U.S. Department of Homeland Security Planning, Programing, Budgeting, and Execution Process

This primer describes the background, schedule, stakeholders, phases, and oversight of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) planning, programming, budgeting, and execution (PPBE) process. It is intended to be a useful reference guide for those unfamiliar with the DHS PPBE process, particularly among congressional staff.

Background

Established in 2002, DHS protects the U.S. homeland through a broad array of missions, including border, transportation, and maritime security; cyber and infrastructure security; management of the immigration system and immigration enforcement; disaster response; protection of the nation's leaders; and countering weapons of mass destruction (see DHS, undated-a). DHS is the third-largest federal cabinet-level agency, with more than 250,000 employees and a budget of nearly $100 billion in the fiscal year (FY) 2023 President's Budget request (DHS, 2022, p. 1). The annual DHS budget includes discretionary funding for disasters (the Disaster Relief Fund), which has historically accounted for between 20 and 60 percent of the total budget; discretionary fees collected by DHS components; and mandatory appropriations, such as those for personnel, compensation, and benefits.

Like most other U.S. federal agencies, DHS follows an obligation-disbursement approach, in which funds must be obligated before they can be disbursed. This approach also applies to the Disaster Relief Fund, which receives no-year appropriations, meaning that these funds do not expire until they are expended. In addition to the base budget, DHS often receives supplemental funds for emergent requirements, the amount of which varies from year to year, as shown in Figure 1.

Current US$ (billions)

Year	Regular	Supplemental
2011	40	0
2012	40	10
2013	45	10
2014	45	0
2015	45	0
2016	45	0
2017	45	10
2018	35	65
2019	60	5
2020	70	45
2021	70	2.5

SOURCES: Authors' analysis of data from William L. Painter, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2021, Congressional Research Service, R46802, May 24, 2021; William L. Painter, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2022, Congressional Research Service, R47005, March 24, 2022; OMB, "Historical Tables," White House, undated, Table 5.2— Budget Authority by Agency: 1976–2028; William L. Painter, DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet, Congressional Research Service, R44052, April 17, 2019.

NOTE: Regular budget authority includes base discretionary appropriations, fee-funded discretionary appropriations, and funding outside the normal appropriations process. It does not include mandatory appropriations or supplemental appropriations. Supplemental budget authority consists primarily of funding allocated to the Disaster Relief Fund through supplemental appropriations.

Schedule

DHS uses a PPBE process similar to that of the U.S. Department of Defense to develop a five-year funding plan, known as the Future Years Homeland Security Program (FYHSP). The DHS process generates key outputs (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019) according to the following notional schedule (listed with tentative time frames based on discussions with DHS officials):

• Resource planning guidance (RPG) from the DHS Secretary sets departmental priorities and direction (October).
• Fiscal guidance from the DHS Deputy Secretary—through the chief financial officer (CFO)—provides top-line funding allocations to DHS organizations, including the eight operational components—e.g., Customs and Border Protection, Immigration and Customs Enforcement, Transportation Security Administration—and support offices (February).
• Resource allocation plans (RAPs) that are developed by the DHS operational components and support offices propose five-year organizational funding plans (April).
• The DHS Secretary issues a resource allocation decision (RAD) (July/August), which is then negotiated with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) (September/October).
• The FYHSP and the President's Budget request are sent to Congress (February of year 2).
• DHS conducts a strategic review process to self-assess implementation progress (no time frame).

The first five outputs cover just 17 months of the flowchart shown in Figure 2 (i.e., steps shown in the blue area and in the first half of the orange area, which are the programming and budgeting phases of the PPBE process, respectively). However, in each calendar year, multiple cycles of the full two-year PPBE and reporting processes are underway at any given time, as illustrated in the figure.

The flow chart shows a calendar year from January and December, with five rows that represent the five phases of the budgeting process: planning, programming, budgeting, execution, and reporting.

