Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends
and Analyses, and Implications for Congress

Bruce R. Lindsay
Analyst in American National Government
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
August 31, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
R42702
CRS Report for Congress
Pr
epared for Members and Committees of Congress

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Summary
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act authorizes the President to
issue declarations that provide states and localities with a range of federal assistance in response
to natural and man-made incidents. Since 1953 the number of declarations issued each year has
steadily increased. For example, the average number of major disaster declarations issued from
1960 to 1969 was roughly 18 per year. In contrast, the average number of major disaster
declarations issued from 2000 to 2009 was 56 per year. The highest number was declared in 2011,
with 99 major disaster declarations.
Declarations are of congressional concern for at least two reasons: (1) scrutiny of the budget has
led to an awareness of expenditures for disaster assistance, and (2) some are skeptical that
declarations are solely made to provide disaster relief. They argue that declarations have become
political tools—especially during election years—to gain political favor. Advocates of this
position point to incidents which, in their view, could have been handled without federal
assistance.
This report describes the declaration process and the types of declarations that can be declared
under the Stafford Act: (1) Fire Management Assistance Grants, (2) emergencies, and (3) major
disasters.
The discussion is followed by an analysis of each type of declaration that has been issued, and
denied from 1953 to 2011. The analysis concludes that:
• from 1953 to 2011 major disaster declarations averaged roughly 35 per year.
However, the number of declarations being issued each decade has been
increasing, particularly in last two decades. From 1990 to 1999 there was an
average of 46 major disasters declared each year, and from 2000 to 2009, there
was an average of 64 per year;
• from 1974 to 2011 there has been an average of 8.4 emergency declarations
issued each year. Emergency declarations have also increased in the past two
decades. From 1990 to 1999 there was an average of 6 emergency declarations
issued each year, and from 2000 to 2009, there was an average of 15 issued per
year;
• from 1970 to 2011 the average number of Fire Management Assistance Grants
issued was 19. From 1990 to 1999 the average issued each year was 21. This
average grew over the next decade to 54;
• most disaster declarations are for flooding, storms, hurricanes, and winter storms;
• most emergency declarations are for snow related events, followed by hurricanes,
droughts, and fires;
• there is a slight increase in the number of declarations issued in presidential
election years, but the number is not significant enough to draw a decisive
conclusion regarding their use as a political tool.
The analysis is followed by a discussion concerning the possible causes for the increase,
including federal policy changes, increases in severe weather incidents, population growth, and
development.
Congressional Research Service

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Some may contend that declarations should not be changed because they trigger important federal
assistance to states and localities. Others may argue that policy mechanisms should be
implemented to reduce either the number of declarations being issued each year, or the amount of
federal assistance that they provide, or both. These policy mechanisms include:
• implementing certain amendments to the Stafford Act;
• changing the per capita threshold formula used to recommend the issuance of a
declaration;
• implementing a state capacity indicator to assess whether the state is capable of
addressing an incident on its own;
• implementing an expert panel to assess whether an incident warrants a
declaration;
• substituting federal loans to states for recovery for grants; and
• adjusting the federal to state cost share.
This report concludes that such changes could reduce federal spending on disaster assistance and
shift a portion of the funding back to the states. On the other hand, limiting federal disaster
assistance could hamper the ability of states and localities to adequately recover from an incident
and create long-term consequences.
This report will be updated as events warrant.
Congressional Research Service

