Order Code RL34146
FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer
August 27, 2007
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
Government and Finance Division

FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer
Summary
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(referred to as the Stafford Act - 42 U.S.C. 5721 et seq.) authorizes the President to
issue "major disaster" or "emergency" declarations before or after catastrophes occur.
Emergency declarations trigger aid that protects property, public health, and safety
and lessens or averts the threat of an incident becoming a catastrophic event. A major
disaster declaration, issued after catastrophes occur, constitutes broader authority for
federal agencies to provide supplemental assistance to help state and local
governments, families and individuals, and certain nonprofit organizations recover
from the incident.
The end result of a presidential disaster declaration is well known, if not
entirely understood. Various forms of assistance are provided, including aid to
families and individuals for uninsured needs and assistance to state and local
governments and certain non-profits in rebuilding or replacing damaged
infrastructure.
The amount of assistance provided through Presidential disaster declarations
has exceeded $100 billion. Often, in recent years, Congress has enacted
supplemental appropriations legislation to cover unanticipated costs. While the
amounts spent by the federal government on different programs may be reported, and
the progress of the recovery can be observed, much less is known about the process
that initiates all of this activity. Yet, it is a process that has resulted in an average of
more than one disaster declaration a week over the last decade.
The disaster declaration procedure is foremost a process that preserves the
discretion of the governor to request assistance and the president to decide to grant,
or not to grant, supplemental help. The process employs some measurable criteria
in two broad areas: Individual Assistance that aids families and individuals and
Public Assistance that is mainly for repairs to infrastructure. The criteria, however,
also considers many other factors, in each category of assistance, that help decision
makers assess the impact of an event on communities and states.
Under current law, the decision to issue a declaration rests solely with the
President. Congress has no formal role, but has taken actions to adjust the terms of
the process. For example, P.L. 109-295 established an advocate to help small states
with the declaration process. More recently, Congress mandated in P.L. 110-28 that
GAO review the method used by FEMA to identify state needs.
Congress continues to examine the process and has received some
recommendations for improvements. Given the importance of the decision, and the
size of the overall spending involved, hearings have been held in the 110th Congress
to review the declaration process so as to ensure fairness and equity in the process
and its results. Also, further studies have been requested to understand how FEMA
develops its estimates of damage and the accuracy of those estimates.
This report will be updated as warranted by events.

Contents
Congress and the Declaration Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Impetus for Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
The Skepticism of Reform . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
Presidential and Gubernatorial Discretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Preliminary Damage Assessments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Factors Considered for Public Assistance in Major Disaster
Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Estimated Cost of the Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Localized Impacts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Hazard Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Recent Multiple Disasters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Other Federal Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Factors Considered for Individual Assistance in Major Disaster
Declarations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Concentration of Damages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Trauma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Special Populations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Voluntary Agency Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Insurance Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Average Amount of Individual Assistance by State . . . . . . . . . . 20
Congressional Considerations for the Declaration Process . . . . . . . . . . . 22
The Composition of Preliminary Damage Assessment Teams . . 22
Updating and Revising Individual Assistance Averages . . . . . . . 22
Other Potential Disaster Indicators . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Concluding Observations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
List of Tables
Table 1. Types of State-Funded Disaster Assistance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Table 2. Average Amount of Federal Assistance Per Disaster Based on Size
of State, July 1995 - July 1999 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process:
A Primer
Background
Under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act
(Public Law 93-288) there are two principal forms of Presidential action to authorize
federal supplemental assistance. Emergency declarations are made to protect
property and public health and safety and to lessen or avert the threat of a major
disaster or catastrophe.1 Emergency declarations are often made when a threat is
recognized (such as the emergency declarations for Hurricane Katrina which were
made prior to landfall) and are intended to supplement and coordinate local and state
efforts such as evacuations and protection of public assets. In contrast, a major
disaster declaration is made as a result of the disaster or catastrophic event and
constitutes a broader authority that helps states and local communities, as well as
families and individuals, recover from the damage caused by the event.2
Federal disaster assistance has served as the impetus for many supplemental
appropriations bills over the last several decades, and has accounted for presidential
declarations in every state and territory.3 The supplemental funds are placed in the
Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) which is a “no-year” fund managed by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and used only for spending related to
presidentially-declared disasters.
Major disasters can be a dominant story in the mass media that captures
attention both for the devastation that results as well as the potential help that is
expected. As one observer noted:
Disaster assistance is an almost perfect political currency. It serves
humanitarian purposes that only the cynical academic could question. It is
largely funded out of supplemental appropriations and thus does not
officially add to the budget deficit. It promotes the local economy of the
area where the building process occurs.4
1 42 U.S.C. § 5122.
2 Ibid.
3 For more information on disaster supplementals, see CRS Report RL33226, Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations Legislation for Disaster Assistance: Summary Data, FY1989
to FY2007,
by Justin Murray and Keith Bea. For a map of disaster declarations, see
[http://www.bakerprojects.com.fema/Maps/CONUS.pdf], visited July 25, 2007.
4 Rutherford H. Platt, “Disasters and Democracy: The Politics of Extreme Natural Events,”
(Washington, DC: Island Press, 1999), p. 66.