The planning phase is the top row. It starts in January and ends in September. Within that phase there are items for

• Threat assessment, taking place in May–June
• Requirements planning, in July–August
• RPG, in September.

The programming phase starts in the first row in October, and runs through the second row, ending in July. Within that phase there are items for

• RPG, in October
• Fiscal guidance, in January–February
• RAP, in late February–April
• Program and budget review, in April–May
• RAD, in June.

The budgeting phase starts in the second row in July, and runs through the third row, ending in October of the following year. Within that phase there are items for

• Budget to OMB, in July—October
• OMB passback, in October–January
• Budget and FYHSP to Congress, in January–March
• S1 hearings: component budget brief to Congress, in March– late May
• HAC/SAC conference, in late May—September.
• Appropriations act, in late August—early October.

The execution phase starts in the third row in October, and runs through the fourth row, ending in October of the following year. Within that phase there are items for

• Annual strategic review, in October—May
• Reprogramming requests to Congress, in May–October

The reporting phase starts in the fourth row in October, and runs through the fifth row, ending in March. Within that phase there are items for

• Agency financial report, in October—late January
• Annual performance report, in late January–March

SOURCES: Adapted from DHS Office of the Chief Financial Officer Program Analysis and Evaluation, briefing provided to the authors, August 2023.

NOTE: This figure shows that multiple PPBE cycles are underway at any one time. Phases are color coded from top to bottom as follows: planning (gray), programming (blue), budgeting (orange), execution (yellow), and reporting (green). HAC = House Appropriations Committee; S1 = DHS Secretary; SAC = Senate Appropriations Committee.

Decisionmakers and Stakeholders

The DHS PPBE process is driven by a mix of headquarters and component decisionmaking. According to DHS Directive 101-01 (2019), the DHS Secretary is the ultimate decision authority, providing strategic guidance through the RPG and acting as the deciding authority for the RAD. The Deputy Assistant Secretary for Strategic Integration in the Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans manages the planning phase, which culminates in the issuance of the RPG. The CFO provides DHS components with fiscal guidance. The director of Program Analysis and Evaluation (PA&E) in the Office of the CFO integrates the PPBE process with other DHS governance processes (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 8). The Deputy’s Management Action Group makes resource allocation recommendations to the Senior Leaders Council, which comprises the DHS Secretary and component heads.^[1]

These governance bodies, which are intended to provide senior decisionmakers across DHS with a say in the PPBE process, include both political appointees and civil servants. However, these bodies have not been institutionalized, and DHS leaders may use them as they see fit.

Planning and Programming

The significant unpredictability in DHS's missions affects the department's ability to conduct strategic planning. According to a former DHS official, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has historically conducted a threat assessment prior to the planning phase (as shown in Figure 2) to inform the department's planning and strategy development. The DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans coordinates the planning phase and obtains input from stakeholders across the department, including the components (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 8). The planning phase culminates in the RPG issued by the DHS Secretary.

The significant unpredictability in DHS's missions affects the department's ability to conduct strategic planning. According to a former DHS official, the DHS Office of Intelligence and Analysis has historically conducted a threat assessment prior to the planning phase (as shown in Figure 2) to inform the department's planning and strategy development. The DHS Office of Strategy, Policy, and Plans coordinates the planning phase and obtains input from stakeholders across the department, including the components (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 8). The planning phase culminates in the RPG issued by the DHS Secretary.

Budgeting and Execution

The DHS CFO oversees the budgeting phase. DHS Instruction 101-01-001 delegates authority for the budgeting phase to the DHS budget director within the Budget Division of the CFO's office. Although the PPBE process ultimately produces the five-year FYHSP, the budgeting phase is concerned primarily with developing a "fully justified one-year budget submission" that results in a congressional appropriation (DHS Directive 101-01, 2019, p. 6.).

