While experts disagree on just how the disappearance of these funds might affect the Afghan economy, many agree with Rachel Patterson of the Kaufman Foundation that there are “more questions that are unanswerable then there are answers .”

Commander’s Emergency Response Program funds, the Department of Defense program emphasizing spending as a means to stability, will disappear with the withdrawal of American forces.  Although CERP funds were not meant to bolster the developing Afghan economy, priorities listed in the 2009 Money as a Weapon System Afghanistan Manual, including employing locals and high project visibility, mean that they have played a crucial role in providing jobs and funds for certain provinces.

Some experts at the Rand Corporation and the Kauffman Foundation believe that the removal of CERP could be helpful in stabilizing both the Afghan economy and security situation. Others say the economic effects of removing such large chunks of money from an aid-based economy could push an already unstable financial situation to the brink.

“I definitely got the impression that there is sort of an aid economy, a war economy at work here [in Afghanistan,” said Colin Cookman, a national security associate at the Center for American Progress.

“We don’t have a good sense of how this money flowing in is affecting the economy…There’s going to be job losses, there’s going to shifts in the security industry, the transportation industry. There’s no doubt there’s going to be a short term destabilizing effect of this.”

International money accounts for 90 percent of Afghanistan’s GDP, inflating the economy and leaving skilled workers forsaking other jobs in favor of working with the military.

“You’re putting a lot of cash into the economy that wasn’t there before,” Cookman said.

James Dobbins, director of the Rand International Security and Defense Policy Center, said that because of this inflation, removing CERP funds could help improve the economic situation in Afghanistan.

“Some diminishment in the level of assistance might be a good thing from a macroeconomic standpoint,” said Dobbins.

Rachel Patterson, a consultant at the Kauffman Foundation and co-author of “The Commander as Investor: Changing CERP Practices” agreed.

Economics and security, Patterson said, “reinforce each other in negative ways as much as positive ways.”

Despite the fact that CERP funds were designed to stabilize areas where traditional aid programs cannot reach, they can also lead to conflicts over who receives payment, incentivizing the wrong behavior.  Recognizing this, the CERP handbook says that even with the best intentions, poorly designed programs can do more harm than good.

“Some people are killing each other for corrupt reasons,” Patterson said. “Maybe there’s conflict because of the way resources are allocated…no amount of forces are going to change that.”

Removing some of these stabilization programs, then, could positively impact security even as it initially destabilizes certain provinces.

One of the few certainties as the drawdown moves closer is that, as Cookman said, the gravy train of international aid won’t be flowing forever.  With all the plans for a troop drawdown, one thing that has not been looked into is how to help an Afghan government that Cookman says is on the verge of collapse when they cannot pay for the programs Americans put in place.

“Everybody sees that coming and I don’t think anybody has a good answer for that right now,” Cookman said. “There’s not a great deal of planning in place for how is the Afghan government going to take over operating and maintaining these programs after we leave.”

Patterson agreed.

“You need a lot of things which the typical Afghani doesn’t have…those are significant impediments to Afghani growth,” she said. “There are a lot more questions that are unanswerable then there are answers.”

The House Subcommittee on Oversight, Investigations and Management held a hearing last Thursday, (July 7), to assess how the Department of Homeland Security was handling its myriad tasks. Counterfeit pharmaceuticals and illegal immigration were identified as top priorities for the department to address.

But what alarmed some committee members was the disclosure that almost one of every six spare semiconductors purchased by the Department of Defense are counterfeit.

“It is unacceptable that 15 percent of the military’s semiconductor chips not only are Chinese but are counterfeit,” said Rep. Michael T. McCaul, R- Texas, chairman of the subcommittee.

Semiconductors are small silicon electronic parts used in everything from cell phones and hair dryers to missiles and airplanes.  They are the brains of most electronic devices, and vary from motion sensors to laptop processors.

Brian Toohey, the president of the Semiconductor Industry Association, said that most counterfeit semiconductors come from China, although 75 percent of the authentic products are made in the United States. Many, he said, are entering the company through shipping lanes which are under the Department of Homeland Security’s jurisdiction.

