have a high
risk of terrorism. Additionally, some might argue that less UASI funding will be
distributed based on risk. In FY2005, DHS distributed UASI funding based purely
on risk, using credible threat, presence of critical infrastructure, vulnerability,
population, population density, law enforcement investigative and enforcement
activity, and the existence of formal mutual aid agreements as funding formula
factors. In FY2006, DHS has added urban area homeland security needs to the UASI
distribution formula. Conversely, by allocating funding based on both risk and need,
DHS is arguably addressing not only terrorism risk, but also a state and urban area’s
capability to address that risk.
Congress may choose to address the issue of risk- and need-based funding by
reviewing FY2006 state and urban-area allocations, once they have been announced
by DHS at a later date, and determining if the new distribution formula meets the
homeland security needs of the nation as a whole. If Congress were to determine that
this new distribution method does not address the national needs, it might consider
imposition of a distribution method beyond the present statutory requirement of a
guaranteed amount of 0.75% to every state. This distribution method might include
risk criteria and benchmarks for determining national homeland security needs.
Delayed Awarding of State and Urban Area Allocations. In FY2003-
FY2005, states and urban areas were informed of their homeland security grant
allocations early in the fiscal years.²⁰ States have been notified of their FY2006 base
allocations (approximately $7.13 million each); however, because of DHS’s decision
to wait until states and urban areas complete their enhancement plans and
justifications, states and urban areas will not be notified of their total grant
allocations until sometime in the late spring of 2006.

²⁰ In FY2003, allocations were announced in Jan. 2003; in FY2004, allocations were
announced in Dec. 2003; and in FY2005, allocations were announced in Nov. 2004.

It is possible that states and urban areas, lacking an indication of how much
funding they will receive, will not know how to accurately plan or develop homeland
security activities for FY2006. It is possible that a state or an urban area will develop
an enhancement plan and investment justification that relies on a certain amount of
federal homeland security funding, and then be notified — following DHS’s risks
and needs assessment — that it will not be receiving the desired amount of funding
or any funding beyond its base SHSGP and LETPP allocation. This in turn might
result in the state having to adjust or rework its homeland security planning and
implementation activities. Additionally, if the announcement of state allocations is
delayed, localities could be further delayed in being informed by states of any
FY2006 SHSGP and LETPP funding they might receive.
Conversely, by delaying the announcement of state allocations, DHS might be
afforded an extended period for more accurately determining state and urban-area
homeland security risks and needs. DHS’s requirement for an enhancement plan and
investment justification could also result in states and urban areas more accurately
determining their risks, capabilities, and needs, which could facilitate DHS’s overall
national risks and needs assessment.
Congress may choose to address the issue of delayed allocations by reviewing
the FY2006 state and urban-area allocations following their announcement and the
effect on state and urban-area homeland security plans. If Congress were to
determine that this delay in allocations does not suit the states’ and urban areas’
needs, it might consider requiring DHS to announce allocation amounts early in the
fiscal year for future DHS homeland security grant distributions.
Regional Urban Area Security Initiative Allocations. DHS has
announced its intention to group individual jurisdictions into “super” UASI groups
and to reduce the number of jurisdictions from 50 urban areas to 35, with an
additional 11 urban areas (that received funding in FY2005) eligible to apply for
sustainment money for ongoing homeland security projects (see Table 2). Acting
Director of G&T Mathew Mayer stated that it would be the responsibility of the
individual jurisdictions within the “super” UASI regions to determine allocations
within the regions. The UASI regional jurisdictions are required within 60 days to
develop an enhancement plan and investment justification to be eligible to receive
funding. Additionally, UASI regions can apply for funding to support some dual-use
activities — such as evacuations, and search and rescue operations — which assist
with not only terrorist incidents but also natural disasters. ²¹
This grouping of individual jurisdictions into “super” UASI regions, coupled
with the new needs portion of the method for distributing UASI funds, might result
in jurisdictions with a higher threat of terrorism receiving less funding. Additional
funding might be directed to the 11 urban areas eligible for sustainment funding,
which could reduce the amounts for the other 35 “super” UASI regions. Also, UASI
regions that have a greater need for dual-use capabilities might receive more funding
than those with a higher terrorism threat.

