Source: https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/R43784.html
Timestamp: 2019-04-23 22:25:52+00:00

Document:
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (referred to as the Stafford Act—42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.) authorizes the President to issue “major disaster” or “emergency” declarations before or after catastrophes occur. Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. Given their purpose, the emergency declarations may precede an event. A major disaster declaration is generally issued after catastrophes occur, and constitutes broader authority for federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organizations recover from the incident.
The end result of a presidential disaster declaration is well known, if not entirely understood. Various forms of assistance are provided, including aid to families and individuals for uninsured needs; and assistance to state and local governments, and to certain non-profits for rebuilding or replacing damaged infrastructure.
Over the last quarter century, the amount of federal assistance provided through presidential disaster declarations has exceeded $150 billion. Often, in recent years, Congress has enacted supplemental appropriations legislation to cover unanticipated costs. While the amounts spent by the federal government on different programs may be reported, and the progress of the recovery can be observed, much less is known about the process that initiates all of this activity. Yet, it is a process that has resulted in an average of more than one disaster declaration a week over the last decade.
The disaster declaration procedure is foremost a process that preserves the discretion of the governor or tribal leader to request assistance and the President to decide to grant, or not to grant, supplemental help. The process employs some measurable criteria for evaluating disaster damage in two broad areas: Individual Assistance that aids families and individuals and Public Assistance that is mainly for emergency work such as debris removal and permanent repairs to infrastructure. The criteria, however, also consider many other factors, in each category of assistance, that help decision makers assess the impact of an event on communities and states.
Under current law while a governor or a tribal leader may make a request, the decision to issue a declaration rests solely with the President. Congress has no formal role, but has taken actions to adjust the terms of the process. For example, the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of 2006, P.L. 109-295, established an advocate to help small states with the declaration process. More recently, Congress passed the Hurricane Sandy Recovery Improvement Act, P.L. 113-2, which had two potentially major impacts on the declaration process. First, the act authorized Native American tribal groups to directly request disaster assistance from the President rather than only requesting through a state governor. The second potential major impact in the act was that FEMA was directed to update its criteria for considering whether to make a recommendation to the President for Individual Assistance declarations.
Since the decision for a declaration is at the discretion of the President, there has been some speculation regarding the influence of political favor in these decisions. Some have posited various connections between the political party of the governor requesting or the prominence of some state’s congressional delegation on committee’s important to FEMA. While of interest, those theories are usually not connected to, or at least fail to consider, the natural events that were the impetus for both the request and the decision.
Given the importance of the decision, and the size of the overall spending involved, hearings have been held to review the declaration process so as to ensure fairness and equity in the process and its results. Congress continues to examine the process and several pieces of legislation have been introduced during the 113th Congress to adjust the factors considered for a major disaster declaration. This report discusses the evolution of this process, how it is administered and recent changes enacted in law as well as amending legislation that has been introduced. This report will be updated as warranted by events.
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (referred to as the Stafford Act—42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.) authorizes the President to issue "major disaster" or "emergency" declarations before or after catastrophes occur. Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. Given their purpose, the emergency declarations may precede an event. A major disaster declaration is generally issued after catastrophes occur, and constitutes broader authority for federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organizations recover from the incident.
Since the decision for a declaration is at the discretion of the President, there has been some speculation regarding the influence of political favor in these decisions. Some have posited various connections between the political party of the governor requesting or the prominence of some state's congressional delegation on committee's important to FEMA. While of interest, those theories are usually not connected to, or at least fail to consider, the natural events that were the impetus for both the request and the decision.
While disaster assistance may be good "political currency," a disaster declaration is generally the result of a tragic and devastating incident that disrupts (and sometimes takes) the lives of hundreds or thousands of families and individuals and the communities and states or tribal lands where they reside. The long-term economic and environmental impact of a disaster can be severe. The assistance offered from federal and private sources may or may not be commensurate with the damage inflicted by a natural or man-made event. Following a disaster, years of rebuilding and recovery work may lie ahead for communities, tribes, and states. It is the declaration process that sets the federal recovery help in motion.
(a) In general. Procedures for Declaration. All requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected state. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that the federal assistance is necessary. As a part of such request, and as a prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, the Governor shall take appropriate response action under state law and direct execution of the state's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information on the nature and amount of State and local resources which have been or will be committed to alleviating the results of the disaster and shall certify that, for the current disaster, state and local government obligations and expenditures (of which state commitments must be a significant proportion) will comply with all applicable cost-sharing requirements of this Act. Based on the request of a Governor under this section, the President may declare under this Act that a major disaster or emergency exists.
(1) In general. The Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government may submit a request for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
(2) References. In implementing assistance authorized by the President under this chapter in response to a request of the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government for a major disaster declaration, any reference in this subchapter or subchapter III (except sections 5153 and 5165d of this title) to a State or the Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
(3) Savings provision. Nothing in this subsection shall prohibit an Indian tribal government from receiving assistance under this subchapter through a declaration made by the President at the request of a State under subsection (a) if the President does not make a declaration under this subsection for the same incident.