“We know this is a problem, we know this is an ongoing issue and it’s affecting the lives of our soldiers and the health and safety of our citizens,” Toohey said.

Counterfeit conductors are made from e-waste, includingolder electronics that have been discarded.  Then, according to Toohey’s testimony, the chips are acid washed, surface sanded or otherwise manipulated and relabeled.  A counterfeit chip may not have the capability required of it by today’s new technology and is likely to fail – making it, Toohey says, extremely dangerous and a “growing national security threat.”

Some lawmakers criticized the military for buying bogus chips.

“I’ve got a visual in my head of a guy in a trench coat standing over by the Pentagon saying, ‘Hey buddy you wanna buy a chip?’” Rep. Billy Long, R-Mo, said. “How in the world are we buying 15 percent counterfeit chips?”

A 2010 report requested by the Department of Defense three years earlier said that between 2005 and 2008 counterfeit electronics incidents grew by almost 5,500 a year. The department has not yet responded to questions regarding the hearing.

The Department of the Defense has to purchase parts like semiconductors at the lowest available price, which has contributed to part of the problem, Toohey said.

“Part of the solution would be to tighten our federal acquisition regulations,” Toohey said. “It’s a system that we can improve today by making the right kind of policy change.”

Toohey urged Congress to reverse an intellectual property rights policy that prevents customs officials from sending complete photographs of chips suspected to be counterfeit to the manufacturers.  Identifying marks in the photographs were deemed to be intellectual property in 2008 by Treasury officials.  They must first be removed.

Toohey says the ability for the customs agents to send unaltered photographs to manufacturers is “clearly in the nation’s national security interest” as it will “protect public safety and safeguard the military supply chain” by making counterfeits easier to spot.

Long said sending manufacturers unaltered photos of suspicious products  seemed to be common sense, but the “trouble with common sense is it isn’t common.”

No representatives from any government agency were at the hearing. Chairman McCaul said he would invite ICE and other DHS officials in to testify at a later hearing.

One of the biggest threats to national security may not come from terrorists, home grown or otherwise.  One of the biggest threats to national security is Mother Nature.  She may also be one of the most expensive.

Check out the timeline to learn more about how many disaster areas have been declared since the beginning of 2011 and when the nastiest bouts of nature occurred.

2011 had not been a good year for disasters.  With an onslaught of disasters from snowstorms to tornadoes, the Federal Emergency Management Agency has spent millions on disaster relief efforts – despite the fact that they don’t have much money to spend.

The Washington Post reports that FEMA is already in $17 billion in debt from natural disaster aid spent since 2005, and that as of March 31 the organization has spent $19.1 million on Mississippi River flood relief.

In the post-Katrina world, the biggest fear for the Obama administration is bungling another natural disaster. That means making sure relief efforts and aid are well funded, efficient and serving the local communities.

As the agency hands out millions to citizens from Tuscaloosa to Joplin, the House of Representatives passed a bill to grant FEMA and extra $1 million to help pay for increased aid payments.  As of June 1, the Tri-City Herald reports that the measure had passed out of committee in the Senate, but a full vote had not yet been scheduled.

17th street connects the National Mall to the other areas of D.C. including the White House (map courtesy of visitingdc.com)

This summer, as construction comes to a close, some Washington residents are only just learning about the project to fix the levee.

The current flood levee on the National Mall is an earthen structure from the 1930s which protects against flooding from the Potomac River.  Across 17^th Street, a removable section of the levee is made of concrete barriers which are reinforced with sandbags in the event of flooding.  The last time this action was taken was after Hurricane Isabel in 2003.

After Hurricane Katrina, the Army Corps of Engineers evaluated levees across the country, and the levee at 17^th Street was deemed unsatisfactory.  The Federal Emergency Management Agency then declared that much of the District of Columbia was in a flood plain –requiring large parts of the city to buy expensive flood insurance.

“Notice of the need to fix the levee didn’t come through until 2008,” said Julia Koster at the National Capital Planning Commission. “When the Corps said this levee didn’t meet our standards, FEMA said if the levee didn’t hold where would the flooding go?”

