EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT 

Implementation of the 

Major Disaster 

Declaration Process 

for Federally 

Recognized Tribes 

Report to Congressional Requesters

May 2018

GAO-18-443

United States Government Accountability Office
United States Government Accountability Office

 

Highlights of GAO-18-443, a report to 

congressional requesters

May 2018

EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT

Implementation of the Major Disaster Declaration

Process for Federally Recognized Tribes

What GAO Found

According to tribal officials GAO surveyed and interviewed, there are several 

factors they considered when deciding whether to make a direct request or to 

join a state’s request for a major disaster declaration. Key factors that tribes 

reported considering were the (1) importance of tribal sovereignty, (2) financial 

matters such as the timeliness with which they receive funds, (3) the level of 

support they anticipated receiving from the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA), and (4) their own emergency management capacity. For 

example, survey results showed that tribal officials’ confidence in their capacity 

to manage the declaration was a key factor in determining whether to make a 

request directly. Specifically, various elements of emergency management 

capacity, as illustrated below, could affect tribes’ ability to manage a declaration.

Elements of Capacity Needed to Request and Manage a Major Disaster Declaration 

FEMA has developed pilot guidance for tribal declarations and solicited 

comments from tribes, as part of its effort to consider the needs of tribes and 

develop regulations. According to FEMA officials, they are currently assessing 

the effectiveness of policies and procedures based on data collected from tribal 

declarations since the passage of SRIA. These officials said they intend to begin 

the rulemaking process as soon as 2 years into the pilot, but may delay if they 

cannot collect enough data about different disaster situations during that time to 

conduct a complete analysis. Until the regulations are final, officials say they will 

exercise flexibility whenever possible. In addition, the agency offers training on 

the tribal declaration process and has dedicated staff who act as primary points 

of contact for tribal governments that require technical assistance.

View GAO-18-443. For more information, 

contact Chris P. Currie at (404) 479-1875 or 

curriec@gao.gov. 

Why GAO Did This Study

Since the Sandy Recovery 

Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013, 

federally recognized Indian tribes 

affected by major disasters have had 

the option to make disaster declaration 

requests directly to the President of the 

United States or join a state’s request 

for federal disaster assistance. Prior to 

this, tribes had to receive assistance 

through a state.

GAO was asked to assess the 

implementation of this new authority. 

This report addresses (1) the factors

that influenced selected tribes’ 

decisions about how to seek federal 

disaster assistance, and (2) the actions 

FEMA has taken to help tribes exercise 

the new authority.

GAO analyzed FEMA’s pilot guidance 

for tribal declarations and interviewed 

FEMA and tribal emergency 

management experts. GAO also 

surveyed the 36 tribes who made 

requests for disaster assistance in 

fiscal years 2013-2016 about the 

factors that influenced their decision 

making. Twenty three tribes 

responded. GAO visited seven tribes 

selected from among the survey 

respondents to represent different 

FEMA regions and disaster types. The 

site visits cannot be generalized but 

provided valuable insights into the 

opportunities and challenges of 

exercising this new authority. 

What GAO Recommends

GAO is not making any 

recommendations in this report. 
Page i GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Letter 1

Background 4

Tribes Considered Sovereignty, Finances, FEMA Support, and 

Emergency Management Capacity When Deciding How to 

Request a Disaster Declaration 12

FEMA Has Created Pilot Guidance for Tribes and Offers Training 

and Technical Assistance on Directly Requesting Disaster 

Declarations 23

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 25

Appendix I Objectives, Scope, and Methodology 26

Appendix II Grant Funds Received by Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s 

Major Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 29

Appendix III GAO Survey to Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 45

Appendix IV GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments 53

Table

Table 1: Amount of Funding Awarded to Tribes From Pre-Disaster 

Grants through Which Tribal Governments May Receive 

Funds, 2013-2016 22

Figures

Figure 1: Distribution of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the 

10 Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions 

and the Location of Each Regional Office, 2018 6

Figure 2: Major Disaster Declaration Process for Tribes, as 

Administered by the Federal Emergency Management 

Agency (FEMA) 9

Contents
Page ii GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Figure 3: Geographic Distribution of Direct Requests by Tribes for 

Major Disaster Declarations and State Requested Major 

Disaster Declarations that Tribes Joined, by Disaster 

Type, 2013–2016 11

Figure 4: Distribution of the 23 Survey Respondents that 

Requested Federal Disaster Assistance, by Type of 

Declaration Request During Fiscal Years 2013 through 

2016 12

Figure 5: Example of Tribal Hazard Mitigation Project After a Flash 

Flood Washed Out a Road in 2013 14

Figure 6: Illustration of the Amount of Paperwork Submitted to 

FEMA to Close a Major Disaster Declaration following a 

Landslide in Washington, 2013 17

Figure 7: Key Elements of Capacity Needed to Request a Major 

Disaster Declaration and Manage the Recovery Process, 

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) Requirements 19

Abbreviations

DHS Department of Homeland Security 

EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 

HMGP Hazard Mitigation Grant Program 

IA Individual Assistance 

PDM Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

PA Public Assistance 

RTL Regional Tribal Liaisons

Stafford Act Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency

 Assistance Act

SRIA Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013

SHSP State Homeland Security Program

THSPG Tribal Homeland Security Program Grant 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the 

United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety 

without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain 

copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be 

necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.
Page 1 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

441 G St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20548

May 23, 2018

The Honorable Bill Shuster

Chairman

The Honorable Peter A. DeFazio

Ranking Member 

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

House of Representatives

The Honorable Tom Udall

Vice Chairman

Committee on Indian Affairs

United States Senate

The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013, which amended 

the Stafford Act, gave federally recognized tribes the authority to make 

direct requests for major disaster declarations.1 Prior to 2013, to receive 

disaster assistance, tribes had to join a major disaster request made by 

the governor of the state in which the tribe is geographically located. The 

2013 amendments to the Stafford Act allow the chief executive of an 

affected tribal government to make a direct request for a major disaster 

declaration or join a state’s request for a major disaster declaration. When 

making this decision, tribal officials have to consider whether they have 

the ability to meet the federal requirements for managing the disaster 

assistance independent of the state, if approved. The 2013 amendments 

also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue

regulations to carry out these changes and, as part of this process, to 

consider the unique conditions that affect the general welfare of tribal 

governments.2

 

1

See Pub. L. No. 113-2, § 1110, 127 Stat. 4, 47-49 (amending Pub. L. No., 93-288, 88 

Stat. 143) (codified as amended at 42 U.S.C. § 5170, 5191, 5122). In accordance with the 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), as 

amended, the President of the United States may declare that a major disaster or 

emergency exists in response to a governor’s or tribal chief executive’s request if the 

disaster is “of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the 

capabilities of [a state, tribe, or local government] and Federal assistance is necessary.” 

