prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 1.

Report 1: The National Cemeteries Act of 1973 created the modern veterans’ cemetery system  NCA, within VA, manages a majority of veterans’ cemeteries in the United States  In that role NCA maintains existing national cemeteries and builds new national cemeteries for the nation’s veterans and their family members  Since 1978 NCA has also provided funding through VA’s Veterans Cemetery Grants Program (Grants Program) to help establish, expand, or improve state and tribal veterans’ cemeteries  States and tribal governments seeking funding from the Grants Program must apply to the VA  Any cemetery established, expanded, or improved through funding from VA’s Grants Program must be maintained and operated in accordance with NCA’s operational standards  Veterans from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and some U S  territories are served by national, state, or tribal cemeteries  In addition, over time NCA has changed its policies and procedures to better fulfill its mission to serve and honor veterans and their family members  For example, in 2011 NCA lowered its policy threshold for establishing new national cemeteries from an area having at least 170,000 veterans who are unserved by burial options to an area having 80,000 unserved veterans  NCA established this revised policy threshold in recognition that many highly populated areas still lacked reasonable access to a burial option, and based on data and analysis provided by an independent review of VA’s burial benefits program in 2008  This revised minimum veteran population threshold was chosen based on data showing that state veterans’ cemeteries funded through VA’s Grants Program were located in areas that typically served a maximum of 80,000 veterans within a 75-mile service area  According to VA documentation, moving to this lower threshold has enabled the agency to establish new national cemeteries in areas where states may not have been willing to place them because of the size and cost of operating a larger state veterans’ cemetery  NCA offers a variety of facilities to meet the burial needs of veterans, including various cemetery configurations that either provide burial options to eligible veterans or improve their access to burial options, as shown in table 1  NCA uses county-level population data to determine whether veterans currently have reasonable access to burial options and uses county-level population projections to support decisions about future cemetery locations  NCA makes its decisions regarding whether a veteran is served or unserved based on the county in which the veteran resided, without reference to the location of the veteran’s actual residence  NCA’s methodology uses a veteran’s county of residence as a proxy for being within 75 miles of a veterans’ cemetery  NCA’s plan entails establishing 18 new national cemeteries—comprised of five traditional national cemeteries and 13 urban and rural initiative national cemeteries—and awarding funds for new state veterans’ cemeteries  In 2014, we reported that NCA estimated approximately 90 percent of the veteran population had reasonable access to burial options, and that it expected to reach its strategic goal of providing reasonable access to 96 percent of veterans by the end of fiscal year 2017  Since 2014, NCA has revised its strategic goal to provide reasonable access to 95 percent of the veteran population, and NCA’s current long-range plan to achieve this goal covers fiscal years 2018- 2022  NCA’s 2014 plan to increase veterans’ access to burial options included building 18 new national cemeteries as follows: Five traditional national cemeteries, to be located in Western New York; Central East Florida; Southern Colorado; Tallahassee, Florida; and Omaha, Nebraska  Taken together, according to NCA, these cemeteries are intended to provide a burial option to an additional 550,000 veterans and their families  Five urban initiative cemeteries, to be located in Los Angeles, California; the San Francisco Bay Area, California; Chicago, Illinois; Indianapolis, Indiana; and New York, New York  Taken together, according to NCA, the urban initiative is intended to expand burial options for approximately 2 4 million additional veterans in certain urban areas  NCA announced this initiative in 2011 with the purpose of expanding burial options in urban areas through building columbaria-only (facilities for cremated remains) national cemeteries close to the urban core  Eight rural initiative cemeteries, to be located in Idaho, Maine, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, and Wyoming  Taken together, according to NCA, the intent of the rural initiative is to increase the burial options for approximately 106,000 additional veterans in certain rural areas  NCA announced this initiative in 2012 with the purpose of increasing access by establishing new national cemeteries for states with no open national cemetery and a population of 25,000 or fewer veterans  In addition, since 1978, NCA has used the Grants Program to help increase veterans’ cemetery access  The Grants Program was established to complement national cemeteries by assisting state, territory, and tribal government applicants to establish, expand, or improve veterans’ cemeteries in order to provide gravesites for veterans in those areas where NCA cannot fully satisfy their burial needs  As noted earlier, states and tribal governments seeking grant funding must apply to the VA  States, funded by the Grants Program, often build in areas with veteran populations that are too small to qualify for a national cemetery  NCA prioritizes pending grant applications by giving the highest priority to cemetery construction projects in geographic locations with the greatest projected number of veterans who will benefit from the project, as determined by NCA based on county-level population projections  In 2018, NCA provided funding for a total of 15 grants for the expansion, improvement, or establishment of state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries  This includes the establishment of two new state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries  In 2019, NCA expects to provide funding for 17 state and tribal government veterans’ cemetery projects, three of which would be for new cemeteries  While NCA has made some progress in implementing its plan to increase burial access for veterans, that progress has been limited, as it is years behind its original schedule for opening new cemeteries  In its efforts, NCA has experienced three key challenges: (1) acquiring suitable land for new national cemeteries, (2) estimating the costs associated with establishing new national cemeteries, and (3) using all available data to inform how its Grants Program targets unserved veteran populations  In 2014, NCA planned to open 18 new sites by the end of fiscal year 2017 to better serve the burial needs of the veteran population  As of September 2019, NCA has opened four new traditional national cemeteries—Tallahassee National Cemetery in Tallahassee, Florida; Cape Canaveral National Cemetery in Mims, Florida; Omaha National Cemetery in Omaha, Nebraska; and Pikes Peak National Cemetery in Colorado Springs, Colorado  NCA also opened two of its eight planned rural initiative cemeteries—Yellowstone National Cemetery in Laurel, Montana, and Fargo National Cemetery in Harwood, North Dakota  As a result, according to NCA, by the end of fiscal year 2018 the percentage of veterans with reasonable access had increased from 90 percent to about 92 percent  As previously discussed, NCA’s goal is to provide 95 percent of veterans with reasonable access to burial options  As we reported in 2014, NCA had initially planned to open all of its 13 urban and rural initiative sites by the end of fiscal year 2017  As shown in figure 1, NCA had originally estimated completing all five of its urban initiative sites by the end of fiscal year 2015  However, the completion dates for all of these sites have slipped multiple times  In July 2019, NCA officials stated that the planned completion dates for the urban initiative sites were as follows: October 2019 for Los Angeles, sometime in 2020 for New York and Indianapolis, September 2021 for Chicago, and sometime in 2027 for San Francisco  As shown in figure 2, NCA has opened two of its rural initiative sites, in Laurel, Montana, and Fargo, North Dakota  However, the completion dates for the other six rural initiative sites have slipped multiple times  In September 2019, NCA officials stated that the planned completion dates for the rural initiative sites were currently Fall 2019 for Twin Falls, Idaho, Machias, Maine, and Rhinelander, Wisconsin; sometime in 2020 for Cheyenne, Wyoming; and Summer 2021 for Cedar City, Utah  NCA did not provide a specific estimated completion date for the site in Elko, Nevada, affirming that it would be completed “in a future year ” When we asked NCA officials why the rural and urban initiative sites were currently projected to take years longer to complete than originally planned, they replied that they might have overstated their 2014 expectations for having all initiative sites completed by the end of fiscal year 2017  NCA officials also stated that it takes at least 12 months for the land acquisition phase of cemetery construction projects; 9 to 12 months for the design phase; and 12 to 15 months—sometimes up to 30—for the construction phase  According to NCA officials, as of September 2019, five of the 11 initiative sites had reached the construction phase, and one of the sites no longer had an estimated completion date  There were still some outstanding or unresolved issues that had complicated NCA’s ability to estimate a completion date for the site in Elko, Nevada  See figure 3 for a timeline of each of NCA’s urban and rural initiative sites as of September 2019  In executing its plans to increase access to burial options for veterans, NCA has experienced three key challenges: (1) acquiring suitable land for new national cemeteries; (2) estimating the costs associated with establishing new national cemeteries; and (3) using all available data to inform how its Grants Program targets unserved veteran populations  The primary factor that has led NCA to adjust its timelines for completing these cemeteries concerns challenges in acquiring suitable land  Such challenges include difficulty in finding viable land for development, legal issues related to the acquisitions process, and resistance from the local community, among others  Four examples are described below, including two instances in which, as of July 2019, NCA had not yet acquired suitable land, which may further delay the opening of those specific urban and rural sites  Chicago, Illinois  NCA officials stated that they are on their fifth attempt to acquire land for the urban initiative site in Chicago, Illinois  In addition, they said that the environmental assessment process for the Chicago site is currently underway, and that a site viability decision will not occur until the environmental assessment process is completed later in 2019  