(B) the President determines that the waiver or adjustment is necessary and appropriate.
Sec. 5191. Procedure for declaration.
(a) Request and declaration. All requests for a declaration by the President that an emergency exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary. As a part of such request, and as a prerequisite to emergency assistance under this chapter, the Governor shall take appropriate action under State law and direct execution of the State's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information describing the State and local efforts and resources which have been or will be used to alleviate the emergency, and will define the type and extent of Federal aid required. Based upon such Governor's request, the President may declare that an emergency exists.
(b) Certain emergencies involving Federal primary responsibility. The President may exercise any authority vested in him by section 5192 of this title or section 5193 of this title with respect to an emergency when he determines that an emergency exists for which the primary responsibility for response rests with the United States because the emergency involves a subject area for which, under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States exercises exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority. In determining whether or not such an emergency exists, the President shall consult the Governor of any affected State, if practicable. The President's determination may be made without regard to subsection (a) of this section.
(1) In general. The Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government may submit a request for a declaration by the President that an emergency exists consistent with the requirements of subsection (a).
(2) References. In implementing assistance authorized by the President under this subchapter in response to a request of the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government for an emergency declaration, any reference in this subchapter or subchapter III (except sections 5153 and 5165d of this title) to a State or the Governor of a State is deemed to refer to an affected Indian tribal government or the Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government, as appropriate.
The declaration process is elaborated upon in regulations, specifically in Subpart B of 44 C.F.R. 206. While these regulations have been adjusted through the regulatory process during the past three decades, since 1974 the procedures have undergone little significant change until the inclusion of tribal groups in P.L. 113-2. The process itself is representative of the historical progression of federal disaster relief from being of an episodic nature to the current commonplace disaster declaration, now occurring on a weekly basis. The context in which disaster relief has grown has been in keeping with the growth of government and its concerns.
Policy makers have found it difficult to achieve equity in the treatment of disparate natural disaster events. The events can vary widely in their type, scope, duration, and impact. Perhaps the greatest variables are the states and tribal groups they affect. Each state or tribe has a different topography, a different history, and different capacities to respond and recover based on their own authorities, resources, and choices in what they will do following a disaster. Given those variations, including social and economic differences as well, it is a daunting task to construct a uniform process that can account for the range of natural and governmental circumstances that are a part of the nation's potential disaster landscape.
In the 113th Congress, following Hurricane Sandy, Congress passed the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013 (SRIA), P.L. 113-2. The act made one significant change to the Stafford Act declaration process.13 That significant change was one that Native Americans had long sought: the ability to directly request assistance from the federal government during times of disaster, rather than having to submit any requests through the governors of the affected tribal areas.
Previously, the Stafford Act included the description of "an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization" in the definition of local governments.18 With this amendment, tribes are now equivalent to states in their ability to request a major disaster declaration or an emergency declaration from the President.
Tribes had sought this authority for various reasons. While tribes and Native Americans have long received assistance under Stafford Act declarations, working through the state government for all assistance has been viewed as an issue of tribal sovereignty. States might at times be reluctant to make a request on behalf of a tribe when the damage was localized on tribal property. Other challenges to administering disaster relief involved language barriers and the physical isolation of some tribal lands. Also, the tribes wished to have the same ability as states to help manage the response and recovery from a disaster. All of these factors created challenges for emergency management following disaster events in tribal areas.
Under the SRIA amendment (Sec. 1110) to the Stafford Act, the "Chief Executive of an Indian Tribal Government" is able to submit a request for a declaration by the President. In addition, the "Savings provision" of this section ensures that a tribal government is not prohibited from receiving assistance under a declaration made by the President at the request of the governor, if the President has not made a separate declaration for the tribal government. In effect, a tribal government will retain the ability to be treated as a local government in those situations.
In implementing this new provision, FEMA sent out guidance, along with a "Frequently Asked Questions" document and related information to assist tribes in participating in this process. FEMA also provided tribes with the FEMA template that is used by governors to generate and submit their requests for either a major disaster or an emergency declaration.19 In addition, FEMA reports that both headquarters and regional staff are involved in extensive outreach efforts across the nation to meet with tribes and discuss processes and other considerations as these new partnerships are established.
The broader question of how the federal disaster declaration process should work has come to the attention of Congress from time to time. Congress has requested reports from its investigative arms and investigated the process through panels that have, at various times, considered aspects of the disaster relief process.21 Various Administrations have also considered the process and FEMA's role in it.
Congress has taken a significant step to address disaster funding and establish a reliable budgetary process for it through the Budget Control Act (BCA). The BCA has put annual appropriations for the DRF at a higher level and also established a process that would permit allowable budget adjustments for disaster spending. But the Sandy experience also demonstrated that Congress was still willing to place some spending for catastrophic events outside of the budget process.27 But regardless of the DRF's budget at any given time, an interest remains in how the declaration process works: its pace, its thoroughness, and its fairness.