See 42 U.S.C. § 5170.

2

Pub. L. No. 113-2, § 1110(e), 127 Stat. at 49.

Letter
Page 2 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

A major disaster declaration activates numerous assistance programs 

from FEMA to assist a state or tribal government in its response and 

recovery efforts.3 FEMA is responsible for processing the requests for 

emergency and major disaster declarations and making 

recommendations to the President whether to declare a disaster. FEMA is 

also the primary federal agency responsible for administering assistance 

to aid recovery efforts after a disaster has been declared.

This report examines (1) the factors that influence selected tribes’ 

decisions about how to seek federal assistance through a major disaster 

declaration, and (2) the actions FEMA has taken to help tribes exercise 

the new authority.

To address the first objective, we reviewed FEMA’s pilot guidance for 

tribal disaster declarations that was published in January 2017, as well as 

federal regulations and statutes governing the major disaster declaration 

process. We also reviewed emergency management-related documents 

provided by tribal governments. We interviewed experts from tribal 

emergency management organizations and officials from FEMA to 

compile a list of factors that may have influenced a tribe’s decision to 

make a direct request or join a state’s request as a sub-recipient. We 

used that list to form the basis of a survey designed to collect information 

about the factors that influenced whether a tribe used the new authority or 

pursued disaster assistance under a state declaration. The survey 

questions asked tribal officials to identify whether a particular factor was a 

major factor, a minor factor, or not a factor at all in their decisions to make 

a direct request or to join a state’s request. We sent our survey to all 36 

tribal governments that either (1) received disaster relief funds through a 

 

3

Hereafter in this report, only the implementation of major disaster declarations will be 

examined and are referred to as disaster declarations. In response to a request from a 

governor of a state or the chief executive of an affected Indian tribal government, the 

President may declare that a major disaster or emergency exists. 42 U.S.C. § § 5170, 

5191. If the President declares an emergency, rather than a major disaster, the federal 

government may provide immediate and short-term assistance that is necessary to save 

lives, protect property and public health and safety, or lessen or avert the threat of a 

catastrophe, among other things. 42 U.S.C. § 5192. Federal assistance may not exceed 

$5 million under an emergency declaration unless continued emergency assistance is 

immediately required; there is a continuing and immediate risk to lives, property, public 

health or safety; and necessary assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely 

basis. 42 U.S.C. § 5193. Additionally, upon the request of a governor, the President may 

issue a fire assistance declaration that provides financial and other assistance to 

supplement state and local firefighting resources for fires that threaten destruction that 

might warrant a major disaster declaration. 44 C.F.R. § 204.21.

Major Disaster Declarations 

Major disaster declarations provide access to 

a range of federal response and recovery 

assistance programs for individuals, 

nonfederal governments, and others after the 

President of the United States approves a 

request by a state governor or tribal chief 

executive. 

The Stafford Act defines a “major disaster” as 

any natural catastrophe in any part of the 

United States, which the President determines 

causes damage of sufficient severity and 

magnitude to warrant major disaster 

assistance to supplement the efforts and 

available resources of states, local 

governments, and disaster relief organizations 

in alleviating damage, loss, hardship, or 

suffering. Such catastrophes could include 

any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, 

wind driven water, tidal wave, tsunami, 

earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, 

mudslide, snowstorm, or drought; or—

regardless of cause—any fire, flood, or 

explosion. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) administers the disaster assistance 

and coordinates the federal effort to mitigate, 

respond to, and recover from disasters, and 

as such is responsible for processing the 

requests for major disaster declarations and 

making recommendations to the President 

whether to declare a disaster. FEMA is also 

the primary federal agency responsible for 

administering assistance to aid recovery 

efforts after a disaster has been declared. 

Source: FEMA Tribal Declaration Pilot Guidance, 2017. | 

GAO-18-443
Page 3 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

direct request,4 (2) received disaster relief funds as a sub-recipient of a 

state’s request, or (3) made a direct request that was denied from 

January 2013 through December 2016. This time period coincides with 

the first year after SRIA was enacted to the most recently completed 

calendar year in which full data on declarations were available at the time 

we were planning our survey and site visit administration. Officials from 

23 of the 36 tribes responded to our survey.

To report on FEMA pre-disaster grant funds select tribes received during 

this period, we collected grant data from FEMA Grants Program Division. 

To assess the reliability of these data, we performed electronic data 

testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and interviewed 

agency officials knowledgeable about the collection and processing of 

these data. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for the 

purpose of reporting the grant funds obligated from 2013 through 2016.

In addition, we conducted site visits to 7 tribes selected from the 23 tribes 

that responded to our survey in order to obtain tribal officials’ views on 

factors influencing their disaster declaration decisions during this period 

and to observe recent disaster damages, ongoing recovery projects, and 

aspects of each tribe’s emergency management capability. We selected 

these sites so that as a set they included tribes that made a direct request

whether granted or denied, joined a state declaration, and were located in 

a variety of FEMA regions. Although the information gathered from our 

survey and site visits cannot be generalized across all tribes, it added 

context to the survey responses, underscored the uniqueness of each 

tribe, and offered important details regarding the opportunities and 

challenges for tribes under this new authority.

To address the second objective, we reviewed relevant documentation, 

such as the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, and federal regulations 

and statutes governing the major disaster declaration process. We 

interviewed representatives from two national tribal organizations to 

discuss any successes and issues with the new authority that had been 

reported by their constituents. In addition, during our seven site visits, we 

gathered testimonial evidence of successes and challenges each tribe 

faced in implementing the new authority and carrying out the various 

 

4

For the purposes of this report we counted the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as a single tribe. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has six 

component reservations. Only the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) was covered by a disaster 

declaration during the time period covered in our review. 
Page 4 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

requirements associated with requesting and managing a major disaster 

declaration directly or as a sub-recipient to a state declaration. We also 

interviewed FEMA officials about the actions they had taken to help 

position tribes to determine whether to exercise the new authority and 

how to do so, if desired. Further details on our objectives, scope, and 

methodology are contained in appendix I.

In addition, appendix II contains information on major disaster 

declarations and pre-disaster grant funds allocated to the 36 tribes 

described above as our target population. We analyzed data from 

FEMA’s National Emergency Management Information System to 

determine what tribes received major disaster declarations from 2013 

through 2016 and the specific amount of pre-disaster grant funds they 

received. We discussed, with FEMA personnel who have knowledge of 

the data collection and maintenance, the controls used to help ensure the 

accuracy and reliability of these data. We determined the data to be 

sufficiently reliable for identifying which tribes received what types and 

amounts of post-disaster assistance and for reporting the pre-disaster 

grants that tribes received.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through May 

2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has consistently recognized Indian tribes as 

distinct, independent political communities with inherent powers of limited 

sovereignty. The 2013 amendments in SRIA allow tribes to decide how to 

request federal disaster assistance, thereby allowing tribes to exercise 

their sovereignty.