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Contents
Introduction...................................................................................................................................... 1
Brief Overview of Declarations....................................................................................................... 2
Declaration Categories and the Declaration Process ................................................................. 2
Analysis of Declaration Data........................................................................................................... 3
Fire Management Assistance Grant Declarations...................................................................... 3
Emergency Declarations............................................................................................................ 5
Emergency Declaration Turndowns .................................................................................... 6
Emergency Declarations by State and Type ........................................................................ 7
Major Disaster Declarations ...................................................................................................... 8
Major Disaster Declaration Turndowns .............................................................................. 9
Major Disaster Declarations by State and Type ................................................................ 10
Possible Explanations for the Increase in Declarations ................................................................. 10
Increased Weather-Related Incidents....................................................................................... 11
Increases in Population and Development............................................................................... 12
Policy Changes and Political Considerations .......................................................................... 13
Evolution of Federal Disaster Policy................................................................................. 13
Changes in FEMA Policy.................................................................................................. 14
Possible Election-Year Influence on Major Disaster and Emergency Declarations.......... 17
Changes in State Policies and Circumstances ......................................................................... 20
State Budget Gaps ............................................................................................................. 21
The Learning Curve of Declarations................................................................................. 21
The Professionalization of Emergency Management........................................................ 21
Potential Methods for Controlling Declarations and Their Cost ................................................... 22
Rationale for Keeping the Declaration Process the Same ....................................................... 22
Limiting the Number of Declarations Being Issued................................................................ 23
Changing Emergency and Disaster Definitions in the Stafford Act .................................. 23
Changing the Per Capita Formula ..................................................................................... 23
The Use of State Capacity Indicators ................................................................................ 24
Expert Panels..................................................................................................................... 24
Emergency Loans.............................................................................................................. 25
Changes to the Stafford Act............................................................................................... 25
Reducing the Amount of Assistance Provided through Declarations...................................... 26
Adjust the State Cost Share............................................................................................... 26
Disaster Loans................................................................................................................... 27
Concluding Observations............................................................................................................... 27

Figures
Figure 1. Fire Management Assistance Grants ................................................................................ 4
Figure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State .................................................................. 5
Figure 3. Emergency Declarations................................................................................................... 7
Figure 4. Emergency Declarations by State and Type ..................................................................... 8
Figure 5. Major Disaster Declarations............................................................................................. 9
Congressional Research Service

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 6. Major Disaster Declarations by State and Type ............................................................. 10
Figure 7. Weather Incidents and Emergency and Major Disaster Declarations: A
Comparison................................................................................................................................. 12
Figure 8. Possible Influence of Elections on Major Disaster and Emergency Declarations.......... 18

Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 28
Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... 28

Congressional Research Service

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Introduction
When a state is overwhelmed by an emergency or major disaster, the governor may request
assistance from the federal government.1 In general, when a request is submitted, representatives
from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) meet with the state and compile a
Preliminary Damage Report (PDA). FEMA then makes a recommendation to the President
whether a declaration should be issued. The President has the authority to make the declaration,
or deny the request.2
Since 1953, the number of declarations issued each year have increased significantly. The average
number of major disaster declarations issued per year in the 1960s (the first full decade for
declarations) was roughly 19. In contrast, from 2000 to 2009 the average number of declarations
issued per year was 56. Calendar year 2011 was the busiest year on record with 99 major disaster
declarations.3
Congressional concern over the rising number of declarations is primarily focused on their
associated costs because once declared, the majority of disaster relief costs (at least 75%) are
shifted from the state to the federal government. Moreover, federal expenditures on disaster relief
are concomitant with declarations because declarations trigger federal disaster relief programs.
Thus, the more disasters are declared, the greater the amount the federal government will spend
on disaster assistance. The current fiscal environment, including concern over the federal deficit,
has heightened congressional interest in the costs of disasters leading to proposals to offset some
portion of disaster assistance spending by implementing budgetary mechanisms that might trigger
a sequestration.4
Critics may argue that thresholds for issuing major disaster declarations are set too low, allowing
too many “marginal incidents” to receive a declaration. The increase in declarations has also led
to a number of related criticisms and questions concerning the declarations process. For example,
are incidents increasing, or is the federal government being more generous in its interpretation of
disaster or emergency criteria? Another point of discussion is the relative capacity of state
governments to respond to disaster events. Some have also argued that the government’s
openness in describing factors considered for declarations has led to a formerly discretionary
program evolving into a form of entitlement when states believe they have met the factors under
consideration.5
This report provides a historical overview of the three categories of declarations, including the
average number of declarations declared and turned down and distribution of the declarations by
incident type and state. This report discusses a wide range of factors that might be contributing to
the increase in declarations, and provides policy options that might reduce the number of
declarations and some of their associated costs.

