These programs include the (1) FEMA Hazard Mitigation  Grant Program (HMGP), (2) FEMA Public Assistance (PA), (3) HUD  Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR), (4)  the Department of Transportation’s Federal Transit Administration (FTA)  Emergency Relief Program (ERP), and (5) USACE’s Sandy Program. The NMF also established MitFLG to  help coordinate hazard mitigation efforts of relevant local, state, tribal,  and federal organizations. States and Localities Have Used Federal Funds to Help Plan and Implement Hazard Mitigation Projects to Enhance Resilience

States and localities have used funds appropriated to federal agencies by  the Sandy Supplemental to plan and implement a variety of hazard  mitigation activities, including but not limited to the following types of  projects: acquiring and demolishing properties at risk for repeated flooding, elevating flood prone structures, erecting physical flood barriers such as seawalls and berms to protect protecting critical facilities against power loss. As of May 2015, FTA has allocated $9.3  billion for recovery and resilience projects to public transportation  agencies affected by Hurricane Sandy. State Officials Reported Successes Using Federal Funds to Enhance Disaster Resilience, but Experienced Challenges That Limited Their Ability to Maximize Those Funds

The 16 groups of state and city officials from the Sandy-affected area that  we interviewed reported successes in leveraging federal Sandy recovery  efforts to enhance disaster resilience. Challenges generally fell into three categories:  (1) specific challenges with the implementation of postdisaster programs  where program implementation was not always consistent with agency  disaster resilience priorities, (2) challenges from the broader structure of  disaster resilience funding that limited a comprehensive approach to  reducing overall risk, and (3) local challenges that are not directly in the  federal purview but may be exacerbated by other challenges that are. Federal Emergency Management Agency’s  (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Assistance  FEMA has multiple programs to help states  and localities enhance disaster resilience. In fiscal year 2014, for  example, the total appropriation for the entire  nation was $25 million. For example,  HMGP provided approximately $1.7 billion to New York and New Jersey  following Hurricane Sandy. There are advantages to making funds  available in the postdisaster environment. State officials we interviewed confirmed that, in their experience, local  applicants were more likely to invest their own resources in hazard  mitigation activities following a disaster. In some states, state officials  reported Hurricane Sandy was a catalyst to strengthen the state’s culture  of resilience. State  officials told us that these reviews were often time-and resource- consuming, which could dissuade individuals from pursuing hazard  mitigation projects. Although there are benefits to investing in disaster-resilience in a  postdisaster environment, there are challenges and tradeoffs that may  limit effective risk reduction. Further, the lack of a strategic approach increases the risk that the federal  government and its nonfederal partners will experience lower returns on  investments or lost opportunities to effectively mitigate critical lifelines  against known threats and hazards. For example, an investment strategy could:   identify the most critical components of disaster resilience, such as  critical infrastructure, to help target financial resources in a way that  would protect those components from future disasters;   identify and oversee an approach to developing the information  required to more effectively and accurately determine which, and  under what circumstances, investments in disaster resilience reduce  overall risk, and in turn reduce federal fiscal exposures to disasters; describe the appropriate balance of federal and nonfederal investment  and help to identify how policymakers and program implementers  should structure incentives to help reach this balance; and  consider the current balance between pre- and postdisaster resource  allocation and advise the President and Congress on the benefits and  challenges of the current balance, including whether the nation should  seek to take a more proactive position in funding and encouraging  pre-disaster mitigation activities. These  challenges could result in missed opportunities to improve states’ disaster  resilience when providing federal funding for that purpose. Recommendations for Executive Action

