The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as amended, establishes the process for states or tribal entities to request a presidential disaster declaration. The act also generally defines the federal government’s role during the response and recovery after a disaster and establishes the programs and process through which the federal government provides disaster assistance to state, local governments, tribal entities and individuals. In addition to its central role in recommending to the President whether to declare a disaster, FEMA has primary responsibility for coordinating the federal response when a disaster is declared as well as recovery, which typically consists of providing grants to assist state and tribal entities to alleviate the damage resulting from such disasters. Once a disaster is declared, FEMA provides assistance through the IA, Public Assistance, and Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs. For instance, some declarations may provide grants only for IA and others only for Public Assistance. Hazard Mitigation Assistance grants, on the other hand, are available for all declarations if the affected area has a FEMA-approved Hazard Mitigation plan. The process for requesting assistance is the same for the three types of assistance. Under the Stafford Act, states’ governors or tribal chief executives may request federal assistance, if state and tribal resources are overwhelmed after a disaster. As part of the request to the President, a governor or tribal chief executive must affirm that the state or tribe has implemented an emergency plan and that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state or tribal entity, among other things. After a state or tribe submits a request for disaster declaration through FEMA’s regional office, the regional office is to evaluate the request and make a regional recommendation through the RVAR, which is submitted to FEMA headquarters for further review. The FEMA administrator then is to review the state’s or tribe’s request and the RVAR, and recommend to the President whether a disaster declaration is warranted. Figure 1 shows the process for a disaster declaration from the time a disaster occurs until the President approves or denies a declaration request. The IA program provides financial and direct assistance to disaster victims for expenses and needs that cannot be met through other means, such as insurance. The IA comprises five different programs as shown below. When states or tribal entities request disaster declarations, they may request assistance under any or all of the five programs. Likewise, when the President makes a disaster declaration, the declaration may authorize IA which may also include any or all of the five IA programs. 1. Individuals and Households Program provides assistance to eligible disaster survivors with necessary expenses and serious needs which they are unable to meet through other means, such as insurance. According to FEMA headquarter officials, direct assistance is provided to individuals to meet housing needs. 2. Crisis Counseling Program assists individuals and communities by providing community-based outreach and psycho-educational services. 3. Disaster Legal Services provides assistance through an agreement with the Young Lawyers Division of the American Bar Association for free legal help to survivors who are unable to secure legal services adequate to meet their disaster-related needs. 4. Disaster Case Management Program involves a partnership between a FEMA disaster case manager and a survivor to develop and carry out a Disaster Recovery Plan. 5. Disaster Unemployment Assistance provides unemployment benefits and reemployment services to individuals who have become unemployed as a result of a major disaster and who are not eligible for regular state unemployment insurance. In accordance with its responsibilities under the Stafford Act, FEMA issued a regulation in 1999 that outlines the six factors regional and headquarters officials are to consider when assessing requests for a disaster declaration and when developing a recommendation to the President for a federal disaster declaration. The regulation states that FEMA considers the six factors not only to evaluate the need for IA but also to measure the severity, magnitude, and impact of the disaster. The state or tribe provides information on these factors when submitting its disaster declaration request. The six factors for IA include the following: 1. Concentration of Damages—characterizes the density of the damage in individual communities. The regulation states that highly concentrated damages “generally indicate a greater need for federal assistance than widespread and scattered damages throughout a state.” For example, concentration of damage data includes the numbers of homes destroyed, homes with major or minor damages, and homes affected. 2. Trauma—the regulation provides conditions that might cause trauma including large numbers of injuries and deaths, large-scale disruption of normal community functions, and emergency needs such as extended loss of power or water. 3. Special Populations—FEMA considers the impact of the disaster on special populations, such as low-income populations, the elderly, or the unemployed. 4. Voluntary Agency Assistance—involves the availability and capabilities of voluntary, faith, and community-based organizations, and state and local programs to help meet both the emergency and recovery needs of individuals affected by disasters. 5. Insurance Coverage—addresses the level of insurance coverage among those affected by disasters. Because disaster assistance cannot duplicate insurance coverage, as recognized in the regulation, if a disaster occurred where almost all of the damaged dwellings were fully insured for the damage that was sustained, FEMA could conclude that a disaster declaration by the President was not necessary in accordance with this factor. 