Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Design and Implementation of the 
 


Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant 
 


OIG-11-78 April 2011 
Office ofInspector General 

U.S. Department of Homeland Security 

Washington, DC 20528 

Homeland 

Security 

APR21 2011 

Preface 

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office ofInspector General (OIG) was 

established by the Homeland Security Act of2002 (Public Law 107-296) by amendment 

to the Inspector General Act of1978. This is one of a series of audit, inspection, and 

special reports prepared as part of our oversight responsibilities to promote economy, 

efficiency, and effectiveness within the department. 

This report addresses the strengths and weaknesses of the design and implementation of 

the Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Management Performance 

Grant Program. It is based on interviews with employees and officials of relevant 

agencies and institutions, direct observations, and a review of applicable documents. 

The recommendations herein have been developed to the best knowledge available to our 

office, and have been discussed in draft with those responsible for implementation. We 

trust this report will result in more effective, efficient, and economical operations. We 

express our appreciation to all ofthose who contributed to the preparation of this report. 

Anne L. Richards 

Assistant Inspector General for Audits 
Table of Contents/Abbreviations 

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................... 1 
 


Background ........................................................................................................................ 2 
 


Results of Audit ................................................................................................................. 4 
 


EMPG Program Design Facilitates Emergency Management ..................................... 4 
 


Implementation of EMPG Grant Life Cycle Delays Awarding of Funds ................... 5 
 


Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 7 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 8 
 


FEMA Has Developed But Not Implemented EMPG Performance Measures ........... 8 
 


Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 9 
 


Management Comments and OIG Analysis ................................................................ 9 
 


Appendices 

Appendix A: Purpose, Scope, and Methodology ..................................................... 10 
 


Appendix B: Management Comments to the Draft Report ..................................... 12 
 


Appendix C: FEMA Regions and Assigned States/Territories ............................... 13 
 


Appendix D: Timelines of EMPG Grant Life Cycle, FYs 2007 Through 2010 ...... 14 
 


Appendix E: EMPG Appropriation Legislation ...................................................... 15 
 


Appendix F: Major Contributors to this Report ...................................................... 16 
 


Appendix G: Report Distribution ............................................................................ 17 
 


Acronyms and Abbreviations 

DHS Department of Homeland Security 
 


EMPG Emergency Management Performance Grant 
 


FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency 
 


FY fiscal year 
 


OIG Office of Inspector General 
 

OIG
 
 

Department of Homeland Security 

Office of Inspector General 

Executive Summary 

The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program is the 

Federal Emergency Management Agency’s principal program to 

enhance state and local governments’ emergency management 

capabilities. Our objectives were to determine whether the 

Emergency Management Performance Grant Program’s design, 

implementation, and performance measurement strategy facilitate 

improved emergency management and preparedness for its 

grantees. 

The Emergency Management Performance Grant Program is 

designed to facilitate emergency management and preparedness for 

its grantees. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency can improve 

implementation of the program by awarding grant funds in a 

timelier manner. From fiscal years 2007 through 2010, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency made annual awards 4 to 8 

months after the beginning of the grant period of performance. As 

a result, grantees delayed spending or used their own funds to 

cover emergency management expenses until the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency made grant funds available. 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency has developed, but 

not yet finalized or implemented, a strategy to measure the 

effectiveness of program funds. Consequently, the Federal 

Emergency Management Agency is not able to measure the value 

that grant funds are adding to state and local emergency 

preparedness. 

We made two recommendations, which, if implemented, will 

enhance the program’s overall effectiveness. Federal Emergency 

Management Agency officials concurred with one 

recommendation and the intent of the other recommendation. 

Written responses to the recommendations from Federal 

Emergency Management Agency officials are included in the 

report as Appendix B. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 1 
 
 

Background 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) mission 

is to lead the Nation in a comprehensive emergency management 

system of preparedness, protection, response, recovery, and 

mitigation. The Emergency Management Performance Grant 

(EMPG) Program aids FEMA’s mission by enhancing and 

sustaining state and local governments’ emergency management 

capabilities. EMPG is FEMA’s principal program for funding allhazards planning, training, exercises, and emergency management 

personnel. 