The study parameters mandated by Congress were broader than the declaration process, placing its emphasis on ongoing FEMA spending, including the refinement and revision of early estimates as well as the general management of spending projections for the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). But the report language recognized the importance of the initial estimates in decision-making, and that the declaration process represents the fundamental decision to both establish federal participation following a disaster, and provide the initial estimated amount of resources needed that informs that decision.
During the 111th Congress, a hearing before the House Homeland Security Committee focused on FEMA's regional offices and also elicited comments regarding the relative speed, and perceived lack of transparency, of the declaration process. The comments came from both a committee member and a state official closely involved in the process.
FEMA spends too much time responding to routine natural disasters and not enough time preparing for catastrophic natural disasters, such as hurricanes, earthquakes, and volcanic eruptions, which could have a national impact. This is increasing the likelihood that the federal response to the next catastrophic event will be insufficient.
One difficulty in addressing such a recommendation is defining "routine natural disasters." The nature of the disaster can depend on the location. From afar, the incident may seem marginal but up close it may appear catastrophic. The notion of "routine natural disasters" is also dependent on state and local resources and capacities. While the devolution of responsibility to state governments may prove effective in some states, it also may not be consistent. As one expert noted, some consistency in approach from the federal government is desirable.
The following section discusses similar proposals as the one mentioned above regarding FEMA disaster cost-shares, including one made by FEMA, and the reaction of Congress to that approach.
There have been several proposals to impose more stringent regulations on the declaration process in an attempt to more precisely assess disaster impacts, calculate eligible damage, and incorporate some measure of suffering and loss. Differing perceptions of the declaration process resulted in different reactions to these proposed reforms.
The history of the disaster declaration process is rife with reform efforts that were perceived by some not as reform but as punitive measures directed at certain constituencies. Some of those differing perceptions were held by those closest to the event at the local level that had experienced a disaster. A different perception was also often held by governors who wanted to protect their option to request federal help. These perceptions were also shared, in some instances, by Members of Congress representing affected areas. All elected officials argued, in various forms, that reform should not impede the delivery of needed federal aid.
While enactment of this legislation halted FEMA's efforts, the issue did not disappear. As discussed below, FEMA has since adopted regulations that use, but not "solely," arithmetic formulae in determining need for assistance.
The declaration process contains many factors for consideration and, for all but the most catastrophic events, the process moves at a deliberate speed accumulating information from several sources. While the process is informed by that information and its relationship to potential assistance programs, the information that is gathered at the state and local level does not preclude the exercise of judgment by the tribal leader, governor, or the President.
The Stafford Act stipulates several procedural actions a governor or tribal leader must take prior to requesting federal disaster assistance (including the execution within the state of the state emergency plan and its tribal equivalent, and an agreement to accept cost-share provisions and related information-sharing). Still, the process leaves broad discretion with the tribal leader or the governor if he or she determines that a situation is "beyond the capabilities of the state." The concession that a state or tribe can no longer respond on its own is difficult to quantify. It is the governor or tribal leader who makes that assessment, based on his or her knowledge of state or tribal resources and capabilities.
Congress also has among its number former governors who have exercised this discretion at the state level. Still, despite the interest some may have in keeping "the process imprecise," some Members of Congress express disappointment at times with the exercise of the discretion and the general nature of the considerations. As noted previously in this report, that disappointment has been reflected in hearings that have focused on how the disaster declaration process works in practice.
In the declaration process, FEMA develops a recommendation that is sent to the White House for action. However, as implied, it is a recommendation from FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The final action, as stated in law47 and defined in the regulations of the process, is a "Presidential determination."48 Just as the governor or tribal leader retains the discretion to request federal assistance regardless of thresholds or indicators, the President retains the discretion to make a decision that may be counter to recommendations he receives.
Several points are interesting in the assumptions made referenced above. This assessment of how declarations are made does not include the various factors that are considered for either Public Assistance or Individual Assistance. These factors have been in regulation since 1999 and are discussed in more detail later in this report. Those factors, at base, consider the size and relative capacity of a state and local area. Rather than reviewing regulatory frameworks for disaster recommendations, the default assumption appears to be the primacy of politics.
Similar suggestions of political influence have been suggested by others. Two researchers asserted that presidential and congressional influence have an impact on the decisions for declarations and spending.
An additional reason for the increase in approvals may also rest with the increasing capacity of states to make effective requests; states continue to better understand FEMA's review process, based on regulations in place, and can anticipate what would likely constitute a request that would result in a declaration. This is in part a testament to the growing maturity and sophistication of the emergency management area as a field of study and profession. It may also be a reflection of the ongoing relationship between state and tribal emergency management offices and FEMA regional offices that may provide states and tribes with a better understanding of what may or may not constitute a successful request.
Although not explicitly mentioned in the Stafford Act, Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) are a crucial part of the process of determining if an event may be declared a major disaster by the President. The minimal discussion of PDAs in the public record stands in inverse proportion to their impact on disaster decisions and subsequent expenditures from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF).