According to NCA documentation we reviewed, NCA initiated the land acquisition process for the Chicago site in June 2011 and planned to complete the process by July 2018  If the fifth attempt to acquire land is not successful, then NCA will attempt—for the sixth time—to acquire land  According to NCA officials, this would result in an additional 12 to 18 months to identify and evaluate new property for potential acquisition, likely further delaying the opening of this site  See figure 4 for more details on NCA’s attempts to acquire land for the urban initiative site in Chicago  Elko, Nevada  NCA officials stated that they have identified a top- rated site for the rural initiative site in Elko, Nevada, on land currently owned by the Bureau of Land Management  However, according to NCA officials, Congress would need to enact legislation transferring this land from the Bureau of Land Management to VA before NCA could begin construction  As of June 2019, Congress had not done so  According to NCA officials, VA has opened dialogue with local officials about drafting a utility agreement for the city to construct infrastructure needed to supply water to the site  Implementation of a utility agreement would be dependent upon whether future legislation may potentially be introduced and subsequently passed authorizing the Bureau of Land Management to permanently transfer property to VA for national cemetery use  Also, according to NCA officials, once legislation has passed to allow the transfer of land from the Bureau of Land Management to VA, they estimate it will take 12 to 18 months for the land transfer to be completed  Indianapolis, Indiana  In a written response, NCA officials stated that construction for the urban initiative site in Indianapolis, Indiana, has been delayed by about a year due to a public protest of NCA’s acquisition of the site because of environmental concerns, which resulted in a land transfer with the previous landowner in January 2019  In addition, NCA had to conduct a partial project re-design for the exchanged property  According to NCA’s May 2018 plan of actions and milestones, it had expected to have acquired the land for the Indianapolis site by August 2018 and to have completed construction in December 2019  However, officials told us in September 2018 that, due to the delays in acquiring the land, NCA had revised its planned construction completion date to August 2020  Los Angeles, California  According to officials, NCA is partnering with the Veterans Health Administration, which transferred property for the proposed columbarium at the Los Angeles, California, urban initiative site  Officials stated that this project was delayed initially due to the need to remove existing encumbrances on the land (for example, leases with tenants), among other things  In July 2019, officials stated that the project is scheduled for completion in October 2019  According to NCA officials, unforeseen site conditions can also contribute to delays in cemetery construction projects  During the design phase, soil and geotechnical samples are taken but do not cover the entire site  After excavation begins, issues such as rock formations or hazardous waste not identified during the geotechnical investigation may create challenges to developing land for cemetery use  For example, in July 2019 NCA officials stated that the urban initiative site in San Francisco had encountered major geotechnical and soil issues, causing the project completion to slip to 2027  Also, according to NCA’s 2017 annual status report to Congress on new national cemeteries, the cemetery construction contract for a new cemetery construction project in Western New York could not begin solicitation until additional parcels of land had been acquired  Those parcels of land have a gas well and a gas pipeline that must be relocated  According to NCA officials, as of September 2019, six of the 11 urban and rural initiative sites had not yet begun to be excavated, and any issues that arise during the excavation process at these sites could pose further scheduling delays  NCA’s Cost Estimates for Most of Its Rural Initiative Sites Have Increased Significantly We found that NCA’s cost estimates for seven rural initiative sites have increased significantly above what NCA officials had initially estimated  In its strategy, NCA had estimated that the construction cost estimate for each of the seven rural initiative sites would be approximately $1 million (totaling approximately $7 million)  However, NCA officials told us in August 2018 that the construction cost estimates for these sites had increased to more than $3 million each (totaling almost $24 million)  This amounts to a cost increase of more than 200 percent  Further, the information they provided was not always consistent  For example, in July 2018 NCA officials provided us the average land acquisition and construction costs for the urban and rural initiatives  According to the document they provided, the average construction cost for each urban initiative cemetery is $7 5 million  However, in August 2018 NCA stated in a written response that the construction cost estimates for each of the urban initiatives ranged from approximately $9 million to more than $22 million, reflecting an average cost of $13 6 million  NCA’s cost-estimating guidance used to prepare construction cost estimates does not fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in our Cost Guide that should result in reliable and valid estimates that management can use to make informed decisions, as shown in table 2  Appendix I provides a detailed summary of our assessment of NCA’s cost-estimating guidance  Specifically, NCA’s cost-estimating guidance fully met one step, substantially met four steps, partially met four steps, minimally met two steps, and did not meet one step  For example: NCA’s cost-estimating guidance fully met the step of “obtaining the data” in that it requires a market survey that explores all factors that will affect the bid cost and collects valid and useful historical data to develop a sound cost estimate  NCA’s cost-estimating guidance substantially met the step of “updating the estimate” in that it requires cost estimates to be regularly updated  For instance, it requires an updated cost-estimating report at each stage of the design of the construction project  NCA’s cost-estimating guidance minimally met the step of “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis” in that, while it mentions the inclusion of a risk analysis, it does not describe what a risk analysis is and how it relates to cost  Additionally, none of the guidance we reviewed contains any discussion of risk management  NCA’s cost-estimating guidance did not meet the step of “conducting a sensitivity analysis ” According to our Cost Guide, a sensitivity analysis should be included in all cost estimates because it examines the effects of changing assumptions and ground rules  Because uncertainty cannot be avoided, it is necessary to identify the cost elements that represent the most risk, and cost estimators should if possible quantify the risk  NCA uses multiple guidance documents on cost estimation and requires that managers and contractors use all of these documents in implementing their projects  Specifically, NCA uses VA’s 2011 Manual for Preparation of Cost Estimates and Related Documents for VA Facilities (Manual); VA’s 2011 Architect/Engineer (A/E) Submission Requirements for National Cemetery Projects Program Guide PG 18-15 Volume D (Guide); and NCA’s Construction Program Conceptual Estimate Worksheet  We refer to these documents collectively as “NCA’s cost- estimating guidance ” We previously reported on VA’s management of minor construction projects and made several recommendations, including that the Veterans Health Administration revise its cost-estimating guidance to incorporate the 12 steps presented in the Cost Guide, to help VA have greater assurance that its cost estimates for minor construction projects are reliable  VA concurred and stated that it would ensure that the Veterans Health Administration update its cost-estimating guidance by incorporating the 12 steps outlined in the Cost Guide, as applicable  As of August 2019, VA had not taken any action to implement this recommendation  The guidance document it plans to update, the VA Manual, is also used by NCA  Further, NCA uses additional guidance documents to develop cost estimates for its cemetery construction projects—including the urban and rural initiatives—that do not fully incorporate the 12 steps presented in the Cost Guide  Without NCA’s revising its cost-estimating guidance to more fully reflect the 12 steps in the Cost Guide, including “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis,” NCA will not be well-positioned to provide reliable cost estimates to VA and enable it to make informed decisions regarding the management of cemetery construction projects  As noted earlier, the Grants Program is part of NCA’s plan to increase veterans’ reasonable access to burial options  According to NCA officials, their plan to meet their strategic goal of 95 percent of veterans being served by burial options relies, in part, on the state and tribal government efforts funded by the Grants Program  The Grants Program, in turn, relies on states and tribal governments applying for funding to build new cemeteries or expand existing cemeteries  An NCA official told us that NCA does not have the authority to formally request that a state seek grant funding to expand access in an unserved area  However, according to VA officials, the Grants Program has had informal discussions with states that it believes have larger concentrations of unserved veterans, in order to encourage grant applications to provide increased burial access for unserved veteran populations  When reviewing grant applications, NCA considers a number of factors, including how the grant would enhance access for unserved veterans  NCA officials stated that they use the VA’s county-level population data to identify veteran population areas unserved by national, state, or tribal government veterans’ cemeteries  This analysis also allows NCA to project where additional state and tribal government veterans’ cemeteries may be most needed  Specifically, NCA has ranked what it identified as the 40 largest currently unserved veteran population areas  NCA performs this ranking at the county level, not the more precise census tract level, although as we have previously reported it has the technical ability to use census tract data  In September 2014, we reported that NCA was using population data at the county level to identify veterans not served by burial options, and that using population data at the census tract level would enhance NCA’s management of the national cemetery program  Specifically, we recommended that NCA use its existing capabilities to estimate the served and unserved veteran populations using census tract data  This would have allowed them to make better-informed decisions concerning where to locate new national cemeteries, as well as identify which state and tribal