Background

Federally Recognized 

Indian Tribes
Page 5 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

As of April 2018, there were 573 federally recognized Indian tribes, 

residing on more than 56 million acres.5 Thirty-six states have at least 

parts of a tribe within their borders, with fewer tribes located on the East 

Coast of the United States and over 300 tribes are located in Alaska and 

California. These tribes are each sovereign governments and vary in size, 

demographics, and location. For instance, Navajo Nation has the largest 

reservation covering over 17.5 million acres, stretching across New 

Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and is home to approximately 174,000 

residents, while the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Connecticut 

covers over 2,000 acres and is home to about 350 residents.

Only tribes that are federally recognized can make disaster declaration 

requests. The 10 FEMA Regions and the location of each regional office, 

along with the number of federally recognized tribes in each region, are 

illustrated in figure 1.

 

5

According to the latest Federal Register notice, published January 30, 2018, there are 

567 federally recognized Indian tribes. See 83 Fed. Reg. 4235 (Jan. 30, 2018). However, 

the President signed the Thomasina E. Jordan Indian Tribes of Virginia Federal 

Recognition Act of 2017 to extend federal recognition to six tribes in Virginia on January 

29, 2018. Pub. L. No. 115-121, 132 Stat. 40 (2018).
Page 6 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Figure 1: Distribution of Federally Recognized Indian Tribes in the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency Regions and 

the Location of Each Regional Office, 2018

Before a disaster occurs, tribes may need certain resources to assist in 

the development of their local emergency management capacity. In 

addition to offering technical assistance for certain administrative 

requirements, such as developing a hazard mitigation plan, FEMA 

administers four pre-disaster grant programs that tribes may access. 

Pre-Disaster Emergency 

Management Grants for 

Tribes
Page 7 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

These grant programs could provide tribes, either directly or as a subgrantee through a state, with funds that would help support aspects of 

their emergency management capability. They are:

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). The purpose of 

EMPG is to help build and sustain core emergency management 

capabilities. EMPG is particularly important for building the capacity to 

declare and manage a disaster, because it is the primary federal program 

for which salaries and training for emergency management personnel is 

an allowable expense. Only states and U.S. territories are eligible to 

receive EMPG funds directly. According to FEMA officials, after states 

receive EMPG funds, they make determinations about whether and under 

what conditions to provide the funds to tribes and local governments 

within their geographical boundaries. However, according to officials, not 

all states will distribute EMPG funds to tribes.

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). The purpose of SHSP is to 

help states and U.S. territories prevent, prepare for, protect against, and 

respond to acts of terrorism and otherwise reduce overall risk. Allowable 

expenses include, but are not limited to, equipment, training, and 

exercises. As with EMPG, states and territories receive SHSP funds and 

subsequently decide how to distribute them.

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP). THSGP is a tribalspecific grant program intended to serve the same general purpose as 

SHSP. THSGP is available to tribes that meet one or more specific 

criteria, including comprising at least 1,000 square miles of Indian country 

or being near an international border, near prioritized critical 

infrastructure, or within or adjacent to one of the 50 most populous 

regions in the United States.6

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM). A PDM grant primarily funds 

development and upkeep of hazard mitigation plans, but can be used for 

hazard mitigation projects as well. All nonfederal governments—including 

tribal governments—must have an up-to-date, FEMA-approved hazard 

 

6

See 6 U.S.C. § 601(4) (defining a “directly eligible tribe” for the purposes of the tribal 

homeland security grant program as any Indian tribe located in the continental United 

States that operates a law enforcement or emergency response agency with the capacity 

to respond to calls for law enforcement or emergency services and that meets one of the 

criteria described above, such as being located on or near an international border or a 

coastline bordering an ocean or comprising not less than 1,000 square miles of Indian 

country).
Page 8 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

mitigation plan in place before receiving disaster assistance following a 

major disaster declaration.

After a disaster, tribal chief executives may request federal assistance, if 

the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is 

beyond the capabilities of the affected tribal government and federal 

assistance is necessary.7 Tribes may make a request for assistance as a 

direct recipient, or they may join a state’s request as a sub-recipient.8

Similar to the state request process, FEMA Regional Administrators 

evaluate the tribe’s request and make a recommendation to FEMA 

headquarters. The FEMA Administrator then sends the recommendation 

to the President for a final decision as to whether the tribe’s, or a state’s, 

request for a major disaster declaration should be approved or denied. 

Figure 2 illustrates the process tribes follow to make a direct request or 

join a state’s request.

 

7

See 42 U.S.C. § 5170(b).

8

Tribes may choose to join a state’s request for a major disaster declaration as a direct 

recipient or a sub-recipient. According to FEMA data, from 2013 to 2016, most tribes join 

state requests as sub-recipients. 

Declaration Process for 

Major Disaster 

Declarations
Page 9 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Figure 2: Major Disaster Declaration Process for Tribes, as Administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA) 

a

According to FEMA’s Pilot Guidance on Tribal Disaster Declarations, absent extraordinary 

circumstances, the minimum amount of eligible damages that must be sustained during a disaster to 

generally qualify for Public Assistance through a major disaster declaration is $250,000. 
Page 10 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

When a major disaster is declared, FEMA provides disaster assistance 

for eligible disaster recovery projects through the Disaster Relief Fund 

(DRF). The three types of post-disaster grants, through the DRF, that 

state governors or tribal chief executives may request are:

(1) Public Assistance (PA), which provides grants for eligible emergency 

work and repairs or restoration to infrastructure.

(2) Individual Assistance (IA), which provides assistance to individuals 

and households to meet their sustenance, shelter, and medical needs.

(3) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which provides grants for 

eligible projects to reduce the potential for future damage.

According to FEMA data, between 2013 and 2016, 36 tribes made 

requests for disaster assistance as a direct recipient or by joining a state’s 

request. Of those 36 tribes:

• Fifteen tribes made a total of 17 direct requests to the U.S. President 

through FEMA for major disaster declarations.

• Eight of these requests were approved across 7 tribes. From 2013 

through 2016, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico was the 

only tribe approved for two major disaster declarations for severe 

storms and flooding in 2013.

• The remaining 9 direct requests were denied across 9 tribes.

• Twenty-nine tribes were sub-recipients under 36 state major disaster 

declaration requests.

• Eight tribes made a direct request and also joined at least one state 

request for a major disaster declaration.9

Figure 3 below shows the types of state requests tribes joined as well as 

the direct tribal requests that were approved and denied between 2013 

and 2016. See appendix II for background information on the 36 tribes 

 

9

The total number of tribes is 36. These 8 tribes that received disaster assistance both 

directly and as part of a state declaration are double-counted. That is, they appear in the 

count of 15 tribes that made direct requests and in the count of 29 tribes that were subrecipients under a state request. Eight double-counted tribes subtracted from the sum of 

15 and 29 is 36. 