²¹ U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff,
press conference, Jan. 3, 2006, available at [http://homeland.cq.com], visited Jan. 4, 2006.

On the other hand, the identification of UASI regions over individual
jurisdictions — urban areas, comprising numerous jurisdictions — could increase the
security of individual urban areas by increasing the security of the regions overall.
Arguably, terrorists do not recognize political or geographical boundaries when
planning attacks within the United States. DHS’s intention to authorize dual use of
UASI funding might make urban areas better able to respond to terrorist attacks,
because whether the crisis is a terrorist attack or a natural disaster, an urban area
could still need the ability to evacuate all or portions of its citizens, or conduct search
and rescue operations. The UASI regions, however, seem not to reflect great change
from the FY2005 UASI urban area designations, with such exceptions as the
combination of Jersey City and Newark, and the inclusion of Yonkers with New
York City.
Regional UASI allocations for FY2006 may not become a point of contention
until DHS announces them late in the spring of 2006. At that time, Congress may
choose to review the allocations and their effect on the UASI regions’ homeland
security plans. Should Congress determine that regional allocations do not address
individual jurisdictions’ requirements, it might consider directing DHS to allocate
UASI funds to individual jurisdictions instead of regions.

CRS-9
Table 2. FY2006 Urban Area Security Initiative Eligible Urban Areas
StateEligible Urban AreaGeographic Area Previously Designated UrbanAreas
^izoⁿ^a^P^h^o^en^ix^A^r^ea*^Ch^an^d^l^er^{, Gilb}^er^{t, Glen}^d^a^{le, Mesa, P}^e^o^r^{ia, P}^h^o^eⁿⁱ^x^,^Sco^ttsd^a^le,^Ph^oeⁿⁱ^x
^T^e^m^p^{e, an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e
^com^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^lif^ornⁱ^a^Aⁿ^a^h^e^im^/San^{ta A}ⁿ^{a A}^r^ea^Aⁿ^ah^eim^,^C^o^s^t^{a Mes}^a^{, Garden}^Grov^{e, Fu}^llerton^{, Hu}ⁿ^tin^g^t^on^B^each^,^Aⁿ^ah^eim^an^{d San}^t^{a A}ⁿ^a
^I^r^vi^ne^,^O^r^a^nge^,^Sa^nt^a^Aⁿ^a^,^aⁿ^d^a¹⁰^-^mⁱ^l^e^b^u^ffe^r^e^x^t^e^ndⁱ^{ng fr}^o^m^t^h^e
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33241}^B^a^y^A^r^ea^B^e^rk^eley^{, Daly}^C^ity^{, Frem}^on^{t, Hay}^w^{ard, Oak}^l^an^{d, P}^a^{lo A}^lto,^San^Fran^cis^c^{o, San}^J^o^s^e^{, an}^{d Oak}^l^an^d
^g/w^Ri^c^h^m^o^nd^,^Sa^{n Fr}^aⁿ^cⁱ^sc^o^,^Sa^{n J}^o^se^,^Sa^nt^a^Cl^a^r^a^,^Sunny^va^l^e^,^V^a^l^l^e^j^o^,
^s^.or^an^{d 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^le^ak^L^o^s^Aⁿ^g^e^les^/^L^oⁿ^g^Beach^A^r^ea^Bu^rban^k^,^Glen^{dale, In}^g^l^ew^{ood, L}^oⁿ^g^Beach^{, L}^o^s^Aⁿ^g^e^les^,^P^a^s^a^den^a^,^L^o^s^Aⁿ^g^e^les^an^{d L}^oⁿ^g^B^each
^://wiki^San^t^{a Mon}ⁱ^{ca, San}^t^{a C}^l^{arita, T}^o^rran^{ce, Sim}ⁱ^Valley^,^T^h^ou^s^aⁿ^d^Oak^s^,^an^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^h^ttp
^Sacram^en^{to A}^r^ea*^Elk^Grov^{e, Sacram}^en^{to, an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^e^Sacram^en^to
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^San^Dieg^{o A}^r^ea*^C^h^u^l^{a Vis}^t^{a, Es}^con^d^{ido, San}^Dieg^{o, an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^{San Diego}
^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^l^o^rado^D^eⁿ^v^e^{r A}^r^ea^A^r^v^a^{da, A}^u^{rora, D}^eⁿ^v^e^{r, L}^a^k^e^w^{ood, Wes}^t^mⁱⁿ^s^t^e^{r, T}^h^ron^t^on^{, an}^{d a 10-}^D^e^nve^r