government cemetery grant applications would provide reasonable burial access to the greatest number of veterans  However, VA did not concur with that recommendation  In its comments on our draft report, VA agreed that census tract data may yield more precise information than county-level population data, but it disagreed with our conclusion that the use of census tract data would have helped VA to make better-informed decisions regarding the location of burial options  For this review, we performed an analysis using census tract data to examine the 40 prospective sites that NCA has identified as the currently largest unserved areas, using current veteran population data  Our analysis yielded estimates for veterans in the service areas for these prospective sites that differed substantially in some instances from the numbers used by NCA (see figure 5)  For example, NCA ranked Erie, Pennsylvania, as 4th on its list of prospective sites, based on its estimate that an additional 45,154 veterans could be served by a cemetery at this location  However, using census tract data we estimate that only about 10,000 veterans could be served there, resulting in a lower priority for Erie, Pennsylvania, on this list of prospective sites  Similarly, the county- based methodology used by NCA ranked Decatur, Alabama, as 25th on the list of prospective sites, while our methodology based upon nearby census tracts placed it 2nd on the list by estimated number of veterans in the service area  Thus, even though it could serve many additional veterans, Decatur, Alabama, would not be ranked highly on the list for funding using NCA’s methodology  By using the more precise census tract data to help inform its grant- making decisions, NCA could enhance its ability to implement its plan to provide burial options to unserved veterans  Comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with such estimates based on current county-level data can be a useful supplement to NCA’s current reliance on long-term projected county-level population data  Comparing census tract data with county-level data could also identify areas where the county-level projections might be overridden or require additional scrutiny  This could position NCA to better identify those areas of the country that will have the most significant unserved veteran populations  Additionally, this could help NCA refine its current plans or develop new ones, as it deems appropriate  We therefore continue to maintain the validity of our 2014 recommendation for VA to use census tract data to estimate the served and unserved veteran populations to help inform its plans for providing reasonable access to burial options  By NCA’s estimates, more than 2 1 million veterans—about 10 percent of the veterans in the United States—did not have reasonable access to burial options at the end of fiscal year 2013  According to NCA, its plan had helped increase the percentage served by burial options to about 92 percent of the veteran population by the end of fiscal year 2018  However, completion of some of the urban and rural sites that are part of NCA’s plan is currently estimated to take 5 years or longer than planned at significantly higher cost, in part because construction cost estimates for the remaining sites may be unreliable  Without NCA’s revising its cost- estimating guidance to more fully reflect the 12 steps in the Cost Guide, including “conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis,” NCA will not be well-positioned to provide reliable cost estimates to VA and enable it to make informed decisions regarding the funding and oversight of NCA’s ongoing minor construction projects to enhance veterans’ burial options  The Secretary of Veterans Affairs should ensure that the Under Secretary for Memorial Affairs update its cost-estimating procedures for cemetery construction projects to fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs  We provided a draft of this report to VA for review and comment  In written comments, VA concurred with our recommendation  VA also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  VA’s comments are printed in their entirety in appendix II  In its technical comments, VA disagreed with our finding that NCA had made limited progress implementing its plan for increasing burial access for veterans and stated that NCA had instead made significant progress  As we note in this report, in 2014, NCA planned to open 18 new sites by the end of fiscal year 2017 to better serve the burial needs of the veteran population  However, as of September 2019, only six of the planned sites were open, with NCA years behind its original schedule  For this reason, we characterized the progress as “limited ” While the progress has been limited, it is important to note that the opening of the six sites has increased accessibility of burial options to veterans  VA also stated that it continues to disagree with our 2014 recommendation that VA use census tract data to estimate the current served and unserved veteran populations to inform its plans for providing reasonable access to burial options  In its written response, VA stated that we recommended NCA use census tract rather than county-level data  However, that is not what we recommended  As we stated in this report, comparing estimates of unserved veterans based on current census tract data with estimates based on current county-level data would provide a useful supplement to NCA’s current reliance on long-term projected county-level population data  Specifically, NCA would be better positioned to identify those areas of the country that will have the most significant unserved veteran populations and refine its current plans or develop new ones, as it deems appropriate  We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional committees and the Secretary of Veterans Affairs  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff members who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix III  We compared NCA’s cost-estimating guidance with the 12 steps identified in the GAO Cost Estimating and Assessment Guide: Best Practices for Developing and Managing Capital Program Costs (Cost Guide)  We found that NCA’s cost-estimating guidance on preparing cost estimates for cemetery construction projects—specifically Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Manual for Preparation of Cost Estimates & Related Documents for VA Facilities (Manual), VA’s Architect/Engineer Submission Requirements for National Cemetery Projects, Program Guide 18-15 Volume D (Guide), and NCA’s Construction Program Conceptual Estimate Worksheet (Worksheet)—does not fully incorporate these 12 steps, as shown in table 3  The guidance incorporates some of the 12 steps to some degree, but not others, raising the possibility of unreliable cost estimates for NCA’s urban and rural initiatives  Specifically, NCA’s guidance on preparing cost estimates: fully or substantially met five of the 12 steps, partially met four of the 12 steps, and minimally met or did not meet three of the 12 steps  Diana Maurer, (202) 512-9627 or maurerd@gao gov  In addition to the contact named above, Brian Lepore, Director (Retired); Maria Storts, Assistant Director; Pamela Nicole Harris, Analyst-in-Charge; Brian Bothwell, Jennifer Echard, Alexandra Gonzalez, Jason Lee, Amie Lesser, Serena Lo, John Mingus, Brenda Mittelbuscher, Maria Staunton, Frank Todisco, Cheryl Weissman, and John Wren made significant contributions to this report 


Report 2: Federal agencies provide a range of assistance to individual survivors; state, territorial, and local governments; and nongovernmental entities after major disasters, including natural disasters and terrorist attacks  Types of aid can include, but are not limited to, operational, logistical, and technical support; financial assistance through grants, loans, and loan guarantees; and the provision of federally owned equipment and facilities  Many, but not all, programs are available after the President issues a major disaster declaration pursuant to the Robert T  Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) authority  More limited aid is available under a Stafford Act emergency declaration, a declaration issued by a department or agency head, or on an as needed basis  This report only identifies programs frequently used to provide financial assistance in the disaster response and recovery process  It provides brief descriptive information to help congressional offices determine which programs merit further consideration in the planning, organization, or execution of the disaster response and recovery process  Most of the programs listed here are authorized as assistance programs and are listed at the General Services Administration (GSA) website beta SAM gov  The list does not include operational or technical assistance that some agencies provide in emergency or disaster situations  It is also not inclusive of all forms of financial disaster assistance that may be available to every jurisdiction in every circumstance, as unique factors often trigger unique forms of assistance  Congress may, and frequently has, authorized specific forms of financial assistance on a limited basis following particular disasters  Programs discussed in this report satisfy one or more of the following criteria: Congress expressly designated the program to provide financial assistance for disaster relief or recovery  The program is applicable to most disaster situations, even if not specifically authorized for that purpose  The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other federal agencies have frequently used the program to provide financial assistance  The program is potentially useful for addressing short-term and long-term recovery needs (e g , assistance with processing survivor benefits or repair of public facilities)  Most of the programs listed in this report are specifically authorized for use during situations occurring because of a disaster  General assistance programs that may apply to disaster situations are described at the end of the report (see " General Assistance Programs ")  As Congress and the Administration respond to domestic needs arising from major disasters, some conditions of these programs may be changed  For the most up-to-date information on a particular program, please contact the CRS analyst or department or agency program officers listed in the report  The Individuals and Households Program (IHP) is the primary vehicle for FEMA assistance to individuals and households after the President issues an emergency or major disaster declaration, when authorized  It is intended to meet basic needs and support recovery efforts, but it cannot compensate disaster survivors for all losses  Congress appropriates money for the IHP (and most other aid authorized by the Stafford Act) to the Disaster Relief Fund  IHP assistance is available in the form of financial and direct assistance to eligible individuals and households who, as a result of a disaster, have uninsured or under-insured necessary expenses and serious needs that cannot be met through other means or forms of assistance  Program