Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding - Kindle edition by Francis X. McCarthy. Download it once .
Table of contents
- Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit
- Fact Sheet
- FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer - leondumoulin.nl
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. 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. 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 and d 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.
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. In providing assistance to an Indian tribal government under this subchapter, the President may waive or adjust any payment of a non-Federal contribution with respect to the assistance if—.
A the President has the authority to waive or adjust the payment under another provision of this subchapter; and. B the President determines that the waiver or adjustment is necessary and appropriate. The President shall establish criteria for making determinations under paragraph 1 B. The process for an emergency declaration is also contained in the Stafford Act. In part it is similar to a major disaster declaration in finding and process, but the actual authorities are limited.
In addition, section b provides for a special authority for the President to exercise his discretion for events that have a distinctly federal character:. 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. The President may exercise any authority vested in him by section of this title or section 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. 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.
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 and d 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. While these regulations have been adjusted through the regulatory process during the past three decades, since the procedures have undergone little significant change until the inclusion of tribal groups in P. 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. Federal disaster relief has a long history in the U. As Michele Landis argues, social and political construction of claimants for relief as helpless victims of external forces beyond their control "Acts of God" have exerted an enduring influence on American political discourse, which has manifested itself in heavy reliance on prior political precedents and analogies in constructing responses to current disasters.
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. The process begins with a decision by the governor or tribal head on whether to conduct a Preliminary Damage Assessment PDA to consider whether a request for supplemental assistance is warranted.
Information contained in the PDAs, along with the summaries prepared by FEMA regional offices that accompany gubernatorial requests, were long considered "pre-decisional and deliberative information" by the executive branch because they are part of the package that is developed and sent to the White House for the President's review and ultimate decision. While the summaries of FEMA recommendations are still not available, the agreed-upon figures from the PDAs are now available to the public for review. The act made one significant change to the Stafford Act declaration process.
Section of the SRIA amends Sections and of the Stafford Act that contain the procedures for requesting types of disaster declarations. As with local governments, the tribes were dependent on a request being made by the governor of the state where their territory is located. This change in declaration policy for tribal groups had also been sought by FEMA to strengthen its government-to-government relationships with tribal groups and improve emergency management in those areas.
The updated policy reiterates the Agency's view of tribal governments as inherently sovereign nations and not political subdivisions of states. To this end, and to the extent permitted by law, FEMA consults with tribal governments and addresses any concerns before taking actions that may affect those nations. In addition, the new policy expressly states that FEMA will identify and take reasonable, appropriate steps to eliminate or diminish procedural impediments to working directly and effectively with tribal governments. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, and other laws, policies, and administrative rules in emergency management activities to determine how FEMA may work more directly with local tribal communities.
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. 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.
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. In the time since the passage of this authority in the SRIA legislation, there have been six major disaster declarations by the President made to five separate tribal authorities.
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. In , and again in , GAO issued reports on the declaration process that questioned the quality and consistency of FEMA's assessment criteria, as well as the agency's ability to produce valid recommendations to the President based on a governor's request for supplemental aid.
As the most recent report concluded:. These criteria are not necessarily indicative of a state's ability to pay for the damage because they do not consider the substantial differences in states' financial capacities to respond when disasters occur. As a result, federal funds may be provided for some disasters when they are not needed—a result that would be inconsistent with the Stafford Act's intent. Congressional interest in the declaration process is derived, in part, from the increased cost in emergency spending—a recurring subject for the appropriations committees when considering supplemental spending legislation.
These supplementals have been "driven" by the urgency of large natural disasters. As one report explains,. In the past, funds in the DRF were often depleted before the end of the fiscal year due to disaster assistance needs. When the account nears depletion, Congress usually provides additional funding through one or more supplemental appropriations. The need for additional funds is generally caused by a large-scale, major disaster such as Hurricanes Katrina or Sandy. In recent years, however, the need for assistance has been increasingly tied to a string of incidents as opposed to a single, large event.
A review of data for a seven-year period from to revealed that large expenditures, as funded by supplemental bills, relate to declarations issued for the largest events. This trend continued with large supplemental funding bills for Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy. However, these were not the only events deemed worthy of presidential action and of cost to the federal treasury.
As summarized by one author:. But like the tail of a comet, over other declarations accounted for one quarter of such outlays, many of them of relatively minute cost and extent. While of lesser impact on the national treasury, such "low end" declarations have become, to some observers, new sources of federal spending at the local level, long referred to in other contexts as "pork barrel spending. 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. During early , the term "entitlement" was beginning to be used in describing federal disaster spending by the new Bush Administration.