CRS-2
While disaster assistance may be good “political currency,” a disaster
declaration is generally the result of a tragic and devastating incident that disrupts
(and sometimes takes) the lives of hundreds or thousands of families and individuals
and the communities and states where they reside. The long-term economic and
environmental impact of a disaster can be severe. The assistance offered from federal
and private sources may or may not be commensurate with the damage inflicted by
a natural or man-made event. Following a disaster, years of rebuilding and recovery
work may lie ahead for communities and states. It is the declaration process that sets
the federal recovery help in motion.
The trigger for federal disaster assistance is contained in a relatively short
statutory provision. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act, Public Law 93-288, (the Stafford Act), includes one brief section that
establishes the legal requirements for a major disaster declaration:
Section 401. Procedures for Declaration. All requests for a declaration by
the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of
the affected state. Such a request shall be based on a finding that the
disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is beyond
the capabilities of the state and the affected local governments and that the
federal assistance is necessary. As a part of such request, and as a
prerequisite to major disaster assistance under this Act, the Governor shall
take appropriate response action under state law and direct execution of the
state’s emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish information on the
nature and amount of State and local resources which have been or will be
committed to alleviating the results of the disaster and shall certify that, for
the current disaster, state and local government obligations and
expenditures (of which state commitments must be a significant proportion)
will comply with all applicable cost-sharing requirements of this Act.
Based on the request of a Governor under this section, the President may
declare under this Act that a major disaster or emergency exists.5
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:
Sec. 5191. Procedure for declaration. (a) Request and declaration All
requests for a declaration by the President that an emergency exists shall be
made by the Governor of the affected State. Such a request shall be based
on a finding that the situation is of such severity and magnitude that
effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the affected
local governments and that Federal assistance is necessary. As a part of
such request, and as a prerequisite to emergency assistance under this
chapter, the Governor shall take appropriate action under State law and
direct execution of the State's emergency plan. The Governor shall furnish
information describing the State and local efforts and resources which have
been or will be used to alleviate the emergency, and will define the type
and extent of Federal aid required. Based upon such Governor's request, the
5 42 U.S.C. § 5170.

CRS-3
President may declare that an emergency exists. (b) Certain emergencies
involving Federal primary responsibility. The President may exercise any
authority vested in him by section 5192 of this title or section 5193 of this
title with respect to an emergency when he determines that an emergency
exists for which the primary responsibility for response rests with the
United States because the emergency involves a subject area for which,
under the Constitution or laws of the United States, the United States 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. 6
The declaration process is elaborated upon in regulations, specifically in
Subpart B of Part 206 (44 CFR). While these regulations have been adjusted through
the regulatory process during the past three decades, since 1974 the procedures have
undergone little significant change. 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.S. dating back to the last
years of the eighteenth century and arguably provided much of the political
genesis for the New Deal social welfare programs (Landis 1999; Landis
1998; Moss 1999). 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.7
Information contained in the Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs) and
summaries prepared by FEMA regional offices that accompany gubernatorial
requests are 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. These materials
are not available under the Freedom of Information Act process.8
6 42 U.S.C. § 5191.
7 Michael J. Trebilcock and Ronald J. Daniels, “Rationales and Instruments for Government
Intervention in Natural Disasters” in Ronald J. Daniels, Donald F. Kettl, and Howard
Kunreuther, eds., “On Risk and Disaster: Lessons from Hurricane Katrina,” (Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 104. For additional discussion of the evolution
of emergency management see Claire B. Rubin, ed. Emergency Management: The American
Experience 1900-2005
(Fairfax, VA: Public Entity Risk Institute, 2007).
8 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Annual
R e p o r t o f F O I A A c t i v i t y f o r F Y 2 0 0 0 , I I . C . a t
[http://www.fema.gov/doc/help/foiareportfy00.doc], visited July 20, 2007.

CRS-4
Unlike the information considered by the President, disaster spending is a
matter of the public record. Congress has expressed interest in exploring that record
and the assumptions that precede those funding decisions. In the committee report
accompanying P.L. 110-28, Congress directed the Government Accountability Office
(GAO) to:
review how FEMA develops its estimates of the funds needed to respond
to any given disaster. Such a review should include how FEMA makes
initial estimates, how FEMA refines those estimates within the first few
months of a disaster, and how closely FEMA’s estimates predict actual
costs.9
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 they affect. Each
state 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, 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.
Congress and the Declaration Process
The Impetus for Reform. The 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 in panels that have considered aspects of the disaster relief process.10
Various administrations have also considered the process and FEMA’s role in it.
In 1981, and again in 2001, 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 on a
Governor’s request for supplemental aid. As the most recent report (2001)
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.11
9 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year Ending September 30, 2007 and for Other Purposes,
report to accompany H.R. 1591, 110th Cong. 1st. sess., H.Rept. 110-60, (Washington: GPO
2007), p. 211.
10 Ibid.; and Platt, p. 266.
11 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Disaster Assistance: Improvements Needed in
(continued...)

CRS-5
Congressional interest in the declaration process derived, in part, from the
increased cost in emergency spending — a recurring subject for the appropriations
committees when considering supplemental spending legislation. One review of
disaster funding, particularly supplemental appropriations, found that the great
majority of Disaster Relief Fund spending is related to the large, catastrophic events
that meet the criteria established in the Stafford Act. These supplementals have been
“driven” by the urgency of large natural disasters. As one witness explained in
congressional testimony:
Since funds provided in annual appropriations measures may be used to
cover the federal costs of less catastrophic major disasters, Congress has
focused critical attention on “must pass” legislation that would replenish
the Disaster Relief Fund for the worst and most costly disasters.12
A review of data for a seven-year period from 1988 to 1995 reveals that large
expenditures, as funded by supplemental bills, relate to declarations issued for the
largest events.13 During this time period, disaster declarations were made for
Hurricane Hugo, the Loma Prieta earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, the Midwest floods
of 1993, and the Northridge earthquake. 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 200 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.”14
During early 2001, the term “entitlement” was beginning to be used in
describing federal disaster spending by the new Bush Administration. Underlining
this thinking in his first appearance before the Senate Appropriations Committee,
FEMA Director Joe M. Allbaugh explained:
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
11 (...continued)
Disaster Declaration Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures, GAO-01-837, August,
2001, p. 2.
12 U.S. Congress, House Committee on the Budget, Budgetary Treatment of Emergencies,
p. 68, 105th Congress, 2nd. Sess., June 23, 1998 (Washington: GPO, 1998).
13 For more information, see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster
Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding,
by Keith Bea.
14 Ibid.; and Platt, p. 10.