While media and political pressure may have some influence on the outcome of some requests, governors may exercise caution since they are reluctant to be turned down when requesting aid. Though it may be possible, from a denial of assistance, to project on to the federal government a callousness or lack of understanding of the situation there are still negative connotations for governors as well. A denial of the request could also be perceived by some to reflect adversely on a governor's decision-making skills and judgment under pressure. Unlike the procedures of the federal process, a governor's decision to request a declaration can be a public and often newsworthy action.
PDA teams often face challenges in the collection of data. Some information may be observable in a survey of the area, such as the number of bridges damaged or the number of culverts washed out. But other necessary information, such as the percentage of elderly residents in an area, or the amount of insurance coverage for all homeowners or renters, may be more difficult to obtain quickly. Also, the geographic span of the damage can create complications as the PDA team struggles to cover all of the affected area in a limited time. Further complications may then ensue based on how much of the area that the PDA teams have visited (generally counties but other subdivisions may be used) are included in the governor's or tribal leader's request.
Although PDAs are the usual way damages are assessed, there are exceptions to this rule. Some incidents are so massive in their scale and impact that the actual declaration is not in doubt. This would include events such as Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, the Mount St. Helens volcanic eruption, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. In these instances, the decision is not whether a declaration will be made, but how broad the coverage will be, both geographic and programmatic. In such cases the President, in accordance with the regulations, can waive the PDA requirement. But as the regulations note, a PDA may still be needed "to determine unmet needs for managerial response purposes."61 This means the PDA helps to identify a specific, potential need for certain programs, such as crisis counseling or disaster unemployment assistance during the disaster recovery period. It is this identification of discrete need that helps the governor decide on which assistance programs will be requested.
It is difficult to overstate the importance of the media context as noted above. Depending on the news of the day, the disaster event in question may be the biggest national story and thus create momentum for action that is difficult to assuage with explanations of traditional administrative procedures. But regardless of the perceptions of political motivation, or intense media scrutiny, there are actual factors listed in regulations for assessing whether a state should receive a major disaster declaration.
Programs of other federal assistance.
Depending on the state's population, the per capita threshold may be difficult to reach. For example, the 2010 Census estimated California's population at just under 38 million people.65 Applying the $1.39 per capita figure, it would require eligible PA damage in California to be close to $48 million before federal supplemental assistance would be available through a declaration. California is a large state with a budget and tax base commensurate with its size. Expecting a large state to be able to respond on its own is equating such help, and such amounts, to be within "the capabilities of the state"66 That is the prime Stafford Act definition of when federal help is necessary.
Compare that level of eligible damage for California ($48 million) with Nevada, a small population state according to FEMA regulations.67 For Nevada, with a population of about 2.7 million people according to the 2010 Census, eligible PA damage of about $3.5 million would make the state potentially eligible for supplemental federal assistance.
There are obvious differences in the populations of these two states; however, both have substantial industries and are growing areas. They are states that border one another and both are subject to the threat of earthquake damage.68 Different measurements have been suggested to try to capture a state's capacity to respond to disaster events more accurately. Some of these measurements are discussed in the "Congressional Considerations for the Declaration Process" section of this report.
The next factor used by FEMA to consider a declaration that may include PA help focuses on localized impacts. FEMA generally looks for a minimum of $3.50 per capita in infrastructure damage in a county before designating it for PA funding.69 While such a per capita amount would likely ensure that the local entity (almost always a county) would be included in the list of jurisdictions designated for PA assistance should a declaration be issued, high local levels of damage per capita would not supersede a finding that damages state-wide fell below the state-wide threshold amount. However, knowledge of a very large localized impact could weigh on the President's discretion and raise the importance of the localized impact factor.
This issue has been addressed by recent legislation introduced in the House and Senate in the 113th Congress. These bills seek to make localized impact "more equal" than other factors similar to the position now occupied by state per capita "Estimated Cost of Assistance." The legislation suggests assigning a percentage weight to each factor considered. While six other factors in the proposed legislation receive 10% consideration, the "Localized Impact" factor is worth 40% when determining whether a disaster declaration for Public Assistance is warranted.70 This would be particularly helpful to local communities in large states where it is difficult to meet the "estimated cost" threshold. By shifting the greater consideration to localized damage amounts, those areas could potentially bolster a state or tribal request.
Average amount of Individual Assistance by state.
Concentration of damages looks at the density of the damage in individual communities. FEMA's regulations state that highly concentrated damages "generally indicate a greater need for federal assistance than widespread and scattered damages throughout a state."84 Concentrated damages are far more visible and may be an indication of significant damage to infrastructure supporting neighborhoods and communities, thereby increasing the needs of individuals and families.
However, the dispersion of damage is not necessarily an indication that individual and family needs are non-existent. Damage in rural states, almost by definition, is far less concentrated and could arguably be more difficult for a PDA team to view and assess. Congress has sought to address this challenge through the creation of the Rural and Small State advocate position at FEMA.85 Another consideration is that given the legislation that has attempted to give more weight to "Localized Impacts" under Public Assistance, this factor may take on increased importance.