FEMA is looking at ways to develop a meaningful and objective criteria for disaster declarations that can be applied consistently. These criteria will not preclude the President's discretion but will help states better understand when they can reasonably turn to the federal government for assistance and when it would be more appropriate for the state to handle the disaster itself. During the th Congress, attention was given to the disaster declaration process and what states and local governments can reasonably expect from that process.
During the early spring of , there were tornadoes that had an impact on Arkansas, Alabama, and Georgia. The latter two states received disaster declarations while the damage in Arkansas was deemed insufficient to warrant federal assistance. Representative Thompson set the context as follows:. As Members representing real communities back home, we want to understand just how FEMA makes determinations regarding what is a disaster deserving of attention and when folks have to fend for themselves.
Quite simply, we must have a serious discussion on what our expectations are of our federal government and what should remain a state and local responsibility.
Emergency Authority and Immunity Toolkit
In order to examine the process and the financial projections of disaster spending in particular, Congress mandated in P. The Committee continues to be concerned with FEMA's ability to manage resources in a manner that maximizes its ability to effectively and efficiently deal with disasters. One aspect of particular concern is how FEMA makes projections of funding needed in response to any given disaster or to meet future disasters.
As a follow-up to this report, the Committee requests that within six months of enactment GAO review how FEMA develops its estimates of the funds needed to respond to any given disaster. The review should also include additional analysis and recommendations regarding FEMA's ability to manage disaster-related resources in a manner that maximizes effective execution of its mission.
Fact Sheet
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.
GAO's eventual report in response to this request suggested that FEMA's estimates for disaster costs have improved but could use additional refinement; for example. Others are not, such as its management of mission assignments. Sensitivity analyses to identify the marginal effect of key cost drivers could provide FEMA a way to isolate and mitigate the effect of these factors on its early estimates. To better predict applicant costs for the Individual Assistance program, FEMA could substitute or add more geographically specific indicators for its national average.
During the th 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.
Ranking Republican Mike D. Declarations that should take a few days often take a month or longer, and a lack of available information on the status of requests only adds to state officials' frustration, said Brock Long, director of Alabama's Emergency Management Agency. Recent articles have noted the increase in disaster declarations and have suggested that it may be a political decision that is placing more responsibility for response and recovery on the federal government while minimizing state responsibility. As one report noted:.
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. Congress should reduce the cost-share provision for all FEMA declarations to no more than 25 percent of the costs. This will help to ensure that at least three-fourths of the costs of a disaster are borne by the taxpayers living in the state where the disaster took place.
One difficulty in addressing such a recommendation is defining "routine natural disasters. 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.
Federal guidance, technical assistance and incentives aim at addressing these disparities. How would the public feel about having an uneven patchwork of state policies, practices and capabilities? Under state control and with all the financial pressures experienced by states, would we see a "race to the bottom" in disaster loss reduction programs? 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.
That statute created a new position at FEMA: FEMA drafted regulations in that would have been more certain in their delineation of state requirements prior to a declaration, reduced overall federal contributions, and would have installed a formula to determine whether a state would receive a presidential disaster declaration for repairs to state and local infrastructure known as "public assistance" in the Stafford Act. As the congressional report on the initiative summarized the FEMA draft:. Of declarations issued in prior years, 61 would have been ineligible for any public assistance.
FEMA also proposed to decrease the federal share for disaster costs from 75 percent to 50 percent and to exclude aid to special districts. The FEMA proposal of over 25 years ago addressed some of the problems identified by current critics of the declaration process. However, some Members of Congress viewed this proposal as a means of removing the power of discretion from elected leadership.
Rather than apply the empirical solution suggested by FEMA to perceived problems in the declaration process, Congress instead legislated a provision to explicitly forbid the primacy of any "arithmetic formula. Limitation on the Use of Sliding Scales. No geographic area shall be precluded from receiving assistance under this Act solely by virtue of an arithmetic formula or sliding scale based on income or population. 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.
While some public discussion involves consideration of ways to reduce the number of declarations it should also be noted that there are also some legislative initiatives that could increase the number of declarations while seeking more equity in the process. See " Localized Impacts " in this report. 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.
FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer - leondumoulin.nl
Actions by a governor or tribal leader are a driving constant in this process. Both major disaster and emergency declarations must be triggered by a request to the President from the governor of the affected state or the tribal leader of the lands affected. The only exception to this rule is the authority given to the President to declare 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 can exercise exclusive or preeminent responsibility and authority.
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.
It is the governor or tribal leader who makes that assessment, based on his or her knowledge of state or tribal resources and capabilities. The importance of governors or tribal leaders in the process is not lost on, nor would it likely be diminished by, Presidents who were formerly governors. Over the last three decades of Stafford Act implementation, four of the Presidents during this period were former governors who had worked through the disaster declaration process from both the state and the federal level.