CRS-6
when it would be more appropriate for the state to handle the disaster
itself.15
During the 110th Congress, attention is again being given to the disaster
declaration process and what states and local governments can reasonably expect
from that process. During the early spring of 2007, 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. Following these actions, Chairman Bennie Thompson of the
House Homeland Security Committee scheduled a hearing to review FEMA’s
procedures. 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.16
In order to examine the process and the financial projections of disaster
spending in particular, Congress mandated in P.L. 110-28 that GAO study how
FEMA develops its estimates for supplemental funding that may be needed.17 Report
language detailed these instructions for the review:
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. A recent Government Accountability
Office (GAO) report raised concerns about FEMA's ability to manage its
day-to-day resources and the lack of information on how FEMA's resources
are aligned with its operations. 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.
Such review should include how FEMA makes initial estimates, how
FEMA refines those estimates within the first few months of a disaster, and
how closely FEMA's estimates predict actual costs. The review should also
include additional analysis and recommendations regarding FEMA's ability
15 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Appropriations, Subcommittee on VA, HUD and
Independent Agencies, Departments of Veterans Affairs and Housing and Urban
Development and Independent Agencies Appropriations for Fiscal Year 2002,
107th
Congress, 1st sess., p. 252, at [http:www.access.gpo.gov/congress/senate], visited July 17,
2007.
16 Opening Statement of Rep. Bennie Thompson, in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Homeland Security, Disaster Declarations, Where is FEMA in a Time of Need?, 110th
Congress, 1st. sess., March 15, 2007.
17 P.L. 110-28, 121 Stat. 155.

CRS-7
to manage disaster-related resources in a manner that maximizes effective
execution of its mission.18
The study parameters mandated by Congress are broader than the declaration
process since it speaks to 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 it recognizes 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
provides the initial estimated amount of resources needed that informs that decision.
The Skepticism of Reform. 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 that 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.
One example, now in law, of the desire to reform but not obstruct the
declaration process is in the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act of
October of 2006. That statute creates a new position at FEMA: the Small State and
Rural Advocate.19 One of the principal duties of the advocate is to ensure that the
needs of smaller states and rural communities will be “met in the declaration
process;” the advocate is also directed to “help small states prepare declaration
requests, among other duties.”20
Another example was FEMA’s response to recommendations from GAO’s
1981 report. FEMA drafted regulations in 1986 that would be more certain in their
delineation of state requirements prior to a declaration, reduce overall federal
contributions, and install 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:
18 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, Making Emergency Supplemental
Appropriations for the Fiscal Year ending September 30, 2007 and other purposes,
report
to accompany H.R. 1591
, 110th Cong., 1st sess., March 20, 2007, H.Rept 110-60, p. 211.
19 P.L. 109-295, 689g, 120 Stat. 1453.
20 For more information see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy
Changes After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions,
Keith Bea,
Coordinator, p. 45.

CRS-8
The proposal would have limited the number of future presidential
declarations by establishing a “state deductible” based on a per capita
minimum dollar amount adjusted by the ratio of the state/local price index
to the national index. Of 111declarations 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.21
The FEMA proposal of 20 years ago addressed some problems identified by
students and 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.” In place of
agreeing to the regulatory changes in the formula proposed by FEMA and the
Administration, Congress added the following section to the Stafford Act:
Limitation on the Use of Sliding Scales. Section 320. 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.22
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.
Presidential and Gubernatorial Discretion
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
judgement by the Governor or the President.
The Stafford Act stipulates several procedural actions a governor must take
prior to requesting federal disaster assistance (including the execution within the state
of the state emergency plan and an agreement to accept cost-share provisions and
related information-sharing). Still, the process leaves broad discretion with the
governor if he or she determines that a situation is “beyond the capabilities of the
state.” The concession that a state can no longer respond on its own is difficult to
quantify. It is the governor who makes that assessment, based on his or her
knowledge of state resources and capabilities.
Actions by a governor are a driving constant in this process. Both declarations
of major disaster and declarations of emergency must be triggered by a request to the
21 U.S. Congress, House Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, The Federal
Emergency Management Agency’s Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations,
100th Cong., 1st
sess. (Washington: GPO, 1987), pp. 3-5.
22 42 U.S.C. 5163

CRS-9
President from the Governor of the affected state.23 The President cannot issue either
an emergency or a major disaster declaration without a gubernatorial request. 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.”24
The importance of governors in the process is not lost on, nor would it likely
be diminished by, Presidents who formerly served in that position. 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.25
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.26
Congress also has among its number former governor’s 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 recent
hearings that have focused on how the disaster declaration process works in practice.
In the declaration process, FEMA develops a recommendation that is sent to
the White House for action. However, as implied, it is a recommendation from
FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The final action, as
defined in the regulations of the process, is a “Presidential determination.”27 Just as
the governor retains the discretion to request federal assistance regardless of
23 For more information, see CRS Report RL33090, Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act: Legal Requirements for Federal and State Roles in Declarations
of an Emergency or a Major Disaster,
by Elizabeth B. Bazan, p. 1.
24 42 U.S.C. §5191.
25 President Carter (Georgia), President Reagan (California), President Clinton (Arkansas),
and President George W. Bush (Texas).
26 Ibid.; and Platt, p. 20.
27 CFR 44 § 206.38.

