Emergency Management: Implementation of the Major Disaster Declaration Process for Federally Recognized Tribes
Released: 2018-05-23T00:00:00

Letter

Background

Federally Recognized Indian Tribes

The federal government has consistently recognized Indian tribes as distinct, independent political communities with inherent powers of limited sovereignty. The 2013 amendments in SRIA allow tribes to decide how to request federal disaster assistance, thereby allowing tribes to exercise their sovereignty.

As of April 2018, there were 573 federally recognized Indian tribes, residing on more than 56 million acres. Thirty-six states have at least parts of a tribe within their borders, with fewer tribes located on the East Coast of the United States and over 300 tribes are located in Alaska and California. These tribes are each sovereign governments and vary in size, demographics, and location. For instance, Navajo Nation has the largest reservation covering over 17.5 million acres, stretching across New Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and is home to approximately 174,000 residents, while the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Connecticut covers over 2,000 acres and is home to about 350 residents.

Only tribes that are federally recognized can make disaster declaration requests. The 10 FEMA Regions and the location of each regional office, along with the number of federally recognized tribes in each region, are illustrated in figure 1.

Pre-Disaster Emergency Management Grants for Tribes

Before a disaster occurs, tribes may need certain resources to assist in the development of their local emergency management capacity. In addition to offering technical assistance for certain administrative requirements, such as developing a hazard mitigation plan, FEMA administers four pre-disaster grant programs that tribes may access.

These grant programs could provide tribes, either directly or as a sub- grantee through a state, with funds that would help support aspects of their emergency management capability. They are: Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). The purpose of EMPG is to help build and sustain core emergency management capabilities. EMPG is particularly important for building the capacity to declare and manage a disaster, because it is the primary federal program for which salaries and training for emergency management personnel is an allowable expense. Only states and U.S. territories are eligible to receive EMPG funds directly. According to FEMA officials, after states receive EMPG funds, they make determinations about whether and under what conditions to provide the funds to tribes and local governments within their geographical boundaries. However, according to officials, not all states will distribute EMPG funds to tribes.

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). The purpose of SHSP is to help states and U.S. territories prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to acts of terrorism and otherwise reduce overall risk. Allowable expenses include, but are not limited to, equipment, training, and exercises. As with EMPG, states and territories receive SHSP funds and subsequently decide how to distribute them.

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP). THSGP is a tribal- specific grant program intended to serve the same general purpose as SHSP. THSGP is available to tribes that meet one or more specific criteria, including comprising at least 1,000 square miles of Indian country or being near an international border, near prioritized critical infrastructure, or within or adjacent to one of the 50 most populous regions in the United States.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM). A PDM grant primarily funds development and upkeep of hazard mitigation plans, but can be used for hazard mitigation projects as well. All nonfederal governments—including tribal governments—must have an up-to-date, FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan in place before receiving disaster assistance following a major disaster declaration.

Declaration Process for Major Disaster Declarations

After a disaster, tribal chief executives may request federal assistance, if the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond the capabilities of the affected tribal government and federal assistance is necessary. Tribes may make a request for assistance as a direct recipient, or they may join a state’s request as a sub-recipient.

Similar to the state request process, FEMA Regional Administrators evaluate the tribe’s request and make a recommendation to FEMA headquarters. The FEMA Administrator then sends the recommendation to the President for a final decision as to whether the tribe’s, or a state’s, request for a major disaster declaration should be approved or denied. Figure 2 illustrates the process tribes follow to make a direct request or join a state’s request.

Federal Disaster Assistance Available to Tribes Following a Major Disaster Declaration

When a major disaster is declared, FEMA provides disaster assistance for eligible disaster recovery projects through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF). The three types of post-disaster grants, through the DRF, that state governors or tribal chief executives may request are: (1) Public Assistance (PA), which provides grants for eligible emergency work and repairs or restoration to infrastructure. (2) Individual Assistance (IA), which provides assistance to individuals and households to meet their sustenance, shelter, and medical needs. (3) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which provides grants for eligible projects to reduce the potential for future damage.