Federal Disaster 

Assistance Available to 

Tribes Following a Major 

Disaster Declaration

Tribal Requests for Major 

Disaster Declarations from 

2013 through 2016
Page 11 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

that made requests for disaster assistance and those that received predisaster grants during the study period.

Figure 3: Geographic Distribution of Direct Requests by Tribes for Major Disaster Declarations and State Requested Major 

Disaster Declarations that Tribes Joined, by Disaster Type, 2013–2016
Page 12 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Officials from the tribes that responded to our survey and those we 

interviewed reported that there are several factors they took into 

consideration when deciding whether to make a direct request or to join a 

state’s request for a disaster declaration, during the 2013 to 2016 period. 

On the basis of the cumulative responses from these officials, we found 

that tribal sovereignty, financial matters, FEMA support, and the tribe’s 

emergency management capacity were key factors in their decisionmaking process. As shown in figure 4, the 23 survey respondents fall into 

three subsets, which totals 29 direct and state requests made by the 

survey respondents.

Figure 4: Distribution of the 23 Survey Respondents that Requested Federal 

Disaster Assistance, by Type of Declaration Request During Fiscal Years 2013 

through 2016

Nine of 10 survey respondents that made at least one direct request 

during the 2013 to 2016 period reported that tribal sovereignty was a 

major factor they considered when making a direct request. Two survey 

respondents reported that the new authority is of strategic importance for 

tribal sovereignty because they are no longer required to join a state’s 

request when seeking a major disaster declaration. For example, in 

instances where the state’s request for a major disaster declaration has 

been denied, tribes now have the option to request disaster assistance 

directly as a result of this new authority.

This factor was also of practical importance for tribes with reservations 

located in more than one state or county. During our site visit interviews, 

officials from one tribe said it was a challenge to manage multiple state 

bureaucracies when the reservation spans multiple states. In some 

cases, portions of a reservation may not receive disaster assistance if 

Tribes Considered 

Sovereignty, 

Finances, FEMA 

Support, and 

Emergency 

Management 

Capacity When 

Deciding How to 

Request a Disaster 

Declaration

Tribal Sovereignty and 

Government-toGovernment Relationship
Page 13 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

one state—or county—did not request or receive a major disaster 

declaration. Officials from 5 tribes we visited said they prefer making 

direct requests because of the government-to-government relationship 

with the United States, and because working through the state as an 

intermediary impinged on their sovereignty. An official from one small 

rural tribe said that the tribe currently does not have the capacity to make 

a direct request but is taking the steps to do so in the future because it is 

important to their tribal sovereignty.

Tribal officials responding to our survey and interview questions reported 

that the potential to receive additional assistance from states to pay the 

non-federal cost share might influence them to join a state’s request. 

Conversely, the timeliness of reimbursement and the potential to receive 

administrative costs and HMGP grants might be factors in deciding to 

make a direct request. 

Eight out of 13 respondents that received disaster assistance only as a 

sub-recipient of a state reported that they had concerns about paying the 

required nonfederal cost-share. When managing disaster assistance 

grants as a direct recipient, a tribal government is solely responsible for 

the entire nonfederal cost share. On the other hand, if the tribe is a subrecipient to a state request, the tribe may have a lighter financial burden 

since several states offer partial or full nonfederal cost share assistance 

to their local and tribal sub-recipients. For example, officials from one 

tribe said that there is a strong financial incentive to join a state’s request 

because the state reimburses the tribal government’s half of the cost 

share.

In addition, some tribes may face financial hardship with the startup cost 

for recovery projects because PA and HMGP are reimbursement 

programs.10 For example, one tribal official said that it is especially 

difficult for small, rural, non-gaming tribes to find the financial capital to 

initiate recovery and hazard mitigation projects. While some tribes may 

have the money set aside for this purpose or may be able to secure loans 

to begin projects like the one illustrated in figure 5, other tribes are unable 

to start certain internal processes until the FEMA funds have been 

obligated. At a minimum, recipients have to present a scope of work 

 

10The amount of funds the recipient needs to initiate work on recovery projects, prior to 

being reimbursed through DRF funds, depends on multiple factors, including the size and 

scope of the project.

Financial Considerations

Nonfederal Cost Share for Direct 

Recipients and Sub-recipients

The nonfederal cost share in PA and HMGP 

programs constitutes the portion of the costs 

not covered by the federal government. Major 

disaster recovery work approved for federal 

funding generally has a 75 percent federal-25 

percent nonfederal cost share. 

Tribes joining a state request may have 

agreements with the state to split the 

nonfederal cost share. In some cases, the 

state may cover all of this cost. In other 

instances, a state may cover half or none of 

the costs. 

Tribes that are direct recipients are solely 

responsible for the 25 percent nonfederal cost 

share. However, similar to states, tribes can 

request a waiver from the President to lower 

their portion of the cost from 25 percent but 

not lower than 10 percent of some recovery 

efforts. During the declaration request 

process, tribal governments are required to 

certify that they will comply with the cost share 

requirements. 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA guidance and interview. | 

GAO-18-443
Page 14 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

before they can receive funds, the preparation of which usually requires 

the services of engineers or other technical experts. Therefore, the 

timeliness of the reimbursements, especially when the tribe is a subrecipient under a state request, can result in financial challenges. For 

example, one tribal official we interviewed said that it takes much longer, 

on average, to request and receive reimbursement for recovery projects 

when the tribe has to submit the request through the state. Conversely, 

the official noted that reimbursement processes are typically much 

quicker when working directly with FEMA.

Figure 5: Example of Tribal Hazard Mitigation Project After a Flash Flood Washed Out a Road in 2013

During our site visit interviews, officials from one tribe told us that they 

prefer to make direct requests so they could receive HMGP funds to 

make decisions about the hazard mitigation projects on their reservation. 

Generally, as a direct recipient, a state or tribe will receive HMGP funding 

based on a percentage, usually 15 percent, of the total amount of PA and 

IA funds received for the disaster recovery. HMGP funds can be used for 

eligible hazard mitigation projects or to create or renew hazard mitigation 

plans. Under a state declaration, the state receives these funds and can, 
Page 15 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

at its discretion, use them anywhere within its boundaries for eligible 

projects. According to officials from one tribe, they can ensure they 

receive the total amount of HMGP funds to use on hazard mitigation 

projects within their own jurisdiction when they are a direct recipient.

Tribal officials’ confidence in the level of support they expected to receive 

from FEMA influenced their decision whether to make a direct request or 

to join a state. Specifically, in response to our survey, tribes that made 

direct requests largely reported that they believed FEMA’s policies and 

requirements would be clear enough for them to effectively navigate the 

processes and that timely and accurate information would be available. In 

contrast, multiple tribes that decided to join a state’s request reported that 

their concerns in those areas influenced their decisions to join a state’s 

request.