CRS-10
thresholds or indicators, the President retains the discretion to make a decision that
may be counter to recommendations he receives
Preliminary Damage Assessments
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.
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.”28 The
most “preliminary” part of a PDA may be an abbreviated one completed only by the
state to determine if the situation merits development of a complete PDA with
federal participation. 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.29
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. A denial of their request could be perceived by some to reflect
adversely on their decision-making skills and judgment under pressure. Unlike the
procedures of the federal process, a governor’s decision to request a declaration is a
public and often newsworthy action.
Regardless of any question regarding motivation, the governor’s first decision
is whether the incident is severe enough to assemble a traditional PDA team to
survey the damaged area. The traditional PDA team includes a state official,
representatives from the appropriate FEMA regional office, a local official familiar
with the area and, in some instances, representatives from the American Red Cross
28 CFR 44 § 206.33.
29 Richard Sylves, Quick Response Report #86: The Politics and Administration of
Presidential Disaster Declarations: The California Floods of Winter 1995,”
at
[http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/qr86.html], p. 5, visited July 17, 2007.

CRS-11
and/or the Small Business Administration. 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.30
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.31 Also, given the variables among regions
in interpreting policy and guidance, consistency of approach may also be a question.
This became a significant issue during the hurricane season of 2004 in Florida, where
questions were raised regarding the designations of some counties.32
When working openly and with federal and state cooperation, the PDA can
be an effective and inclusive process. As Washington State emergency management
director Jim Mullen, and FEMA Region X Director Susan Reinertson, explained the
process for a survey of flood damage in November of 2006:
“Joint PDA teams will visit and inspect damaged areas, document damage
and talk, as needed, with homeowners and local officials,” said Mullen.
“It’s a partnership effort designed to provide a clear picture of the extent
and locations of damage in counties that have reported the most substantial
damage to primary homes andbusinesses.
“The PDA teams look at the total scope of damage to establish if recovery
is beyond the capabilities and resources of the state and local governments.
The PDA doesn’t determine the total cost of recovery, nor does it guarantee
a presidential declaration for individual assistance,” said FEMA Regional
Director Susan Reinertson.33
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. Also the geographic span of
the damage can create complications as the PDA team struggles to cover all of the
30 44 CFR §206.33(c).
31 FEMA has 10 regional offices: Region 1 (Boston, MA), Region 2 (NY), Region 3
(Philadelphia, PA), Region 4 (Atlanta, GA), Region 5 (Chicago, IL), Region 6 (Denton,
TX), Region 7 (Kansas City, MO), Region 8 (Denver, CO), Region 9 (Oakland, CA), and
Region 10 (Bothell, WA).
32 Sally Kestin and Megan O’Matz, “FEMA ruled on disaster before verifying Dade
damage,” South Florida Sun-Sentinel, at [http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-
fema15may15,0,6848867.story?coll=sfla-news-utilities], visited July 25, 2007.
33 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Joint
State-Federal Preliminary Damage Assessment Teams Visit Flood-Damaged Communities,”
R e l e a s e N u m b e r R 1 0 - 0 6 - 0 4 7 , N o v e m b e r 1 3 , 2 0 0 6 , a t
[http://www.fema.gov/news/newsrelease.fema?id=31509], visited July 17, 2007.

CRS-12
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) are included
in the Governor’s request.
While PDAs are the usual way damages are assessed, there are exceptions to
this rule. Some incidents are so massive in their scale and impact that the actual
declaration is not in doubt. This would include events such as Hurricanes Andrew
and Katrina, the Loma Prieta and Northridge earthquakes, the Mount St. Helens
volcanic eruption, and the September 11 terrorist attacks. In these instances, the
decision is not whether a declaration will be made, but how broad the coverage will
be, both geographic and programmatic. In such cases the President, in accordance
with the regulations, can waive the PDA requirement. But as the regulations note,
a PDA may still be needed “to determine unmet needs for managerial response
purposes.”34 This means the PDA helps to identify a specific, potential need for
certain programs, such as crisis counseling or disaster unemployment assistance
during the disaster recovery period. It is this identification of discrete need that helps
the Governor decide on which assistance programs will be requested.
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.35
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.
34 44 CFR 206.33(d).
35 Ibid.; and Sylves, p. 5.

CRS-13
Factors Considered for Public Assistance in Major Disaster
Declarations

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.) but also
includes debris removal and emergency protective measures which cover additional
costs for local public safety groups incurred by their actions in responding to the
disaster.36 In assessing the degree of PA damage, FEMA considers six general areas:
! Estimated cost of the assistance
! Localized impacts
! Insurance coverage
! Hazard mitigation
! Recent multiple disasters
! Programs of other federal assistance.
Estimated Cost of the Assistance. 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 320 of
the Stafford Act. However, that section does state that a formula cannot be “solely”
determinative of the fate of a Governor’s request. Use of the other factors listed
arguably justify FEMA’s consideration of the threshold figure of $1 million in PA
damage — the first number FEMA expects to see in a request that includes PA as an
area of needed assistance. In addition FEMA also considers a state-wide threshold
of $1.22 per capita before it will approve a request for PA help.37
Depending on the state’s population, the per capita threshold may be difficult
to reach. For example, the 2000 Census estimated California’s population at just
under 34 million people.38 Applying the $1.22 per capita figure, it would require
eligible PA damage in California to be close to $41.5 million. 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 ...”39
36 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
P r e s i d e n t i a l Decl arat i ons: What Does Thi s M e a n f o r M e ? , a t
[http://www.fema.gov/media/archives/2007/010807b.shtm], visited August 3, 2007.
37 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“Notice of Adjustment of Statewide Per Capita Impact Indicator,” 71 Federal Register,
59514, October 10, 2006.
3 8 U . S . C e n s u s B u r e a u , S t a t e & C o u n t y Q u i c k F a c t s , a t
[http://quickfacts.census.gov/gfd/states/06000.html], visited on August 4, 2007.
39 42 U.S.C. §5170.