Tribal Requests for Major Disaster Declarations from 2013 through 2016

According to FEMA data, between 2013 and 2016, 36 tribes made requests for disaster assistance as a direct recipient or by joining a state’s request. Of those 36 tribes:

Fifteen tribes made a total of 17 direct requests to the U.S. President through FEMA for major disaster declarations.

Eight of these requests were approved across 7 tribes. From 2013 through 2016, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico was the only tribe approved for two major disaster declarations for severe storms and flooding in 2013.

The remaining 9 direct requests were denied across 9 tribes.

Twenty-nine tribes were sub-recipients under 36 state major disaster declaration requests.

Eight tribes made a direct request and also joined at least one state request for a major disaster declaration.

Figure 3 below shows the types of state requests tribes joined as well as the direct tribal requests that were approved and denied between 2013 and 2016. See appendix II for background information on the 36 tribes that made requests for disaster assistance and those that received pre- disaster grants during the study period.

Tribes Considered Sovereignty, Finances, FEMA Support, and Emergency Management Capacity When Deciding How to Request a Disaster Declaration

Officials from the tribes that responded to our survey and those we interviewed reported that there are several factors they took into consideration when deciding whether to make a direct request or to join a state’s request for a disaster declaration, during the 2013 to 2016 period. On the basis of the cumulative responses from these officials, we found that tribal sovereignty, financial matters, FEMA support, and the tribe’s emergency management capacity were key factors in their decision- making process. As shown in figure 4, the 23 survey respondents fall into three subsets, which totals 29 direct and state requests made by the survey respondents.

Tribal Sovereignty and Government-to- Government Relationship

Nine of 10 survey respondents that made at least one direct request during the 2013 to 2016 period reported that tribal sovereignty was a major factor they considered when making a direct request. Two survey respondents reported that the new authority is of strategic importance for tribal sovereignty because they are no longer required to join a state’s request when seeking a major disaster declaration. For example, in instances where the state’s request for a major disaster declaration has been denied, tribes now have the option to request disaster assistance directly as a result of this new authority.

This factor was also of practical importance for tribes with reservations located in more than one state or county. During our site visit interviews, officials from one tribe said it was a challenge to manage multiple state bureaucracies when the reservation spans multiple states. In some cases, portions of a reservation may not receive disaster assistance if one state—or county—did not request or receive a major disaster declaration. Officials from 5 tribes we visited said they prefer making direct requests because of the government-to-government relationship with the United States, and because working through the state as an intermediary impinged on their sovereignty. An official from one small rural tribe said that the tribe currently does not have the capacity to make a direct request but is taking the steps to do so in the future because it is important to their tribal sovereignty.

Financial Considerations

Tribal officials responding to our survey and interview questions reported that the potential to receive additional assistance from states to pay the non-federal cost share might influence them to join a state’s request. Conversely, the timeliness of reimbursement and the potential to receive administrative costs and HMGP grants might be factors in deciding to make a direct request.

Eight out of 13 respondents that received disaster assistance only as a sub-recipient of a state reported that they had concerns about paying the required nonfederal cost-share. When managing disaster assistance grants as a direct recipient, a tribal government is solely responsible for the entire nonfederal cost share. On the other hand, if the tribe is a sub- recipient to a state request, the tribe may have a lighter financial burden since several states offer partial or full nonfederal cost share assistance to their local and tribal sub-recipients. For example, officials from one tribe said that there is a strong financial incentive to join a state’s request because the state reimburses the tribal government’s half of the cost share.