^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}

CRS-10
StateEligible Urban AreaGeographic Area Previously Designated UrbanAreas
^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital Reg}ⁱ^oⁿ^Distrⁱ^{ct o}^f^Co^lu^m^b^{ia; Mar}^y^lan^d^co^uⁿ^{ties o}^f^Moⁿ^t^g^o^m^e^r^y^an^d^P^rⁱⁿ^ce^Natioⁿ^a^{l Cap}^{ital Reg}ⁱ^oⁿ
^Geo^r^g^e^’^s^{; Vir}^gⁱⁿ^{ia co}^uⁿ^{ties o}^f^A^r^lin^g^t^oⁿ^{, Fair}^f^a^x^,^P^rⁱⁿ^{ce W}^illiam^,^an^d
^L^o^u^d^oⁿ^{; th}^{e Vir}^gⁱⁿ^{ia cities o}^f^{Falls Ch}^u^r^ch^{, Man}^a^{ssas, Man}^a^{ssas P}^a^r^k^,
^Fair^f^a^x^,^an^d^A^l^ex^an^d^r^{ia; an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^e
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^ori^d^a^F^ort^L^a^u^d^erdal^e^A^r^ea^F^o^rt^L^a^u^d^erdal^e^{, H}^o^l^l^y^w^{ood, Mi}^amⁱ^G^a^rden^s^,^Mi^ram^a^{r, Pem}^b^rok^e^N/A
^Piⁿ^e^s^,^an^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e
^com^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33241}^J^ack^soⁿ^v^{ille A}^r^ea^J^ack^soⁿ^v^{ille an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e city}^b^o^r^d^e^r^s^J^ack^soⁿ^v^ille
^g/w
^s^.or^Miam^{i A}^r^ea^Hialeah^{, Miam}^{i, an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^Miamⁱ
^le^ak^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^://wiki^O^r^l^aⁿ^{do A}^r^ea^O^r^l^aⁿ^{do an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e^Orlan^d^o
^h^ttp^com^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^T^a^m^p^{a A}^r^ea*^C^l^earw^a^{ter, St. P}^e^ters^bu^rg^{, T}^a^m^p^{a, an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^Ta^m^p^a
^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^r^gⁱ^a^A^tlan^t^{a A}^r^ea^A^tlan^t^{a an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^A^tlan^t^a
^aⁱⁱ^Hoⁿ^o^lu^lu^A^r^ea^Hoⁿ^o^lu^lu^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^Hoⁿ^o^lu^lu
^oⁱ^s^C^hⁱ^cag^o^A^r^ea^Ch^icag^o^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^Ch^icag^o
^di^an^a^Iⁿ^dⁱ^aⁿ^a^polⁱ^s^A^r^ea^In^di^an^apolⁱ^s^an^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e^In^di^an^apolⁱ^s