To increase states’ abilities to improve disaster resilience and mitigate  future damage when using federal funding in the wake of disasters, we  recommend that the FEMA Administrator take the following action:  Consistent with the goals of the NDRF to integrate hazard mitigation  and risk reduction opportunities into all major decisions and  reinvestments during the recovery process, FEMA should assess the  challenges state and local officials reported, including the extent to  which the challenges can be addressed and implement corrective  actions, as needed. To help the federal, state, and local governments plan for and invest in  hazard mitigation opportunities to enhance resilience against future  disasters, we recommend that the Director of the Mitigation Framework  Leadership Group, in coordination with other departments and agencies  that are MitFLG members, take the following action:  Supplement the National Mitigation Framework by establishing an  investment strategy to identify, prioritize, and guide federal  investments in disaster resilience and hazard mitigation-related  activities and make recommendations to the President and Congress  on how the nation should prioritize future disaster resilience  investments. DHS stated that FEMA is aware  of and acknowledges the challenges state and local officials reported. We also administered the structured interview and survey with  officials from New York City’s Office of Recovery and Resiliency, which  administered some streams of relevant federal funds—including FEMA  Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and Public Assistance (PA)  and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)  Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR)— and oversees strategic planning for resilience efforts, the New York  Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery, which is largely responsible for  administering FEMA HMGP and HUD CDBG-DR funds, and the New  Jersey Governor’s Office of Recovery and Rebuilding, which coordinates  the state’s recovery effort, including overseeing resilience priorities.
Why GAO Did This Study

The Disaster Relief Appropriations Act of 2013 appropriated about $50 billion for recovery from Hurricane Sandy, part of which was intended for disaster resilience and hazard mitigation. In March 2015, GAO identified the cost of disasters as a key source of federal fiscal exposure. GAO and others have advocated hazard mitigation to help limit the nation's fiscal exposure.
GAO was asked to review federal efforts to strengthen disaster resilience during Hurricane Sandy recovery. This report addresses (1) how federal recovery funds were used to enhance resilience, (2) the extent to which states and localities were able to maximize federal funding to enhance resilience; and (3) actions that could enhance resilience for future disasters.
To conduct this work, GAO reviewed key federal documents such as the National Mitigation Framework , interviewed federal officials responsible for programs that fund disaster resilience, and administered structured interviews and surveys to all 12 states, the District of Columbia, and New York City in the Sandy affected-region.

What GAO Found

During the Hurricane Sandy Recovery, five federal programs—the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA), Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), the Federal Transit Administration's Public Transportation Emergency Relief Program, the Department of Housing and Urban Development's Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Hurricane Sandy program—helped enhance disaster resilience—the ability to prepare and plan for, absorb, recover from, and more successfully adapt to disasters. These programs funded a number of disaster-resilience measures, for example, acquiring and demolishing at-risk properties, elevating flood-prone structures, and erecting physical flood barriers.
State and local officials from the states affected by Hurricane Sandy GAO contacted reported that they were able to effectively leverage federal programs to enhance disaster resilience, but also experienced challenges that could result in missed opportunities. The challenges fell into three categories:
implementation challenges with PA and HMGP—for example, officials reported that FEMA officials did not always help them pursue opportunities to incorporate mitigation into permanent construction recovery projects;
limitations on comprehensive risk reduction approaches in a postdisaster environment—for example, officials reported difficulties with navigating multiple funding streams and various regulations of the different federal programs funded after Hurricane Sandy; and
local ability and willingness to participate—for example, officials reported that some home and business owners were unwilling or unable to bear the required personal cost share for a home-elevation or other mitigation project.
FEMA officials told us that they were aware of some of these challenges and recognize the need to further assess them. Assessing the challenges and taking corrective actions, as needed, could help enhance disaster resilience.
There is no comprehensive, strategic approach to identifying, prioritizing and implementing investments for disaster resilience, which increases the risk that the federal government and nonfederal partners will experience lower returns on investments or lost opportunities to strengthen key critical infrastructure and lifelines. Most federal funding for hazard mitigation is available after a disaster. For example, from fiscal years 2011-2014, FEMA obligated more than $3.2 billion for HMGP postdisaster hazard mitigation while the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program obligated approximately $222 million. There are benefits to investing in resilience postdisaster. Individuals and communities affected by a disaster may be more likely to invest their own resources while recovering. However, there are also challenges. Specifically, the emphasis on the postdisaster environment can create a reactionary and fragmented approach where disasters determine when and for what purpose the federal government invests in disaster resilience. The Mitigation Framework Leadership Group (MitFLG) was created to help coordinate hazard mitigation efforts of relevant local, state, tribal, and federal organizations. A comprehensive investment strategy, coordinated by MitFLG, could help address some challenges state and local officials experienced.

What GAO Recommends

GAO recommends that (1) FEMA assess the challenges state and local officials reported and implement corrective actions as needed and (2) MitFLG establish an investment strategy to identify, prioritize, and implement federal investments in disaster resilience. The Department of Homeland Security agreed with both.