CRS-14
Compare that level of eligible damage for California ($41.5 million) with
Nevada, a small population state according to FEMA regulations.40 For Nevada, with
a population of just under 2 million people according to the 2000 Census, eligible PA
damage of about $2.4 million would make the state potentially eligible for
supplemental federal assistance.
There are obvious differences in the populations of these two states; however
both have substantial industries and are growing areas. They are bordering states that
are both subject to the threat of earthquake damage.41 Different measurements have
been suggested to try to more accurately capture a state’s capacity to respond to
disaster events. Some of these measurements are discussed in the Congressional
Considerations section of this report.
Localized Impacts. The next factor used by FEMA to consider a
declaration that may include PA help focuses on localized impacts. FEMA generally
looks for a minimum of $3.05 per capita in infrastructure damage in a county before
designating it for PA funding.42 While such a per capita amount would likely ensure
that the local entity (almost always a county) would be included in the list of
jurisdictions designated for PA assistance should a declaration be issued, high local
levels of damage per capita would not supersede a finding that damages state-wide
fell below the state-wide threshold amount. However, knowledge of a very large
localized impact could weigh on the President’s discretion and raise the importance
of the localized impact factor.
Insurance Coverage. Insurance coverage also is considered in assessing
damage. Officials preparing PA estimates deduct the amount of insurance that
should have been held by units of governments and non-profit organizations from the
total eligible damage amount. However, this is a complicated assessment with
several caveats. A considerable number of states and local governments “self-insure”
their investments against some types of disasters and may argue that they would have
total liability absent a federal disaster declaration.43 Also, in the event of some
disasters (earthquakes being a prime example), the state insurance commissioner
must certify that hazard insurance is both available and affordable. If it is not
available, deducting an amount of coverage not realistically available would not be
a practical consideration.44
40 44 CFR § 206.48.
41 U.S. Geological Survey, Earthquake Hazards Program, “Earthquake Density Maps for the
United States”, at [http://earthquake.usgs.gov/regional/states/us_density.php], visited on
August 13, 2007.
42 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
“Notice of Adjustment of Countywide Per Capita Impact Indicator,” 71 Federal Register,
59513, October 10, 2006.
43 For information on public insurance coverage, see “Cost of Risk Survey” conducted by
the Public Entity Risk Institute (PERI) at [www.riskinstitute.org], visited July 26, 2007.
44 44 CFR §206.253.

CRS-15
In the case of a flood event, it is much simpler for FEMA to access
information available on whether flood insurance was available, given that FEMA
administers the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) and there are program staff
in each FEMA region who monitor NFIP participation. This knowledge of flood
insurance availability and costs makes it a simpler process for FEMA to deduct the
amount of flood insurance that should have been in place from the total potential
award for a public structure.45
Hazard Mitigation. Hazard mitigation presents a challenging and different
type of consideration for Public Assistance disaster declaration requests. If the
requesting state can prove that their per capita amount of infrastructure damage falls
short due to mitigation measures that lessened the disaster’s impact, FEMA will
consider that favorably in its recommendation to the President. Calculations of
savings would be dependant on cost-benefit analysis and other related estimates of
damages that were avoided. This factor is intended to encourage mitigation projects
by states to lessen the risks of future natural disasters. Some might consider this
practice to be one where “a good deed should go unpunished.” However, another
factor to be considered is that the mitigation work that is credited to the state may,
in fact, have been principally financed (up to 75% of the costs) with previous FEMA
disaster assistance funding through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP).46
Recent Multiple Disasters. Recent multiple disasters is the factor FEMA
considers when a state has been repeatedly hit by disaster events (either presidential
declarations or events within the state that were not declared) within the previous
twelve months. FEMA evaluates the amount of funds that the state has committed
to these recent events and their impact on the state and its residents. For example,
a request from a state that has responded on it own to a series of tornadoes may
receive a more favorable consideration, even if the catalyst for the request was
arguably not as destructive as others. This factor was used recently in FEMA’s
assessment of the multiple hurricanes that struck Florida during the 2004 hurricane
season.
Other Federal Programs. When FEMA is reviewing a governor’s request
it is also considering whether other federal programs are available. One example
might be if a large amount of the reported damage occurred to Federal-aid-system
roads. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is a more appropriate agency
to handle such an event, and administers programs that address this specific type of
damage.47 The bridge collapse in Minnesota is a dramatic example of this type of
event that would warrant significant, non-FEMA, federal aid. Similarly, other federal
programs may be more responsive to certain types of natural events and the problems
they create. For example, oceanic bacteria could cause harmful failures for the
fishing and hatcheries industry. Should such outbreaks occur, the Magnuson-Stevens
45 44 CFR §206.252.
46 42 U.S.C. § 5170c.
47 For more information see CRS Report RS22268, Repairing and Reconstructing Disaster-
Damaged Roads and Bridges: The Role of Federal Aid Highway Assistance,
by Robert S.
Kirk.

