Disaster Resilience: FEMA Should Take Additional Steps to Streamline Hazard Mitigation Grants and Assess Program Effects
Fast Facts
FEMA obligated more than $11 billion through 4 grant programs that fund state and local hazard mitigation efforts (e.g., elevating homes and building tornado-safe rooms) for FY 2010 to 2018. The agency awarded about 88% of this amount through 2 grant programs that award grants post-disaster.
However, state and local officials report that the grant application process is complex and lengthy. FEMA intends to review the process, but has no documented plans to do so. Also, FEMA has developed training and guidance resources for applicants, but they can be hard to find on FEMA's website.
We made 6 recommendations to address these and other issues.
Highlights
What GAO Found
From fiscal years 2010 through 2018, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) obligated over $11 billion through four grant programs that fund state and local hazard mitigation efforts. FEMA awarded about 88 percent of this amount through the two grant programs that fund hazard mitigation post-disaster.
State and local officials from selected jurisdictions reported challenges with FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs. Specifically, officials GAO interviewed from 10 of the 12 jurisdictions said grant application processes were complex and lengthy. To address this, FEMA officials augmented guidance and began monitoring application review time frames for one program and said they intend to assess two other programs to identify opportunities to streamline. However, they did not have a documented plan for doing so. By developing and implementing a plan to identify ways to streamline applications and reviews for all four programs, FEMA could reduce barriers to investments in hazard mitigation. Officials from eight of the 12 jurisdictions also cited challenges with applicants' technical capacity to successfully apply for grants. To address this, FEMA developed training and guidance, but GAO found that these resources are listed on different parts of its website and can be difficult for state and local officials to locate. Creating a centralized inventory of resources could improve applicant capacity to successfully develop mitigation projects and apply for grants.
Examples of Hazard Mitigation Projects
FEMA has assessed some effects of grant-funded hazard mitigation projects, but could expand efforts and better share results. FEMA uses benefit-cost analysis, which estimates the benefits over the life of a project, and post-disaster loss avoidance studies, which estimate project benefits from actual hazard events, to assess project effects. However, the loss avoidance studies have been limited to hurricanes, floods, and tornados, and have not assessed wildfires, winter storms, or other disasters. FEMA officials stated that they would like to expand these studies but do not have specific plans to do so. In addition, FEMA requires some states to assess the effectiveness of their mitigation projects, but does not share these studies. Developing a plan to conduct loss avoidance studies for other hazards and sharing the state studies could help FEMA and stakeholders make better informed mitigation investment decisions.
Why GAO Did This Study
The rising number of natural disasters and increasing reliance on federal assistance are key sources of federal fiscal exposure. FEMA has four grant programs to increase disaster resilience through hazard mitigation projects.
The Additional Supplemental Appropriations for Disaster Relief Act, 2019, included a provision for GAO to review the federal response to disasters in 2018. This report addresses 1) FEMA's use of grants to support hazard mitigation; 2) challenges reported by selected jurisdictions applying for grants; and 3) how FEMA has assessed the effects of its hazard mitigation projects and shared the results.
GAO analyzed FEMA's grant data for fiscal years 2010 through 2018 to capture the most complete recent data, conducted nongeneralizable site visits with 12 state and local jurisdictions selected to capture a range of grant funding levels and hazards, reviewed FEMA grant documents, and interviewed FEMA mitigation officials.
Recommendations
GAO is making six recommendations, including that FEMA develop a plan to assess and streamline its hazard mitigation grant programs, create a centralized inventory of related resources, develop a plan to conduct more loss avoidance studies, and share state studies on hazard mitigation effectiveness. The Department of Homeland Security concurred with our recommendations.