1 42 U.S.C. §5170.
2 Fire Management Assistance Grants—discussed later in this report—do not need presidential approval to be declared.
3 U.S. Department of Homeland Security/Federal Emergency Management Agency, Declared Disasters by Year of
State,
available at http://www.fema.gov/news/disaster_totals_annual.fema.
4 For further analysis on the sequestration and disaster assistance see CRS Report R42352, An Examination of Federal
Disaster Relief Under the Budget Control Act
, by Bruce R. Lindsay, William L. Painter, and Francis X. McCarthy.
5 44 C.F.R. §206.48.
Congressional Research Service
1

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Brief Overview of Declarations
Prior to 1950, state and local governments in need of federal assistance after a disaster had to wait
until Congress met, debated, and then acted upon their request for disaster assistance. The Federal
Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-875, hereafter the Disaster Relief Act) altered this
arrangement and transferred the authority to provide federal disaster assistance from Congress to
the President. Under the Disaster Relief Act, the President had the authority to decide whether to
provide disaster assistance and which federal agencies would provide that assistance.
The President’s decision to provide federal aid for an incident is known as a “declaration.”6 The
first disaster declaration was issued by President Eisenhower on May 2, 1953, for damages
caused by a tornado in Georgia. Over the years, the Disaster Relief Act has undergone a series of
reforms and amendments, but the President’s authority to issue declarations has been retained.
Today the principal authority governing federal assistance for emergencies and major disasters in
the United States is the Robert T. Stafford Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (P.L. 93-288,
hereafter the Stafford Act).7 Under the Stafford Act, the primary federal agency responsible for
coordinating the federal response is FEMA, located within the Department of Homeland Security
(DHS).8
Declaration Categories and the Declaration Process
The Stafford Act authorizes three types of declarations: (1) Fire Management Assistance Grant
Program declarations (FMAG), (2) emergency declarations, and (3) major disaster declarations.
While emergency and major disaster declarations must be issued by the President, the FEMA
Regional Director, in consultation with FEMA leadership, has the authority to issue FMAG
declarations. A detailed description of each type of declaration is provided in the following
sections of this report.
The Stafford Act stipulates several procedural actions a governor must take prior to requesting
federal disaster assistance. The governor cannot request a declaration unless he or she determines
the event has overwhelmed the state’s resources to such an extent that federal resources are
needed. The gubernatorial request is vital to the declaration process because the President cannot
issue either an emergency or a major disaster declaration, nor can the Regional Director issue a
FMAG without the request. The only exception to this rule is the authority given to the President
to declare an emergency when the President “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.”9 The denial of a gubernatorial
request for federal assistance is referred to as a “turndown.”

6 For more information on emergency and disaster declarations see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster
Declaration Process: A Primer
, by Francis X. McCarthy.
7 42 U.S.C. §5121 et seq. For further analysis on the Stafford Act see CRS Report RL33053, Federal Stafford Act
Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding
, by Francis X. McCarthy.
8 FEMA was incorporated into DHS by the Homeland Security Act. DHS Secretary has re-delegated Stafford Act
authority to the Administrator of FEMA.
9 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5191(b). Examples of these declarations include the April 19, 1995, bombing of the Alfred P.
Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, and the September 11, 2001, attack on the Pentagon.
Congressional Research Service
2

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Analysis of Declaration Data
The following sections of this report analyze declarations by category since 1953. The analysis
includes the number of emergency and major disaster declarations that have been approved and
turned down by the President. The analysis also includes the number of FMAG declarations
issued since 1970 (the first year that the grants were provided); however, turndown data for
FMAG declarations were not available. The analysis also includes a breakdown of declarations
by incident for emergency and major disaster declarations, and by state. The presentation of the
data is based on graduated levels of assistance beginning with FMAG declarations and ending
with major disaster declarations.
Fire Management Assistance Grant Declarations
As mentioned previously, while the President has the sole authority to issue an emergency or
major disaster declaration, the decision to issue a FMAG declaration can be rendered either by the
President or a FEMA Regional Director.10 A FMAG declaration authorizes various forms of
federal assistance, such as equipment, personnel, and grants to any state or local government for
the control, management, and mitigation of any fire on public or private forest land or grassland
that might become a major disaster.11 FMAG declarations do not provide assistance to individuals
and households. One distinguishing feature of FMAG is that they are intended to prevent a fire
from becoming a major disaster.12 An additional unique feature of a FMAG is FEMA’s work with
a “Principal advisor.” This is an:
individual appointed by the Forest Service, United States Department of Agriculture, or
Bureau of Land Management, Department of the Interior, who is responsible for providing
FEMA with a technical assessment of the fire or fire complex for which a state is requesting
a fire management assistance declaration.13
As with major disaster and emergency declarations, FEMA has the authority to assess the
situation, including the state’s efforts, the current state of the fire, and its potential impact.
However, before a FMAG can be granted, the state or territory must meet a cost threshold, either
for that particular fire or for a cumulative state-wide threshold number if the state is requesting
help for numerous fires within the state. The determination of the threshold amounts is based on a
specific formula wherein the individual fire cost threshold for a state is the greater of $100,000 or
a calculation of five percent multiplied by $1.30, multiplied by the state population (5% X 1.30 X
state population). The cumulative fire cost threshold for a state is the greater of the following:
$500,000 or three times the five percent multiplied by $1.30, multiplied by the state population.14
This formula results in a range of qualifying amounts. For example, 16 states and territories
qualify through the minimum of $100,000, while California’s threshold for a single fire is just