All 50 states and 6 territories, as well as the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands and the Federated States of Micronesia, are 

eligible for EMPG funds. EMPG is a formula grant that allocates 

each grantee (state or territory) a base amount, plus an amount 

determined by population. Congress appropriates EMPG funds 

annually, with a two-year period of performance. Figure 1 shows 

EMPG allocations from fiscal years (FYs) 2003 through 2010. 

Figure 1. EMPG Allocations, FYs 2003 through 2010 

EMPG Allocation 

$­

$50 

$100 

$150 

$200 

$250 

$300 

$350 

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

Fiscal Year 

$M 

Source: FEMA.gov 

Note: In 2004, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) allocated 

additional funds to EMPG above the amount that Congress appropriated. In 

2007, Congress appropriated an additional $50 million for EMPG in the U.S. 

Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery and Iraq Accountability 

Appropriations Act (P.L. 110-28). 

FEMA awards the funds to the grantees, which have the option to 

pass funds to subgrantees in local jurisdictions. EMPG requires a 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 

Emergency Management Performance Grant
 

Page 2 
50% federal and 50% grantee match of funds. Each grantee 

decides how much of the match requirement the subgrantees must 

meet. 

FEMA is organized into 10 geographical regions, each of which 

oversees a number of grantees (see Appendix C). In FY 2010, 

FEMA transferred many EMPG programmatic and financial grant 

management functions from FEMA headquarters to the regions. 

FEMA headquarters publishes annual guidance that provides 

information to the grantees on applying for and obtaining funds. 

The regions manage most other grant-related functions, including 

reviewing grant applications, making award decisions, monitoring 

grant activities, and providing grantee customer service (see 

Figure 2). 

Figure 2. EMPG Grant Life Cycle and Responsibilities 

Step 1 (HQ) Step ) 2 (HQ) Step 3 (Region Step 4 (Region ) 

Application 

Review and 

Decision 

Guidance 

Release 

Program 

Guidance 

Development 

Award Package 

Creation and 

Issuance 

Programmatic 

Performance 

Monitoring 

Step 7 (Region ) 

Standard 

Performance 

Report Review 

Step 6 (Region ) 

Award 

Amendment 

Step 5 (Region ) 

Award 

Closeout 

Step 8 (Region ) 

Source: FEMA 

The Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

(P.L. 109-295) directed FEMA to develop robust regional offices 

that work with state and local governments, among other entities, 

to address regional priorities. FEMA is evaluating regionalization 

of preparedness grants, including EMPG, through efforts such as 

the Regionalization Implementation Grants Task Force. FEMA 

formed this task force to identify issues surrounding 

responsibilities for managing preparedness grants. Task force 

participants included staff from FEMA headquarters and each of 

the 10 regional offices, along with selected state and local grantees. 

In addition, FEMA is reviewing regional resource levels needed to 

take on new grant roles and responsibilities. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 3 
 
FEMA has developed a strategy to measure the effectiveness of program funds, 

but has not yet finalized or implemented it. As a result, FEMA is not able to 

measure the value that EMPG funds are adding to state and local emergency 

management and preparedness. 

EMPG Program Design Facilitates Emergency Management 

The EMPG Program is designed to provide funds that assist grantees in 

enhancing and sustaining their emergency management capabilities. We 

identified and evaluated four major design components of the program: 

Allocation Formula: The EMPG allocation formula, designed by 

Congress to be partially based on population, is appropriate to 

meet the intent of the grant. The formula acknowledges the need 

for emergency management capabilities in all states and territories. 

Both FEMA and grantee emergency management officials 

supported the noncompetitive nature of EMPG. 

Period of Performance: Although EMPG is an annual grant, 

FEMA allows a two-year period of performance. This gives state 

and local emergency management agencies the flexibility to plan 

and execute the use of EMPG funds. 

Allowable Cost Categories: The allowable cost categories, 

selected by FEMA, support a broad range of staffing, planning, 

training, equipment, and maintenance expenses. These categories 

are consistent with the mission of the grant. 