Eight of the 10 tribes responding to our survey that requested a direct 

disaster declaration during the 2013 to 2016 period stated that the clarity 

of policy and guidance was a factor (five called it a major factor and three 

deemed it minor) in their decision making. Conversely, eight of the 13 

tribes that only joined a state request reported that concern about FEMA’s 

policies and requirements being clear enough to seek a direct request 

was a factor in their decision to join a state request.

During our site visit interviews, officials from 2 tribes discussed 

challenges they have experienced with FEMA’s policies and requirements 

for estimating IA-related damages. Applicants for IA, including owners 

and renters, must be able to prove they occupied the damaged dwelling, 

pre-disaster, as their primary residence before receiving assistance. 

However, according to tribal officials, many homeowners on reservations 

do not possess formal deeds to their home or do not carry insurance, 

making it difficult for FEMA to ensure that potential recipients of the IA 

funds meet the requirements of the program. According to FEMA officials, 

the agency has attempted to be flexible during the pilot phase of the tribal 

declarations program. For example, FEMA officials in one region told us 

that they would accept a tribal government’s declaration of home 

ownership in lieu of a formal deed. FEMA officials told us they will 

continue to evaluate how issues of homeownership will be adjudicated. 

In addition, during our site visit interviews, officials from 3 tribes discussed 

various types of difficulty with completing and maintaining the paperwork 

associated with recovery projects. For example, officials from a tribe 

stated that they are not equipped to manage and comply with processes 

FEMA’s Policies, 

Guidance, and Technical 

Assistance

FEMA Policies and Guidance
Page 16 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

such as permit requirements or federal procurement procedures and as a 

result are currently seeking to hire a full time emergency manager. 

Throughout the life of a major disaster declaration, tribal officials are 

required to maintain paperwork to document the recovery projects, which 

can require both physical and electronic recordkeeping systems, space, 

time, and expertise. For example, figure 6 below shows an example of the 

volume of paperwork needed to support and close out the recovery 

projects associated with a landslide in Washington State, according to the 

tribal and state officials involved.11

 

11According to FEMA officials, the amount of documentation associated with closing a 

major disaster declaration is not a measureable indicator of the complexity of FEMA’s 

administrative processes. Although this review was not designed to evaluate the 

appropriate amount of paperwork to administer projects, and not every declaration will 

require the same amount of paperwork, this photo illustrates that significant resources 

may be required. In March 2018, FEMA released its Strategic Plan for Fiscal Years 2018-

2022, which includes a top level goal to “Reduce the Complexity of FEMA.” The goal, 

among other things, aims to reduce administrative and bureaucratic burdens for disaster 

survivors. 
Page 17 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Figure 6: Illustration of the Amount of Paperwork Submitted to FEMA to Close a 

Major Disaster Declaration following a Landslide in Washington, 2013

Nine of 10 tribes responding to our survey that were awarded a direct 

disaster declaration reported that a factor (six major and three minor) in 

their decision making was their determination that the availability of timely 

and accurate assistance from FEMA would help them successfully 

manage the request process. For tribes that only joined state requests, 

fewer tribes reported that concerns about receiving timely and accurate 

technical assistance affected their decisions than those that had concerns 

about the clarity of FEMA’s policy and guidance. Four of the 13 total 

tribes that only joined a state declaration cited concerns about having 

FEMA Technical Assistance
Page 18 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

access to technical assistance as a factor (one called it a major and three 

deemed it minor). 

According to FEMA officials, the agency has assigned staff as dedicated 

Regional Tribal Liaisons (RTL) in all FEMA regional offices. RTLs help 

tribes maintain awareness of various program requirements, including 

those for conducting damage assessments and submitting requests for 

major disaster declarations. RTLs accomplish this role by connecting 

tribes with FEMA subject matter experts, who help tribes navigate the 

major disaster declaration processes and programs. During our site visit 

interviews, officials from 5 tribes we interviewed discussed the 

importance of having a good working relationship with FEMA regional 

officials. Some of the steps FEMA has taken to provide technical 

assistance to tribes are discussed further below.

Tribal officials’ confidence in the tribe’s capacity to manage the major 

disaster declaration process and subsequently administer the recovery 

without assistance from a state was a key factor in determining whether 

or not to seek a request directly or join a state request.

Tribes, like states, have to carry out specific tasks and meet eligibility 

requirements to be able to make a direct request and manage the 

recovery processes for a major disaster declaration, as shown in figure 7. 

While states have had decades to develop the emergency management 

capacity needed to request and administer federal disaster assistance, 

tribes have had the opportunity to apply directly for federal disaster 

assistance since the passage of SRIA in 2013. Developing and 

maintaining such a capacity requires, among other things, having inhouse knowledge or the ability to contract for (or otherwise access) 

specialized expertise to navigate through complex planning and 

processes. 

Damage Assessments

After a disaster occurs, the first step in the 

declaration process is for the tribe to conduct 

an assessment of the impacts of the disaster 

to determine if there are needs that cannot be 

addressed with tribal resources or through 

insurance. Using this assessment—known as 

an initial damage assessment–-a tribal 

government can determine what, if any, needs 

or damages are eligible for FEMA disaster 

assistance. If a tribe determines that such 

needs or damages are beyond its capabilities 

to address with its own resources or 

insurance, the next step is to request a Joint 

Preliminary Damage Assessment (Joint PDA) 

from their FEMA Regional Administrator so 

that FEMA and the tribe can go through a 

process of reaching agreement about what 

damages and needs are eligible. 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA guidance and policies. | 

GAO-18-443

Tribes’ Emergency 

Management Capacity
Page 19 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Figure 7: Key Elements of Capacity Needed to Request a Major Disaster Declaration and Manage the Recovery Process, 

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Requirements

Multiple officials from tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported 

challenges building and maintaining emergency management capacity 
Page 20 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

that affected their ability to make direct requests for, and manage the 

recovery effort associated with, a major disaster declaration.12

Specifically, 9 of 10 tribes responding to our survey that made a direct 

request said determining that their tribes had the emergency 

management capacity to successfully manage the major disaster 

declaration request process was a factor (6 identified it as minor, 3 as 

major). Conversely, 7 of the 13 tribes responding to our survey that only 

joined a state request said determining that they did not have the 

emergency management capacity to successfully manage the major 

disaster declaration request process was a factor in their decisions (4 

identified as major, 3 as minor). As with the capacity to handle the 

declaration process, determining whether the tribe had the capacity to 

manage the recovery process, as illustrated in figure 7, also affected 

decision making. Officials from one tribe we interviewed who had not 

made direct requests told us that unless they have the emergency 

management capacity to manage both the request and the recovery 

process, they plan to continue joining states’ requests whenever possible.