In addition, some tribes may face financial hardship with the startup cost for recovery projects because PA and HMGP are reimbursement programs. For example, one tribal official said that it is especially difficult for small, rural, non-gaming tribes to find the financial capital to initiate recovery and hazard mitigation projects. While some tribes may have the money set aside for this purpose or may be able to secure loans to begin projects like the one illustrated in figure 5, other tribes are unable to start certain internal processes until the FEMA funds have been obligated. At a minimum, recipients have to present a scope of work before they can receive funds, the preparation of which usually requires the services of engineers or other technical experts. Therefore, the timeliness of the reimbursements, especially when the tribe is a sub- recipient under a state request, can result in financial challenges. For example, one tribal official we interviewed said that it takes much longer, on average, to request and receive reimbursement for recovery projects when the tribe has to submit the request through the state. Conversely, the official noted that reimbursement processes are typically much quicker when working directly with FEMA.

During our site visit interviews, officials from one tribe told us that they prefer to make direct requests so they could receive HMGP funds to make decisions about the hazard mitigation projects on their reservation. Generally, as a direct recipient, a state or tribe will receive HMGP funding based on a percentage, usually 15 percent, of the total amount of PA and IA funds received for the disaster recovery. HMGP funds can be used for eligible hazard mitigation projects or to create or renew hazard mitigation plans. Under a state declaration, the state receives these funds and can, at its discretion, use them anywhere within its boundaries for eligible projects. According to officials from one tribe, they can ensure they receive the total amount of HMGP funds to use on hazard mitigation projects within their own jurisdiction when they are a direct recipient.

FEMA’s Policies, Guidance, and Technical Assistance

Tribal officials’ confidence in the level of support they expected to receive from FEMA influenced their decision whether to make a direct request or to join a state. Specifically, in response to our survey, tribes that made direct requests largely reported that they believed FEMA’s policies and requirements would be clear enough for them to effectively navigate the processes and that timely and accurate information would be available. In contrast, multiple tribes that decided to join a state’s request reported that their concerns in those areas influenced their decisions to join a state’s request.

FEMA Policies and Guidance

Eight of the 10 tribes responding to our survey that requested a direct disaster declaration during the 2013 to 2016 period stated that the clarity of policy and guidance was a factor (five called it a major factor and three deemed it minor) in their decision making. Conversely, eight of the 13 tribes that only joined a state request reported that concern about FEMA’s policies and requirements being clear enough to seek a direct request was a factor in their decision to join a state request.

During our site visit interviews, officials from 2 tribes discussed challenges they have experienced with FEMA’s policies and requirements for estimating IA-related damages. Applicants for IA, including owners and renters, must be able to prove they occupied the damaged dwelling, pre-disaster, as their primary residence before receiving assistance. However, according to tribal officials, many homeowners on reservations do not possess formal deeds to their home or do not carry insurance, making it difficult for FEMA to ensure that potential recipients of the IA funds meet the requirements of the program. According to FEMA officials, the agency has attempted to be flexible during the pilot phase of the tribal declarations program. For example, FEMA officials in one region told us that they would accept a tribal government’s declaration of home ownership in lieu of a formal deed. FEMA officials told us they will continue to evaluate how issues of homeownership will be adjudicated.

In addition, during our site visit interviews, officials from 3 tribes discussed various types of difficulty with completing and maintaining the paperwork associated with recovery projects. For example, officials from a tribe stated that they are not equipped to manage and comply with processes such as permit requirements or federal procurement procedures and as a result are currently seeking to hire a full time emergency manager. Throughout the life of a major disaster declaration, tribal officials are required to maintain paperwork to document the recovery projects, which can require both physical and electronic recordkeeping systems, space, time, and expertise. For example, figure 6 below shows an example of the volume of paperwork needed to support and close out the recovery projects associated with a landslide in Washington State, according to the tribal and state officials involved.

Nine of 10 tribes responding to our survey that were awarded a direct disaster declaration reported that a factor (six major and three minor) in their decision making was their determination that the availability of timely and accurate assistance from FEMA would help them successfully manage the request process. For tribes that only joined state requests, fewer tribes reported that concerns about receiving timely and accurate technical assistance affected their decisions than those that had concerns about the clarity of FEMA’s policy and guidance. Four of the 13 total tribes that only joined a state declaration cited concerns about having access to technical assistance as a factor (one called it a major and three deemed it minor).