CRS-16
Fisheries Act (P.L. 94-265) authorizes programs under the Commerce Department
that would have more appropriate forms of emergency assistance for commercial
fishermen than FEMA through the Stafford Act. Also, while drought is a type of
disaster that could result in a major disaster, such catastrophes usually result in
program assistance from the U.S. Department of Agriculture rather than presidential
declarations.48
In summary, all of these factors are used by FEMA to determine whether a
major disaster declaration will be recommended and whether PA aid will be extended
as a part of that potential declaration. FEMA’s assistance to a homeowner who
chooses not to purchase insurance is left with help from FEMA that is capped at
$28,200. The assistance to repair public infrastructure is based on the amount of
eligible damage caused by the disaster event. There is no cap and the sums can be
in the billions of dollars.
Factors Considered for Individual Assistance in Major
Disaster Declarations

Individual Assistance (IA) includes various forms of help for families and
individuals following a disaster event. The assistance authorized by the Stafford Act
can include housing assistance, disaster unemployment assistance, crisis counseling
and other programs intended to address the needs of people. In seeking to assess the
impact of a disaster on families and individuals, the factors FEMA considers include:
! Concentration of damages
! Trauma
! Special populations
! Voluntary agency assistance
! Insurance
! Average amount of individual assistance by state.
Concentration of Damages. Concentration of damages looks at the
density of the damage in individual communities. FEMA’s regulations state that
highly concentrated damages “generally indicate a greater need for federal assistance
than widespread and scattered damages throughout a state.”49 Concentrated damages
are far more visible and may be an indication of significant damage to infrastructure
supporting neighborhoods and communities, thereby increasing the needs of
individuals and families.
However, the dispersion of damage is not necessarily an indication that
individual and family needs are non-existent. Damage in rural states, almost by
definition, is far less concentrated and could arguably be more difficult for a PDA
48 For more information see, CRS Report RS21212, Agricultural Disaster Assistance, by
Ralph Chite.
49 44 CFR §206.48(b)(1)

CRS-17
team to view and assess. Congress has sought to address this challenge through the
creation of the Rural and Small State advocate position at FEMA.50
Trauma. Trauma is defined in three ways in FEMA’s regulations: the loss
of life and injuries, the disruption of normal community functions, and emergency
needs that could include an extended loss of power or water.51
Despite their prominence and importance to victims, families and
communities, the loss of life and injuries have relatively little bearing on a
declaration decision, but they would greatly influence media coverage that can
influence the decision-making process.
An extreme amount of losses would be traumatic and considered in the
evaluation of the Governor’s request. But the actual help available from FEMA in
response to such losses is limited. The Other Needs Assistance (ONA) program, a
part of the Individuals and Households Program (IHP), may provide assistance for
uninsured funeral expenses and medical help.52
As noted, the extreme loss of life or many injuries will likely influence the
amount of media coverage for the event. As previously explained in the “Presidential
and Gubernatorial Discretion” section of this report, the media coverage can
influence not merely the pace of the decision, but the actual decision itself.53
The other areas (disruption of functions and loss of utilities) in the trauma
rubric can be a point of dispute in declaration decisions. What constitutes a
disruption of normal community functions? Do road closures that result in the
closing of schools equate to a disruption? Another consideration is how long the
disruption remains and how, or even if, federal help can alleviate the disruption.
Similarly, the emergency needs due to the loss of utilities are defined by the length
of time the power or water are not in service. Because characteristics of these factors
are not defined in regulations, discretionary judgments are significant aspects of the
evaluation of IA needs.
Special Populations. Special populations are considered by FEMA in
assessing a request for individual assistance. FEMA attempts to ascertain
information about the demographics of an area affected by a disaster event. Those
demographics include the age and income of residents, the amount of home
ownership in an area, the affect on Native American tribal groups, and other related
considerations to be taken into account. The knowledge of the demographics within
the affected area gives FEMA added information to consider regarding trauma and
community disruption. Special populations are a factor in the consideration of a
50 P.L. 109-295, §689g, 120 Stat. 1453.
51 44 CFR §206.48(b)(2)
52 42 U.S.C. § 5174.
53 Richard Sylves, Quick Response Report #86: The Politics and Administration of
Presidential Disaster Declarations: The California Floods of Winter 1995,”
at
[http://www.colorado.edu/hazards/research/qr/qr86.html], p. 3, visited July 17, 2007.

CRS-18
governor’s request, but the total number of households affected that would be eligible
for Stafford Act programs remains the prime consideration.
Voluntary Agency Assistance. Voluntary agency assistance involves
an evaluation of what the volunteer and charitable groups and state and local
governments have already done to assist disaster victims as well as the potential help
they can offer in the recovery period. FEMA also considers whether state or local
programs “can meet the needs of disaster victims.”54 This factor is among the most
contentious in the disaster declaration process due to the subjectivity of the
assessment.
FEMA’s evaluation of local and state capabilities, and the capabilities of the
local voluntary community, may vary greatly among catastrophes. There is an
expectation that the regional office’s relationship and history with the state could
provide some of this information. But a cursory look at state programs available to
“meet the needs of disaster victims” suggests that few resources are comparable to
federal help in intent or in scope. A National Emergency Management Association
(NEMA) survey of its members for state-funded disaster assistance showed that
relatively few states provide assistance beyond that authorized in the Stafford Act.
Table 1 summarizes data from that survey.
Table 1. Types of State-Funded Disaster Assistance
Assistance provided
Number of states with these programs
Public Assistance Program
21
Individual Assistance Program
8
Unmet Need Program
5
Other
17
Source: NEMA 2006 Biennial Report: Organizations & Funding for State Emergency Management
& Homeland Security (Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments) p. 17.
NEMA noted that the “other” category could include a range of programs or
funds not necessarily of direct aid to victims, including “local government loans,
HAZMAT (hazardous materials) funds, disaster unemployment insurance, and a
governor’s contingency fund.”55 The report does not define these programs any
further, but the small numbers of programs directed at IA or unmet needs suggests
54 44 CFR §206.48 (b) (4)
55 National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) 2006 Biennial Report:
Organizations & Funding for State Emergency Management & Homeland Security,
(Lexington, KY: Council of State Governments). p. 17.