Despite their prominence and importance to victims, families and communities, the loss of life and injuries have relatively little bearing on a declaration decision, but they would greatly influence media coverage that can influence the decision-making process.
The other areas (disruption of functions and loss of utilities) in the trauma rubric can be a point of dispute in declaration decisions. What constitutes a disruption of normal community functions? Do road closures that result in the closing of schools equate to a disruption? Another consideration is how long the disruption remains and how, or even if, federal help can alleviate the disruption. Similarly, the emergency needs due to the loss of utilities are defined by the length of time the power or water are not in service. Because characteristics of these factors are not defined in regulations, discretionary judgments are significant aspects of the evaluation of IA needs.
Special populations are considered by FEMA in assessing a request for Individual Assistance. FEMA attempts to ascertain information about the demographics of an area affected by a disaster event. Those demographics include the age and income of residents, the amount of home ownership in an area, the effect on Native American tribal groups, and other related considerations to be taken into account. The knowledge of the demographics within the affected area gives FEMA added information to consider regarding trauma and community disruption. Special populations are a factor in the consideration of a governor or tribal leader's request, but the total number of households affected that would be eligible for Stafford Act programs remains the prime consideration.
Voluntary agency assistance involves an evaluation of what the volunteer and charitable groups and state, tribal, and local governments have already done to assist disaster victims as well as the potential help they can offer in the recovery period. FEMA also considers whether state, tribal, or local programs "can meet the needs of disaster victims."90 This factor is among the most contentious in the disaster declaration process due to the subjectivity of the assessment.
FEMA's evaluation of local and state capabilities, and the capabilities of the local voluntary community, may vary greatly among catastrophes. There is an expectation that the FEMA regional office's relationship and history with the state or tribe could provide some of this information. But a cursory look at state programs available to "meet the needs of disaster victims" suggests that few resources are comparable to federal help in intent or in scope. A National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) survey of its members for state-funded disaster assistance showed that relatively few states provide assistance beyond that authorized in the Stafford Act. Table 1 summarizes data from that survey. Since 2010 five fewer states have a PA program in place but one additional state provides a form of IA assistance.
Source: National Emergency Management Association, May 2014.
In the same vein, attempts to assess the capacity of local voluntary and charitable groups to handle "unmet needs" caused by a disaster can be challenging and problematic. Part of the challenge is discerning the assistance available from the non-profit, voluntary sector, and if that aid meets the needs created by the disaster event. A problematic aspect of the assessment is similar to the "good deeds" concept addressed in the "hazard mitigation" factor in PA. In that instance, the criteria reward the mitigation work that communities and states or tribes had undertaken to lessen the impact of a disaster. Similarly, a strong and efficient charitable sector at the local level that is equipped and funded to address the remaining needs could result in a disaster not being declared and federal supplemental funding not being made available.
In evaluating the capabilities of local organizations, FEMA seeks to determine the help that actually exists, rather than assistance that might be expected to be in place.
This provision does not necessarily result in delayed assistance. FEMA is able to provide help to individuals and households that have disaster damages but are waiting on insurance or other assistance for help. Those applicants can receive FEMA help as long as they agree to reimburse FEMA when they receive their other assistance.94 If a disaster occurred where almost all of the damaged dwellings were fully insured for the damage that was sustained, FEMA could conclude that a disaster declaration by the President was not necessary. Among the types of disasters FEMA frequently responds to, tornado disasters particularly reflect this challenge since tornado coverage is a part of most homeowners insurance policies.
The last factor FEMA considers in assessing IA needs is the average amount of Individual Assistance by state. FEMA has issued statistics on average losses but notes that the average numbers used are not a threshold (see Table 2). The agency does suggest that the "following averages may prove useful to states and voluntary agencies as they develop plans and programs to meet the needs of disaster victims." The inference is that the levels listed generally are what would be expected in damage to dwellings. It is based on the age of these averages that SRIA directed FEMA to update the factors.
The average numbers that follow are based on disasters that occurred between July of 1995 and July of 1999; the data are 10 years old and of questionable use today. The table divides states into three categories: small states (under 2 million in population), medium states (2 to 10 million in population) and large states (over 10 million in population). The population amounts are based on the 1990 Census.
Although FEMA's regulations stress that these are not thresholds, they are considered by agency officials in determining whether IA will be provided. Presumably states may consider that FEMA help could be forthcoming if damage reaches the state indicator levels. However, since the amounts have not been updated in fifteen years and are based on 1990 census data, it is difficult to determine the degree to which these numbers are considered. Given Congress's mandate in Section 320 of the Stafford Act, this cannot be an arithmetic formula that solely determines whether assistance is provided. But the presentation of loss indicators may guide states when considering whether to request assistance.