^city

CRS-11
StateEligible Urban AreaGeographic Area Previously Designated UrbanAreas
^t^u^c^k^y^L^o^uⁱ^sv^{ille A}^r^ea*^L^o^uⁱ^sv^{ille an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^L^o^uⁱ^sv^ille
^uⁱ^sⁱ^an^a^B^at^on^R^o^u^g^e^A^r^ea*^Bat^oⁿ^R^o^u^g^e^an^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e^B^a^t^o^{n Ro}^uge
^city
^New^Orlean^s^A^r^ea^New^Orlean^s^an^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^e^New^Orlean^s
^city
^s^ach^u^s^et^t^s^Bos^t^on^A^r^ea^Bos^t^on^{, C}^a^m^b^ri^dg^{e, an}^{d 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^Bos^t^on
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33241}^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^g/w^y^lan^d^B^a^ltim^o^r^{e A}^r^ea^B^a^ltim^o^r^{e an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^B^a^ltim^o^r^e
^s^.or
^le^ak^ig^an^Detr^o^{it A}^r^ea^Detr^o^{it, Ster}^lin^g^Heig^h^t^{s, W}^a^r^r^eⁿ^,^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^Detroⁱ^t
^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^://wikiⁿ^e^so^ta^T^wⁱⁿ^{Cities A}^r^ea^Minⁿ^eap^o^{lis, St. P}^a^u^l^{, an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^Minⁿ^eapolis^an^{d St. P}^a^u^l
^h^ttp^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^s^o^u^rⁱ^K^an^s^a^s^C^ity^A^r^ea^In^depen^d^en^{ce, Kan}^s^as^C^ity^{(MO), Kan}^s^as^C^ity^{(KS), Olath}^e^{, Ov}^erlan^d^Kan^s^{as City}
^Park^{, an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^ed
^area
^S^t^{. L}^o^uⁱ^s^A^r^ea^S^t^{. L}^o^uⁱ^s^an^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^{e ci}^t^y^S^t^{. L}^o^uⁱ^s
^r^t^h^Car^o^lin^a^C^h^a^r^l^o^{tte A}^r^ea^Ch^ar^lo^{tte an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^Ch^ar^lo^tte
^k^a^Om^ah^{a A}^r^ea*^Om^ah^{a an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e city}^Om^ah^a

CRS-12
StateEligible Urban AreaGeographic Area Previously Designated UrbanAreas
^J^e^rs^ey^J^e^rs^ey^C^ity^/New^ark^A^r^ea^Elizabeth^,^J^e^rs^ey^C^ity^{, New}^a^rk^{, an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^J^e^rs^ey^C^ity^an^{d New}^a^rk
^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^va^d^a^La^{s V}^e^ga^{s A}^r^e^a^*^La^{s V}^e^ga^s,^N^o^r^t^{h La}^{s V}^e^ga^s,^aⁿ^d^a¹⁰^-^mⁱ^l^e^b^u^ffe^r^e^x^t^e^ndⁱ^{ng fr}^o^m^t^h^e^La^s^V^e^ga^s
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^Yo^r^k^B^u^f^f^a^lo^A^r^ea*^B^u^f^f^a^lo^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^B^u^f^f^a^lo
^New^Yo^r^k^City^A^r^ea^New^Yo^r^k^City^{, Yo}ⁿ^k^e^r^s^{, an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^e^New^Yo^rk
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33241}^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^g/w^io^Cin^cⁱⁿⁿ^a^{ti A}^r^ea^Cin^cⁱⁿⁿ^a^{ti an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^Cin^cⁱⁿⁿ^a^ti
^s^.or
^le^ak^C^l^ev^elan^{d A}^r^ea^C^l^ev^elan^{d an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^{e city}^C^l^ev^elan^d
^://wiki^Co^lu^m^b^u^s^A^r^ea^Co^lu^m^b^u^s^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^Co^lu^m^b^u^s
^h^ttp^T^o^l^e^{do A}^r^ea*^O^r^eg^on^{, T}^o^l^e^{do, an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^To^l^e^d^o
^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^lah^o^m^a^Ok^lah^o^m^a^City^A^r^ea*^No^r^m^an^{, Ok}^lah^o^m^a^City^{, an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^e^Ok^lah^o^m^a^City
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^eg^on^Port^l^aⁿ^d^A^r^ea^Port^l^aⁿ^d^{, V}^aⁿ^c^ou^v^e^{r, an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^P^o^r^tlan^d
^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
ⁿ^s^y^l^v^aⁿⁱ^a^P^hⁱ^l^a^del^p^hⁱ^{a A}^r^ea^Phⁱ^l^a^del^p^hⁱ^{a an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e^P^h^ilad^e^lp^hⁱ^a
^city
^P^ittsb^u^r^g^h^A^r^ea^P^ittsb^u^r^g^h^an^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^th^{e city}^P^ittsb^u^r^g^h