The budgeting phase begins after the DHS components have submitted their RAPs, enabling the Budget Division to inform the RAD. Budget formulation is at once distinct from longer-term PPBE resource decisions, with a primary focus on the annual budget, and an important input for RADs and the five-year FYHSP. The division's budget review includes key pricing and execution considerations. The division is also responsible for preparing rigorous budget justifications and supporting materials, which are initially submitted to OMB and subsequently prepared for Congress (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019).

The final DHS budget submission to Congress is generally divided into four categories:

• operations and support (O&S)
• procurement, construction, and improvements
• research and development (R&D)
• federal assistance.

DHS funds are typically budgeted annually, but some programs receive multiyear or no-year appropriations. For example, Congress sometimes appropriates multiyear funds to major acquisition programs to foster a stable production and contracting environment. A key example of no-year money is the Disaster Relief Fund, which is meant to provide the Federal Emergency Management Agency with the flexibility to respond quickly to emerging disaster relief and recovery needs. (DHS officials confirmed that the use of no-year appropriations has been significantly curtailed.)

As for the duration of funding availability, the House report accompanying the FY 2019 DHS appropriations bill outlined different periods of availability for three of the four major appropriation categories: "With limited exception, the O&S accounts shall have one year of availability; the [procurement, construction, and improvements] accounts shall have five years of availability for construction and three years for all other activities; and the R&D accounts shall have two years of availability" (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 2018). In addition, however, Congress authorized DHS components to carry forward a portion of their one-year O&S accounts into the next fiscal year and spend up to 50 percent of their prior-year lapsed (unobligated) balance amounts (U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, 2018, Section 505).

This authority to carry over O&S funds was still in effect as of June 2024. However, this authority does not apply to multiyear O&S accounts or other appropriation categories. DHS officials confirmed that multiyear O&S accounts are rarer than one-year O&S accounts, which are typically related to personnel compensation. Seven DHS components employ fee-and-fine authorities that may "offset appropriations" or "cover the cost of provided services."^[2] Budget submissions thus differentiate among these account categories, along with mandatory appropriations (DHS, undated-b, p. 5.).

Whereas the first three PPBE phases are assigned a single decision authority (the DHS Secretary), the execution phase is "owned by many parties in DHS including senior leadership, the DHS CFO and Performance Improvement Officer, and Components" (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 15.). According to DHS officials, ultimate responsibility for disbursing and monitoring obligated funds falls to the components. Whereas the Budget Division monitors component obligation rates and oversees department-wide requests for information regarding execution, DHS officials explained that the components monitor their own outlays and expenditure rates in the execution phase. The Budget Division also approves quarterly budget updates, known as apportionment documents, before they are sent to OMB.

According to DHS officials, the principal objective of the execution phase, as outlined in both DHS Directive 101-01 and DHS Instruction 101-01-001, is “to responsibly expend resources and to account for cost and performance to determine if value is delivered to our stakeholders.” Importantly, the analytic and reporting requirements related to execution extend to both financial expenditures and broader performance measures. The execution phase should include an assessment of risks and facilitate continuous process improvement (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 6).^[3] Because the execution phase acts as a feedback mechanism for the earlier PPBE phases, DHS should apply appropriate measures and metrics to specific PPBE processes and procedures in this phase (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 15.).

DHS PA&E is charged with developing metrics for program assessment during the planning and programming phases, in accordance with the Government Performance and Results Act of 1993. According to DHS officials, PA&E does not have a formal role in the execution phase, but DHS components coordinate with PA&E on performance assessments on an ongoing basis, and quarterly reports detail progress toward DHS performance goals (see DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 19).

The DHS budget director is responsible for managing the "execution of apportionment and control of funds processes, including transfers and reprogramming" (DHS Instruction 101-01-001, 2019, p. 10.). As part of this management, the budget director conducts status-of-funds and midyear reviews to ensure that funds are being executed in accordance with congressional intent. During the execution phase, programs may require additional support to cover emerging needs or unforeseen crises. DHS must initiate a reprogramming request to Congress before June 30 if the required additional support exceeds 10 percent of DHS's originally appropriated funding (Mrdeza and Gold, undated). If current-year appropriations have been passed under a continuing resolution, DHS must work within the prior fiscal year's account structure.