CRS-19
that FEMA officials evaluate this area carefully given the lack of information
regarding available resources for these programs and the extent of their coverage.56
In the same vein, attempts to assess the capacity of local voluntary and
charitable groups to handle “unmet needs” caused by a disaster can be challenging
and problematic. Part of the challenge is discerning the assistance available from the
non-profit, voluntary sector, and if that aid meets the needs created by the disaster
event. A problematic aspect of the assessment is similar to the “good deeds” concept
addressed in the “hazard mitigation” factor in PA. In that instance, the criteria
reward the mitigation work that communities and states had undertaken to lessen the
impact of a disaster. Similarly, a strong and efficient charitable sector at the local
level that is equipped and funded to address the remaining needs could result in a
disaster not being declared and federal supplemental funding not being made
available.

Arguably, a community does not base all of its preparedness decisions on the
potential of FEMA funding in an extraordinary situation. However, it has been
argued that some aspects of the FEMA declaration process could be viewed as
disincentives for a sound, local capacity to deliver such assistance. One analyst
believed that this problem underlines the need for clear criteria for smaller disaster
events:
Too low a threshold reinforces the perception that the federal government
will always come like the cavalry to rescue states and local governments
from their improvident failure to prepare for routine disasters. Lapses in
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation (to cite the disaster
management litany) should not be encouraged by a too readily available
bailout by the federal government and taxpayers.57
In evaluating the capabilities of local organizations, FEMA seeks to determine the
help that actually exists, rather than assistance that might be expected to be in place.

Insurance Coverage. As noted earlier in the PA section, insurance
coverage is also an important consideration when FEMA considers a request for
Individual Assistance. This is in part derived from the general prohibition in the
statute of the duplication of benefits, as follows:
....each federal agency administering any program providing financial
assistance to persons, business concerns, or other entities suffering losses
as a result of a major disaster or emergency, shall assure that no such
person, business concern or other entity will receive such assistance with
56 For more information on state assistance programs, refer to the following for summary
information on state statutory authorities: CRS Report RL32287, Emergency Management
and Homeland Security Statutory Authorities in the States, District of Columbia, and Insular
Areas: A Summary,
by Keith Bea, L.Cheryl Runyon, and Kae M. Warnock.
57 Ibid.; and Platt, p. 65.

CRS-20
respect to any part of such loss as to which he has received financial
assistance under any other program or from insurance or any other source.58
This provision does not necessarily result in delayed assistance. FEMA is
able to provide help to individuals and households that have disaster damages but are
waiting on insurance or other assistance for help. Those applicants can receive
FEMA help as long as they agree to reimburse FEMA when they receive their other
assistance. If a disaster occurred where almost all of the damaged dwellings were
fully insured for the damage that was sustained, FEMA could conclude that a disaster
declaration by the President was not necessary. Among the types of disasters FEMA
frequently responds to, tornado disasters particularly reflect this challenge since
tornado coverage is a part of most homeowners insurance policies.
Since the NFIP is administered by FEMA, officials can quickly determine the
status of flood insurance in communities and the number of policies in place in the
affected area. Additionally, knowledge of the income of the area’s residents, as
suggested in the special populations factor, allows the agency to make some
projections regarding the likelihood of insurance coverage, particularly special hazard
insurance such as flood or earthquake insurance, which are potentially expensive
additions to a homeowners policy. As one analyst has noted:
The decision not to buy insurance for earthquakes, floods, hurricanes and
other natural disasters isn’t always conscious: some homeowners don’t
realize they’re not already covered. But many others, faced with high
premiums and policies with limited coverage, gamble that they won’t need
insurance help to rebuild after a disaster.59
Average Amount of Individual Assistance by State. The last factor
FEMA considers in assessing IA needs is the average amount of individual
assistance by state.
FEMA has issued statistics on average losses but notes that the
average numbers used are not a threshold (see Table 2). The agency does suggest
that the “following averages may prove useful to states and voluntary agencies as
they develop plans and programs to meet the needs of disaster victims.” The
inference is that the levels listed generally are what would be expected in damage to
dwellings.
The average numbers that follow are based on disasters that occurred
between July of 1995 and July of 1999; the data are eight years old and of
questionable use today. The chart divides states into three categories: small states
(under 2 million in population), medium states (2 to 10 million in population) and
large states (over 10 million in population). The population amounts are based on the
1990 Census.
58 42 U.S.C. §5155.
59 Liz Pulliam Weston, “Do You Really Need Disaster Insurance?,” MSN Money, at [http:
moneycentral.msn.com/content/Insurance/Insureyourhome/P59648.hsp?Printer], visited July
20, 2007.

CRS-21
Table 2. Average Amount of Federal Assistance Per Disaster
Based on Size of State, July 1995 - July 1999
Small States
Medium States
Large States
<2 million
2-10 million
>10 million
Categories
population
population
population
Avg. population (1990 Census
Data)
1,000,057
4,713,548
15,552,791
Number of disaster housing
applications approved
1,507
2,747
4,679
Number of homes est. major
damage/destroyed
173
582
801
Dollar amount of housing
assistance
$2.8 million
$4.6 million
$9.5 million
Number of Individual and
Family Grants (IFG) approved
(Now known as ONA)
495
1,377
2,071
Dollar amount of IFG assistance
(now ONA)
$1.1 million
$2.9 million
$4.6 million
Disaster housing/IFG (ONA)
combined assistance
$3.9 million
$7.5 million
$ 14.1 million
Source: 44 CFR §206.48(b) (6).
While FEMA’s regulations stress that these are not thresholds, they are
considered by agency officials in determining whether IA will be provided.
Presumably states may consider that FEMA help could be forthcoming if damage
reaches the state indicator levels. However, since the amounts have not been updated
in eight years and are based on a 1990 census, it is difficult to determine the degree
to which these numbers are considered. Given Congress’ mandate in Section 320 of
the Stafford Act, this cannot be an arithmetic formula that solely determines whether
assistance is provided. But the presentation of loss indicators does appear to guide
states when considering whether to request assistance.
In addition to the issue of the data’s currency, a larger and more compelling
question is whether the numbers in the chart match up to the Preliminary Damage
Assessments (PDAs) for those events. Absent an existing review of detailed
information in PDA forms, it is not possible to determine the usefulness of the data
in Table 2. Still, given the level of experience in this field following literally
thousands of disaster declarations over the last 30 years, it could be argued that the
numbers of eligible households assisted may be reflective of the estimated damage
upon which the decision for a disaster declaration was made. The congressionally
mandated GAO report concerning how FEMA develops its estimate of the funds
needed to respond to a disaster may provide answers to some of these remaining