funds have a wide range of eligible uses, including different forms of temporary housing assistance; housing repairs; housing replacement; and permanent housing construction  IHP funds may also be used for other needs assistance (ONA), including funeral, medical, dental, childcare, personal property, transportation, and other expenses  FEMA provides 100% of the housing assistance costs, but ONA is subject to a 75% federal and 25% state cost share  In addition, there is a limitation on the amount of financial assistance an individual or household may receive, with financial assistance including assistance to reimburse temporary lodging expenses; rent for alternate housing accommodations; home repairs and replacement; as well as ONA  Financial assistance for repairs and replacement may not exceed $34,900 (FY2019)  Separately, financial assistance for ONA may not exceed $34,900 (FY2019)  Financial assistance to rent alternate housing accommodations under Section 408 (c)(1)(A)(i) of the Stafford Act, however, is excluded from the cap  The maximum amount of financial assistance is adjusted annually to reflect changes in the Consumer Price Index  IHP assistance is intended to be temporary and is generally limited to a period of 18 months from the date of the declaration, but may be extended by FEMA  (Also see " Physical Disaster Loans—Residential SBA Disaster Loans Available to Homeowners and Renters " below for additional assistance for homeowners and renters ) Agency : Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority : 42 U S C  §5174 Regulation : 44 C F R  §§206 110–206 120 Phone : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website : https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/24945 CFDA Program Numbers : 97 048 and 97 050 CRS Contact : Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) provides benefits to previously employed or self-employed individuals rendered jobless as a direct result of a major disaster and who are not eligible for regular federal or state unemployment compensation (UC)  In certain cases, individuals who have no work history or are unable to work may also be eligible for DUA benefits  DUA is federally funded through FEMA, but is administered by the Department of Labor and state UC agencies  In general, individuals must apply for benefits within 30 days after the date the state announces availability of DUA benefits  When applicants have good cause, they may file claims after the 30-day deadline  This deadline may be extended; however, initial applications filed after the 26 th week following the declaration date will not be considered  When a reasonable comparative earnings history can be constructed, DUA benefits are determined in a similar manner to regular state UC benefit rules  The minimum weekly DUA benefit is required to be half of the average weekly UC benefit for the state where the disaster occurred  DUA assistance is available to eligible individuals as long as the major disaster continues, but no longer than 26 weeks after the disaster declaration  For more information, see CRS Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) , by Julie M  Whittaker  Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Authority: 42 U S C  §5177 Regulation: 20 C F R  §625; 44 C F R  §206 141 Contact: See listings of resources by state , https://www careeronestop org/localhelp/unemploymentbenefits/unemployment-benefits aspx Website: http://ows doleta gov/unemploy/disaster asp CFDA Program Number : 97 034 CRS Contact: Julie Whittaker, 202-707-2587 The dislocated worker program helps fund training and related assistance to persons who have lost their jobs and are unlikely to return to their current jobs or industries  Of the funds appropriated, 80% are allotted by formula grants to states and local entities and 20% are reserved by the Secretary of Labor to fund a national reserve that supports national dislocated worker grants to states or local ent ities  One type of national emergency grant is Disaster Relief Employment Assistance, under which funds can be made available to states to employ dislocated workers in temporary jobs involving recovery after a national emergency  An individual may be employed for up to 12 months  There are no matching requirements for Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act (WIOA) programs  Agency: Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration Authority: 29 U S C  §3225 Regulation: 20 C F R  §671 Contact: See listings of state Dislocated Worker/Rapid Response Coordinators at http://www doleta gov/layoff/rapid_coord cfm Website: https://www doleta gov/DWGs/eta_default cfm CFDA Program Number : 17 278 CRS Contact: David H  Bradley, 202-707-7352 The majority of disaster loans provided by the Small Business Administration (SBA), approximately 80%, are made available to individuals and households  SBA disaster assistance is provided in the form of loans, not grants, and therefore must be repaid to the federal government  Homeowners, renters, and personal property owners located in a declared disaster area (and in contiguous counties) may apply to the SBA for loans to help recover losses from the disaster  SBA's Home Disaster Loan Program falls into two categories: personal property loans and real property loans  These loans cover only uninsured or underinsured property and primary residences  Loan maturities may be up to 30 years  A personal property loan provides a creditworthy homeowner or renter with up to $40,000 to repair or replace personal property items, such as furniture, clothing, or automobiles, damaged or lost in a disaster  These loans cover only uninsured or underinsured property and primary residences and cannot be used to replace extraordinarily expensive or irreplaceable items, such as antiques, recreational vehicles, or furs  A creditworthy homeowner may apply for a "real property loan" of up to $200,000 to repair or restore the homeowner's primary residence to its predisaster condition  The loans may not be used to upgrade homes or build additions, unless upgrades or changes are required by city or county building codes  A real property loan may be increased by 20% for repairs to protect the damaged property from a similar disaster in the future  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 200–123 204 Contact : Office of Congressional and Legislative Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website : https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/TypesOfLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact : Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This unique fund directs payments to individuals and groups for disaster-related needs that have not been or will not be met by government agencies or other organizations  A disaster survivor will normally receive no more than $2,000 from this fund in any one declared disaster unless the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate determines that a larger amount is in the best interest of the disaster victim and the federal government  There is no matching requirement for this program and no limitation on the time period in which assistance is available  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5121 et seq  Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 181 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website : http://www fema gov/library/viewRecord do?id=5037 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This program provides grants that enable states to offer crisis counseling services, when required, to victims of a federally declared major disaster for the purpose of relieving mental health problems caused or aggravated by the disaster or its aftermath  Assistance is short-term and community-oriented  Cost-share requirements are not imposed on this assistance  The regulations specify that program funding generally ends after nine months, but time extensions may be approved if requested by the state and approved by federal officials  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5183 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 171 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/recovery-directorate/crisis-counseling-assistance-training-program CFDA Pr ogram Number : 97 032 CRS Contact: Sarah A  Lister, 202-707-7320 Disaster Legal Services (DLS) are provided for free to low-income individuals who require them as a result of a major disaster, and the provision of services is "confined to the securing of benefits under the [Stafford] Act and claims arising out of a major disaster " Assistance may include help with insurance claims, drawing up new wills and other legal documents lost in the disaster, help with home repair contracts and contractors, and appeals of FEMA decisions  Neither the statute nor the regulations establish cost-share requirements or time limitations for DLS  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5182 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206 164 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/24413 CFDA Program Number : 97 033 CRS Contact: Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 The Disaster Case Management (DCM) program partners case managers and disaster survivors to develop and implement Disaster Recovery Plans to address unmet needs  The DCM program is authorized under the Stafford Act  Following a presidentially declared major disaster that includes Individual Assistance (IA), the governor or tribal executive may request a grant to use DCM providers to supply services to survivors with long-term, disaster-caused unmet needs  The program is time-limited, and it shall not exceed 24 months from the date of the presidential major disaster declaration  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5189d Contact: Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/media-library/assets/documents/101292 CFDA Program Number : 97 088 CRS Contact: Elizabeth Webster, 202-707-9197 The Internal Revenue Code (IRC) includes tax relief provisions that apply to individuals and businesses affected by federally declared disasters, and the following are some examples  Individuals located in affected areas are allowed extra time (four years instead of the general two) to replace homes due to involuntary conversion (e g , destruction from wind or floods, theft, or property ordered to be demolished) and still defer any gain  Taxpayers may also be able to deduct personal casualty losses attributable to federally declared disasters, subject to certain limitations  Qualifying disaster relief payments received by affected individuals are not subject to tax  The Internal Revenue Service also has the authority to provide some relief, including the extension of tax filing deadlines  In addition to these and other permanent tax relief provisions, special temporary provisions have been enacted for certain disasters  The 2017 tax revision ( P L  115-97 ) provided tax relief related to 2016 and 2017 disasters  These measures were expanded to cover the California wildfires in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 ( P L  115-123 )  Agency : Internal Revenue Service