CRS-13
StateEligible Urban AreaGeographic Area Previously Designated UrbanAreas
ⁿⁿ^e^s^s^e^e^M^em^phⁱ^s^A^r^ea^Mem^p^hⁱ^s^an^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^{e ci}^t^y^Mem^p^hⁱ^s
^xa^s^D^a^l^l^a^s/^Fo^r^t^W^o^r^t^h/^A^r^lⁱ^ngt^oⁿ^A^r^lin^g^t^oⁿ^{, Car}^r^o^lltoⁿ^,^{Dallas, Fo}^r^t^W^o^r^t^h^,^Gar^l^an^d^,^Gr^an^d^P^r^airⁱ^e,^{Dallas, Fo}^r^t^W^o^r^t^h^,^an^d^A^r^lin^g^t^oⁿ
^Ar^e^a^I^r^vi^ng,^M^e^sq^ui^t^e^,^P^l^aⁿ^o^,^aⁿ^d^a¹⁰^-^mⁱ^l^e^b^u^ffe^r^e^x^t^e^ndⁱ^{ng fr}^o^m^t^h^e
^borders^of^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^H^o^u^s^t^oⁿ^A^r^ea^H^o^u^s^t^oⁿ^,^Pas^a^den^a^{, an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^Ho^u^s^toⁿ
^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
ⁱ^{ki/CRS-RL33241}^S^aⁿ^Aⁿ^t^oⁿⁱ^{o A}^r^ea^S^aⁿ^Aⁿ^t^oⁿⁱ^{o an}^{d a 10-}^mⁱ^l^e^bu^f^f^e^{r ex}^t^eⁿ^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^t^h^{e borders}^of^t^h^e^city^Sa^{n A}ⁿ^t^oⁿⁱ^o
^g/w
^s^.or^a^shⁱⁿ^g^t^oⁿ^{Seattle A}^r^ea^{Seattle, B}^e^llev^u^e^{, an}^d^{a 1}⁰^-^m^{ile b}^u^f^f^e^r^ex^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^o^m^th^{e b}^o^r^d^e^r^s^o^f^Seattle
^le^ak^th^{e com}^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^://wikiⁱ^s^c^on^sⁱⁿ^M^ilw^au^k^{ee A}^r^ea^Milw^au^k^{ee an}^{d a 10-}^m^{ile bu}^f^f^e^{r ex}^ten^dⁱⁿ^g^f^r^om^th^{e borders}^of^th^e^Milw^au^k^e^e
^h^ttp^com^bⁱⁿ^{ed area}
^rce:^U^.^S^.^D^e^p^a^r^t^meⁿ^t^o^f^H^o^me^l^aⁿ^d^S^e^c^u^rⁱ^t^y^,^O^ffi^c^e^o^f^Gr^aⁿ^t^s^aⁿ^d^Tr^aⁱⁿⁱⁿ^g^,^a^v^aⁱ^l^a^b^l^e^a^t^[^h^t^t^p^:^/^/^www.^d^h^s^.^g^o^v^]^,^vⁱ^sⁱ^t^e^d^J^aⁿ^.^{5, 2006.}
^{2005 U}^r^ba^{n A}^r^e^a^s^e^lig^ible^f^o^r^s^u^s^t^aⁱ^nm^eⁿ^{t f}^unding^thr^oug^{h the}^FY^{2006 U}^A^SI^pr^og^r^a^m^.