6. Average Amount of Individual Assistance by State—according to the regulation, there is no set threshold for recommending IA. However, it states that the averages, depicted in table 1, may prove useful to states and voluntary agencies as they develop plans and programs to meet the needs of disaster victims. The inference is that these averages generally indicate the amount of damages that could be expected for a state based on its size (small, medium, and large). The averages contained within the regulation and depicted in table 1 are based on disasters that occurred between July of 1994 and July of 1999. The President declared 57 percent of all IA declaration requests from calendars years 2008 through 2016, with total IA obligations of approximately $8.6 billion. FEMA received 294 IA declaration requests from calendar years 2008 through 2016. Of these, the President declared 168 requests (57 percent), and 51 percent of these declarations were from Regions IV and VI, as shown in table 2. Additionally, of the 126 IA declaration requests denied by the President, Regions X and IX had the highest percentage of denials, at 71 percent (10 out of 14) and 67 percent (12 out of 18), respectively, and Region I had the lowest percentage of denials at 13 percent (2 out of 15), as shown in table 3. See appendix I for the number of IA declarations requested, declared, and denied by states and tribes from each FEMA region for disaster declarations requested from calendar years 2008 through 2016. According to a FEMA headquarters official, when a disaster declaration is denied, FEMA sends a denial letter to states or tribes based on the review of all the information available. The letter generally states that the damage was not of such severity and magnitude as to be beyond the capabilities of the state, affected local governments, and voluntary agencies, and accordingly the supplemental federal assistance is not necessary. Of the emergency management officials we interviewed in 11 states, officials in five states reported that FEMA provided a rationale behind the denial, while officials in three states reported that no rationale was provided. Among the various types of disasters for which IA declaration requests were received, severe storms, flooding, and tornados accounted for the highest number of IA requests, with drought, fishery closure, and contaminated water being the least common, as shown in table 4. FEMA obligated a total of approximately $8.6 billion in IA for disaster declarations made from calendar years 2008 through 2016. These actual obligations were provided to 46 states and they ranged from less than $1 million to more than $1 billion as shown in figure 2. See appendix II for FEMA’s IA actual obligations by state and type of disasters for disaster declarations made from calendars years 2008 through 2016. Additionally, actual obligations for IA declarations made from calendar years 2008 through 2016 varied greatly by FEMA region, as also shown in figure 3. For example, FEMA Region VI had the highest obligations at around $3.3 billion. Region X had the lowest obligations at $24.8 million. As shown in table 5, the amount of obligations for disasters declarations also varied greatly by state. For example, Louisiana had the highest obligations at approximately $2 billion, followed by New York and Texas at about $1.3 billion and $1.1 billion, respectively. The state with the lowest obligations was the U.S. Virgin Islands at about $2,100. Six of FEMA’s 10 regional offices reported using all six regulatory factors when evaluating states’ or tribes’ IA declaration requests. Officials from the other 4 regions reported using five of the six factors, with the exception being the average amount of individual assistance by state factor. These officials noted that they do not use this factor because FEMA considers the factor to be outdated or they consider all of the factors holistically. Officials from FEMA’s regional offices also generally reported that the extent to which they consider the six IA regulatory factors equally in all cases varies, depending on the circumstances of the related disaster. Specifically, officials from 7 of the 10 regions stated that they use the regulatory factors on a case-by-case basis as certain factors are more relevant than others based on the disaster. For example, if a tornado hits a rural community and completely destroys all properties within the community with no death or injury, then the regulatory factor for trauma may not be as applicable, while the concentration of damages regulatory factor would have greater relevance. On the other hand, if a tornado hits the center of a town resulting in damages with death and injuries, then the trauma regulatory factor would become more important to consider. Additionally, officials in 3 of the 10 regions reported that in addition to the six regulatory factors, they also take into account institutional knowledge and staff experience when evaluating the regulatory factors. For example, officials in one region stated that their staff have more than 10 years of IA declaration experience, and as such, they are familiar with the extent of the information needed and collect the information accordingly. Based on our analysis of RVARs from July 2012 through December 2016 used to recommend approving or denying IA requests, FEMA regional offices did not consistently obtain and document information on all elements of the IA regulatory factors. As described earlier, FEMA regions are to use the RVAR to document information on the IA factors and to recommend to the FEMA administrator whether a disaster should be declared. According to FEMA headquarters officials, FEMA developed the RVAR template in June 2012 to help ensure consistency across regions when making recommendations to headquarters on IA declaration requests. Officials stated that prior to the template, information on the six factors was mainly provided in narrative format. The new template listed the various elements found within each of the six regulatory factors, guiding the regional offices to provide information based on those elements. For example, instead of providing a general narrative on the trauma factor, the new template listed the elements to be provided under trauma, such as the number of injuries and deaths, as well as information on power outages and disruption of other community functions and services. Also, instead of summarizing the concentration of damages factor, the template allowed regional offices to categorize the damage concentration as low, medium, high, or extreme. Furthermore, the template also provided a uniform format to present quantitative information such as the number of homes destroyed; whether home damages are major or minor; the number of homes affected; and level of home ownership. See appendix III for a sample RVAR template. We analyzed 81 RVARs developed by the 10 FEMA regions