Match Requirement: The congressionally mandated 50% federal

and 50% grantee match requirement promotes shared responsibility

for funding emergency management. Some grantees and

subgrantees reported that the economic downturn affected their 

Results of Audit
 

The EMPG Program is designed to facilitate emergency management and 

preparedness at the grantee level. FEMA can improve program implementation 

by awarding grant funds more efficiently. From FYs 2007 through 2010, FEMA 

waited to issue guidance, review grantee applications, and make awards until 

Congress appropriated funds. This practice delayed annual awards between four 

and eight months after the beginning of the period of performance. As a result, 

grantees delayed spending or used their own funds to cover emergency 

management expenses until FEMA made grant funds available. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 4 
 
ability to meet the match. However, state and local officials 

generally agreed that the match requirement was fair. 

Implementation of EMPG Grant Life Cycle Delays Awarding of 

Funds 

FEMA’s implementation of the EMPG grant life cycle prevents funds 

from reaching the grantees in a timely manner. FEMA has historically 

awarded funds approximately four to eight months after the start of the 

EMPG period of performance (see Table 1). 

Table 1. Comparison of EMPG Period of Performance Start Date to Award Date 

Fiscal Year Start of Period 

of Performance 

Most Common 

Award Date 

Elapsed Time 

(approx.) 

2007 10/1/2006 2/27/2007 5 months 

2008 10/1/2007 5/16/2008 7.5 months 

2009 10/1/2008 2/13/2009 4.5 months 

2010 10/1/2009 6/01/2010 8 months 

Note: “Most Common Award Date” is based on the 19 grantee files we reviewed. Some 

awards were made on slightly earlier or later dates. 

The annual EMPG grant guidance specified that the period of performance 

starts on October 1, the beginning of the federal fiscal year. This provided 

grantees with continuous periods in which to charge year-round expenses, 

such as salaries, to the grant. It also gave grantees assurance that all 

eligible expenditures would count toward the match requirement. 

In FYs 2007, 2008, and 2010, Congress appropriated funds for EMPG 

after the start of the periods of performance. In FY 2009, Congress 

appropriated funds on September 30, 2008, one day before the start of the 

period of performance. In each of these years, FEMA did not finalize the 

EMPG guidance until after Congress appropriated funds for that year’s 

grant. This delayed the guidance issuance, application submissions, 

application reviews, and award notifications. Consequently, FEMA did 

not award funds to grantees until several months into the period of 

performance. The timelines in Appendix D illustrate the sequence of key 

events in the grant life cycle for FYs 2007 through 2010. 

A FEMA official said that historically, FEMA’s practice had been to issue 

grant guidance only after Congress had passed a related appropriations 

bill. Other FEMA officials expressed frustration that this practice has 

delayed availability of funds to the grantees. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 

Emergency Management Performance Grant
 

Page 5 
 

Grantees reported challenges in meeting their emergency management 

obligations because FEMA did not award funds in a timely manner. For 

example, one state official said that state law prevented the grantee from 

forwarding any funds to subgrantees until FEMA made the funds 

available. An official from another state said that the state had to redirect 

substantial state funds to cover qualified grant expenditures until FEMA 

awarded the funds. 

The delay in the availability of funds creates an administrative burden for 

both the grantee and FEMA. Many grantees have to file for grant 

extensions because they have remaining balances at the end of the original 

period of performance. Remaining balances are caused in part by the 

delayed availability of funds, but they may also result from project delays, 

changes in grantee staff, or other reasons. Depending on the fiscal year, 

71% to 95% of grantees had remaining balances at the end of the original 

period of performance (see Table 2). 

Table 2. Remaining Balances at the End of the Original Periods of Performance 

Fiscal 

Year 

Number of 

Grantees 

With 

Remaining 

Balances 

Percentage 

of Grantees 

With 

Remaining 

Balances 

Total 

Remaining 

Balance 

Percentage 

of Total 

Award 

Remaining 

2007 41 out of 58 71% $23,772,953 12% 

2008 51 out of 58 88% $61,909,824 21% 

2009 55 out of 58 95% $92,641,427 30% 

Note: FY 2010 is not included because the original period of performance was still 

ongoing during the course of this audit. FY 2007 figures do not include the $50 million 

supplemental appropriation. 

EMPG guidance specifies that remaining funds will be returned to the 

federal government at the end of the closeout period, 90 days after the end 

of the original period of performance. Therefore, grantees with open 

balances at the end of the closeout period must file for extensions or return 

the remaining funds to the federal government. All extension requests 

must be submitted at least 60 days before the grant period of performance 

expires. While FEMA officials must review all close-out reports, 

reviewing extensions creates additional work. 