Oversight

As described in its Financial Management Policy Manual, DHS has monitoring mechanisms in place, such as obligation plans, expenditure plans, and budget execution plans (DHS, 2020). DHS also receives an annual independent audit of its financial statements.

As noted, DHS's PPBE process takes almost two years, from the beginning of the planning phase to the delivery of the budget request to Congress. Along the way, multiple reviews by DHS leadership and OMB provide opportunities to adapt the budget to the changing homeland security–related landscape and priorities.

Once the President's Budget is released each year (which, by law, is supposed to occur in early February), the House and Senate homeland security authorization and appropriations committees begin reviewing it. The review of the DHS portions of the President's Budget occurs through staff briefings with DHS and component officials and culminates in committee hearings.

The House and Senate authorizations and appropriations committees conduct budget hearings with the DHS Secretary each year. These committees hold additional hearings with the components and support offices, then typically release the text of the DHS appropriations bill in the summer and add subcommittee and full committee markups. For full committee markups, the committees attach accompanying reports to the bill, which can provide additional guidance. Each appropriations bill outlines the authorities for transfers and reprogramming by DHS.

Neither the House nor the Senate passed individual homeland security appropriations bills from FY 2016 onward, except for the House-passed FY 2024 and FY 2025 DHS appropriations bills. Rather, the DHS appropriations have been routinely passed through either continuing resolutions or omnibus (i.e., consolidated) appropriations bills. Furthermore, DHS’s authorizing legislation, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, has not received a comprehensive reauthorization since its enactment.

Notes

• [1] In an interview with the authors, DHS officials explained that the Senior Leaders Council rarely met, and the Deputy’s Management Action Group usually provided recommendations to the Secretary of Homeland Security for consideration.
• [2] See DHS, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, 2015, p. 3. These components are as follows: Customs and Border Protection; U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services; Transportation Security Administration; Federal Emergency Management Agency; Immigration and Customs Enforcement; National Protection and Programs Directorate, which has been reorganized as the Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency; and the U.S. Coast Guard. Examples of fee-and-fine authorities include fees to recover the cost to secure federal facilities, offset aviation security costs, and process immigration benefit requests. For further reading on DHS’s fee-based programs, see U.S. Government Accountability Office, 2016.
• [3] TDHS is required to conduct a strategic review in the execution phase. DHS Instruction 101-01-001 (2019) notes that the strategic review serves multiple purposes, such as conducting a self-assessment on progress and ways to improve; facilitating organizational best practices; making findings available to senior leaders to inform planning, budgeting, and management decisions; and informing conversations with OMB to inform its activities. However, it is unclear how the strategic review may specifically drive budget decisions.

References

• DHS—See U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
• DHS Directive—See Department of Homeland Security Directive.
• DHS Instruction—See Department of Homeland Security Instruction.
• Department of Homeland Security Directive 101-01, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution, rev. 1, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, June 4, 2019.
• Department of Homeland Security Instruction 101-01-001, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, June 11, 2019.
• Mrdeza, Michelle, and Kenneth Gold, "Reprogramming Funds: Understanding the Appropriators' Perspective," Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, undated.
• Office of Management and Budget, "Historical Tables," White House, undated. As of January 11, 2023:
  https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historical-tables
• OMB—See Office of Management and Budget.
• Painter, William L., DHS Budget v. DHS Appropriations: Fact Sheet, Congressional Research Service, R44052, April 17, 2019.
• Painter, William L., Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2021, Congressional Research Service, R46802, May 24, 2021.
• Painter, William L., Department of Homeland Security Appropriations: FY2022, Congressional Research Service, R47005, March 24, 2022.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, "Department of Homeland Security's Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2020–2024," webpage, undated-a. As of February 6, 2023:
  https://www.dhs.gov/publication/department-homeland-securitys-strategic-plan-fiscal-years-2020-2024
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security FY 2020–2022 Annual Performance Report, undated-b.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Financial Management Policy Manual, September 8, 2020, Not available to the general public.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Agency Financial Report, FY 2022, November 15, 2022.
• U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Office of the Chief Financial Officer, A Common Appropriations Structure for DHS: FY 2016 Crosswalk, Addendum to the Fiscal Year 2016 President's Budget, February 2, 2015.
• U.S. Government Accountability Office, DHS Management: Enhanced Oversight Could Better Ensure Programs Receiving Fees and Other Collections Use Funds Efficiently, GAO-16-443, July 21, 2016.
• U.S. House of Representatives, Committee on Appropriations, Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2019, House Report 115-948, U.S. Government Publishing Office, September 12, 2018.