In addition to the issue of the data's currency, a larger and more compelling question is whether the numbers in the chart match up to the Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) for those events. Absent an existing review of detailed information in PDA forms, it is not possible to determine the usefulness of the data in Table 2.96 Still, with the level of experience in this field following literally thousands of disaster declarations over the last 30 years, it could be argued that the numbers of eligible households assisted may reflect the estimated damage upon which the decision for a disaster declaration was made.
While Congress reviews the mandated GAO reports, the instructions in the SRIA legislation and other commentary on the declaration process, there are some considerations that Members may wish to review when assessing the current declaration process.
One area of consideration is the composition of Preliminary Damage Assessment teams. Team members are involved throughout the process and include local officials guiding the team, state, or tribal personnel who assist the governor or tribal leader in requesting assistance, and FEMA staff who work on the disaster, if one is declared. While FEMA staff have the opportunity at several levels to refine the information the team gathers on damages and to ask additional questions, the process could be approached in other ways. Some FEMA staff have suggested the formation of several permanent teams that would have PDAs as their prime job task without continuing involvement in particular disasters. This could result in more consistent assessments with the bonus of added perspective of team members with exposure to various disasters in many regions of the country.
The PDA is an important part of the declaration process. While it can be subject to challenge, it is also the assessment closest to the event. Given its vital role in the process the PDA deserves close attention to determine if these on-site assessments are accurately reflecting the character of an event and the likely eligible damages following a disaster event.
While the IA averages are separated by state population size, there does not appear to be a threshold number equivalent to the PA figure of $1 million in eligible damage. In the case of IA help, a dollar figure may not be desirable; however, numbers of families and households affected, or a minimum number of homes with major damage, could potentially be a starting point in establishing a base IA threshold for consideration of requests.
The current per capita indicator based on state population according to the U.S. Census is clear, but some observers believe it lacks precision. For example, the earlier discussion on PA indicators pointed out the commonality between California and Nevada regarding earthquake risk as well as the growth of the states. Their population sizes are very different but the per capita indicator alone does not necessarily measure a state's fiscal capacity.
FEMA's response to this suggestion questioned whether the use of TTR would be in violation of the legislative prohibition against arithmetic formulas.100 The TTR does have very specific information and also tracks growth within a state. However, this appears to make it a more accurate measurement. The degree of detail in the measurement would not necessarily make it the "sole" determinant of disaster aid. It could remain an indicator and one among several factors to be considered in the declaration process.
The disaster declaration process, though subject to inquiry, argument, hearings, studies, and recommendations, has changed very little over time. It remains a process that can be observed and evaluated as it occurs in the area affected by the disaster, and grows opaque as it moves up through layers of FEMA and DHS management to the White House. By making PDA information available, FEMA has begun to lift the veil on the decisions that are made.
Congress has demonstrated an interest in this process and has sought to understand its limits and its effectiveness. "From the Government Accountability Office in 1981 to Vice President Gore's National Performance Review in 1994," one student of the process noted, "countless policy critiques have called for more objective criteria for presidential disaster declarations."101 But those calls can be muted when a disaster occurs in a particular place that has particular importance to actors in the process, whether in Congress or the executive branch.
While criteria have been established to create a relatively uniform and knowable process, these criteria may not be determinative of the most critical elements considered. An emphasis on victims of unexpected natural disaster events will likely always have a compelling influence on the disaster declaration process. But since disaster relief does have a political element, at many levels, precedent arguably can have value in improving the declaration process so that it can be applied broadly and fairly. But precedent can also be problematic when discussing events of very different size and impact.
During the last Congress, attention was directed to the nature of the disaster declaration process. The 113th Congress has seen legislation introduced that has focused on local impacts over state capacity. In considering such legislation, Congress may choose to engage a broad review of the process that might include the consistency of FEMA's approach across the nation in making damage assessments, other potential indicators of state capabilities and capacities, and the currency of the factors it employs to evaluate those assessments of disaster damage and the state requests on which they are based.
Ibid. For a more detailed analysis of categories of declarations see CRS Report R42702, Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications for Congress, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
For example, see CRS Report RL34724, Would an Influenza Pandemic Qualify as a Major Disaster Under the Stafford Act?, by [author name scrubbed], and CRS Report R41234, Potential Stafford Act Declarations for the Gulf Coast Oil Spill: Issues for Congress, by [author name scrubbed].
For more information on disaster supplementals, see CRS Report RL33226, Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance: Summary Data, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed]. For a listing of disaster declarations, see http://www.fema.gov/disasters.
For additional information on the DRF, see CRS Report R43537, FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by [author name scrubbed]. Note: A "no year fund" refers to funds that do not lapse at the end of a fiscal year but instead carry over to the next year's accounts.
Rutherford H. Platt, Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events (Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999), p. 66.
Michael J. Trebilcock and Ronald J. Daniels, "Rationales and Instruments for Government Intervention in Natural Disasters" in Ronald J. Daniels, Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther, eds., On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 104. For additional discussion of the evolution of emergency management see Claire B. Rubin, ed., Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2005 (Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute, 2007).