from July 2012 through December 2016 and found that regions did not consistently obtain and document information on all elements related to each of the six regulatory factors in their RVARs. As shown in table 6, all 81 RVARs had at least some elements documented but not all for each of the IA regulatory factors. For example, for the IA concentration of damages regulatory factor, the six elements to be addressed include the number of homes destroyed, damaged or affected, damage concentration, and damage to critical facilities. While 44 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the six elements, 37 documented some but not all of the elements. Similarly, for the trauma regulatory factor, the four elements to be addressed include injuries, death, power outages, and disruption of community functions. While 30 of the 81 RVARs documented all of the four elements, 51 documented some but not all of the elements. For the insurance coverage factor, while five RVARs documented all of the elements, 73 RVARs documented some but not all of the elements. Elements under this factor include home ownership, insurance, and flood insurance, when applicable. None of the six regulatory factors were fully documented across all RVARs. See appendix IV for detailed information on the extent to which all of the elements of the six regulatory factors were documented in the RVARs from July 2012 through December 2016. FEMA headquarters officials acknowledged that information related to all the elements for each of the IA regulatory factors were missing from the RVARs. They stated that they had not collected all information on all factors because one factor may have more weight than another based on the specific incident that has occurred. However, they also indicated that they do not fully know and have not evaluated all of the reasons why a region may have omitted information on an element of a factor. FEMA headquarters officials agreed that having complete information on all elements of the regulatory factors in the RVARs would assist in their recommendation process. Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government suggest that agencies should establish and operate monitoring activities to ensure that internal controls—such as the documentation of all of the elements of the IA regulatory factors FEMA regions considered—are effective, and to take corrective actions as appropriate. Because it is unclear why regions are not completely documenting all elements related to the current six regulatory factors, such an evaluation could help FEMA identify whether any corrective steps are needed. Doing so could help FEMA ensure it is achieving its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers. Officials we interviewed in 9 of the 10 FEMA regions and state emergency management offices in all 11 states reported the positive relationship they maintain with each other as a strength in the IA declaration process. For example, both FEMA regional officials and state emergency management officials stated that they have a good working relationship and are in regular communication via telephone or in-person meetings with each other. Also, state emergency management officials we spoke to stated that whenever they are in need of assistance, they know they can reach out to FEMA regional officials for assistance. However, FEMA regional and state emergency management officials we spoke to also reported various challenges with the process. These include the subjective nature of the IA regulatory factors given the lack of eligibility thresholds, the lack of transparency in the decision-making process, and difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors. Subjective nature of the IA factors and lack of eligibility thresholds. Officials from 9 of 10 FEMA regions stated the subjective nature of the IA program is a challenge; and officials in 6 of the 10 regions also said they found the lack of eligibility thresholds a challenge. An official in one region stated that unlike FEMA’s Public Assistance program, which has minimum thresholds for eligibility, it is unclear when states should apply for IA funds. Under the Public Assistance program, for example, for states or tribes to qualify for assistance, they must demonstrate that they have sustained a minimum of $1 million in damages and the impact of damages must amount to $1.00 per capita in the state. An official in another region explained that although the subjectivity of the IA factors provides flexibility in determining the type of IA program needed, having some quantifiable criteria could help officials explain to states why their requests were denied or approved. Similarly, officials we interviewed in 7 of the 11 states said they found the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold to be a challenge. A state emergency management official in one state said this subjectivity makes it difficult to determine whether or not the state should make an IA request. A state emergency management official in another state reported that the subjectivity can cause the IA declaration process to be inconsistent, and it is not always clear how or why certain declarations were approved and others were not. Further, a state emergency management official in an additional state also pointed to the subjective nature of the factors with no threshold as a reason for not being able to provide a more detailed rationale behind a declaration denial. To illustrate this, table 7 shows how four states requested IA declarations related to the same tornado in 2012 and varied in what they reported across the six IA factors, such as the levels of damages incurred, special populations among their residents, and insurance coverage. Two of these four states—Kentucky and Indiana—received IA declarations and the other two—Ohio and Illinois—were denied. Lack of transparency. Another challenge reported by FEMA regional and state emergency management officials was the lack of transparency in how FEMA evaluates and provides a recommendation to the President on whether a declaration is warranted. For example, officials we interviewed in 4 of 10 regions indicated the lack of transparency as a challenge. A FEMA official in one region stated that the region would like more transparency regarding what FEMA headquarters recommends to the President and whether the President’s decision aligns with FEMA’s recommendation. State emergency management