FEMA can distribute funds in a timelier manner by starting the EMPG 
 

application cycle earlier in the year. FEMA could issue preliminary 
 

guidance with target allocations several months before the start of the 
 

period of performance. Grantees could work with FEMA to develop 
 

preliminary grant applications that they could amend following the final 
 

appropriation. 
 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 

Emergency Management Performance Grant
 

Page 6 
Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

Emergency Management Performance Grant 

Page 7

A FEMA official with whom we discussed this proposal said that FEMA 

could accomplish most of the application review work before the release 

of the final appropriation. Grantees could include options in their 

applications in case the target allocations varied from the final 

appropriation. These options would reduce additional work if the final 

appropriation differed from the preliminary guidance. Historically, 

Congress has not changed the EMPG requirements in the appropriation 

bills (see Appendix E). This stability should give FEMA and grantees 

confidence that future appropriation bills will not make significant 

alterations to the preliminary guidance. Figure 3 illustrates how FEMA 

can accelerate the award date by issuing preliminary guidance before the 

start of the period of performance. 

Figure 3. Current and Proposed Approaches for EMPG Life Cycles 

7/2011 8/2011 9/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 1/2012 2/2012 3/2012 4/2012 5/2012

FY 2012 (current approach)

10/1/2011

Period of Performance Begins

12/18/2011

Guidance Issued

1/17/2012

Application Due

5/4/2012

First Drawdown

10/29/2011

Appropriation Passed

4/6/2012

Awards Made

Note: All dates for the “Current Approach” are based on average dates of FYs 2007 through 2010 (see 

Appendix D). 

7/2011 8/2011 9/2011 10/2011 11/2011 12/2011 1/2012 2/2012 3/2012 4/2012 5/2012

FY 2012 (recommended approach)

10/29/2011

Appropriation 

Passed

12/6/2011

Application Due

1/6/2012

Awards Made

11/11/2011

Final Guidance 

Issued

2/3/2012

First Drawdown

7/1/2011

Preliminary Guidance 

Issued

10/1/2011

Period of 

Performance Begins

Recommendation

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #1: Issue preliminary EMPG guidance and 

begin reviewing applications several months before the start of the 

grant period of performance. 
Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with the intent of the recommendation and is 

working with senior leadership in FEMA, DHS, and the Office of 

Management and Budget to finalize and publish FY 2011 EMPG 

guidance as soon as possible. FEMA is working to finalize 

performance measures that will be included in the guidance. Once 

the measures are finalized, FEMA anticipates immediately posting 

the guidance and opening the EMPG application period. 

The proposed action by FEMA, if achieved, would address this 

recommendation for FY 2011. However, in order to resolve the 

recommendation, we would need to see a timetable for 

implementing the recommendation for FY 2011 and establishing a 

policy for future year grant guidance. The recommendation will 

remain open and unresolved until these actions are addressed. 

Within 90 days, the FEMA Administrator needs to outline a 

corrective action plan to implement the recommendation. 

FEMA Has Developed But Not Implemented EMPG Performance 

Measures 

FEMA has developed but not implemented a strategy to measure the 

effectiveness of the EMPG Program. FEMA developed this strategy by 

assembling a working group of headquarters and regional staff with 

subject matter expertise. The group developed a number of performance 

measures, identified data to collect, and proposed tools and methods to 

collect the data. 

The working group developed 24 performance measures, of which 6 are 

ready to deploy. These measures focus on areas such as the completeness 

of emergency operations plans, the timely filing of reports, and the 

number of trained emergency management personnel. We evaluated the 

six ready-to-deploy performance measures and concluded that they are 

generally sufficient to measure EMPG’s performance, provided that 

FEMA uses accurate and complete data. 

In addition to the 24 developed performance measures, FEMA uses one 

existing performance measure known as the Emergency Management 

Accreditation Program Standard. The Emergency Management 

Accreditation Program is a voluntary review process, developed with input 

from emergency managers and government officials. Using selfassessments and peer reviews, an independent commission accredits 

jurisdictions that demonstrate compliance with 63 national standards for 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 

Emergency Management Performance Grant
 

Page 8 
emergency management. FEMA reported that the program had accredited 

39% of states and territories for FY 2009. 