PDAs are conducted by FEMA regional staff along with state and local officials. In some instances, SBA and American Red Cross staff members may also participate in the assessment. For more information see the Preliminary Damage Assessment section of this report.
This is based on an interpretation of FOIA Exemption #5. See http://www.justice.gov/oip/foia-guide-2004-edition-exemption-5.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Damage Assessment Reports, at http://www.fema.gov/preliminar-damage-assessment-reports.
While tribal declarations were the most significant change, the SRIA also requested an update of a current part of the process regarding factors considered for Individual Assistance designations. The IA update is discussed later in this report.
42 U.S.C. §§5170 and 5191.
Section 102 (7) of the Stafford Act defined local governments as including "an Indian tribe or authorized tribal organization, or Alaska Native village or organization." Section 401 of Stafford noted that "all requests shall be made by the Governor of the affected state."
Rob Capriccioso, "FEMA Wants Tribes to Be Equal to States," Indian Country Today Media Network, December 7, 2011, at http://indiancountrytodaymedianetwork.com/article/fema-wants-tribes-to-be-equal-to-states-66244.
Testimony of FEMA Administrator Craig Fugate, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, "Facing Floods and Fires—Emergency Preparedness for Natural Disasters in Native Communities," 112th Congress, 1st. Sess., July 31, 2011.
FEMA Form 010-0-13 (3/13), "Request for Presidential Disaster Declaration Major Disaster or Emergency," Pub. No. 1660-009, expires 3/2015.
As of this report, declarations had been made by the President for the Eastern Band of Cherokee Indians; Navajo Nation; Standing Rock Sioux Tribe; Karuk Tribe; and two separate declarations for the Santa Clara Pueblo. This information is available on the FEMA website Declarations page, http://www.fema.gov/disasters.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Assistance: Improvements Needed in Disaster Declaration Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures, GAO-01-837, August 2001, p. 2.
For more information on emergency supplemental spending for disasters see CRS Report R43665, Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Assistance: Summary Data and Analysis, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
CRS Report R43537, FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Selected Issues, by [author name scrubbed].
For more information, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by [author name scrubbed].
For additional information see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal Disaster Relief Under the Budget Control Act, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].
Christopher Cooper and Robert Block, Disaster—Hurricane Katrina and the Failure of Homeland Security (Henry Holt and Company: New York, 2006), p. 71.
U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA, HUD, and Independent Agencies, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002, 107th Congress, 1st sess., p. 252, at http://www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate.
Opening Statement of Rep. Bennie Thompson, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security, Disaster Declarations, Where Is FEMA in a Time of Need?, 110th Congress, 1st. sess., March 15, 2007.
P.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 155. This direction was contained in the "U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act," one of several that provided supplemental funding for Hurricane Katrina recovery activities.
U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007, and Other Purposes, Report to Accompany H.R. 1591, 110th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2007, H.Rept. 110-60, p. 211.
Government Accountability Office, FEMA Disaster Cost Estimates, GAO-08-301, February 22, 2008, p. 4.
Matt Korade, "FEMA's Success Hinges on Regional Personnel," Congressional Quarterly, March 16, 2010, at http://www.cq.com/doc/hsnews-3569657?6.
Matt A. Mayer, James Jay Carafano, and Jessica Zuckerman, "FEMA Reform and Disaster Response: Heritage Foundation Recommendations," The Heritage Foundation, web memo, August 23, 2011, http://thf_media.s3.amazonaws.com/2011pdf//wm3359pdf.
Kathleen Tierney, "The U.S. Emergency Management System Is Not Perfect but It Works," The New York Times, October 30, 2012.
P.L. 109-295, 689g, 120 Stat. 1453.
For more information see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions, coordinated by [author name scrubbed].
U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, The Federal Emergency Management Agency's Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations, 100th Cong., 1st sess. (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 3-5.
P.L. 100-707, November 23, 1988, 102 Stat. 4696.
See 42 U.S.C. 5170 and 42 U.S.C. 5191.
President Carter (Georgia), President Reagan (California), President Clinton (Arkansas), and President George W. Bush (Texas).
National Emergency Management Association, February, 2014.
This information is from the fema.gov website. Some totals mentioned in some reports are much higher. The disparity is that those reports usually conflate Fire Management Assistance Grants FMAGs, with Presidential actions. In fact, FMAGS are frequent, timely, and relatively small in cost. The decisions on those actions are made at the FEMA regional level in consultation with the governor of the affected state and regional U.S. Forest Service and FEMA HQ officials.
Patrick Roberts, Disasters and the American State (Cambridge: 2013), p. 111.
Thomas A. Garrett and Russell S. Sobel, "The Political Economy of FEMA Disaster Payments," Economic Inquiry, Vol. 41, No. 3, July 2003, pp. 496-509, http://onlinelibrary.wiley-can/doi/10.1093/ei/cbg023/pdf.