officials we interviewed in 10 of 11 states also reported that lack of transparency with the IA process is a challenge. For example, an emergency management official in one state said it is not clear how or if FEMA considers all of the factors. Also, an emergency management official in another state reported that it was unclear to him why his state’s declaration request was denied while the requests of other states with similar incidents were declared. Difficulty gathering information on IA regulatory factors. Officials in 4 of 10 FEMA regions reported difficulty gathering information, such as income or insurance coverage, as a challenge. An official in one region stated that it is difficult to obtain information related to IA factors from states. For example, the official said that calculating the concentration of damages is difficult absent technical guidance from FEMA headquarters, as the current guidance only accounts for the number of structure damage but not the impact of damage. Further, officials in two FEMA regions stated that states lack a dedicated IA official, making it difficult for state officials, who play multiple roles, to provide the necessary information related to the IA factors in their IA declaration request. Additionally, a state emergency management official in one state also reported that lack of staff resources in her state makes it difficult to verify all the local damage assessments prior to making a declaration request. Pursuant to the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, in November 2015, FEMA issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to revise the six current IA regulatory factors to the following proposed factors: state fiscal capacity and resource availability; uninsured home and personal property losses; disaster-impacted population profile; impact to community infrastructure; casualties; and disaster-related unemployment. According to FEMA headquarters officials, the revisions aim to provide more objective criteria, clarify the threshold for eligibility, and speed the declaration. The officials said the proposed rule also seeks to provide additional clarity and guidance for all the established factors. Table 8 shows FEMA’s description of current and proposed IA factors. FEMA received public comments from 14 states in the Federal Register during the comment period for the proposed rule and proposed guidance. The 14 states expressed concern about the proposed factor for state fiscal capacity and resource availability, including the reliability and relevance of data sources such as total taxable resources. These states expressed concern that the data collection necessary to meet the new requirements would fall upon them, adding to the cost burden of completing an IA disaster declaration request. They also explained that the use of total taxable resources and other similar data is not an effective way to assess a state’s current ability to provide resources following a disaster. Also, these states indicated that the data points such as total taxable resources and per capita personal income that would be used to evaluate state fiscal capacity are outdated and inaccurate and would be an inefficient way to evaluate a state’s true fiscal capacity to respond to a disaster. Regarding the other five proposed factors, several states in their comments raised questions about ambiguities in interpreting the factors or the feasibility and cost of gathering related data. For example, in regards to the factor on disaster impacted population, five states expressed concern that the data required for the disaster-impacted population factor would be a cost burden to the state or that the data would be inappropriate for evaluation. Additionally, two states said unemployment related to a disaster incident for the disaster-related unemployment factor would be hard to quantify in the first 30 days following a disaster. They stated that this was especially an issue given that states work to submit an IA disaster declaration request as soon as possible following a disaster. According to the Office of Management and Budget’s Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs website, the projected date for finalization of the proposed rule is September 2018; however, as of April 2018, FEMA officials stated that they were not certain whether that timeframe would be met. Until the proposed rule is finalized, we will not know the extent to which the various challenges FEMA regions and state officials raised in our interviews and in comments on the proposed rule will be addressed. FEMA has obligated over $8.6 billion nationwide in IA from calendar years 2008 through 2016, highlighting the importance of FEMA’s evaluation of states’ and tribes’ IA declaration requests. FEMA’s regional offices evaluate the request and make a regional recommendation through the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation, which documents information on all relevant IA regulatory factors. FEMA has developed the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation to ensure regions consistently obtain and document the information needed by FEMA to make a disaster declaration recommendation to the President based on the IA regulatory factors. However, FEMA’s regional offices do not consistently obtain and document information on all elements of the current IA regulatory factors. Because it is unclear why regions are not always documenting all of the elements related to these factors, evaluating the reasons why could help FEMA identify if any corrective steps are needed. Doing so could also help FEMA ensure it is meeting its stated goals in providing consistency in the evaluation process and in the types of factors it considers. We recommend that the Administrator of FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the current IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary. We provided a draft of this report to DHS for its review and comment. DHS provided written comments, which are summarized below and reproduced in full in appendix V. DHS concurred with the recommendation and described planned actions to address it. In addition, DHS provided written technical comments, which we incorporated into the report as appropriate. DHS concurred with our recommendation that FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendations for each element of the IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary. DHS stated that a FEMA working group consisting of headquarters stakeholders will draft survey questions for FEMA region officials to identify the common reasons why an element of an IA regulatory factor may not be addressed within a RVAR. According to DHS, the working group will also analyze, assess, and present the findings of the survey responses to FEMA senior leadership, and if needed, FEMA will develop and send a memorandum to the regions with additional guidance regarding the appropriate preparation of RVARs. DHS stated that the estimated completion date is in the fall of 2018. These actions, if implemented effectively, should address the intent of our recommendation. We will send copies of this report to the Secretary of Homeland Security, the FEMA Administrator, and the appropriate congressional committees. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. Key contributors to this report are listed in appendix VI. Table 9 provides the total number of Individual Assistance declaration requests made, declared, and denied, by region, state, and tribe for disaster declarations requested from calendar years 2008 through 2016. Table 10 provides Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) Individual Assistance (IA) actual obligations for declarations made from calendar years 2008 through 2016 by state and type of disaster. As part of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) declaration process, FEMA’s regional offices are to evaluate states’ or tribes’ declaration requests, including the IA declaration request, and make a recommendation called the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) and submit the RVAR to FEMA headquarters. In June 2012, FEMA headquarters issued a template for FEMA regional offices to use in developing the RVAR as identified in figure 3. Tables 11 through 16 provide information on each element of the 6 Individual Assistance (IA) regulatory factors documented in the Regional Administrator’s Validation and Recommendation (RVAR) from July 2012 through December 2016 by the Federal Emergency Management Agency region. In addition to the contact named above, Aditi Archer (Assistant Director), Su Jin Yon (Analyst-In-Charge), Hiwotte Amare, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Jun S. (Joyce) Kang, Christopher Keisling, Heidi Nielson, Hadley Nobles, Anne Rhodes-Kline, and Jerome (Jerry) Sandau made significant contributions to this report.
FEMA's IA program provides help to individuals to meet their immediate needs after a disaster, such as shelter and medical expenses. When a state, U.S. territory, or tribe requests IA assistance through a federal disaster declaration, FEMA evaluates the request against regulatory factors, such as concentration of damages, and provides a recommendation to the President, who makes a final declaration decision. GAO was asked to review FEMA's IA declaration process. This report examines (1) the number of IA declaration requests received, declared, and denied, and IA actual obligations from calendar years 2008 through 2016, (2) the extent to which FEMA accounts for the regulatory factors when evaluating IA requests, and (3) any challenges FEMA regions and select states reported on the declaration process and factors and any FEMA actions to revise them. GAO reviewed FEMA's policies, IA declaration requests and obligation data, and FEMA's RVARs from July 2012 through December 2016, the most recent years for which data were available. GAO also reviewed proposed rulemaking comments and interviewed FEMA officials from all 10 regions and 11 state emergency management offices selected based on declaration requests and other factors. From calendar years 2008 through 2016, the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Federal Emergency and Management Agency (FEMA) received 294 Individual Assistance (IA) declaration requests from states, U.S. territories, and tribes to help individuals meet their immediate needs after a disaster. Of these, the President declared 168 and denied 126 requests. Across the various types of IA declaration requests, severe storms (190) were the most common disaster type and drought (1) was among the least common. FEMA obligated about $8.6 billion in IA for disaster declarations during this period. GAO found that FEMA regions did not consistently obtain and document information on all elements of established IA regulatory factors when making IA recommendations to headquarters. Following a declaration request, a FEMA region is to prepare a Regional Administrator's Validation and Recommendation (RVAR)—a document designed to include data on each of the six IA regulatory factors for each declaration request as well as the regional administrator's recommendation. GAO reviewed all 81 RVARs from July 2012—the date FEMA began using the new RVAR template—through December 2016. GAO found that regions did not consistently obtain and document information for the elements required under the six regulatory factors (see table). For example, only 44 of the 81 RVARs documented all elements under the concentration of damage factor. By evaluating why regions are not completing all elements of each current IA regulatory factor, FEMA could identify whether any corrective steps are needed. Officials from the 10 FEMA regions and 11 states GAO interviewed, reported positive relationships with each other, but also cited various challenges with the IA declaration process and regulatory factors. For example, these officials told GAO that there are no established minimum thresholds for IA, making final determinations more subjective and the rationale behind denials unclear. However, as required by the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, FEMA has taken steps to revise the IA factors by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking. According to FEMA, the proposed rule aims to provide more objective criteria, clarify the threshold for eligibility, and speed up the IA declaration process. As of April 2018, the proposed rule was still under consideration. According to FEMA officials, they plan to finalize the rule in late 2018; therefore, it is too early to know the extent to which it will address these challenges. GAO recommends that FEMA evaluate why regions are not completing the RVARs for each element of the current IA regulatory factors and take corrective steps, if necessary. DHS concurred with the recommendation.