Authority : Various provisions throughout the Internal Revenue Code, Title 26 U S C , including §§123, 139, 165, 402, 408, 1033, 6654, 7508A Regulation : No specific regulation Contact : Congressional Liaison, 202-317-6985 Website : http://www irs gov/uac/Tax-Relief-in-Disaster-Situations CRS Contact s : Molly Sherlock, 202-707-7797 Authorized by multiple sections of the Stafford Act, the Public Assistance (PA) Grant Program is FEMA's primary form of financial assistance for state and local governments  The PA Program provides grant assistance for many eligible purposes, including the following: Emergency work, as authorized by Sections 403, 407, and 502 of the Stafford Act, which provide for the removal of debris and emergency protective measures, such as the establishment of temporary shelters and emergency power generation  Permanent work, as authorized by Section 406, which provides for the repair, replacement, or restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly owned facilities and the facilities of certain private nonprofit organizations (PNPs)  At its discretion, FEMA may provide assistance for hazard mitigation measures that are not required by applicable codes and standards  As a condition of PA assistance, applicants must obtain and maintain insurance on their facilities for similar future disasters  Management costs, as authorized by Section 324, which reimburses some of the applicant's administrative expenses incurred managing the totality of the PA Program's projects and grants  PNPs are generally eligible for permanent work assistance if they provide a governmental type of service, though PNPs not providing a "critical" service must first apply to the SBA for loan assistance for facility projects  The federal government provides a minimum of 75% of the cost of eligible assistance, and this cost share can rise if certain criteria are met  Funding for the PA Program comes through discretionary appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §§5170b, 5172, 5173, 5189f, 5192 Regulation: 44 C F R  §206, subparts G, H, I Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit CFDA Program Number : 97 036 CRS Contact: Natalie Keegan, 202-707-9569 The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides grants to states for implementing mitigation measures after a disaster and to provide funding for previously identified mitigation measures to lessen future damage and loss of life  The federal government provides up to 75% of the cost share of eligible projects  Historically, the amount available for HMGP awards is established by a scale that authorizes three tiers of awards: 15% of the total of other Stafford Act assistance in a state for a major disaster in which no more than $2 billion is provided; 10% for assistance that ranges from more than $2 billion to $10 billion; and 7 5% for a major disaster that involves Stafford Act assistance from more than $10 billion to $35 3 billion  Funding for HMGP comes through discretionary appropriations to the Disaster Relief Fund  The amount of funding provided can be increased if the state has an approved enhanced mitigation plan  HMGP funding is only awarded with a major disaster declaration, not an emergency declaration  However, during FY2015, FY2017, and FY2018, Congress directed that HMGP grants be made available with fire management assistance grants  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5170c Regulation: 44 C F R  §§206 430–206 440 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs , 202-646-4500 Website : http://www fema gov/hazard-mitigation-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97

ground_truth: The VA is responsible for ensuring that veterans have reasonable access to burial options in a national or state veterans' cemetery. In fiscal year 2018 VA estimated that about 92 percent of veterans had reasonable access to burial options, which was an increase from 90 percent in fiscal year 2014 but short of its goal of 96 percent by the end of fiscal year 2017. The House Appropriations Committee has expressed concerns that there are geographic pockets where veterans remain unserved by burial options. House Report 115-188 accompanying a bill for the Military Construction, Veterans Affairs, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2018, includes a provision for GAO to examine veterans' access to burial options. This report (1) describes VA's plan for increasing reasonable access to burial options for veterans and (2) assesses VA's progress in implementing its plan and any challenges experienced. GAO reviewed applicable VA and NCA documents, compared NCA's cost-estimating practices with GAO's cost-estimating 12 steps, and met with cognizant officials regarding NCA's efforts to provide reasonable access to burial options. Within the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), the National Cemetery Administration (NCA) has a plan to establish 18 new national cemeteries to increase reasonable access to burial options for veterans. NCA defines reasonable access as a national or state veterans' cemetery being located within 75 miles of veterans' homes. Key parts of NCA's plan include establishing 13 urban and rural initiative national cemeteries and awarding grant funds to state applicants for establishing new state veterans' cemeteries. NCA has made limited progress in implementing its plan to increase burial access and is years behind its original schedule for opening new cemeteries. For example, NCA has opened only two of its planned urban and rural initiative sites and is behind its original schedule for the other 11 (see fig. below). The primary factor delaying NCA's completion of these cemeteries has been challenges in acquiring suitable land. NCA has also been challenged in producing accurate estimates of construction costs for most of its rural initiative sites. Cost estimates have increased more than 200 percent (from about $7 million to $24 million) for these sites, and NCA's guidance for developing cost estimates for the cemeteries does not fully incorporate the 12 steps identified in cost-estimating leading practices—such as conducting a risk and uncertainty analysis or a sensitivity analysis. As a result, NCA is not well positioned to provide reliable and valid cost estimates to better inform decisions to enhance veterans' cemetery access. GAO recommends that NCA fully adopt cost-estimating leading practices into its procedures to assist in improving its cost estimates for establishing cemeteries. NCA concurred with our recommendation.

prompt_front: You are given two reports by the government agency.



Question: Write a one-page summary of the report 2.



Report 2: 039 CRS Contact: Diane P  Horn, 202-707-3472 The Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) Grant Program provides grants and technical assistance to states, territories, and local communities for cost-effective hazard mitigation activities that complement a comprehensive hazard mitigation program and reduce injuries, loss of life, and damage and destruction of property  Through FY2018, a minimum of the lesser of $575,000 or 1 0% of appropriated funds was provided to a state or local government, with assistance capped at 15% of appropriated funds  Federal funds generally comprise 75% of the cost of approved mitigation projects, except for small impoverished communities that may receive up to 90% of the cost  Funding for the PDM Program changed significantly with the passage of the Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018 (DRRA)  DRRA authorizes the National Public Infrastructure Pre-Disaster Mitigation Fund, for which the President may set aside from the DRF, with respect to each major disaster, an amount equal to 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of the grants to be made pursuant to the following sections of the Stafford Act: 403 (essential assistance), 406 (repair, restoration, and replacement of damaged facilities), 407 (debris removal), 408 (federal assistance to individuals and households), 410 (unemployment assistance), 416 (crisis counseling assistance and training), and 428 (public assistance program alternative program procedures)  These changes may increase the focus on funding public infrastructure projects that improve community resilience before a disaster occurs, although FEMA has the discretion to shape the program in many ways  There is potential for significantly increased funding post-DRRA through the new transfer from the DRF, but it is not yet clear how FEMA will implement this new program  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5133 Regulation: 44 C F R  §201 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/pre-disaster-mitigation-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97 047 CRS Contact: Diane P  Horn, 202-707-3472 The Community Disaster Loan (CDL) program provides loans to local governments that have suffered substantial loss of tax and other revenue in areas included in a major disaster declaration  Typically, the loan may not exceed 25% of the local government's annual operating budget for the fiscal year of the disaster  The limit is 50% if the local government lost 75% or more of its annual operating budget  A loan may not exceed $5 million, and there is no matching requirement  The statute does not impose time limitations on the assistance, but the normal term of a loan is five years  The statute provides that the repayment requirement is cancelled if local government revenues are not sufficient to meet operations expenses during a three-fiscal-year period after a disaster  The governor's authorized representative must officially approve the application and funds must be available in the Disaster Assistance Direct Loan Program (DADLP) account  In P L  115-72 , Congress provided up to $4 9 billion for the CDL program to assist local governments in providing essential services as a result of Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, or Maria  However, this legislation departed from the traditional CDL program framework by giving the Secretary of Homeland Security (in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury) broad authority over lending terms, eligible uses, and criteria for loan cancelation, among other program elements  As a result, this CDL-type program operates differently from the traditional program  For more information, see CRS Insight IN11106, Community Disaster Loans: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Michael H  Cecire  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5184 Regulation: 44 C F R  §§206 360–206 378 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 CFDA Program Number : 97 030 CRS Contact: Michael H  Cecire, 202-707-7109 This program provides grants to state and local governments to aid states and their communities with the mitigation, management, and control of fires burning on publicly or privately owned forests or grasslands  The federal government provides 75% of the costs associated with fire management projects, but funding is limited to calculations of the "fire cost threshold" for each state  No time limitation is applied