CRS-22
questions regarding the accuracy of FEMA assessments when compared to actual
spending for disasters.
Congressional Considerations for the Declaration Process
When Congress considers the mandated GAO reports and other commentary
on the declaration process, there are some considerations that Members may wish to
review when considering the current declaration process.
The Composition of Preliminary Damage Assessment Teams.
One area of consideration is the composition of Preliminary Damage Assessment
teams. Team members are involved throughout the process and include local
officials guiding the team, state personnel who assist the Governor in requesting
assistance, and FEMA staff who work on the disaster if one is declared. While
FEMA staff have the opportunity at several levels to refine the information the team
gathers on damages and to ask additional questions, the process could be approached
in other ways. Some FEMA staff have suggested the formation of several permanent
teams that would have PDAs as their prime job task without continuing involvement
in particular disasters. This could result in more consistent assessments with the
bonus of added perspective of team members with exposure to various disasters in
many regions of the country. Establishing independent and expert on-site groups to
review a situation is a recommendation that the National Transportation Safety Board
(NTSB) has been contemplating in their investigations of transportation accidents.60
The PDA is an important part of the declaration process. While it can be
subject to challenge, it is also the assessment closest to the event. Given its vital role
in the process the PDA deserves close attention to determine if these on-site
assessments are accurately reflecting the character of an event and the likely eligible
damages following a disaster event.
Updating and Revising Individual Assistance Averages. As
previously noted, the averages that appear in FEMA’s declaration process regulations
for Individual Assistance (IA) to states are derived from experiences from July 1995
to July 1999.61 These figures could be updated based on FEMA’s more recent
experience in delivering this type of assistance.
While the averages are separated by state population size, there does not
appear to be a threshold number equivalent to the PA figure of $1 million in eligible
damage. In the case of IA help, a dollar figure may not be desirable; however
numbers of families and households affected, or a minimum number of homes with
major damage, could potentially be a starting point in establishing a base IA
threshold for consideration of requests.
60 For more information, see CRS Report RL33474, Reauthorization of the National
Transportation Safety Board,
by Bart Elias, p. 17.
61 44 CFR § 206.48.

CRS-23
Other Potential Disaster Indicators. The current per capita indicator
based on state population according to the U.S. Census is clear but some observers
believe it lacks precision. For example, the earlier discussion on PA indicators
pointed out the commonality between California and Nevada regarding earthquake
risk as well as the growth of the states. Their population sizes are very different but
the per capita indicator alone does not necessarily measure a state’s fiscal capacity.
The GAO report in 2001 noted that per capita personal income measures do
not take into account the taxable income a state may enjoy from businesses or
corporations that may have considerable taxable profits. GAO did suggest a different
indicator:
We have previously reported that Total Taxable Resources (TTR), a
measure developed by the U.S. Department of Treasury, is a better measure
of state funding capacity in that it provides a more comprehensive measure
of the resources that are potentially subject to state taxation.62
FEMA’s response to this suggestion questioned whether the use of TTR
would be in violation of the legislative prohibition against arithmetic formulas.63 The
TTR does have very specific information and also tracks growth within a state.
However, this appears to make it a more accurate measurement. The degree of detail
in the measurement would not necessarily make it the “sole” determinant of disaster
aid. It could remain an indicator and one among several factors to be considered in
the declaration process.
Concluding Observations
The disaster declaration process, though subject to inquiry, argument,
hearings, studies and recommendations, has changed very little over time. It remains
a process that can be observed and evaluated as it occurs in the area affected by the
disaster, and grows opaque as it moves up through layers of FEMA and DHS
management to the White House. Congress has demonstrated an interest in this
process and has sought to understand its limits and its effectiveness. “From the
Government Accountability Office in 1981 to Vice President Gore’s National
Performance Review in 1994,” one student of the process noted, “countless policy
critiques have called for more objective criteria for presidential disaster
declarations.”64 But those calls can be muted when a disaster occurs in a particular
place that has particular importance to actors in the process, whether in Congress or
the Executive Branch.
While criteria have been established to create a relatively uniform and
knowable process, these criteria may not be determinative of the most critical
elements considered. An emphasis on victims of unexpected natural disaster events
62 U.S. Government Accountability Office, DISASTER ASSISTANCE: Improvement Needed
in Disaster Declaration Criteria and Eligibility Assurance Procedures,
GAO-01-837,
August 2001, p.11.
63 Ibid, p.49.
64 Ibid.; and Platt, p. 285.

CRS-24
will likely always have a compelling influence on the disaster declaration process.
But since disaster relief does have a political element, at many levels, precedent
arguably can have value in improving the declaration process so that it can be applied
broadly and fairly. But precedent can also be problematic when discussing events of
very different size and impact.
During the 110th Congress, attention is being directed to the nature of the
disaster declaration process. Congress may choose to consider a broad review of the
process that might include the consistency of FEMA’s approach across the nation in
making damage assessments, other potential indicators of state capabilities and
capacities, and the currency of the factors it employs to evaluate those assessments
of disaster damage and the state requests on which they are based.