According to the Associated Press, the Corps estimated that a major storm could cause up to $200 million in damages to museums, memorials and other federal office buildings.

The planning period for fixing the levee took until mid-2010. Because of the historic nature of the national Mall and the number of monuments and memorials, Koster said changes to the Mall usually take 5-10 years.  In comparison, the flood levee reviews proceeded at a very rapid pace.

“Building anything on the mall requires extensive review,” Koster said. “It has to be something that is seamless, aesthetically pleasing.”

The other part of the problem was money.  A multi-billion dollar project was needed, and the funds had not been built into anyone’s budget. And the project fell under multiple jurisdictions.

The levee is on National Park Service property.  Levees are handled by the Army Corps of Engineers. The flood zone was declared by FEMA.

The result was an example of interagency partnership. The District of Columbia got the ball rolling by pumping $2.8 million into the project.

“The District took on the task at the time of initiating the funding of a new levee system when it appeared that no federal dollars for the project would be provided before the new flood maps took effect,” said Tayna Washington at the D.C .Office of Planning.

The National Park Service contributed $700,000. When stimulus money was released, the Army Corps of Engineers, the lead agency on the project, gave Hirani Engineering and Land Survey P.C. in New York $4.6 million to build the project. An additional $1.5 million came from the National Park Service for stone cladding on levee walls, helping it match the rest of the mall.

The project was originally scheduled to start in October 2010 but in November, the AP was still projecting that construction would start soon.  Still, the slight delay does not seem to have affected the completion date for the project.,

“Work is progressing,” said William Line at the National Park Service, who said the project is still scheduled to be completed by late summer or September.

“There’s nothing new to that,” Line said. “What it’s affecting is the ability to move.”

The National Park Service provides weekly traffic updates to alert citizens to traffic congestion caused by the construction.

Despite alerts, some citizens were surprised by the construction when summer recreation resumed.

“Honestly, I hadn’t even been aware of what was happening,” said Jackie Linnane, who lives in the Eastern Market neighborhood, just off Capitol Hill. “Our [kickball] team saw a wall one day, but we weren’t sure why it had been constructed. There were no signs, nothing to indicate its purpose that we could see.”

Linanne said the construction is making it harder for those using the area for recreation to find enough space.

“We were competing for space before there were any ‘off limits’ areas. Now it’s getting even more fierce,” Linanne said.  “It’s already proven to be problematic to our playing space, but I understand if they’re trying to prevent possible flooding.”

But recreation and traffic are not the only things affected.

“The District actually struck an unusual arrangement with FEMA to quickly move to entitle the new levee closure at 17th Street and begin its construction, while FEMA held off publishing the new flood maps,” said Washington, “hoping to get the new protection in place before the new flood plain designation would have affected federal and local buildings, insurance requirements, and construction codes.”

But construction did not meet some FEMA deadlines, and some areas of the city have been forced to buy flood insurance until the levee is complete.

“There are hundreds of such properties in Southwest that also will be protected from flooding by the levee,” said Washington. “These properties were added to the flood map for the first time last September. Once the levee is constructed, those properties will be removed from the flood map.”

Still, Koster said the project has been an overall success for those involved.

“It was a really good example of a partnership effort,” Koster said.

Tornadoes whipped through miles of Alabama, wiping out towns like Pullman, Alabama on April 27.  Kevin Hayhurst, who works at a coal mine in a tornado-affected area, said that National Guard was still draining lakes and using cadaver dogs to search for bodies weeks after the storm.  But this cleanup is only the beginning as the state utilizes federal money and volunteer organizations to work towards rebuilding.

“It’s one of the most terrible things I’ve ever seen in my life,” said Hayhurst.  “This looks like a war zone but it’s on a much broader basis. They just wiped out town after town.”

While the National Guard struggles to tally up the human damages, it is still too early to speculate the total cost of the destruction in Alabama, said Laurie F. Ashcom at the Alabama Emergency Management Agency.  Some organizations (link to al.com) have estimated that the damage could cost more than the $2 million Hurricane Ivan disaster of 2004 according to Alabama’s insurance commissioner Jim Ridling.