to the program  For more information, see CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Katie Hoover  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §5187 Regulation: 44 C F R  §§204 1–204 64 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: https://www fema gov/fire-management-assistance-grant-program CFDA Program Number : 97 046 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 Congress created the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund (OSLTF) in 1986  Subsequent laws authorized the OSLTF taxing authority, appropriations from the fund, and eligible uses for the fund  The OSLTF complements the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (OPA; P L  101-380 ), which established a new federal oil spill liability framework, replaced existing federal liability frameworks, and amended the existing Clean Water Act oil spill response authorities  In addition, OPA transferred monies into the OSLTF from existing liability funds  The OSLTF may be used, among other purposes, to fund oil spill response activities and to compensate individuals, businesses, and governments for applicable economic damages resulting from an oil spill  Potential damages include injury or loss of property and loss of profits or earning capacity  OPA established a claims process for compensating parties affected by an oil spill  In general, claims must be presented first to the party responsible for the spill, but specific circumstances (e g , the responsible party is unknown) allow persons to present a claim directly to the OSLTF  Agency : National Pollution Funds Center (part of the U S  Coast Guard) Authority : 26 U S C  §9509 and 33 U S C  §2712 Regulation : 33 C F R  §136 Contact : Office of Legislative Affairs, 202-245-0520 Website : http://www uscg mil/npfc/ CRS Contact : Jonathan L  Ramseur, 202-707-7919 This program assists small businesses and nonprofits suffering economic injury as a result of disasters by offering loans and loan guarantees  Businesses must be located in disaster areas declared by the President, the Small Business Administration, or the Secretary of Agriculture  There is no matching requirement in this program  The maximum loan amount is $2 million  Loan terms may extend for up to 30 years  The application period is announced at the time of the disaster declaration  For more information, see CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 300–123 303 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website : https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/EIDLLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 This program provides loans to businesses and nonprofits in declared disaster areas for uninsured physical damage and losses  The maximum loan amount is $2 million  Loan terms may extend for up to 30 years  There is no matching requirement in this program  For more information, see CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay  Agency: Small Business Administration Authority: 15 U S C  §636(b) Regulation: 13 C F R  §§123 200–123 204 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-205-6700 Website: https://disasterloan sba gov/ela/Information/BusinessPhysicalLoans CFDA Program Number : 59 008 CRS Contact: Bruce R  Lindsay, 202-707-3752 When a county has been declared a disaster area by either the President or the Secretary of Agriculture, agricultural producers in that county may become eligible for low-interest emergency disaster (EM) loans available through the U S  Department of Agriculture's Farm Service Agency  Producers in counties that are contiguous to a county with a disaster designation also become eligible for an EM loan  EM loan funds may be used to help eligible farmers, ranchers, and aquaculture producers recover from production losses (e g , when the producer suffers a significant loss of an annual crop) or from physical losses (e g , repairing or replacing damaged or destroyed structures or equipment, or replanting permanent crops, such as orchards)  A qualified applicant can then borrow up to 100% of actual production or physical losses (not to exceed $500,000) at a below-market interest rate  For more information see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance , by Megan Stubbs  Agency: Department of Agriculture, Farm Service Agency Authority: 7 U S C  §1961 Regulation: 7 C F R  §764 Contact : Legislative Liaison Staff, 202-720-7095 Website: https://www fsa usda gov/programs-and-services/farm-loan-programs/emergency-farm-loans/index CFDA Program Number : 10 404 CRS Contact: Megan Stubbs, 202-707-8707 Since 1968, the federal government has pursued a comprehensive flood risk management strategy designed to (1) identify and map flood-prone communities across the country (flood hazard mapping); (2) encourage property owners in NFIP participating communities to purchase insurance as a protection against flood losses (flood insurance); and (3) require communities in designated flood risk zones to adopt and enforce approved floodplain management ordinances to reduce future flood risk to new construction in regulated floodplains (floodplain management)  The Federal Insurance and Mitigation Administration (FIMA), a part of FEMA, manages the NFIP  For more information, see CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Diane P  Horn and Baird Webel, and CRS In Focus IF11023, Selected Issues for National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Reauthorization and Reform , by Diane P  Horn  Agency: Federal Emergency Management Agency Authority: 42 U S C  §4001 et seq  Regulation: 44 C F R  §59 1–§82 21 Contact : Office of Congressional Affairs, 202-646-4500 Website: http://www fema gov/national-flood-insurance-program CFDA Program Number : 97 022 CRS Contact : Diane Horn, 202-707-3472 In addition to programs described above that provide targeted assistance to individuals, states, territories, local governments, and businesses specifically affected by disasters, other general assistance programs may be useful to communities in disaster situations  For example, individuals who lose income, employment, or health insurance may become eligible for programs that are not specifically intended as disaster relief, such as cash assistance under the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program, job training under the Workforce Investment Act, Medicaid, or the State Children's Health Insurance Program (S-CHIP)  Likewise, state or local officials have the discretion to use funds under programs such as the Social Services Block Grant or Community Development Block Grant to meet disaster-related needs, even though these programs were not established specifically for such purposes  Other agencies may offer assistance to state and local governments, including the Economic Development Administration and the Army Corps of Engineers  For businesses, however, only the disaster programs administered by the Small Business Administration are generally applicable  Numerous other federal programs could offer disaster relief, but specific eligibility criteria or other program rules might make it less likely that they would actually be used  Moreover, available funds might already be obligated for ongoing program activities  To the extent that federal agencies have discretion in the administration of programs, some agencies may choose to adapt these non-targeted programs for use in disaster situations  Also, Congress may choose to provide additional funds through emergency supplemental appropriations for certain general assistance programs, specifically for use after a disaster  CRS analysts and program specialists can help provide information regarding general assistance programs that might be relevant to a given disaster situation  CRS appropriations reports may have information on disaster assistance within particular federal agencies  These reports also list CRS's key policy staff by their program area and agency expertise  CRS Report R41981, Congressional Primer on Responding to Major Disasters and Emergencies , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis , by Natalie Keegan and Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Report RL33330, Community Development Block Grant Funds in Disaster Relief and Recovery , by Eugene Boyd CRS Report RL33579, The Public Health and Medical Response to Disasters: Federal Authority and Funding , by Sarah A  Lister CRS Report R44593, Introduction to the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Diane P  Horn and Baird Webel CRS Insight IN10450, Private Flood Insurance and the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) , by Baird Webel and Diane P  Horn CRS Report R45099, National Flood Insurance Program: Selected Issues and Legislation in the 115th Congress , by Diane P  Horn CRS In Focus IF10730, Tax Policy and Disaster Recovery , by Molly F  Sherlock CRS Report R41884, Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report R43784, FEMA's Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report R43738, Fire Management Assistance Grants: Frequently Asked Questions , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Katie Hoover CRS Report R45085, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: In Brief , by Shawn Reese CRS Report R45238, FEMA and SBA Disaster Assistance for Individuals and Households: Application Process, Determinations, and Appeals , by Bruce R  Lindsay and Shawn Reese CRS Report RS22022, Disaster Unemployment Assistance (DUA) , by Julie M  Whittaker CRS Report R41309, The SBA Disaster Loan Program: Overview and Possible Issues for Congress , by Bruce R  Lindsay CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance , by Megan Stubbs CRS Report R42854, Emergency Assistance for Agricultural Land Rehabilitation , by Megan Stubbs CRS In Focus IF10565, Federal Disaster Assistance for Agriculture , by Megan Stubbs CRS In Focus IF10730, Tax Policy and Disaster Recovery , by Molly F  Sherlock CRS Report R44808, Federal Disaster Assistance: The National Flood Insurance Program and Other Federal Disaster Assistance Programs Available to Individuals and Households After a Flood , by Diane P  Horn CRS Insight IN11094, The Evolving Use of Disaster Housing Assistance and the Roles of the Disaster Housing Assistance Program (DHAP) and the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) , by Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Insight IN11054, Disaster Housing Assistance: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Elizabeth M  Webster CRS Insight IN11106, Community Disaster Loans: Homeland Security Issues in the 116th Congress , by Michael H  Cecire Note: Because not all agencies have complete, up-to-date information available on the internet, in particular during and immediately after a disaster, congressional users are encouraged to contact the appropriate CRS program analysts or department or agency program officers for more complete, timely information  USA gov http://www USA gov/ Many federal agencies have established websites specifically for responding to disasters  Some agencies maintain websites with comprehensive information about their disaster assistance programs, whereas others supply only limited information; most list contact phone numbers  An A-Z index of U S  government departments and agencies is available at the website above  FEMA Website http://www fema gov From its website, FEMA offers regular updates on recovery efforts in areas under a major disaster declaration  Information on a specific disaster may include a listing of declared counties and contact information for local residents  Disaster Assistance gov http://www disasterassistance gov/ DisasterAssitance gov provides information on how help might be obtained from the U S  government before, during, and after a disaster  The website includes tools to find, apply for, and check the status of assistance by category or agency  The website also includes disaster-related news feeds and information on community resources  Assistance Listings at beta SAM gov https://beta SAM gov/ Official descriptions of more than 2,200 federal assistance programs, including disaster and recovery grants and loans, can be found on beta SAM gov  The website is currently in beta, and it houses federal assistance listings previously found on the now-retired Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA)  For programs summarized in this report, CFDA program numbers are given (which are searchable at the "Assistance Listings" domain at beta SAM gov)  Full assistance listing descriptions, updated by departments and agencies, cover authorizing legislation, objectives, and eligibility and compliance requirements  For current appropriations and additional information, users can contact CRS analysts, or departments and agencies 
