President Bush needed to create a Department of Homeland Security, requiring the greatest federal restructuring in more than a half-century, because the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks exposed the redundancy, lack of communication and muddling that had crept into those functions of government with the most need for efficiency. The numbers when this project began were astounding – 170,000 workers, 22 agencies and bureaus, eight Cabinet departments – but what really caused debate in Congress was that the new jobs created by the department would not fall under the old patronage system but would be, under the president’s proposal, “flexible, contemporary, and grounded in the public employment principles of merit and fitness.”

This flexibility makes sense in a new department that must, above all, be agile enough to respond the emergencies and it makes sense for states, communities and first responders to have similar flexibility with funding for homeland security as they try to meet federal demands with their own unique circumstances. Sen. Susan Collins, chairman of the Governmental Affairs Committee, has scheduled hearings today to discuss the issue with Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge, who as a former governor will well understand the state interest in changing the current grant formula for security.

Currently, that formula requires all states spend 70 percent of their grants for equipment, 18 percent for exercises, 7 percent for planning and 5 percent for training, and may not transfer surplus funds from one account to another. In addition, the funding levels are based on population.

Sen. Collins recently introduced legislation to provide waivers that would let state move money among funds, an intelligent change given the disparate needs among states for types of equipment and existing levels of training. Sen. Olympia Snowe has introduced legislation that would allow some equipment money to be used for training. Secretary Ridge himself has urged Congress to switch from grant funding based on population to funding based on threat level, which could work as long as a minimal level of funding were maintained so that no area received so little that it could do essentially no preparation.

While the secretary is before the committee, he should also comment on department overall funding levels, which the office of Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist said recently may be lower in fiscal year ’04. Funding understandably jumped from $28 billion to $34 billion from ’02 to ’03 but the increases are not expected to continue. States themselves need to be clear about the funding they need to meet Washington’s expectations, although in earlier testimony on the issue, Portland Police Chief Michael Chitwood observed, “The [federal government] writing a check without any increased coordination of information or manpower makes very little sense. The point is, the federal government doesn’t need to … spend more tax dollars if we work together in a coordinated fashion.”

That requires more sharing of information and a greater ability for state and local governments to use their federal funding where they need it. The secretary should support added flexibility for the same reason the president thought it necessary for his department to overcome cumbersome employment rules.