Those numbers are far in excess of the 62 federal major disaster declarations in and 99 declarations in Having that experience may have left the Presidents, and their staffs and appointees, with an appreciation of the discretionary authority inherent in the process. While there are some established standards in the law, the factors that are to be weighed in considering the impact of a disaster on the need for assistance for families and individuals are general considerations that underscore the judgment required to reach a decision. As one observer noted of the decision for general, flexible considerations:.
In other words, Congress likes to keep the process imprecise, even if benefits occasionally go to the undeserving. The absence of objective criteria preserves wide political discretion to the president. 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. The final action, as stated in law 47 and defined in the regulations of the process, is a "Presidential determination.
The number of major disaster declarations on average has been increasing over the last several decades. Between and there were major disaster declarations. The next decade, from to , the number of declarations increased to Now, just four years into the next decade there have already been declarations.
As one expert opined. Politics appears to make a difference at the margins. Large disasters always receive federal aid, but political interests determine whether smaller states receive federal dollars or have to make due on their own. The difference was that Illinois was considered a solidly democratic state and therefore not valuable to Clinton's re-election efforts, whereas Louisiana was deemed a competitive state. Because natural disasters are so frequent, politicians in every part of the country use them to deliver federal aid.
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 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. We find that presidential and congressional influences affect the rate of disaster declaration and allocation of FEMA disaster expenditures across states.
States politically important to the President have a higher rate of disaster declaration by the President, and disaster expenditures are higher in states having congressional representation on FEMA oversight committees. While those findings comported with suspicions or assumptions of political corruption of the disaster declaration process and disaster spending, follow-up studies have questioned those assumptions. As two other researches have noted:. There was no statistical evidence to suggest that gubernatorial and presidential party similarity, U.
House of Representatives and presidential party similarity, FEMA congressional oversight committee membership, electoral votes, or FEMA regional office location influenced success in securing emergency or major disaster declarations. Another researcher who has closely followed disaster declaration activity noted the declining rate of turn-downs for governors' requests and concluded:.
Since , following adoption of the Stafford Act, the odds that the president will approve a governor's request have risen to about four in five Certainly the broader authority to judge what is or is not a disaster under the Stafford Act has provided presidents since with more latitude to approve unusual or "marginal" events as disasters or emergencies.
This may be one reason for the higher rate of gubernatorial request approvals since 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.
When a PDA is conducted after an event it is the "mechanism used to determine the impact and magnitude of damage and the resulting unmet needs of individuals, businesses, the public sector, and the community as a whole. Based on their previous experience, states may determine that the event will not reach the level where a federal disaster declaration is likely. However, despite findings that federal aid may not be needed, there may be political considerations that could lead to a gubernatorial request. As one author points out in his study of the process:.
Governors also feel the heat of media coverage of incidents in their states, and they too appreciate the importance of exhibiting political responsiveness. Governors also appreciate that their future political fortunes may be influenced by how they handle their disaster and emergency incidents. As a consequence, the hypothesis assumes that governors are the pivotal and decisive players in securing presidential disaster declarations and that they have a tendency to request declarations for even marginal events.
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. Regardless of any question regarding motivation, the governor's or tribal officials' first decision is whether the incident is severe enough to assemble a traditional PDA team to survey the damaged area. The FEMA representatives have the responsibility of briefing the team on the factors to be considered, the information that will be helpful in the assessment, and how the information should be reported.
One significant improvement in this process is that the regulations now require that the participants reconcile any differences in their findings. See the Appendix of this report. Another factor is the quality of the PDA team and its findings. PDAs are ordered up quickly after an event. FEMA's 10 regional offices are often engaged in multiple disasters and have to rely on temporary employees albeit, usually experienced ones to staff the PDA team. This became a significant issue during the hurricane season of in Florida, where questions were raised regarding the designations of some counties.
When working openly and with federal and state cooperation, the PDA can be an effective and inclusive process. 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.
Another challenge noted by FEMA is the tendency of some states to suspend the PDA when the state believes they have documented the necessary amount of damage to warrant a declaration. Such a finding may lead to a declaration but also provides an incomplete portrait of the extent of damages and arguably of the types of assistance needed for the response and recovery process.
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. 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. It is this identification of discrete need that helps the governor decide on which assistance programs will be requested. The PDA is a "bottom up" process as information gradually rises up for decision-makers to consider.
Multiple pressure points, including affected citizens, elected officials, and professionals in various fields, may all urge PDA team members to reach certain conclusions. As one author suggests:. The president, motivated by the need to appear highly politically responsive, solicits and encourages a gubernatorial request for a presidential disaster declaration. Publicity is a factor in that CNN and other news organizations help to promote nationally what would otherwise be a local incident addressed by subnational authorities.