Damage Assessments After a disaster occurs, the first step in the declaration process is for the tribe to conduct an assessment of the impacts of the disaster to determine if there are needs that cannot be addressed with tribal resources or through insurance. Using this assessment—known as an initial damage assessment–-a tribal government can determine what, if any, needs or damages are eligible for FEMA disaster assistance. If a tribe determines that such needs or damages are beyond its capabilities to address with its own resources or insurance, the next step is to request a Joint Preliminary Damage Assessment (Joint PDA) from their FEMA Regional Administrator so that FEMA and the tribe can go through a process of reaching agreement about what damages and needs are eligible.

According to FEMA officials, the agency has assigned staff as dedicated Regional Tribal Liaisons (RTL) in all FEMA regional offices. RTLs help tribes maintain awareness of various program requirements, including those for conducting damage assessments and submitting requests for major disaster declarations. RTLs accomplish this role by connecting tribes with FEMA subject matter experts, who help tribes navigate the major disaster declaration processes and programs. During our site visit interviews, officials from 5 tribes we interviewed discussed the importance of having a good working relationship with FEMA regional officials. Some of the steps FEMA has taken to provide technical assistance to tribes are discussed further below.

Tribes’ Emergency Management Capacity

Tribal officials’ confidence in the tribe’s capacity to manage the major disaster declaration process and subsequently administer the recovery without assistance from a state was a key factor in determining whether or not to seek a request directly or join a state request.

Tribes, like states, have to carry out specific tasks and meet eligibility requirements to be able to make a direct request and manage the recovery processes for a major disaster declaration, as shown in figure 7. While states have had decades to develop the emergency management capacity needed to request and administer federal disaster assistance, tribes have had the opportunity to apply directly for federal disaster assistance since the passage of SRIA in 2013. Developing and maintaining such a capacity requires, among other things, having in- house knowledge or the ability to contract for (or otherwise access) specialized expertise to navigate through complex planning and processes.

Multiple officials from tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported challenges building and maintaining emergency management capacity that affected their ability to make direct requests for, and manage the recovery effort associated with, a major disaster declaration.

Specifically, 9 of 10 tribes responding to our survey that made a direct request said determining that their tribes had the emergency management capacity to successfully manage the major disaster declaration request process was a factor (6 identified it as minor, 3 as major). Conversely, 7 of the 13 tribes responding to our survey that only joined a state request said determining that they did not have the emergency management capacity to successfully manage the major disaster declaration request process was a factor in their decisions (4 identified as major, 3 as minor). As with the capacity to handle the declaration process, determining whether the tribe had the capacity to manage the recovery process, as illustrated in figure 7, also affected decision making. Officials from one tribe we interviewed who had not made direct requests told us that unless they have the emergency management capacity to manage both the request and the recovery process, they plan to continue joining states’ requests whenever possible.

Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan A Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan describes sustained actions that may be taken by the tribal government to reduce or eliminate the long-term risk of future damage to human life and property from hazards. When making a direct request for a major disaster declaration, a tribal government must have a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)- approved Tribal Mitigation Plan that meets the requirements in 44 C.F.R. § 201.7 before receiving FEMA disaster assistance funds under certain programs. If electing to be a sub-recipient under a state’s major disaster declaration request, the tribal government may be eligible to receive disaster assistance funds through the state without having a Tribal Mitigation Plan.

A tribal emergency management consultant who works with several tribes in one of the areas where we conducted site visits told us that the lack of a FEMA-approved tribal hazard mitigation plan limits the ability of many of these tribes to receive disaster funding. A hazard mitigation plan is required prior to a recipient being able to receive PA permanent work or HMGP. As of December 2017, 143 out of 567 tribes had a FEMA- approved Tribal Mitigation Plan, according to FEMA. In addition, the consultant reported that some tribes also lacked a designated emergency manager and hiring one may be unaffordable or in some cases, the applicants lack qualifications. For another tribe, the designated emergency manager had several job titles, including the tribe’s first responder and fire chief, which the official said makes it difficult to dedicate the time required to hone the skills necessary to manage the FEMA declaration processes. The official recounted an attempt to develop a hazard mitigation plan that at the time of our interview was still incomplete due, in part, to the complexity of the FEMA guidelines. In such cases, tribes may need to hire a specialist to assist with this administrative requirement, but may not have the budget to do so.