Recommendations for Executive Action
| Agency Affected | Recommendation | Status |
|---|---|---|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should establish a plan with time frames to develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types, where appropriate. (Recommendation 1) |
Closed – Implemented
We found that selected state and local officials we interviewed experienced challenges with the required benefit-cost analysis for FEMA's hazard mitigation grant programs. FEMA had taken some steps to make it easier for state and local jurisdictions to complete benefit-cost analyses, including developing pre-calculated benefits that allow prospective applicants to forgo performing a detailed benefit-cost analysis for certain project types. FEMA officials said that they would like to develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types but they did not have a plan to do so. We recommended that the Administrator of FEMA establish a plan with time frames to develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types, where appropriate. In response, in January 2022, FEMA provided documentation showing that it had developed one additional pre-calculated benefit for hospital generators, updated the acquisition and elevation pre-calculated benefit, and established a plan with timeframes to develop pre-calculated benefits for additional project types. As a result, FEMA is better positioned to simplify the mitigation grant application process while ensuring mitigation investments are cost-effective.
|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should establish a plan with time frames to assess PA, HMGP, FMA, and BRIC hazard mitigation grant processes to identify and implement steps to reduce the complexity of and time required for grant applications, including steps to facilitate the use of funding from more than one FEMA mitigation grant program on a project. (Recommendation 2) |
Closed – Implemented
In February 2021, we reported on challenges state and local officials faced when applying for FEMA hazard mitigation grants. Officials we interviewed from 10 of 12 state and local jurisdictions said FEMA grant application processes were complex and lengthy. We found that FEMA officials had taken some initial steps to address this, such as augmenting guidance, and planned to do more, but did not have a documented plan for doing so. As a result, we recommended that FEMA establish a plan with time frames to assess Public Assistance, Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Flood Mitigation Assistance (FMA), and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) hazard mitigation grant processes to identify and implement steps to reduce the complexity of and time required for grant applications, including steps to facilitate the use of funding from more than one FEMA mitigation grant program on a project. FEMA concurred with this recommendation and in July 2022 provided documentation of planned steps and timeframes. For example, in the fourth quarter of fiscal year 2023, FEMA plans to have a common application portal (FEMA GO) for its HMGP, BRIC, and FMA programs. FEMA officials expect that having one integrated system will allow grant applicants to more easily forward submissions that are not selected for HMGP, to be considered for BRIC and FMA funding. In another example, FEMA officials report that in May 2022 they began revising their grant award process for FMA and BRIC to provide for "round 1" approvals, thereby reducing the time from application to the pre-award phase by about 2-3 months for applicants selected in round 1. By identifying steps such as these and documenting them in a plan with timeframes, FEMA is better positioned to streamline grant applications and reviews and ultimately reduce barriers to investments in hazard mitigation. As a result of these actions, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should create a centralized inventory of hazard mitigation resources on the FEMA website. (Recommendation 3) |
Closed – Implemented
In February 2021, we reported on challenges state and local officials faced when applying for FEMA hazard mitigation grants. We found that FEMA had developed resources to help hazard mitigation applicants-guidance, Fact Sheets, project examples, studies, and technical publications. However, the resources could be difficult to locate on FEMA's website and there was no centralized inventory of resources to help applicants locate the information. As a result, we recommended that FEMA create a centralized inventory of hazard mitigation resources on its website. FEMA concurred and has since taken steps to do so. In June 2022, FEMA finished re-designing portions of their website to centralize guidance and other resources on their hazard mitigation programs. The reorganization makes these resources easier to find and better positions FEMA to help state and local applicants successfully apply for grants for mitigation projects that enhance disaster resilience. As a result, this recommendation is closed as implemented.