 

12Our interviews with tribal officials were designed to elicit information about their capacity 

to manage the FEMA process of requesting and managing associated federal disaster 

assistance funds. Tribal officials did not discuss the tribe’s capacity to respond to and 

recover from disasters in the absence of any federal assistance during these interviews. 
Page 21 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

A tribal emergency management consultant who works with several tribes 

in one of the areas where we conducted site visits told us that the lack of 

a FEMA-approved tribal hazard mitigation plan limits the ability of many of 

these tribes to receive disaster funding. A hazard mitigation plan is 

required prior to a recipient being able to receive PA permanent work or 

HMGP. As of December 2017, 143 out of 567 tribes had a FEMAapproved Tribal Mitigation Plan, according to FEMA.

13 In addition, the 

consultant reported that some tribes also lacked a designated emergency 

manager and hiring one may be unaffordable or in some cases, the 

applicants lack qualifications. For another tribe, the designated 

emergency manager had several job titles, including the tribe’s first 

responder and fire chief, which the official said makes it difficult to 

dedicate the time required to hone the skills necessary to manage the 

FEMA declaration processes. The official recounted an attempt to 

develop a hazard mitigation plan that at the time of our interview was still 

incomplete due, in part, to the complexity of the FEMA guidelines. In such 

cases, tribes may need to hire a specialist to assist with this 

administrative requirement, but may not have the budget to do so.

Another challenge tribal officials identified is that tribes face barriers to 

accessing federal pre-disaster funding that could help them build capacity 

to manage post-disaster grants following a successful declaration 

request. During our site visit interviews, officials from two tribes told us 

they have considered seeking federal grant opportunities to help enhance 

emergency management capacity, but the eligibility requirements, such 

as the requirement to be near designated critical infrastructure or within 

100 miles of the border, for the tribal homeland security grants program 

precluded them from applying.14 They also said that they have received 

few, if any, state homeland security grant funds from states.15

EMPG pays for salaries and is the primary source of support for 

developing and maintaining the requisite emergency management 

 

13The 567 tribes do not include the six tribes that were extended federal recognition in 

Virginia on January 29, 2018. 

14According to FEMA, it is difficult to ascertain the number of federally recognized tribes 

that qualify for THSGP in any given year. For instance, one criterion is that an applicant be 

located within 10 miles of a system or asset on the critical infrastructure list. However, this 

list may change from year to year so a tribe that is eligible based on this criterion may lose 

its eligibility.

15Tribes may not apply directly for SHSP and EMPG funding, but funding may be 

available to them through the state government.

Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan 

A Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan describes 

sustained actions that may be taken by the 

tribal government to reduce or eliminate the 

long-term risk of future damage to human life 

and property from hazards. When making a 

direct request for a major disaster declaration, 

a tribal government must have a Federal 

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)-

approved Tribal Mitigation Plan that meets the 

requirements in 44 C.F.R. § 201.7 before 

receiving FEMA disaster assistance funds 

under certain programs. If electing to be a 

sub-recipient under a state’s major disaster 

declaration request, the tribal government 

may be eligible to receive disaster assistance 

funds through the state without having a Tribal 

Mitigation Plan. 

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA Policies. | GAO-18-443
Page 22 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

expertise. According to the FEMA and tribal officials we spoke with, as 

well as grant data provided by FEMA, tribes receive relatively low 

amounts of EMPG funding (see table 1 below) through the states. Tribes 

are not eligible to apply directly to FEMA for EMPG funds. In addition, 

according to tribal officials, when tribes apply to states for EMPG funds, 

the states can impose conditions that impinge on tribal sovereignty. For 

example, one state requires tribes to waive their legal immunity and agree 

to follow state laws, which some tribal officials viewed as contradictory to 

their sovereignty. As a result, these officials said they choose not to apply 

for these grants through the states and have never received EMPG funds.

Table 1: Amount of Funding Awarded to Tribes From Pre-Disaster Grants through Which Tribal Governments May Receive 

Funds, 2013-2016

Name of grant Total funding obligated 

to all grantees 

Total funding obligated 

to all tribes

Examples of project types funded

Emergency Management 

Performance Grant 

(EMPG) 

$1,382,755,610 $3,265,836 Hiring staff or contractors for emergency 

management and developing and enhancing 

plans and protocols

Pre-Disaster Mitigation 

Program (PDM)

$172,326,821 $6,913,520 Updating and creating Tribal Multihazard 

Mitigation Plans, covering management costs 

(i.e. salaries), equipment purchase and 

installation

State Homeland Security 

Program (SHSP)

$1,559,990,123 $30,714,041 Developing and enhancing emergency 

management organization, structure, and 

capabilities

Tribal Homeland Security 

Grant Program (THSGP)

$40,000,000 $40,000,000 Designing and conducting exercises to engage 

community and validate capabilities 

strengthening a tribe’s emergency 

management program, conducting training

Source: GAO analysis of FEMA grants funding data. | GAO-18-443

FEMA officials acknowledged that tribes face challenges getting federal 

grant funds to help them enhance their emergency management capacity. 

According to the officials there are statutory, policy, and budget 

considerations that limit their ability to make significant changes in the 

way such grant funds are distributed. However, they told us that they 

continue to work under their current authorities to assist tribes that seek 

to develop and maintain their emergency management capacity, primarily 

through training and technical assistance, as described later in this report.
Page 23 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Since the passage of SRIA in 2013, FEMA has implemented various 

policies tailored to tribes that wish to make a direct request to the 

President, through FEMA, for federal disaster assistance. In December 

2013, FEMA issued a policy regarding coordination with tribal 

governments.16 As part of this policy, FEMA committed to consulting tribal 

governments before taking proposed actions that would have a 

substantial direct effect on tribes. In addition, the policy recognized the 

tribes’ rights to self-governance and tribal sovereignty.

Since 2013, according to FEMA officials, the agency has provided 

multiple opportunities through Federal Register notices and ongoing 

consultations for input into the development of the guidance that currently 

governs the tribal request process for major disaster declarations. 

Specifically, FEMA reported that it is implementing this authority in three 

phases: (1) use of existing regulations, (2) pilot period, and (3) 

rulemaking. During phase 1, from 2013-2016, FEMA processed tribal 

declaration requests using existing state declaration regulations in order 

to allow tribal governments the choice to use the new authority 

immediately and to provide time for consultation on drafts of the Tribal 

Declarations Pilot Guidance.

In January 2016, FEMA published a draft of the Tribal Declarations Pilot 

Guidance and requested comments on the draft guidance through April 

2016.17 Based on feedback received, FEMA issued a final version of the 

guidance, with which it will manage tribal declaration requests during the 

pilot phase, in January 2017.18 The publication of this guidance in 

January 2017 officially started phase 2, the pilot phase, of the tribal 

declarations implementation.

