FEMA is responsible for recommending to the President whether to declare a disaster and trigger the availability of funds as provided for in the Stafford Act. To facilitate their review, approval, and funding, projects are divided into two groups. When FEMA published its declaration criteria in 1999, it maintained that the $1.00-per-capita measure was not a violation of the statutory prohibition because the agency examines all the other listed criteria when it decides whether to recommend a disaster declaration. FEMA also developed a new training curriculum for its permanent and temporary staff. To meet this need, the agency designed a credentialing program with minimum standards for the disaster personnel who make program and cost eligibility decisions that obligate federal funds for disaster projects. However, it has not implemented the program. In addition, the system does not automatically verify certain information that has been entered, and it can be unreliable, time-consuming, and difficult to use in a remote disaster environment, according to FEMA officials. Project data may be lost or not entered as a result. As a result, data are not entered promptly or may not be entered at all. However, they are not necessarily indicative of state or local capability to respond effectively to a disaster without federal assistance. To determine whether FEMA ensures that proposed Public Assistance projects meet eligibility criteria, we (1) reviewed FEMA’s Public Assistance program policies, procedures, and guidance; (2) assessed the extent to which the program’s policies and procedures were disseminated and made available to staff that make eligibility determinations; (3) analyzed the availability of the training provided to staff; and (4) reviewed files on selected projects and interviewed managers and staff to assess how effectively the program’s policies and procedures were used to determine eligibility. The Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding Disaster Relief, established by Public Law 103-211, noted in its report that one approach to modifying federal disaster assistance and possibly reducing federal disaster assistance costs would be to establish “more explicit and/or stringent criteria for providing Federal disaster assistance.” That report also cited a 1994 FEMA Office of Inspector General report stating that (1) neither a governor’s findings nor FEMA’s analysis of capability were supported by standard factual data or related to published criteria and (2) FEMA’s process did not ensure equity in disaster decisions because the agency did not always review requests for declarations in the context of previous declarations. FEMA has also begun to address the issue of insurance requirements for public buildings.
What GAO Found

Since 1990, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has provided more than $27 billion in disaster assistance, more than half of which was spent for public assistance projects, such as repairs of damaged roads, government buildings, utilities, and hospitals. FEMA uses established criteria to determine whether to (1) recommend that the President declare a disaster and (2) once a disaster has been declared, approve and fund Public Assistance projects. In 1999, FEMA published formal criteria for recommending the presidential approval of disaster declarations. These criteria include both minimum financial thresholds and other qualitative measures that FEMA applies in deciding whether to recommend presidential approval. These criteria do not necessarily indicate a state's ability to pay for the damage because they do not consider the substantial differences in states' financial capacities to respond when disasters occur. As a result, federal funds may be provided for some disasters when they are not needed. Problems with applying FEMA's criteria remain. In part, these problems may persist because many of the staff assigned to disaster field offices who make eligibility decisions are temporary and may not have the skills and training needed to make appropriate decisions. FEMA has developed a credentialing program to establish qualifications and training requirements for these staff but has not implemented this program. FEMA officials said that budgetary and programmatic factors have delayed implementation. In addition, FEMA's review process does not ensure that all projects are reviewed by the most knowledgeable officials. FEMA also lacks centralized, quantified information that would be helpful for managing the Public Assistance program. Its information system--essentially an electronic filing cabinet--stores information project by project and does not provide effectively for programwide analysis. Furthermore, the system is unreliable and difficult to use, according to FEMA officials. As a result, data are lost or never entered.