10 44 C.F.R. §204.24.
11 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5187(a).
12 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5187(a).
13 44 C.F.R. §204.3.
14 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Fire Management Assistance Grant (FMAG) Program Guide, Draft,
September 2011, p. 24, available at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/fmagp/fmagpgb_draft.pdf. The dollar
amount used for the thresholds are adjusted annually for inflation.
Congressional Research Service
3


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

over $2.2 million.15 As with major disasters and emergency declarations, these costs are shared on
a 75% federal, 25% state and local basis.
As shown in Figure 1, the number of FMAG declarations has increased in recent years, reaching
114 in 2011. This surpassed the previous high of 86 FMAGs in 2006. As mentioned previously,
FMAGS are designed to prevent fires from becoming major disasters. It could be argued that
even though the cost for FMAG declarations may have increased, FMAGs may actually save
federal dollars by reducing the need for a major disaster declaration which would decrease
spending on Stafford Act programs.
As shown in Figure 1, the first FMAG was declared in 1970, and they were rarely issued until the
1990s. The average number of FMAGs declared in the 1970s and the 1980s was about three per
year. During the 1990s, there were about 21 FMAG declarations per year (see inset of Figure 1).
This upward trend continued into the 2000s, with an average of 54 FMAG declarations issued
each year.
Texas has received the most FMAGs (234 declarations) followed by California (120), Oklahoma
(78), Florida (57), and Washington (53) (see Figure 2). Data on FMAG request denials were not
available.
Figure 1. Fire Management Assistance Grants
1970-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.


15 DHS/FEMA, Fire Cost Threshold, available at http://www.fema.gov/government/grant/fmagp/2011_fct.shtm.
Congressional Research Service
4


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 2. Fire Management Assistance Grants by State
1970-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.
Emergency Declarations
Emergency declarations authorize activities that can help states and communities carry out
essential services and activities that might reduce the threat of future damage. Emergency
declarations, however, do not provide assistance for repairs and replacement of public
infrastructure or nonprofit facilities.16 Emergency declarations may be declared before an incident
occurs to save lives and prevent loss. For example, emergency declarations have been declared
prior to a hurricane making landfall to help state and local governments take steps (evacuation
assistance, placement of response resources, etc.) that might lessen the storm’s impact and
prevent a major disaster from occurring.17
The Stafford Act broadly defines an emergency as:
any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, federal assistance
is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect

16 For additional information on the differences between major disaster and emergency declarations, see CRS Report
RL33053, Federal Stafford Act Disaster Assistance: Presidential Declarations, Eligible Activities, and Funding, by
Francis X. McCarthy.
17 Recent examples of pre-event declarations include emergency declarations prior to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and
Gustav making landfall (emergency declarations 3212, 3260, and 3290 respectively).
Congressional Research Service
5

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any
part of the United States.18
As shown in Figure 3, the number of emergency declarations declared each year has varied
tremendously, from many years receiving no declarations, to 2005 which had 68 declarations.
2005 received the highest number of emergency declarations because each state was issued an
emergency declaration to assist with Hurricane Katrina evacuees.
The average number of emergency declarations issued from1974 to 2011 was 8 per year, the
average number of declarations from 2000 to 2009 was 15 (see inset of Figure 3).
Emergency Declaration Turndowns
Denials of gubernatorial requests for emergency declarations have remained fairly static each
decade since Congress provided the President the authority to declare major disasters (See inset
of Figure 3) averaging three per year. There is a slight decrease in denials during presidential
election years, from an average of three per year during nonelection years, to an average of 1.75
during election years.19 Some might argue this is an indication that Presidents are more reluctant
to deny a declaration during an election year. For more discussion on influence of politics on
disaster declarations see section “Possible Election-Year Influence on Major Disaster and
Emergency Declarations.”