“This is a long term recovery. Literally this is a three, five, seven year recovery process,” said Jon Mason, Director of Serve Alabama.

In Tuscaloosa, one of the hardest hit areas, Mason said over 600 business and 5,000 homes were destroyed by the storms.  In many cases, those displaced by the storms are being put wherever there is room.

“The local agencies are going around trying to find homes that were foreclosed on or for rent, or whatever housing they can get their hands on to try and put the displaced in,” Hayhurst said.

The cost of up to 18 months of hotel rooms or rental homes will eventually be taken out of the FEMA grant for individuals affected by the storm. The maximum a person could receive is $30,200, which many critics say is much less than the cost it will take to rebuild.

Ashcom says FEMA is one of the many organizations the Emergency Management Agency is working with as it struggles to move into the recovery process.

“The recovery staff is out working with the counties for debris removal, we’re working with FEMA, we’re partnered with FEMA,” Ashcom said. “They came, sent folks here to work with us to make sure we are getting the federal help. We work with them on a daily basis.”

Hayhurst said that overall, the programs are working well and people are getting what they need – despite a few setbacks at the beginning.

“As you might imagine when it first happened there was so much confusion, things were little disorganized for a few days. I don’t put any blame on any organization,” said Hayhurst. “It got smoothed out.”

Lowey and Israel introduced a bill last month limiting the number of cities eligible for Urban Area Security Initiatives grants to 25 from the 64 currently eligible cities.  Originally, their idea was proposed as an amendment to the federal budget bill. When it failed to become law in that form, the pair reintroduced the concept as a separate bill, now in the House Committee of Homeland Security.

“There were originally seven eligible highly populated areas,” said Elizabeth Stanley, Congresswoman Lowey’s press secretary.  “Over time unfortunately, the Department of Homeland security has increased the number of cities that are eligible.”

“What we are trying to do is preserve adequate resources for cities at the top of that list, and we know that New York is at the top of that list.”

Since 2007, FEMA has added 19 cities to the grant list.  Urban Area Security Initiative grants can be used by these cities from Omaha to New York to help with preparedness efforts unique to the threats faced by highly populated areas, including planning, organization, equipment and training.

The money for these programs is split between cities based on different risks .

According to a FEMA official, the Department of Homeland Security focuses the majority of the UASI grants “based upon ongoing intelligence analysis and extensive security reviews” and risk analyses.  Risk analyses takes into account threat, vulnerability and consequences.

Israel said that this formula leads to an overabundance of grant opportunities for localities.

“Federal homeland security formulas give too much to localities that don’t need it and too little to those that are true targets,” said Israel in a statement. “The legislation Nita Lowey and I are proposing corrects that and ensures the continued safety of New York and other top targets for terrorism.”

But while the graph provided by the Governor of Omaha’s office illustrates New York’s dominance over the UASI’s grant money, other players in the national security field are worried more about the trend Lowey and Israel’s suggested cuts follows.

“It’s part of a general cutback on preparedness,” said Barry Kellman, Director of the International Weapons Control Center at the DePaul University College of Law. “Whether that number can be 25 or 64, reasonable minds can differ…But it’s indicative of a larger phenomenon that’s frankly very troubling.”

Kellman says the trend shows Congress and the Obama administration placing less of an emphasis on preparedness as they try to handle budget cuts throughout the government.

“A lot of those allocations were like military bases. Everybody got some, and that built political support,” Kellman said, and that process produced some waste.

But to Kellman, the significant trend of cutting back on preparedness spending is “sort of a backwards concept of what preparedness means.”

The trend troubling Kellman may be what prompted the bill in the first place. In her press statement regarding this bill, Lowey said that “at a time when the pool of resources is shrinking, we cannot afford to divert resources that could be used to address real – not imagined – risks.”

The goal of this legislation may not be any more complicated than New York’s Representatives trying to preserve their piece of the pie.

“There are other homeland security grants and programs that those communities are eligible for,” said Stanley. “It’s not like we are leaving them high and dry.”

The Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs provide options for citizens interested in a buyout, with the goal to reduce the possibility of future loss of life and property.  When citizens with flood insurance voluntarily choose to sell their homes for a fair pre-flood price, the government goes forward and demolishes the houses – leaving flood plains without potential victims.

“It’s probably the most reliable mitigation program you can get,” said Iowa City flood specialist David Purdy,  because if you take the house out of the flood plain there is no possibility of another flood damaging the structure or placing homeowners and emergency rescue teams in danger.

Iowa City suffered a serious flood in 2008. Since then, Purdy has specialized in working with flood- affected families, helping them decide whether the time was right to make a move.

For “a lot of folks after the flood of 2008, the response was number one, oh my gosh how am I going to get out of here, and number two, how is the city going to protect me if I can’t get out of here?” Purdy said.

In Iowa City, 37 out of the 57 eligible properties are going to be purchased and razed.  Originally, the interest was higher but FEMA told Purdy that dropoffs are pretty normal as time lapses between a buyout and the original flood.

Immediately after a disaster, families may receive individual assistance grants, Purdy explained, which can be used for structural repairs to a damaged home, emergency housing needs or repair money to remove the mold. Later, when they choose to be a part of the buyout program, this money is deducted from the closing cost of their homes –if they don’t have the receipts.

“Probably the biggest problem we had was folks going back a year, year and a half to try and find these receipts so that it wouldn’t get deducted from the closing price,” Purdy said. “The problem is that often the FEMA officials don’t stress enough to save the receipts.”

According to a FEMA fact sheet, the program ensures that “the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to reduce the risk of loss of life and property from future disasters is not lost during the reconstruction process following a disaster.”

The President declared parts of Iowa a disaster area after the 2008 floods, making Iowa City eligible for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, but other programs under the Hazard Mitigation Assistance umbrella participate in buyouts, too.  According to the eligibility fact sheet, every flood program under the HMA considers property acquisition and structure demolition or relocation a viable project – if it passes a cost/ benefit analysis.

“It’s basically they look at if they put in a dollar, somewhere down the road is it going to protect a dollar or is it going to protect less than a dollar,” Purdy said.

Part of the reason these projects are so viable is that a study by the Multihazard Mitigation Council showed that the benefits for mitigation projects like buyouts are huge.  For every one dollar spent on mitigation projects, the study found that the country reaped four dollars in future benefits.

To reap these benefits, state agencies like Minnesota’s Department of Natural Resources often take the national program even further.  Pat Lynch, Flood Hazard Mitigation Grant Program Coordinator in Minnesota, said that since 1988 state funds have helped to purchase over 2,500 properties and spent $365 million on mitigation including preventative buyouts throughout the state.

“Where we have the opportunity to leverage federal money, we do that.  We make a concerted effort to leverage federal dollars as much as possible,” said Lynch. “It’s more so after a disaster because that’s when you are going to have more structures eligible for federal funding.”

Lynch stressed that programs like these are not just about response, but about preventing future disasters from occurring by using foresight.  Communities come to Lynch, and his department decides whether a buyout is worth it.

“The communities that have benefited from the program, they will be the first to tell you how much money their projects have already saved in damages prevented and emergency measures that didn’t have to be taken. We are quite confident,” Lynch said.

“At the end of the day it’s all taxpayer money.”

But village leaders insist they cannot afford new hires.

That is, until the United States government decided to pay for Park Ridge’s extra fire fighter.

The easiest way to see how the government helps create jobs is when it pays local governments for the salaries of new employees.  Like Park Ridge, fire departments across the country welcomed $420 million in FEMA grants as they promised to hire new fire fighters.

“The village anticipates that within three years they think they will have sufficient funds,” Ziegle said. “This is a mechanism to at least begin funding it.”

Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL) proudly touted the program and Park Ridge’s success when the grants were announced.

“He’s always supported funding on [the Staffing for Adequate Fire safety and Emergency Response grants programs,” said John Normoyle, Durbin’s press secretary.  “If an Illinois fire district were to look for a letter of support, we always write it.”