Report 2:  In January 2017, we reported that DOD did not apply the OCO criteria to ERI prior to deciding to budget for its requirements using its OCO budget  We recommended that DOD, in consultation with the Office of Management and Budget, reevaluate and revise the criteria for determining what can be included in OCO budget requests  DOD concurred with our recommendation and noted that it plans to propose revised OCO criteria  As of May 2017, the department has not implemented our recommendation  DOD’s planning for ERI’s posture initiatives does not establish priorities for ERI initiatives relative to those in the base budget, estimate long-term sustainment costs for some posture initiatives funded under ERI, or communicate future ERI costs to Congress  When planning ERI’s posture initiatives, DOD establishes priorities among ERI’s initiatives but does not review posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to those funded in the military services’ base budgets  DOD’s posture management process is intended to establish priorities among global posture elements and is overseen by a Global Posture Executive Council  According to DOD Instruction 3000 12, the Executive Council is responsible for reviewing, prioritizing, and endorsing across the combatant commands key posture elements such as military construction projects and international agreements  The Executive Council’s endorsements inform the military services’ budget deliberations  For the fiscal year 2017 ERI budget, EUCOM requested funding for several posture initiatives, including the continuous, rotational deployment of an armored brigade combat team and the establishment of prepositioned equipment in Europe  Officials representing the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Director, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that as part of its planning process for ERI the Deputy’s Management Action Group evaluated and prioritized posture initiatives funded under ERI  However, DOD could not provide documentation that it had established priorities relative to posture initiatives funded through the base budget  Further, the Global Posture Executive Council did not review or prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI relative to posture initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  Similarly, as DOD prepared the fiscal year 2018 ERI budget request, the Global Posture Executive Council did not prioritize EUCOM’s proposed ERI posture initiatives relative to initiatives funded through DOD’s base budget  More detailed information about these proposals, and their potential funding requirements, are classified  According to officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy and the Joint Staff, DOD did not prioritize posture initiatives funded under ERI against base-budget funded posture initiatives, because ERI is funded through DOD’s OCO budget—which does not directly affect the services’ base budgets  However, because it does not prioritize ERI initiatives against other initiatives funded through the base budget, DOD lacks an understanding of the relative importance of initiatives funded under ERI and may begin investing in projects that it would not support in the absence of funding from DOD’s OCO budget  For example, Army officials noted that if funding were to become unavailable in DOD’s OCO budget, the Army is unsure how initiatives funded under ERI would rank in importance relative to other posture initiatives funded in its base budget  Consequently, the Army would be forced to make critical—and potentially costly—decisions quickly and without a clear idea of which posture initiatives were most important to the department  In planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, EUCOM and the military services have not fully estimated the long-term sustainment costs of ERI’s posture initiatives to establish prepositioned equipment and construct new facilities  DOD’s global defense posture guidance indicates that, when evaluating potential changes to posture, the combatant commands should work with the military services to estimate the full cost of planned posture initiatives, including sustainment costs  DOD’s guidance on economic analysis also notes the importance of understanding both the size and timing of costs  Finally, our prior work has demonstrated that comprehensive cost estimates of current and future resource requirements are critical to making funding decisions and assessing program affordability  DOD leadership emphasized throughout the fiscal year 2018 budget review process that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets, but DOD did not direct the services and EUCOM to estimate these costs as they would have under their established processes  Officials from the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation said that DOD leadership emphasized that the military services would need to fund all future sustainment costs for ERI projects from their base budgets  Based on DOD’s approach for calculating rough order sustainment costs, we determined that ERI sustainment costs for prepositioned equipment and construction could be substantial  Army and Air Force officials said that they were working to identify and incorporate these costs into future base budget submissions  DOD officials said that we correctly applied DOD’s approach for estimating sustainment costs, but noted that actual costs may be lower than the estimated costs, because the military services may not fully fund sustainment  Additionally, officials said that EUCOM is trying to negotiate burden sharing agreements with host nations; however, it is unclear whether these negotiations will be successful or how any resulting agreements would affect DOD’s future costs  Without comprehensive estimates of the sustainment costs for the prepositioned equipment and major military construction projects in Europe, DOD decision makers have been limited in their ability to evaluate the affordability of these initiatives  Further, in the absence of these estimates, the services have been limited in their ability to plan for costs in future budgets, because they have an incomplete understanding of the magnitude of those costs and of when they are likely to be incurred  The funding plan that DOD submits to Congress for ERI does not contain information about ERI’s future costs  This is in contrast to the way DOD submits its funding plan for its base budget, where DOD provides Congress with cost projections over a 5-year period, by appropriation, leaving Congress with a better understanding of how and when to allocate resources  In reviewing the fiscal year 2018 ERI request, the Director for Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation assessed future costs associated with posture initiatives funded under ERI  We previously reported that DOD was not developing enduring requirements funded through its OCO budget as part of its budget and programming process  Officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) and the Office of the Secretary of Defense, Cost Assessment and Program Evaluation told us that DOD has not been required to provide estimates for future OCO costs for ERI to Congress previously  An official from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense (Comptroller) told us that DOD does not plan to provide these future costs to Congress along with its fiscal year 2018 ERI budget submission  Additionally, in preparing its posture requirements, EUCOM did not identify assumptions regarding host nation and NATO burden sharing  For example, officials from the Office of the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy said that DOD has submitted a request to the NATO Security Investment Programmé for $200 million in funding to build a facility in Poland to store Army equipment  Officials told us that, as a result, this construction project was identified as a lesser priority in EUCOM’s fiscal year 2018 request for funding  A senior Army officer told us that completion of a facility in Poland was critical to its plans in Europe  Officials from the U S  Mission to NATO told us that as of July 2016 NATO had approved funding to complete preliminary architectural and engineering design for this project  Officials expect additional funding will be made available in July 2017 to complete final design and site preparation and the full cost of the project will be approved in early 2019  However, these officials noted that additional funding beyond what has been approved by NATO may be required to meet U S -specific requirements  Similarly, EUCOM officials said that they are working to identify opportunities to defray future costs through host nation contributions, but it is unclear how much funding—if any—host nations will provide moving forward  Congress has expressed interest in knowing the future costs of enduring activities being funded through DOD’s OCO budget  The Senate Appropriations Committee’s report accompanying a bill for DOD’s fiscal year 2015 appropriations stated that the committee does not have an understanding of enduring activities funded by the OCO budget  The committee further noted that there is a potential for risk in continuing to fund non-contingency-related activities through the OCO budget  Both GAO’s and other federal standards emphasize that agencies should provide complete and reliable information on the costs of programs externally, so that decision makers can make informed decisions when allocating resources  DOD has