18 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5122(1).
19 Data not shown. Based on CRS analysis of turndown data provided by FEMA.
Congressional Research Service
6


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 3. Emergency Declarations
1974-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.
Emergency Declarations by State and Type
As shown in Figure 4, New York has received the most emergency declarations (18), followed by
Maine and Massachusetts (14 each), and New Hampshire and Texas (11).
Congressional Research Service
7


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 4. Emergency Declarations by State and Type
1974-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.
The majority of incidents declared as emergencies are issued for some form of winter storm,
followed by hurricanes and drought (see inset of Figure 4). As mentioned previously, FEMA does
not use specific categories to classify disaster types.
Major Disaster Declarations
The definition for a major disaster is more precise than an emergency declaration, and the range
of assistance available to state and local governments, private, nonprofit organizations, and
families and individuals is broader. Under a major disaster declaration, state and local
governments and certain nonprofit organizations are eligible (if so designated) for assistance for
the repair or restoration of public infrastructure, such as roads and buildings. A major disaster
declaration may also include additional programs beyond temporary housing such as disaster
unemployment assistance and crisis counseling, and other recovery programs, such as community
disaster loans.
While emergencies are defined broadly, the Stafford Act defines a major disaster narrowly as:
Congressional Research Service
8


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

any natural catastrophe (including any hurricane, tornado, storm, high water, wind-driven
water, tidal wave, tsunami, earthquake, volcanic eruption, landslide, mudslide, snowstorm, or
drought), or, regardless of cause, any fire, flood, or explosion, in any part of the United
States, which in the determination of the President causes damage of sufficient severity and
magnitude to warrant major disaster assistance under this chapter to supplement the efforts
and available resources of states, local governments, and disaster relief organizations in
alleviating the damage, loss, hardship, or suffering caused thereby.20
There were, on average, 35 major disaster declarations per year from 1953 to 2011, and on
average, 56 per year from 2000 to 2009 (see Figure 5).
Major Disaster Declaration Turndowns
The President can deny a gubernatorial request for federal disaster assistance (see inset of Figure
5
). The average number of requests for a major disaster declaration denied by the President since
1953 has varied somewhat, from an low of 6.0 per year from 1953 to 1959 to a high of 18.7
during the 1970s. More recently, the number of presidential denials of requests for major disaster
declarations has become more static, averaging 10.8 denials during the 2000s (see inset of Figure
5
).
Figure 5. Major Disaster Declarations
1953-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.

20 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5122(2).
Congressional Research Service
9


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Major Disaster Declarations by State and Type
The majority of incidents declared as major disasters are issued because of some form of
flooding. FEMA does not use specific categories to classify disaster types (see inset of Figure 6).
The states that have received the most major disaster declarations are Texas (86), California (78),
Oklahoma (69), New York (65), and Florida (63) (see Figure 6).
Figure 6. Major Disaster Declarations by State and Type
1953-2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.
Possible Explanations for the Increase in
Declarations

There are a number of factors that might influence the increase in declarations in recent years,
ranging from increases in weather incidents to changes in federal policies. This section reviews
some of these factors.
Congressional Research Service
10

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Increased Weather-Related Incidents
The rise in disaster declarations could be a function of increased severe weather incidents. For
example, according to a report produced by an advisory committee chartered under the Federal
Advisory Committee Act, for the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s Subcommittee on
Global Change Research, there is evidence that there has been an increased frequency and
intensity of heavy downpours.21
Statistical data from 1955-2011 consisting of tornado, hail, and wind events, derived from the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), were compared to emergency and
disaster declarations.22 As demonstrated in Figure 7, the reporting of weather incidents has also
increased since the 1950s. In the 1970s and part of the 1980s, the gap between the number of
declarations and severe weather incidents widened, with more declarations than reported weather
incidents. In the first part of the 1990s the two tracked fairly closely together, but then another
gap occurred, this time with more reported weather incidents than declarations. The disparity in
the data continued in the early part of the 2000s, with more parity the later half of the decade.
To some, the increased number of reported severe weather incidents is evidence that there is a
correspondence between the weather and the issuance of declarations. Others might be skeptical
of the data. For example, it may be argued that the trend shown in Figure 7 could be explained by
improvements in weather tracking technology. As this technology becomes more sophisticated,
more weather incidents are reported. Furthermore, Figure 7 does not provide statistical
information on flooding—the most frequent type of incident to receive declarations—or other
incidents such as snowstorms, hurricanes, and droughts. Some may, therefore, conclude that
further studies are needed to establish the link between historical weather patterns and
declarations.