FEMA has not implemented the six performance measures because it 

traditionally uses the grant guidance to first notify grantees of new 

measures. FEMA officials said that information relating to the six new 

measures will not be included in the FY 2011 guidance. A FEMA official 

said that the final version of the measures was not ready in time to meet 

the review deadlines for the guidance. 

FEMA cannot analyze grantee performance data for at least an additional 

grant cycle because it did not include the performance measures in the 

FY 2011 guidance. As a result, it is unable to measure and report on the 

impact and value of the EMPG funds or focus on where to improve the 

program. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs 

Directorate: 

Recommendation #2: Finalize and publish the performance 

measures in the EMPG grant guidance as soon as possible. 

Management Comments and OIG Analysis 

FEMA concurred with the recommendation and has decided to 

include performance measures in the FY 2011 EMPG guidance. 

FEMA is working with Office of Management and Budget 

officials to finalize acceptable performance measures. 

The proposed action by FEMA would address this 

recommendation. However, until a timetable for implementation 

of the recommendation is provided, the recommendation will 

remain open and unresolved. Within 90 days, the FEMA 

Administrator needs to outline a corrective action plan to 

implement the recommendation. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 9 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

Our objectives were to determine whether the EMPG’s design, 

implementation, and performance measurement strategy facilitate 

improved emergency management and preparedness for the 

grantees. 

To accomplish our objectives, we reviewed applicable laws and 

regulations, prior audit reports, EMPG grant guidance for 

FYs 2007 through 2010, and additional FEMA documents related 

to EMPG. Legislation we reviewed included the following: 

Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency 

Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288) 

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006 

(P.L. 109-295) 

Implementing Recommendations of the 9/11 Commission 

Act of 2007 (P.L. 110-53) 

Annual appropriation legislation (listed in Appendix E) 

We interviewed FEMA officials at FEMA headquarters. We 

selected three FEMA regions for site visits based on geographical 

distribution, size of the region’s allocation, reported remaining 

balances, and recent major disasters. We selected and visited one 

state in each region: 

Region I – Boston, MA; State – Connecticut 

Region IV – Atlanta, GA; State – Tennessee 

Region VI – Denton, TX; State – Louisiana 

At each FEMA region we visited, we interviewed EMPG program 

managers and preparedness grants financial specialists. At each 

state we visited, we interviewed EMPG program officials to 

determine the impact of the allocation formula, period of 

performance, allowable costs, and the match requirement. We also 

selected and interviewed 19 subgrantees from the visited regions. 

In addition, we obtained copies of grant files from FYs 2007 

through 2010 for the 19 grantees in FEMA Regions I, IV, and VI. 

We reviewed the grant applications, award documents, grant 

modifications, correspondence, and extensions. 

To calculate the remaining balances of EMPG funds, FEMA 

provided EMPG drawdown data for all grantees from October 1, 

2006, through September 30, 2010. We then calculated the 

remaining balances for each EMPG award from FYs 2007 through 

2010. We did not verify the reliability of the data that FEMA 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 10 
 
Appendix A 

Purpose, Scope, and Methodology 

provided. However, based on our testing, we believe that the data 

are sufficiently reliable to meet our audit objectives. 

We evaluated FEMA’s proposed performance measures to ensure 

that they were logical and consistent. However, because FEMA 

has not collected data for the performance measures, we were 

unable to test the effectiveness of the measures. 

We conducted this audit between August 2010 and January 2011, 

under the authority of the Inspector General Act of 1978, as 

amended, and according to 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 the evidence obtained 

provides a reasonable basis for our findings based on our audit 

objectives. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 11 
 
l!.S. u.s. I)cllllrllllClI1 O('llllrlmClIl or lIomchll1d IIl.lmcl:'lnd S«urit~ S«uril~

500 C 5It1."I:l. Sln.-.:I. S\\' SW

W::ashlll};IOO. \\OShlll!;""'. DC !0-I72 :!0472

MAR 3 1 2011

MEMORANDUM MEMORANO M FOR: FOR: Anne L. L Richards

Assistant Inspector General for Audits

Office of Inspector General

1i.J;i;-c. I2.J::t:-c. O?~RJA.­ O?~RJAFROM: l>av{d· David-J. Kaufman Kaufman

Director

Office of Policy and Program Analysis

SUBJECT: Comments to OIG Draft Draft. Report, Design and Implemeutatioll Implementation of a/the the

Federal Emergency Managemeut Management Agency's Emergency

Management Pe,formallce Grant Gram Program (EMPG)

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft draft report. report. The findings in the report will be

used to strenbrthen strengthen the effectiveness and efficiency of how we execute and measure the program.