Another challenge tribal officials identified is that tribes face barriers to accessing federal pre-disaster funding that could help them build capacity to manage post-disaster grants following a successful declaration request. During our site visit interviews, officials from two tribes told us they have considered seeking federal grant opportunities to help enhance emergency management capacity, but the eligibility requirements, such as the requirement to be near designated critical infrastructure or within 100 miles of the border, for the tribal homeland security grants program precluded them from applying. They also said that they have received few, if any, state homeland security grant funds from states.

EMPG pays for salaries and is the primary source of support for developing and maintaining the requisite emergency management expertise. According to the FEMA and tribal officials we spoke with, as well as grant data provided by FEMA, tribes receive relatively low amounts of EMPG funding (see table 1 below) through the states. Tribes are not eligible to apply directly to FEMA for EMPG funds. In addition, according to tribal officials, when tribes apply to states for EMPG funds, the states can impose conditions that impinge on tribal sovereignty. For example, one state requires tribes to waive their legal immunity and agree to follow state laws, which some tribal officials viewed as contradictory to their sovereignty. As a result, these officials said they choose not to apply for these grants through the states and have never received EMPG funds.

FEMA officials acknowledged that tribes face challenges getting federal grant funds to help them enhance their emergency management capacity. According to the officials there are statutory, policy, and budget considerations that limit their ability to make significant changes in the way such grant funds are distributed. However, they told us that they continue to work under their current authorities to assist tribes that seek to develop and maintain their emergency management capacity, primarily through training and technical assistance, as described later in this report.

FEMA Has Created Pilot Guidance for Tribes and Offers Training and Technical Assistance on Directly Requesting Disaster Declarations

Since the passage of SRIA in 2013, FEMA has implemented various policies tailored to tribes that wish to make a direct request to the President, through FEMA, for federal disaster assistance. In December 2013, FEMA issued a policy regarding coordination with tribal governments. As part of this policy, FEMA committed to consulting tribal governments before taking proposed actions that would have a substantial direct effect on tribes. In addition, the policy recognized the tribes’ rights to self-governance and tribal sovereignty.

Since 2013, according to FEMA officials, the agency has provided multiple opportunities through Federal Register notices and ongoing consultations for input into the development of the guidance that currently governs the tribal request process for major disaster declarations. Specifically, FEMA reported that it is implementing this authority in three phases: (1) use of existing regulations, (2) pilot period, and (3) rulemaking. During phase 1, from 2013-2016, FEMA processed tribal declaration requests using existing state declaration regulations in order to allow tribal governments the choice to use the new authority immediately and to provide time for consultation on drafts of the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance.

In January 2016, FEMA published a draft of the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance and requested comments on the draft guidance through April 2016. Based on feedback received, FEMA issued a final version of the guidance, with which it will manage tribal declaration requests during the pilot phase, in January 2017. The publication of this guidance in January 2017 officially started phase 2, the pilot phase, of the tribal declarations implementation.

FEMA officials told us that, before beginning the development of regulations on tribal disaster declarations, they intend to operate under the pilot guidance for at least 2 years. They noted that they cannot specify an exact date on which they expect to finalize the guidance because there is uncertainty about what kind of disasters will strike and where.

According to officials, they have identified data they would like to collect to assess the guidance before finalizing it. Among other things, they said they plan to do economic analyses using quantitative data such as the types of disaster assistance requests from tribes (PA, IA, and HMGP) and the amount of funding allocated to tribes. In addition, these officials said they plan to conduct focus groups with tribal officials to learn more about how the disaster declaration policies and guidance have worked for tribal governments that used them. In the meantime, according to these officials, their aim is to be as flexible as possible while maintaining consistency with other relevant disaster regulations, so that they can respond to any unique challenges that arise in implementing this new authority.