|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should develop a plan for conducting future loss avoidance studies to ensure they can include more hazard types. (Recommendation 4) |
Closed – Implemented
In February 2021 , we reported that FEMA had conducted loss avoidance studies for some hazard types, but not for various others. Loss avoidance studies provide information on damage avoided during a disaster because of prior community investments in hazard mitigation. Over the past 20 years, FEMA has conducted 22 loss avoidance studies. Of those, 15 focused on flooding events, six focused on hurricanes, and one focused on a tornado disaster. None of these loss avoidance studies focused on wildfire events, earthquakes, or winter storms, among other disaster types. Hurricanes, floods, and tornadoes have comprised about 80 percent of disaster declarations since 2000, but state and local officials told us it would be helpful to areas prone to other types of disasters to have information on the potential losses they might avoid through investment in hazard mitigation. At the time of our review, FEMA officials acknowledged that conducting loss avoidance studies on additional project types would be more valuable than conducting loss avoidance studies on project types that FEMA has previously assessed, but did not have a specific plan to do so. We recommended that FEMA develop a plan for conducting future loss avoidance studies to ensure they can include more hazard types. The agency concurred with our recommendation and in response, FEMA established a team of experts to assess options for conducting future loss avoidance studies. According to FEMA, in September 2022, this team finalized a plan to institutionalize decisions determining when and how FEMA would conduct loss avoidance studies. By using a more systematic approach, FEMA plans to increase the number and types of loss avoidance studies they conduct . By developing a plan for conducting future loss avoidance studies, FEMA is better positioned to provide state, and local governments with information they can use in making resource tradeoff decisions about their investments in hazard mitigation projects.
|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should ensure that as new methods and metrics to assess the effectiveness of hazard mitigation are developed, FEMA officials consider opportunities to adopt common methods and metrics across all of its hazard mitigation programs. (Recommendation 5) |
Closed – Implemented
In February 2021, we found that FEMA was considering new methods to measure the effects of one mitigation grant program-the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities program-that could be helpful in assessing the effects funded through its other programs. We recommended that FEMA consider opportunities to adopt common methods and metrics across all of its hazard mitigation programs and FEMA concurred. In response, in April 2021 FEMA developed a Grant Effectiveness Council Charter with the purpose of establishing a consistent performance measurement and evaluation operating model for all FEMA grant programs. The Grant Effectiveness Council called for the use of a common method (logic model) to assess effectiveness across all grant programs in FEMA. In fiscal year 2022, FEMA began to develop logic models for its hazard mitigation programs and through this process they have identified some similar outputs and outcomes across programs. For example, all four grant programs identify the number of mitigation projects as outputs. In addition, all the grant programs identify reducing barriers and increasing equity as outcomes. FEMA reports using the logic models to show how the programs contribute to broader strategic goals. As a result, FEMA is better positioned to identify opportunities to streamline and simplify data collection and aid decision making across FEMA.
|
| Federal Emergency Management Agency | The Administrator of FEMA should publicly share pre-calculated benefits studies and state developed records of effectiveness, such as by posting them to its website. (Recommendation 6) |
Closed – Implemented
In February 2021, we reported that while FEMA had publicly shared some information on the value of hazard mitigation investments on its website, it had not shared other existing studies on hazard mitigation projects that could contribute to the body of knowledge on the effects of FEMA-funded hazard mitigation projects. Specifically, FEMA had not shared studies that informed its pre-calculated benefits decisions for certain hazard mitigation project types, including acquisitions, elevations, safe rooms, and wind retrofits. FEMA also had not shared states' existing records of effectiveness -states' own studies about the effectiveness of their FEMA-supported investments in hazard mitigation. We recommended that FEMA publicly share pre-calculated benefits studies and state developed records of effectiveness, such as by posting them to its website. The agency agreed and in response, FEMA updated its website with examples of those studies. For example, in October 2021, FEMA publicly shared its methodology report for pre-calculated benefits for hospital generator projects. According to FEMA, it plans to continue to publicly share, on its website, new methodology reports as they are developed. In addition, in September 2022, FEMA updated its website to better guide the public to state-developed records of effectiveness. By sharing the pre-calculated benefit studies and links to state developed records of effectiveness, FEMA is sharing information on the benefits and costs of different projects types and methods to measure them. This could help inform state and local investments in hazard mitigation.
|