We recognize the need to continue to improve the process, including addressing the

recommendations raised in this report. Our responses responscs to the recommendations recommcndations are as follows:

Recommendation I: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs

Directorate issue preliminary EMPG guidance and begin reviewing revicwing applications several months

before the start ofthe grant period of perfonnance.

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with the intent of this recommendation. FEMA has

considered this recommendation for FY 20 II and is working with senior senior leadership in FEMA, FEMA,

OHS. DHS, and OMB 10to finalize and publish the guidanee as quiekly as possible. The Grant Programs

Directorate (GPO) (GPD) is working with the National Preparedness Division (NPO) (NPD) to finalize

perfonnance measures that can be included in the guidance. Once these measures are finalized

we anticipate the guidance will be immediately posted and the application period will be open.

Recommendation 2: 2: We recommend that the Assistant Administrator, Administrator. Grant Programs

Directorate finalize and publish the perfonnance measures in the EMPG grant guidance as soon

as possible.

FEMA Response: FEMA concurs with this recommcndation. recommendation. At thc the time of the exit interview, intervicw.

this option was still being considercd considered and a detennination determination has since been made that that perfonnance

measures will be included ineluded in the grant guidance for FY 2011. FEMA (GPO and NPO) is working

with OMB OMB/NSSSS to finalize acceptable perfonnance measures for inclusion in the FY 2011

EMPG EM PG Guidanee. Guidance.

W\\W.fl'II1:l.g0\·

Appendix B 

Management Comments to the Draft Report 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 12 
 
Region State/Territory 

VI Arkansas 

Denton, TX Louisiana

New Mexico

Oklahoma 

Texas 

VII Iowa 

Kansas City, 

MO 

Kansas 

Missouri 

Nebraska 

VIII Colorado 

Denver, CO Montana

North Dakota 

South Dakota

Utah 

Wyoming 

IX American Samoa 

Oakland, CA Arizona

California

Federated States of Micronesia 

Guam 

Hawaii

Nevada 

Northern Mariana Islands 

Republic of the Marshall Islands 

X 

Seattle, WA 

Alaska 

Idaho

Oregon

Washington

Region State/Territory

I Connecticut 

Boston, MA Maine 

Massachusetts

New Hampshire 

Rhode Island 

Vermont 

II 

New York, 

New Jersey 

New York 

NY Puerto Rico 

U.S. Virgin Islands 

III Delaware 

Philadelphia, 

PA 

District of Columbia 

Maryland

Pennsylvania

Virginia 

West Virginia 

IV Alabama

Atlanta, GA Florida

Georgia 

Kentucky 

Mississippi 

North Carolina 

South Carolina 

Tennessee 

V Illinois 

Chicago, IL Indiana

Michigan 

Minnesota 

Ohio 

Wisconsin 

 

Appendix C 

FEMA Regions and Assigned States/Territories 

 

 

 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 13 
 
Appendix D 

Timelines of EMPG Grant Life Cycle, FYs 2007 Through 2010 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 