In addition to assessing how the pilot is working for tribes, FEMA has developed and implemented training to help tribes understand the disaster declaration process and provided technical assistance to tribes as needed, prior to, during, and after disasters. FEMA has offered training opportunities at the Emergency Management Institute in Emmitsburg, Maryland, and has hosted regional training workshops and consultations throughout the country. According to tribal officials, these training courses have helped increase tribes’ emergency management expertise. One of the offerings, Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, was a 1-hour briefing offered in multiple locations and provided to dozens of tribes and other government agencies. In addition, FEMA has RTLs in each regional office that are a primary point of contact for tribal governments that have questions or require technical assistance on FEMA programs. Officials from one tribe we visited told us they believe the technical assistance they received from a FEMA RTL was timely and thorough. These officials said the tribe contacted FEMA for assistance following the Tribal Council’s decision to declare a state of emergency on the reservation. According to the tribal officials, a fire had started on a Sunday and the FEMA team was on-site at the reservation by Wednesday to conduct a joint preliminary damage assessment with tribal officials. The officials also said they were impressed with FEMA’s quick response on the damage assessment results, which they received within a week. The tribe did not ultimately request a major disaster declaration because the damage assessment fell short of the minimum damage amount at that time. However, officials from the tribe said the experience they gained was helpful for the tribe’s emergency management staff and that they are now confident they will be able to conduct an initial damage assessment should a future disaster occur.

Agency Comments and Our Evaluation

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA for review and comment. They provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix V.

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) the factors that influence selected tribes’ decisions about how to seek federal assistance through a major disaster declaration and (2) the actions the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is taking to assist tribal efforts to request and manage disaster declarations.

To report on the factors that tribes consider when seeking federal disaster assistance, we reviewed FEMA’s pilot guidance for tribal disaster declarations that was published in January 2017 and discussed the program’s pilot plans with key agency officials. We also interviewed officials from two national tribal organizations (the National Congress of American Indians and the National Tribal Emergency Management Council) and FEMA to develop a preliminary list of potential factors that may influence a tribe’s decision to make a direct request or to join a state’s request as a sub-recipient. Using these factors, we developed a survey with both closed and open-ended questions. To minimize non- response error, we pre-tested the survey instrument with officials from two tribes in FEMA Regions VI and X (see figure 1) to ensure the questions were clear and unbiased and that the survey questions were culturally appropriate. We also consulted tribal officials during a FEMA training course and held additional interviews with officials from tribal organizations to ensure that the questions were clear, understandable, and appropriate. An independent reviewer within our agency also reviewed a draft of the survey prior to the pre-tests. We made appropriate revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire based on the pretests and independent review.

We sent our survey to the 36 tribal governments that either (1) received declaration funds through a direct request, (2) received declaration funds as a sub-recipient of a state’s request, or (3) made a direct request that was denied between January 2013 and December 2016.The time period we chose coincides with the year SRIA was enacted to the most recent calendar year in which a full year of data on major disaster declarations was available when we began this work. Using e-mail addresses provided by FEMA Regional offices, we emailed the survey in an attached document that respondents could complete electronically or by hand and return via email or mail. We sent an invitation letter to the tribes on July 12, 2017, informing them of the purpose of the survey and the date it would be sent. We then sent the survey on July 18, 2017 and began soliciting survey responses from August 7, 2017 until January 12, 2018, by phone and email. We received completed surveys from 23 of the 36 tribes in the target population. We compared selected characteristics of the tribes responding to the survey with the same characteristics of the 36 tribes in the target population, as well as the completion of individual questions, and did not find a nonresponse bias. The final survey questionnaire is in appendix III.