FEMA officials told us that, before beginning the development of

regulations on tribal disaster declarations, they intend to operate under 

the pilot guidance for at least 2 years. They noted that they cannot specify 

an exact date on which they expect to finalize the guidance because 

there is uncertainty about what kind of disasters will strike and where. 

 

16The policy statement was developed in response to Executive Order 13175, 

Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. 65 Fed. Reg. 67249 (Nov. 

9, 2000).

17See Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, 81 Fed. Reg. 943 (Jan. 8, 2016). 

18See Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, 82 Fed. Reg. 3016 (Jan. 10, 2017). 

FEMA Has Created 

Pilot Guidance for 

Tribes and Offers 

Training and 

Technical Assistance 

on Directly 

Requesting Disaster 

Declarations
Page 24 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

According to officials, they have identified data they would like to collect 

to assess the guidance before finalizing it. Among other things, they said 

they plan to do economic analyses using quantitative data such as the 

types of disaster assistance requests from tribes (PA, IA, and HMGP) and 

the amount of funding allocated to tribes. In addition, these officials said 

they plan to conduct focus groups with tribal officials to learn more about 

how the disaster declaration policies and guidance have worked for tribal 

governments that used them. In the meantime, according to these 

officials, their aim is to be as flexible as possible while maintaining 

consistency with other relevant disaster regulations, so that they can 

respond to any unique challenges that arise in implementing this new 

authority.

In addition to assessing how the pilot is working for tribes, FEMA has 

developed and implemented training to help tribes understand the 

disaster declaration process and provided technical assistance to tribes 

as needed, prior to, during, and after disasters.19 FEMA has offered 

training opportunities at the Emergency Management Institute in 

Emmitsburg, Maryland, and has hosted regional training workshops and 

consultations throughout the country. According to tribal officials, these 

training courses have helped increase tribes’ emergency management 

expertise. One of the offerings, Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, was a 

1-hour briefing offered in multiple locations and provided to dozens of 

tribes and other government agencies. In addition, FEMA has RTLs in 

each regional office that are a primary point of contact for tribal 

governments that have questions or require technical assistance on 

FEMA programs. Officials from one tribe we visited told us they believe 

the technical assistance they received from a FEMA RTL was timely and 

thorough. These officials said the tribe contacted FEMA for assistance 

following the Tribal Council’s decision to declare a state of emergency on 

the reservation. According to the tribal officials, a fire had started on a 

Sunday and the FEMA team was on-site at the reservation by 

Wednesday to conduct a joint preliminary damage assessment with tribal 

officials. The officials also said they were impressed with FEMA’s quick 

response on the damage assessment results, which they received within 

a week. The tribe did not ultimately request a major disaster declaration 

because the damage assessment fell short of the minimum damage 

amount at that time. However, officials from the tribe said the experience 

 

19We did not assess the quality of the training courses or technical assistance FEMA has 

provided to the tribes since 2013 as part of this review.
Page 25 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

they gained was helpful for the tribe’s emergency management staff and 

that they are now confident they will be able to conduct an initial damage 

assessment should a future disaster occur.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security 

and FEMA for review and comment. They provided technical comments, 

which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional 

committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. 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) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices 

of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last 

page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report 

are listed in appendix V.

Chris P. Currie

Director, Homeland Security and Justice

Agency Comments 

and Our Evaluation
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 26 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) the factors that influence 

selected tribes’ decisions about how to seek federal assistance through a 

major disaster declaration and (2) the actions the Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) is taking to assist tribal efforts to request 

and manage disaster declarations.

To report on the factors that tribes consider when seeking federal disaster 

assistance, we reviewed FEMA’s pilot guidance for tribal disaster 

declarations that was published in January 2017 and discussed the 

program’s pilot plans with key agency officials. We also interviewed 

officials from two national tribal organizations (the National Congress of 

American Indians and the National Tribal Emergency Management 

Council) and FEMA to develop a preliminary list of potential factors that 

may influence a tribe’s decision to make a direct request or to join a 

state’s request as a sub-recipient. Using these factors, we developed a 

survey with both closed and open-ended questions. To minimize nonresponse error, we pre-tested the survey instrument with officials from 

two tribes in FEMA Regions VI and X (see figure 1) to ensure the 

questions were clear and unbiased and that the survey questions were 

culturally appropriate. We also consulted tribal officials during a FEMA 

training course and held additional interviews with officials from tribal 

organizations to ensure that the questions were clear, understandable, 

and appropriate. An independent reviewer within our agency also 

reviewed a draft of the survey prior to the pre-tests. We made appropriate 

revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire based on the 

pretests and independent review.

We sent our survey to the 36 tribal governments that either (1) received 

declaration funds through a direct request, 1 (2) received declaration 

funds as a sub-recipient of a state’s request, or (3) made a direct request 

that was denied between January 2013 and December 2016.The time 

period we chose coincides with the year SRIA was enacted to the most 

recent calendar year in which a full year of data on major disaster 

declarations was available when we began this work. Using e-mail 

addresses provided by FEMA Regional offices, we emailed the survey in 

an attached document that respondents could complete electronically or 

by hand and return via email or mail. We sent an invitation letter to the 

 

1

For the purposes of this report we counted the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) of the 

Minnesota Chippewa Tribe as a single tribe. The Minnesota Chippewa Tribe has six 

component reservations. Only the Bois Forte Band (Nett Lake) was covered by a disaster 

declaration during the time period covered in our review.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 27 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

tribes on July 12, 2017, informing them of the purpose of the survey and 

the date it would be sent. We then sent the survey on July 18, 2017 and 

began soliciting survey responses from August 7, 2017 until January 12, 

2018, by phone and email. We received completed surveys from 23 of the 

36 tribes in the target population. We compared selected characteristics 

of the tribes responding to the survey with the same characteristics of the 

36 tribes in the target population, as well as the completion of individual 

questions, and did not find a nonresponse bias. The final survey 

questionnaire is in appendix III.

To complement the survey responses, we conducted site visits to 7 tribes 

selected from among the 23 tribes that responded to our survey. The 

objectives of these site visits were to obtain added information from the 

tribal officials regarding the factors influencing their disaster declaration 

decisions during this period. We also observed recent disaster damage; 

ongoing recovery projects; and aspects of each tribe’s emergency 

management capability. We selected these various sites so that, as a set, 

they included a mixture of tribes that had participated in direct 

declarations; in state declarations as a sub-recipient; participated in 

declarations that were granted and denied; and were located in different 

FEMA regions. The selected tribes are located in Arizona, New Mexico, 

Washington, and Idaho, representing FEMA Regions VI, VIII, IX, and X. 