Emergency Management Performance Grant 

Page 14

10/2006 11/2006 12/2006 1/2007 2/2007 3/2007 4/2007 5/2007 6/2007

FY 2007

2/27/2007

Awards Made

10/1/2006

Period of Performance 

Begins

11/29/2006

Guidance Issued

5/9/2007

First Drawdown

12/29/2006

Application Due

10/4/2006

Appropriation Passed

10/2007 11/2007 12/2007 1/2008 2/2008 3/2008 4/2008 5/2008 6/2008

FY 2008

12/26/2007

Appropriation Passed

10/1/2007

Period of Performance 

Begins

2/1/2008

Guidance Issued

5/29/2008

First Drawdown

5/16/2008

Awards Made

3/1/2008

Application Due

10/2008 11/2008 12/2008 1/2009 2/2009 3/2009 4/2009 5/2009 6/2009

FY 2009

11/19/2008

Guidance Issued

10/1/2008

Period of Performance 

Begins

9/30/2008

Appropriation Passed

12/19/2008

Application Due

2/13/2009

Awards Made

3/10/2009

First Drawdown

10/2009 11/2009 12/2009 1/2010 2/2010 3/2010 4/2010 5/2010 6/2010

FY 2010

1/22/2010

Application Due

10/28/2009

Appropriation Passed

12/22/2009

Guidance Issued

6/1/2010

First Drawdown

10/1/2009

Period of Performance 

Begins

6/1/2010

Awards Made
Appendix E 

EMPG Appropriation Legislation 

Bill Appropriation Language Other Provisions Relating to EMPG 

Consolidated $165,000,000 shall be for None 

Appropriations emergency management 

Resolution, 2003 performance grants 

P.L. 108-7 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2004 

P.L. 108-90 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $180,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total 

appropriation. 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2005 

P.L. 108-334 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $180,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total 

appropriation. 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2006 

P.L. 109-90 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $185,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total 

appropriation. 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2007 

P.L. 109-295 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $200,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total 

appropriation. 

U.S. Troop Readiness, 

Veterans’ Care, Katrina 

Recovery, and Iraq 

Accountability 

Appropriations Act, 2007 

(2007 Supplemental 

Appropriation) 

P.L. 110-28 

For an additional amount for 

“Emergency Management 

Performance Grants,” 

$50,000,000. 

None 

Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2008 

P.L. 110-161 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $300,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total amount 

appropriated under this heading. 

Consolidated Security, 

Disaster Assistance, and 

Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2009 

P.L. 110-329 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $315,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed three percent of the total amount 

appropriated under this heading. 

Department of 

Homeland Security 

Appropriations Act, 2010 

P.L. 111-83 

For necessary expenses for 

emergency management 

performance grants, as 

authorized..., $340,000,000 

Provided, That total administrative costs shall 

not exceed 3 percent of the total amount 

appropriated under this heading, and an 

expenditure plan for program administration 

shall be provided to the Committees on 

Appropriations of the Senate and the House 

of Representatives within 60 days of the date 

of enactment of this Act. 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 15
 
 
Appendix F 

Major Contributors to this Report 

Michael Siviy, Director 

Barry Russell, Audit Manager 

Tristan Weir, Auditor-in-Charge 

Jeanne Genao, Program Analyst 

Tia Jackson, Program Analyst 

Ashley Smith, Program Analyst 

James Bess, Referencer 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 16 
 
Appendix G 

Report Distribution 

Department of Homeland Security 

Secretary 

Deputy Secretary 

Chief of Staff 

Deputy Chief of Staff 

General Counsel 

Executive Secretariat 

Director, GAO/OIG Liaison Office 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Policy 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Public Affairs 

Assistant Secretary for Office of Legislative Affairs 

Federal Emergency Management Agency 

Administrator 

Assistant Administrator, Grant Programs Directorate 

Federal Emergency Management Agency Audit Liaison 

Grant Programs Directorate Audit Liaison 

Office of Management and Budget 

Chief, Homeland Security Branch 

DHS OIG Budget Examiner 

Congress 

Congressional Oversight and Appropriations Committees, as 

appropriate 

Design and Implementation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s 
 


Emergency Management Performance Grant
 
 

Page 17
 
 
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AND COPIES 

To obtain additional copies of this report, please call the Office of Inspector General (OIG) at (202) 254-4100, 

fax your request to (202) 254-4305, or visit the OIG web site at www.dhs.gov/oig. 

OIG HOTLINE 

To report alleged fraud, waste, abuse or mismanagement, or any other kind of criminal or noncriminal 

misconduct relative to department programs or operations: 

• Call our Hotline at 1-800-323-8603; 

• Fax the complaint directly to us at (202) 254-4292; 

• Email us at DHSOIGHOTLINE@dhs.gov; or 

• Write to us at: 

DHS Office of Inspector General/MAIL STOP 2600, 

Attention: Office of Investigations - Hotline, 

245 Murray Drive, SW, Building 410, 

Washington, DC 20528. 

The OIG seeks to protect the identity of each writer and caller.