States with a high risk of terrorist attack will have to wait a little longer to receive their deserved share of federal homeland security funds. The current formula, which divvies up 40 percent of funds equally among the states regardless of population or risk, was set to be changed as part of the reauthorization of the USA Patriot Act. Following negotiations, and the opposition of a handful of Senators from smaller states, the change has been written out of the current conference report. Despite that setback, it’s important to remember that incorporating risk into our homeland security planning is a broader goal which, in many respects, has little to do with Congress. Unfortunately, four years after September 11, the federal government has largely failed to meet that goal.

The logic behind a disciplined risk management approach is inescapable. The United States is a vast country with countless vulnerabilities. Terrorists are rational in the sense that it is to their advantage to choose targets that maximize impact and minimize costs. As there’s only so much money the government can spend (theoretically), it is best to calculate which of our countless points of vulnerability are most worth protecting and direct our dollars there. The execution is naturally more difficult: DHS must develop consistent definitions and formulas for evaluating and acting on risk; incorporate those principles into its long range planning; succeed in getting the far flung agencies that comprise DHS to comply with those assessments; and get those agencies to incorporate risk management principles into their own agency-level planning.

But in the long run, we don’t have much choice if we want a homeland security strategy that doesn’t just throw money at the threat, but actually manages it. A fully integrated risk-based philosophy promises to inject some much needed perspective into debates over homeland security funding. Even if Congress persists in distributing some portion of funds without regard for risk, a clear, broadly accepted threat assessment would reduce the danger that general homeland security funding is treated as political pork and give DHS greater authority in funding decisions.

All this isn’t necessarily news to the government. The original 2002 National Security Strategy validated this logic by calling for a complete assessment of the nation’s vulnerabilities and threats to dictate preparedness. The 2003 presidential directive which lays the groundwork for national preparedness strategy mandates that federal agencies should use risk in their allocation decisions to the greatest legal extent. Judging by the recent debate, risk-based funding has extensive support in Congress and the White House. Former members of the 9/11 Commission have been especially outspoken on the need for a risk-management framework.

Yet we’re still a long ways from having such a framework in place. As the Government Accountability Office reported in June, DHS has yet to incorporate a formal risk-based approach to decisions about where it should allocate resources, nor has it completed a comprehensive national threat assessment. While risk-based management has been adopted by certain agencies, notably Customs and Border Protection and the Coast Guard, and in some first responder grant programs, notably the Urban Area Security Initiative, these efforts are not consistent under any uniform assessment formula or broader strategy.

The failed government response to Katrina might provide some indication of why this is such a problem, as a comprehensive effort to assess threats would include natural in addition to man-made disasters (DHS' “all-hazards” preparedness mandate means it treats catastrophes based on their consequences, rather than a specific source). It seems at least plausible that, in light of the fact that a Katrina-style event topped experts’ list of likely U.S. catastrophes, that under a national risk assessment, New Orleans would have quickly stood out as a high priority.

The good news is that real progress may be finally on the horizon. Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff announced his commitment to a risk-based approach early in his tenure and has made these principles a centerpiece of the wide ranging review process he has conducted. In another important development, language in the homeland security appropriations bill passed earlier in the fall doubled the amount of DHS grants subject to the secretary’s discretion, freeing up more funds to be distributed according to risk-management principles.

Regardless of whether or not Congress is able to rectify overall first responder funding formulas, DHS leadership has a long road ahead to ensure the risk management goals it has enunciated are fully adopted. The price of failing (again) to get these systems into place quickly and effectively will surely be many more wasted dollars and, potentially, wasted lives.

Alex Baker is web content manager at The Century Foundation.