For Further Reading: RAND's Recent Work in Support of Department of Defense PPBE Reform Efforts

• Megan McKernan, Stephanie Young, Timothy R. Heath, Dara Massicot, Mark Stalczynski, Ivana Ke, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 1, Case Studies of China and Russia, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-1, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-1.html
• Megan McKernan, Stephanie Young, Andrew Dowse, James Black, Devon Hill, Benjamin J. Sacks, Austin Wyatt, Nicolas Jouan, Yuliya Shokh, Jade Yeung, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 2, Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-2, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-2.html
• Megan McKernan, Stephanie Young, Ryan Consaul, Michael Simpson, Sarah W. Denton, Anthony Vassalo, William Shelton, Devon Hill, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 3, Case Studies of Selected Non-DoD Federal Agencies, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-3, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-3.html
• Megan McKernan, Stephanie Young, Timothy R. Heath, Dara Massicot, Andrew Dowse, Devon Hill, James Black, Ryan Consaul, Michael Simpson, Sarah W. Denton, Anthony Vassalo, Ivana Ke, Mark Stalczynski, Benjamin J. Sacks, Austin Wyatt, Jade Yeung, Nicolas Jouan, Yuliya Shokh, William Shelton, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 4, Executive Summary, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-4, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-4.html
• Stephanie Young, Megan McKernan, Andrew Dowse, Nicolas Jouan, Theodora Ogden, Austin Wyatt, Mattias Eken, Linda Slapakova, Naoko Aoki, Clara Le Gargasson, Charlotte Kleberg, Maxime Sommerfeld Antoniou, Phoebe Felicia Pham, Jade Yeung, Turner Ruggi, Erik Silfversten, James Black, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 5, Additional Case Studies of Selected Allied and Partner Nations, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-5, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-5.html
• Stephanie Young, Megan McKernan, Ryan Consaul, Laurinda L. Rohn, Frank G. Klotz, Michael Simpson, Sarah W. Denton, Yuliya Shokh, Madison Williams, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 6, Additional Case Studies of Selected Non-DoD Federal Agencies, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-6, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-6.html
• Stephanie Young, Megan McKernan, Andrew Dowse, Nicolas Jouan, Theodora Ogden, Austin Wyatt, Mattias Eken, Linda Slapakova, Naoko Aoki, Ryan Consaul, Laurinda L. Rohn, Frank G. Klotz, Michael Simpson, Jade Yeung, Sarah W. Denton, Yuliya Shokh, Clara Le Gargasson, Charlotte Kleberg, Phoebe Felicia Pham, Madison Williams, Erik Silfversten, James Black, Turner Ruggi, Maxime Sommerfeld Antoniou, Raphael S. Cohen, John P. Godges, Heidi Peters, and Lauren Skrabala, Planning, Programming, Budgeting, and Execution in Comparative Organizations: Vol. 7, Executive Summary for Additional Case Studies, RAND Corporation, RR-A2195-7, 2024. As of July 18, 2024: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA2195-7.html

Available for Download

Download PDF

Topics

• Homeland Security Legislation
• Military Budgets and Defense Spending
• U.S. Department of War/Department of Defense
• United States