The SAFER program, run by FEMA, helps fire departments hire desperately needed staff, rehire those who have been laid off for lack of funds and recruit more first responders. With the economic recession hitting some communities especially hard, this grant has gained increasing importance since it started in 2005.  An article in the New York Times pointed out that in the past, the program has helped to rehire 252 fire fighters, kept 161 from losing their jobs and allowed cities to hire more than a thousand extra hands.

The goal, according to Rachel Racusen at FEMA, is to “increase their staffing with more ‘front line’ firefighters who can help keep communities safe.”

The program, which announced the recipients of the 2010 budget’s grant money throughout this April, gives much of its funding to small town programs like Park Ridge which received $200,000 for the salary and benefits for one new hire.  Some programs received upwards of a million dollars. The Manassass Fire Department in Virginia received almost $1.5 million for hiring purposes.

Fire departments that receive these grants must pledge to keep the newly hired fire fighters on for one year after the grant money runs out – a restriction that some critics say stops the most desperate programs from taking advantage of the grant.

“Our nation’s firefighters are called upon day after day to protect America’s citizens,” said Durbin in a press release. “As these brave men and women put themselves in harm’s way, we must ensure that they are equipped with the best resources possible to do their jobs well and that our fire departments have enough trained firefighters.”

Despite the support of Senator Durbin and others, many fire departments that depend on the federal government for assistance will be seeing a lot less of it in the near future.

A week after the first grant announcements, the program, like many at the Department of Homeland Security, saw many changes and restrictions as Republicans and Democrats tried to come to a budget compromise for the upcoming year.

While the original budget bill introduced by the House Republicans cut the SAFER program completely, an amendment offered by Congressman Bill Pascrell (D-NJ) reinstated the full $420 million. The amendment passed 318-113.  But the waivers were increased from one year to five years, and according to an article by the International Association of Fire Fighters, these pledges or waivers stop the most desperate towns from applying, because unlike Park Ridge, they know they cannot afford to keep fire fighters employed without help.

The International Association of Fire Fighters said that they plan on pressuring their allies on Congress to remove these waivers until the grant money is released next year.

“It was an amazing experience; I still can’t get over it. And neither can the city,” said Hoffman-Zoller, who runs the website On the Safe Side. “It was a big hit for us, an individual award and the best newcomer.”

A look at the Citizen Corps calendar online shows that despite Illinois’ award winning status, there has not been a planned event for the public since the beginning of the year.  The online brochures encouraging people to become Healthcare Disaster Volunteers still name Rod Blagojevich as governor.

So what exactly is the Citizen Corps program and how does it work? Many Chicagoans have no idea, and finding an answer is hard to come by.

Lyn Caroli, who works and rides the L in Chicago, said she had never heard of the program or of the national Citizen Corps events taking place throughout the country in the coming weeks.

“I don’t know anything about it,” said Caroli. “It sounds valid.”

The Senior Emergency Management Coordinator for the Office of Emergency Affairs in charge of the Chicago Citizen Corps didn’t return my first phone call. On the second attempt, the conversation lasted less than a minute, the time it took to say that he could not explain what the program is or does without going through the Office of Emergency Management’s spokesman.

The spokesman for Chicago’s Office of Emergency Management, requested questions ahead of time as it “will make it simpler for us to respond.”  I sent in my questions three hours later.  No return call that day.  The next day I called again, his office and then his cell phones. Phone calls and questions were never answered. Neither were emails.

I tried to reach another Senior Emergency Management coordinator, a man who had already told Hoffman-Zoller that I should contact him with any questions about the program administration or grant funding. He said he should be in the office most of the day on Monday.  I called repeatedly Monday and there was no answer. Inquires to the email address as listed in the City of Chicago phone directory repeatedly bounced back; the email could not be delivered.

Inquires at the state level drew just as few answers. A call to the Illinois Citizen Corps Council led to a voicemail saying no one was available at the moment but someone would return calls as soon as possible within office hours. For the following week, no one at the office picked up the phone, let alone returned the calls.