not provided Congress projections of future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI because it is reviewing those requirements outside of its budget and programming processes, and DOD officials said that the department is not required to provide this information  As a result, DOD is limiting congressional visibility into the resources needed to achieve ERI’s objectives  If DOD does not provide Congress with projections of the future costs of posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on its assumptions pertaining to host nation support and burden sharing, it will continue to impede congressional visibility into the resources that are needed to fully implement these initiatives  Russia’s annexation of Crimea and the subsequent threat of further aggression led DOD to establish and later expand ERI’s objectives and enhance posture in Europe to support a new U S  strategy toward Russia  DOD has requested funding for these enhancements using its OCO budget; however, the processes DOD uses to develop its OCO budget were not designed to plan for and fund long-term, enduring initiatives such as ERI  By following a separate planning process when funding ERI with OCO, DOD is taking on risk by not reviewing and prioritizing ERI posture plans against other posture initiatives, estimating the costs for sustaining ERI initiatives, and providing Congress with estimates of ERI’s future costs  DOD risks making decisions that lack a strategic vision in comparison to other DOD priorities and may fund initiatives that cannot be sustained over the long term  Furthermore, Congress is likely to face challenges in assessing DOD’s estimated costs for ERI and the affordability of initiatives funded under ERI over the long term  To better ensure that DOD can target resources to its most critical initiatives and establish priorities across its base budget and overseas contingency operations budget, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense prioritize posture initiatives under ERI relative to those funded in its base budget as part of its established posture-planning processes  (Recommendation 1) To better enable decision makers to evaluate the full long-term costs of posture initiatives under ERI, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense direct EUCOM and the military services to develop estimates for the sustainment costs of prepositioned equipment and other infrastructure projects under ERI and ensure that the services plan for these long-term costs in future budgets  (Recommendation 2) To support congressional decision making, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense provide to Congress, along with the department’s annual budget submission, estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and other enduring costs that include assumptions such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  (Recommendation 3) We provided a draft of the classified report to DOD for review and comment  DOD partially concurred with all three of our recommendations, and we have reproduced DOD’s comments on the classified report in appendix II  DOD also provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate  DOD partially concurred with our first recommendation to use its established posture-planning processes to prioritize ERI’s posture initiatives relative to those funded in DOD’s base budget  In its comments, DOD stated that it will continue to prioritize the negotiation of international agreements supporting ERI through the Global Posture Executive Council, and that an on-going Strategic Review will inform ERI and guide both EUCOM and the services in their program planning efforts  These are positive steps  DOD also stated it will adjudicate its ERI-funded force requirements through its global force management process, adding that it will continue to resource OCO funds for ERI requirements until there is a sufficient increase in DOD’s base budget to do so  However, we continue to believe, as noted in our report, that DOD could improve its planning for posture initiatives funded under ERI, whether or not they are funded through OCO, by using DOD’s established posture planning processes  Although DOD’s global force management process directly affects overseas military posture in the near term, this process is not designed to evaluate long-term posture priorities  If DOD does not prioritize the forces and infrastructure projects funded under ERI against those funded using the military services’ base budgets, it will continue to lack an understanding of the relative importance of the posture initiatives funded under ERI  Without such an understanding, DOD increases the risk that the services will need to make critical and potentially costly decisions without a clear idea of which posture initiatives are most critical to the department  DOD partially concurred with our second recommendation that EUCOM and the military services develop estimates for future sustainment costs and plan for these costs in future budgets  In its comments, DOD stated that its components will continue to estimate the sustainment costs for prepositioned stocks and other infrastructure projects during DOD’s annual program and budget review process  DOD also commented that without additional topline base budget funding, some portion of the associated sustainment costs will need to be financed with OCO funds  However, as we noted in our report, neither the Army nor the Air Force has fully estimated these potentially significant future costs, nor had either service incorporated them into their future budgets  Using OCO funds would mark a departure from DOD leadership’s emphasis that the services would need to fund ERI posture sustainment costs through their respective base budgets  Additionally, not developing robust estimates for sustaining these initiatives could increase long-term fiscal risk for the department if DOD shifts more ERI-associated enduring costs into its OCO budget  In the absence of robust cost estimates and deliberate planning to address those costs in future budgets, DOD will continue to be limited in its ability to evaluate the affordability of posture initiatives funded under ERI, and the military services may not plan adequate funding to sustain posture investments in Europe  DOD partially concurred with our third recommendation, to provide Congress with estimates of the future costs for posture initiatives funded under ERI and information on any underlying assumptions, such as those pertaining to the level of host nation support and burden sharing  In its comments, DOD stated that it does not currently prepare a formal 5-year Future Years Defense Program for OCO-related costs  Moreover, DOD commented that it factors in host nation support and burden sharing when preparing budget estimates for Congress  However, DOD does not state whether it will begin to provide Congress future estimates and any underlying assumptions with its budget submission  It is critical that DOD increase congressional visibility into ERI’s future costs and its underlying assumptions to facilitate congressional oversight and reasonably ensure that initiatives can be sustained over the long-term  We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees, the Secretary of Defense, and the Commander, U S  European Command  In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www gao gov  If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1816 or pendletonj@gao gov  Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report  GAO staff who made major contributions to this report are listed in Appendix III  The Army and Air Force identified approximately $224 million in unspecified minor military construction and facilities maintenance and repair projects (hereafter, minor construction and repair) that were programmed or obligated for the European Reassurance Initiative (ERI) in fiscal years 2015 through 2017  This includes $157 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Army and nearly $67 million for minor construction and repair projects identified by the Air Force  According to U S  European Command officials, Navy and Marine Corps construction projects funded under ERI were either major military construction or exercise-related construction projects  The tables below do not include Navy and Marine Corps exercise-related construction projects  Using the data provided by the military services, we compiled the programmed and obligated funding for these minor construction and repair projects by fiscal year, country, location, and project name in tables 3 and 4  The information in these tables was provided by U S  Army Europe and U S  Air Force Europe in response to our request for a list of minor military construction and repair projects  The data provided did not identify the appropriations used for each project  Accordingly, we have not conducted a review to examine whether funds were appropriately used for a given project  In addition to the contact named above, Kevin O’Neill, Assistant Director; Alex Winograd, Analyst-in-Charge; Scott Bruckner, Adrianne Cline, Martin De Alteriis, Joanne Landesman, Jennifer Leotta, Carol Petersen, Michael Shaughnessy, and Jena Sinkfield all made key contributions to this report 

ground_truth: This report is designed to assist Members of Congress and their staff as they address the needs of their states, communities, and constituents after a disaster. It includes a summary of federal programs that provide federal disaster assistance to individual survivors, states, territories, local governments, and nongovernmental entities following a natural or man-made disaster. A number of federal agencies provide financial assistance through grants, loans, and loan guarantees to assist in the provision of critical services, such as temporary housing, counseling, and infrastructure repair. The programs summarized in this report fall into two broad categories. First, there are programs specifically authorized for use during situations occurring because of a disaster. Most of these programs are administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Second are general assistance programs that in some instances may be used either in disaster situations or to meet other needs unrelated to a disaster. Many federal agencies, including the Departments of Health and Human Services (HHS) and Housing and Urban Development (HUD), administer programs that may be included in the second category. The programs in the report are primarily organized by recipient: individuals, state and local governments, nongovernmental entities, or businesses. These programs address a variety of short-term needs, such as food and shelter, and long-term needs, such as the repair of public utilities and public infrastructure. The report also includes a list of Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports on disaster assistance as well as relevant federal agency websites that provide information on disaster responses, updates on recovery efforts, and resources on federal assistance programs. This report will be updated as significant legislative or administrative changes occur.