The president may also be influenced by the electoral importance of the state that experiences the incident. 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.
Public Assistance PA refers to various categories of assistance to state and local governments and non-profit organizations. Principally, PA covers the repairs or replacement of infrastructure roads, bridges, public buildings, etc. Although all of these factors are considered, the estimated cost of the assistance is a key component and may be "more equal" than other factors since it contains a threshold figure. What is especially noteworthy about the cost estimates is that they could be interpreted as an example of the "arithmetic formula" that was precluded from use in Section of the Stafford Act.
However, that section states that a formula cannot be "solely" determinative of the fate of a governor's request. Depending on the state's population, the per capita threshold may be difficult to reach. For example, the Census estimated California's population at just under 38 million people. 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.
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. Some of these measurements are discussed in the " Congressional Considerations for the Declaration Process " section of this report. 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 th 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. By shifting the greater consideration to localized damage amounts, those areas could potentially bolster a state or tribal request. Similarly, other legislation H. This legislation would also direct FEMA to develop regulations which would not consider the state threshold amount when a disaster event occurs within a smaller jurisdiction with significant per capita damage.
Although FEMA may consider the localized impacts of a disaster when recommending a disaster declaration to the President, the Committee is aware of concerns that, in practice, FEMA primarily relies on the state-wide damage threshold, which will be higher for more populous states even if the local impacts of a disaster may be relatively severe. To address these concerns, the Committee directs FEMA to review its disaster declaration recommendation process, including a review of how to more deliberately incorporate into the process the ''localized impacts'' factor outlined under Title 44, Part The president may declare an emergency without first receiving a gubernatorial request if the emergency involves an area of "federal primary responsibility" in which principal responsibility for response rests with the federal government because the emergency involves a subject area for which the United States exercises exclusive responsibility and authority.
A Stafford Act declaration can trigger other public health emergency response authorities. The Stafford Act covers major disasters and emergencies. Major disasters are defined as any natural catastrophe or fire, flood, or explosion, regardless of cause, which is of sufficient severity to warrant assistance under the act to alleviate the damage, loss, or hardship caused by the event. Pandemic influenza and other communicable diseases are defined as emergencies eligible for coverage under the Stafford Act. Three types of assistance are authorized by the Stafford Act. Assistance can take the form of direct federal aid in terms of services, grants, and technical support, or as reimbursement for services provided by or contracted for by affected states.
FEMA has extensive rules, policies, and guidances to further define eligibility and procedures for Stafford Act assistance.
Individual Assistance— Provides immediate direct and financial assistance to individuals for housing and other disaster related needs. Hazard Mitigation— Provides grants to affected governments to implement long-term hazard mitigation measures after a major disaster declaration. Only areas within the geographic area designated in the declaration are eligible for hazard mitigation aid. Public Assistance— Provides aid to eligible applicants seeking assistance with eligible costs for eligible work performed at eligible facilities. Funding for public assistance is divided generally into a 75 percent federal share and 25 percent state share; however, the federal share may be raised in a presidential declaration.
Pandemic Coverage— Direct federal assistance is available through Public Assistance grants for Stafford Act declarations related to pandemic influenza. Assistance provided by FEMA under the Stafford Act in response to a pandemic influenza declaration may not duplicate assistance provided or available under the authority of other federal agencies, including HHS.
Mutual Aid Agreement Reimbursement— FEMA will reimburse for services provided through written mutual aid agreements, like the Emergency Management Assistance Compact EMAC , for aid provided to states where there has been a presidential declaration, the activities and costs directly relate to the event and eligible work, and costs are reasonable. The Stafford Act does not directly address liability protections or immunities; however, personnel and resources deployed during the response may be eligible for liability protections under other laws.
- .
- FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer.
- Is This Supposed to be Funny?.
Personnel deployed as part of the Medical Reserve Corps or National Disaster Medical System have liability protections through other federal laws. Responders deployed through the EMAC may be covered by state liability protections. The aid triggered by a Stafford Act declaration provides states and localities with financial, technical, and logistical support during emergency events that overwhelm their capacity to respond.
The Stafford Act and its implementing rules, policies, and guidances create a highly structured system through which states seek assistance. The National Response Framework and the National Incident Management System further define roles of federal, state, and local governments and other sectors in responding to events of various sizes, not just those severe enough to qualify for coverage under the Stafford Act.
It reflects only portions of the laws relevant to public health emergencies and is not intended to be exhaustive of all relevant legal authority. This resource is for informational purposes only and is not intended as a substitute for professional legal or other advice.