To complement the survey responses, we conducted site visits to 7 tribes selected from among the 23 tribes that responded to our survey. The objectives of these site visits were to obtain added information from the tribal officials regarding the factors influencing their disaster declaration decisions during this period. We also observed recent disaster damage; ongoing recovery projects; and aspects of each tribe’s emergency management capability. We selected these various sites so that, as a set, they included a mixture of tribes that had participated in direct declarations; in state declarations as a sub-recipient; participated in declarations that were granted and denied; and were located in different FEMA regions. The selected tribes are located in Arizona, New Mexico, Washington, and Idaho, representing FEMA Regions VI, VIII, IX, and X. During our site visits, we interviewed tribal executives and emergency management officials and toured completed projects. Although the information gathered from our survey and site visits cannot be generalized across the tribes, our observations and the tribal officials’ responses underscored the uniqueness of each tribe and each disaster, as well as offering important details regarding the opportunities and challenges for tribes under this new authority.

To report on related FEMA grant funds obligated from 2013 through 2016, we collected data regarding the Homeland Security Grant Program, Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program, Emergency Management Performance Grant, and the Pre Disaster Mitigation grant data from FEMA Grants Program Division officials. We selected these programs because they provide pre-disaster grant funds to states and tribes that are, in part, intended to enhance grantees emergency management capacity. To assess the reliability of these data, we performed electronic data testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the collection and processing of these data. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for the purposes of reporting FEMA’s awards of these grant funds.

To address the second objective, we reviewed federal documentation— such as FEMA’s Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, federal regulations and statutes governing the major disaster declaration process to see what actions FEMA has taken specifically related to tribe’s requesting and managing major disaster declarations. We also reviewed disaster-related documentation provided by tribal governments and available on-line, including correspondence between tribes and FEMA, testimony statements, and additional documents that provided details of tribes’ experiences requesting and managing major disaster declarations. In addition, we interviewed officials from the two aforementioned national tribal organizations to discuss any successes or challenges they were familiar with related to the new authority that allows tribes to request a major disaster declaration directly from the President of the United States. During our interviews with tribal organizations and tribal officials, we examined challenges related to implementing the new authority and carrying out the various requirements associated with requesting and managing a major disaster declaration.

We also interviewed FEMA officials about the actions they had taken to help tribes make informed decisions about whether they would prefer to exercise the new authority. In addition, we interviewed FEMA officials about how they assisted tribes that were considering whether to exercise the new authority and how to do so, if desired, as well as what, if any, steps they had taken to address the challenges identified by tribes. For example, we discussed what actions FEMA has taken to assess the pilot program, offer training opportunities, and provide technical assistance to tribes that seek to enhance their emergency management capacity. We also attended a tribal emergency management conference in June 2017, attended a FEMA tribal emergency management training session in person in March 2017, and attended two FEMA-sponsored webinars designed specifically for tribal participants.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through May 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016

Pre-Disaster Grant Programs

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) provides funding to support states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) provides funding to eligible tribes to strengthen their capacity to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from potential terrorist attacks and other hazards.

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program provides funding to assist local, tribal, territorial, and state governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency management capabilities.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program provides funds to communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and projects reduces overall risks to life and property and the future cost of recovering from a disaster event. The goal of the program is to reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the same time also reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster declarations.

Post-Disaster Grant Programs through a Major Disaster Declaration

Individual Assistance (IA) provides financial assistance to individuals.

Public Assistance (PA) provides financial assistance to jurisdictions for debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the restoration of disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain private nonprofit organizations, such as utilities.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides additional funds to assist communities in implementing long-term measures to help reduce the potential risk of future damages to facilities.

Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016

Appendix IV: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

GAO Contact

Staff Acknowledgements

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Godfrey (Assistant Director), R. Denton Herring (Analyst-In-Charge), Pat Donahue, Dainia Lawes, and Claudia Rodriguez made key contributions to this report. In addition, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Tracey King, Gary Malavenda, Jeff Malcolm, and Heidi Nielson also provided assistance.