Richard S. Salkowe and Jayajit Chakraborty, "Federal Disaster Relief in the U.S.: The Role of Political Partisanship and Preference in Presidential Disaster Declarations and Turndowns," Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency Management, Vol. 6, Issue 1, Article 28, 2009.
Richard Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics (Washington, DC: CQ Press, 2008), p. 100.
Richard Sylves, Quick Response Report #86: The Politics and Administration of Presidential Disaster Declarations: The California Floods of Winter 1995, at http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/qr86.html.
FEMA has 10 regional offices: Region 1 (Boston, MA), Region 2 (New York, NY), Region 3 (Philadelphia, PA), Region 4 (Atlanta, GA), Region 5 (Chicago, IL), Region 6 (Denton, TX), Region 7 (Kansas City, MO), Region 8 (Denver, CO), Region 9 (Oakland, CA), and Region 10 (Bothell, WA).
Sally Kestin and Megan O'Matz, "FEMA Ruled on Disaster Before Verifying Dade Damage," South Florida Sun-Sentinel, at http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-fema15may15,0,6848867.story?coll=sfla-news-utilities.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Joint State-Federal Preliminary Damage Assessment Teams Visit Flood-Damaged Communities," Release Number R10-06-047, November 13, 2006, at http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=31509.
Memo from FEMA Office of Legislative Affairs, September 22, 2014.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Categories of Work," http://www.fema.gov/public-assistance-local-state-tribal-and-non-profit/categories-work#catB.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator," 78 Federal Register, 64231, October 28, 2013.
U.S. Census Bureau, State and County Quick Facts, at http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06000.html.
U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, "Earthquake Density Maps for the United States," at http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/us_density.php.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, "Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator," 78 Federal Register, 64232, October 28, 2013.
S. 1960 and H.R. 3925, "Fairness in Federal Disaster Declaration Act of 2014," were introduced in January 2014.
H.R. 1859, "Disaster Declaration Improvement Act," was introduced in May, 2013.
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Bill, 2015, full committee print, 113th Cong. 2nd Sess. H.Rept. 113-481 to accompany H.R. 4903, p. 106.
For information on public insurance coverage, see "Cost of Risk Survey" conducted by the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) at http://www.riskinstitute.org.
44 C.F.R. §206.253. For additional information, see CRS Report RS22945, Flood Insurance Requirements for Stafford Act Assistance, by [author name scrubbed].
42 U.S.C. §5170c and 5133.
For more information, see CRS Report R43384, Emergency Relief for Disaster Damaged Roads and Transit Systems: In Brief, by [author name scrubbed].
For additional discussion of this law, see CRS Report RL34209, Commercial Fishery Disaster Assistance, by [author name scrubbed].
For more information, see CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by [author name scrubbed]. Also see CRS Report R43594, Analysis of Senate-Passed S. 2198: Emergency Drought Relief Act of 2014, by [author name scrubbed] and [author name scrubbed].
For further discussion see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and Analysis, by [author name scrubbed].
For further discussion of this provision see CRS Report R42991, Analysis of the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act of 2013, by [author name scrubbed], [author name scrubbed], and [author name scrubbed].
DHS/FEMA, Sandy Improvement Act of 2013, Program Update, March 2014, https://www.fema.gov/about-agency/sandy-recovery-improvement-act-2013. Status confirmed October 17, 2014.
P.L. 109-295, §689g, 120 Stat. 1453.
Report from FEMA's Office of Legislative Affairs, May 13, 2014. This information was confirmed as still accurate by that office on October 17, 2014.
This statement remains accurate. However, since FEMA has begun to list PDA information on its website, it should be possible to begin to assess the efficacy of the factors employed to determine IA damage and declaration criteria.
P.L. 113-2, Section 1109, 127 Stat. 47.
U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Assistance: Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures, GAO-01-837, August 2001, p. 11.
The Preliminary Damage Assessment (PDA) process is a mechanism used to determine the impact and magnitude of damage and resulting needs of individuals, businesses, public sector, and community as a whole. Information collected is used by the State as a basis for the governor's request for a major disaster or emergency declaration, and by the President in determining a response to the governor's request (44 C.F.R. §206.33).
When a governor's request for major disaster assistance under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, as amended (Stafford Act) is under review, a number of primary factors are considered to determine whether assistance is warranted. These factors are outlined in FEMA's regulations (44 C.F.R. §206.48). The President has ultimate discretion and decision making authority to declare major disasters and emergencies under the Stafford Act (42 U.S.C. §5170 and §5191).
Affected: some damage to the structure and contents, but still habitable.
By law, federal disaster assistance cannot duplicate insurance coverage (44 C.F.R. §206.48(b)(5)).
Special populations, such as low-income, the elderly, or the unemployed may indicate a greater need for assistance (44 C.F.R. §206.48(b)(3)).
Based on state population in the 2010 Census.
Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator for FY2014, Federal Register, October 1, 2013.
Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator for FY2014, Federal Register, October 1, 2013.

References: §206
 §5170
 §689
 §206
 §206
 §5170
 §5191
 §206
 §206