During our site visits, we interviewed tribal executives and emergency 

management officials and toured completed projects. Although the 

information gathered from our survey and site visits cannot be 

generalized across the tribes, our observations and the tribal officials’ 

responses underscored the uniqueness of each tribe and each disaster, 

as well as offering important details regarding the opportunities and 

challenges for tribes under this new authority.

To report on related FEMA grant funds obligated from 2013 through 2016, 

we collected data regarding the Homeland Security Grant Program, Tribal 

Homeland Security Grant Program, Emergency Management 

Performance Grant, and the Pre Disaster Mitigation grant data from 

FEMA Grants Program Division officials. We selected these programs 

because they provide pre-disaster grant funds to states and tribes that 

are, in part, intended to enhance grantees emergency management 

capacity. To assess the reliability of these data, we performed electronic 

data testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and 

interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the collection and 

processing of these data. We determined these data to be sufficiently 

reliable for the purposes of reporting FEMA’s awards of these grant 

funds.
Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and 

Methodology

Page 28 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

To address the second objective, we reviewed federal documentation—

such as FEMA’s Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, federal regulations 

and statutes governing the major disaster declaration process to see what 

actions FEMA has taken specifically related to tribe’s requesting and 

managing major disaster declarations. We also reviewed disaster-related 

documentation provided by tribal governments and available on-line, 

including correspondence between tribes and FEMA, testimony 

statements, and additional documents that provided details of tribes’ 

experiences requesting and managing major disaster declarations. In 

addition, we interviewed officials from the two aforementioned national 

tribal organizations to discuss any successes or challenges they were 

familiar with related to the new authority that allows tribes to request a 

major disaster declaration directly from the President of the United States. 

During our interviews with tribal organizations and tribal officials, we 

examined challenges related to implementing the new authority and 

carrying out the various requirements associated with requesting and 

managing a major disaster declaration.

We also interviewed FEMA officials about the actions they had taken to 

help tribes make informed decisions about whether they would prefer to 

exercise the new authority. In addition, we interviewed FEMA officials 

about how they assisted tribes that were considering whether to exercise 

the new authority and how to do so, if desired, as well as what, if any, 

steps they had taken to address the challenges identified by tribes. For 

example, we discussed what actions FEMA has taken to assess the pilot 

program, offer training opportunities, and provide technical assistance to 

tribes that seek to enhance their emergency management capacity. We 

also attended a tribal emergency management conference in June 2017, 

attended a FEMA tribal emergency management training session in 

person in March 2017, and attended two FEMA-sponsored webinars 

designed specifically for tribal participants.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through May 

2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing 

standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to 

obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for 

our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe 

that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings 

and conclusions based on our audit objectives.
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 29 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

This appendix presents information on the 36 tribal governments that 

either requested a disaster declaration or elected to join a state’s 

declaration request during calendar years 2013 through 2016. The 

information includes an overview of related disaster declarations and predisaster grant funding. The Federal Emergency Management Agency 

(FEMA), a component of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), 

leads the federal effort to mitigate, respond to, and recover from 

disasters, both natural and man-made. Disaster declarations can trigger a 

variety of federal response and recovery assistance for government and 

nongovernmental entities, households, and individuals. FEMA’s grant 

programs include:

• State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) provides funding to support 

states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the 

identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise 

needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond

 to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

• Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) provides funding 

to eligible tribes to strengthen their capacity to prevent, protect 

against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from potential terrorist 

attacks and other hazards.

• Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program 

provides funding to assist local, tribal, territorial, and state 

governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency 

management capabilities.

• Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program provides funds to 

communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of 

mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and 

projects reduces overall risks to life and property and the future cost 

of recovering from a disaster event. The goal of the program is to 

reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the same 

time also reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster 

declarations.

• Individual Assistance (IA) provides financial assistance to individuals.

• Public Assistance (PA) provides financial assistance to jurisdictions for 

debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the restoration of

disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain

 private nonprofit organizations, such as utilities. 

Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016

Pre-Disaster Grant 

Programs

Post-Disaster Grant 

Programs through a Major 

Disaster Declaration
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 30 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

• Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides additional funds to 

assist communities in implementing long-term measures to help 

reduce the potential risk of future damages to facilities.
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 31 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 32 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 33 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 34 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 35 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 36 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 37 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 38 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 39 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 40 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 41 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 42 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 43 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes 

that Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 44 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 45 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major 

Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 46 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 47 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 48 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 49 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 50 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 51 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that 

Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster 

Declaration, 2013-2016 

Page 52 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 
Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

Page 53 GAO-18-443 Tribal Disaster Declaration 

Chris Currie, (404) 679-1875 or CurrieC@gao.gov

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Godfrey (Assistant 

Director), R. Denton Herring (Analyst-In-Charge), Pat Donahue, Dainia 

Lawes, and Claudia Rodriguez made key contributions to this report. In 

addition, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Tracey King, Gary Malavenda, Jeff 

Malcolm, and Heidi Nielson also provided assistance.

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff 

Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff 

Acknowledgements

(101181)
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation, and investigative 

arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 

responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability of the 

federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use of public 

funds; evaluates federal programs and policies; and provides analyses, 

recommendations, and other assistance to help Congress make informed 

oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO’s commitment to good government 

is reflected in its core values of accountability, integrity, and reliability.

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost is 

through GAO’s website (https://www.gao.gov). Each weekday afternoon, GAO 

posts on its website newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence. To 

have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products, go to https://www.gao.gov

and select “E-mail Updates.”

The price of each GAO publication reflects GAO’s actual cost of production and 

distribution and depends on the number of pages in the publication and whether 

the publication is printed in color or black and white. Pricing and ordering 

information is posted on GAO’s website, https://www.gao.gov/ordering.htm. 

Place orders by calling (202) 512-6000, toll free (866) 801-7077, or 

TDD (202) 512-2537. 

Orders may be paid for using American Express, Discover Card, MasterCard, 

Visa, check, or money order. Call for additional information.

Connect with GAO on Facebook, Flickr, Twitter, and YouTube. 

Subscribe to our RSS Feeds or E-mail Updates. Listen to our Podcasts. 

Visit GAO on the web at https://www.gao.gov. 

Contact: 

Website: https://www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470

Orice Williams Brown, Managing Director, WilliamsO@gao.gov, (202) 512-4400, 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125, 

Washington, DC 20548

Chuck Young, Managing Director, youngc1@gao.gov, (202) 512-4800

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, DC 20548

James-Christian Blockwood, Managing Director, spel@gao.gov, (202) 512-4707

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7814, 

Washington, DC 20548

GAO’s Mission

Obtaining Copies of 

GAO Reports and 

Testimony

Order by Phone

Connect with GAO

To Report Fraud, 

Waste, and Abuse in 

Federal Programs

Congressional 

Relations

Public Affairs

Strategic Planning and 

External Liaison

Please Print on Recycled Paper.