But this is a national program, which up through 2010 received $12.48 million in funding specifically delegated for state and local Citizen Corps.  And although after 2010 the Citizen Corps lost special status and was lumped in with other preparedness grants – a category with its own funding cuts – it still received federal funding. Someone had to be willing to explain where that funding went.

FEMA headquarters directed Citizen Corps concerns to someone they said was qualified to speak on the subject. Except that she was out of town.  Her voicemail directed me to another FEMA member. Who was also out of town.  After sorting through three different government employees, I reached the National Individual and Community Preparedness Division Director for FEMA. She got in touch, not to return an interview request, but rather wondering why this number had called her cell phone repeatedly.  But it wasn’t a good time to talk. She was going out of town.   She directed me to yet another FEMA employee who responded to my third email and directed me to Jenelle Cardone.

“I know why it’s confusing,” Cardone said. “It’s because Citizen Corps is very local.”

The Citizen Corps program was designed to integrate individuals in the community with organizations responsible for coordinating the response and preparation for any type of disaster.  For example, individuals can take free medical training classes to become volunteer first responders, working with the fire department and other organizations in case of an emergency.

“They don’t tell you that you can be a volunteer first responder,” said Hoffman-Zoller.  “They just tell you to come and learn.  Then at the end of the program they tell you that you can sign up to be one.”

As the program evolved, Cardone said it has become more focused on local disaster preparedness.  As such, much of Citizen Corps funding actually goes to the Community Emergency Response Teams or CERT program.

In the grand scheme of things, “Citizen Corps grant funding is at a very low amount compared to other programs” Cardone said.

Caroli suggested that perhaps the Citizen Corps’ partner organizations, like the police and fire departments, could help spread awareness of these programs and emergency preparedness.  Ashley Thomas and Monica Pandarino, graduate students at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago said to them, the best way to keep informed would be through Facebook.

Pandarino did agree with the program’s goals, though, and the Corps preparing citizens just in case.

“I mean sure, let’s get ready,” said Pandarino. “You know something’s going to happen here eventually.

The requested budget for the Department of Homeland Security includes $105.2 million to be spent on Advanced Imaging Technology machines, the full body scanners with a notorious reputation for their revealing scans.

The machines are “critical to address the current threat by safely screening passengers for metallic and non-metallic threats –including weapons, explosives and other objects concealed under layers of clothing,” according to the budget request.

Yet for $105.2 million, only 275 new machines will be up and running at a cost of approximately $382,000 each. A TSA spokesperson said these costs do not including the 535 people required to run the new machines.

Still, many airports will continue to be without critical protection as a TSA spokesperson called the placement of new machines a “complex endeavor.”

At the end of the day, the final number of these devices will depend on how the House and the Senate pass not only the 2012 budget, but the current year’s budget as well.

But even as the Congress decides how much to spend on the machines, the Electronic Privacy Information center’s lawsuit, now in the Washington D. C. District Court, seeks to suspend the use of the machines altogether.

“TSA is not very effective at actual threat detection. They are effective at spending a lot of money,” said Ginger McCall of the Electronic Privacy Information Center. “It would be hard to be more expensive and less effective than these machines.”

McCall, whose organization is currently suing the Transportation Safety Administration over privacy concerns associated with the new machines, said that the machines were not designed to detect powdered explosives, and as such relying on them as primary line of defense was dangerous.  A TSA spokesperson, however, said that the machine’s track record of finding 170 prohibited or dangerous items in 2010 proves otherwise. The spokesperson did not specify as to the nature of those items.

Although the company that makes the machines had not returned phone calls at the time of publication, Rep. Jason Chaffetez (R-UT), who chaired the TSA Oversight  Hearing on March 16 seemed to agree with McCall.

“Good intelligence, not effective screening, saved the day,” Chaffetez said after discussing numerous unsuccessful terrorist acts on airplanes. “In each of these instances brave passengers, affective intelligence and a little bit of luck averted mass tragedies. This is not good enough.”

Both McCall and Chaffetez suggested looking into other forms of screenings such as bomb dogs, which could be useful, and possibly more efficient than the new machines, in United States airports.

A TSA spokesman declined to answer how much extra security, if any, Americans could expect for their dollar.