21 Global Climate Change Impacts in the United States, ed. Karl, Thomas R., Jerry M. Melillo and Thomas C. Peterson,
9, 12, 24, 32-40. ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2009), available at http://library.globalchange.gov/products/
assessments/2009-national-climate-assessment/2009-global-climate-change-impacts-in-the-united-states.
22 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Storm Prediction Center, SVRGIS, Norman, OK, April 11,
2012, available at http://www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/.
Congressional Research Service
11


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 7. Weather Incidents and Emergency and Major Disaster Declarations:
A Comparison
Tornado, Hail, Wind—1955-2011

Source: CRS analysis of declaration data provided by FEMA, and weather data derived from National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration, Storm Prediction Center, SVRGIS, Norman, OK, April 11, 2012, available at
http://www.spc.noaa.gov/gis/svrgis/.
Increases in Population and Development
From 1953 to 2012 the population of the United States almost doubled—from 159.6 million to
314.0 million. It could be argued that population growth has increased the density of existing
communities and spurred development into areas that were previously uninhabited. These areas
may have been previously struck by an incident, but because there were no residents in the area,
there may have been little or no need to declare an emergency or disaster. Also, states and
communities that welcome growth may not wish to discourage it by considering the potential
vulnerability to disaster damage and taking steps to mitigate against such damage.
As our population grows, more of the nation’s citizens live in areas prone to natural
disasters, from floods and tornadoes to earthquakes and hurricanes, and some states have
taken action to encourage this development for immediate economic gain (in the form of a
larger tax base and other benefits). That means the consequences of such events are
exacerbated.23
In the case of previously existing communities with higher population densities, the number of
households and dwellings may have caused the costs of the associated damages to rise beyond the
state’s capacity to financially recover from the event. This tendency is magnified in coastal
development:

23 Ronald J. Daniels, Donald F. Kettl, and Howard Kunreuther, On Risk and Disaster (Philadelphia: University of
Pennsylvania Press, 2006), p. 3.
Congressional Research Service
12

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Coastal development also has become a lucrative economic force for private investors. The
deluge of people living on and near the coasts is not merely a fad that soon will yield to a
preference for inland locations. It is largely a result of population growth combined with the
beauty and economic promise of coastal areas. This growing interest in coastal development,
combined with a strong economy, in recent years has increased the pressure on landowners
to sell or develop.24
In addition, the costs of recovering from disasters may have also grown due not only to the
growing population but also to increased standards of living.25
Policy Changes and Political Considerations
A number of federal policy changes have occurred since 1953 that may also help to explain why
the number of declarations being issued each year have been increasing as well as the federal
costs of those declarations. These include changes in 1) federal legislation and 2) various FEMA
declaration policies. In addition, some have postulated that the declaration process has become
politicized and the increase is attributed to political motivations.
Evolution of Federal Disaster Policy
From 1950 through 1980, the federal role in disaster response and recovery gradually expanded,
both through executive action and legislation. In the 1950s, the federal approach to disaster
assistance was less comprehensive than today. In general, the assistance consisted of initial
repairs to infrastructure, modest assistance to help to families and individuals, and loans for
homeowners and businesses. Later there was an eventual emphasis on mitigation to lessen the
effect of future disaster events. Key legislation was passed in each decade, but especially in the
1970s, that addressed distinct problems caused by natural disasters.26 This was also the time when
FEMA was created by President Jimmy Carter under his reorganization plan of 1978. 27 As one
observer summarized the myriad of actions taken during this period:
For almost thirty years the federal government had, at different times, inched toward a policy
that gave administrators a superior and determinative role in emergency management. At
times during that period federal policy received a hard push from nature, such as the Alaska
earthquake or Hurricane Betsy. Periodically, members of Congress or administration
officials nudged federal policy in a different direction. By 1978, however, experience had
shown that coordination of federal and nonfederal action, not dispersion, was the best
approach. 28

24 The H. John Heinz III Center for Science, Economics and the Environment, Human Links to Coastal Disasters,
Washington DC, 1994, pp 23-24, http://www.heinzctr.org/Major_Reports_files/
Human%20Links%20to%20Coastal%20Disasters.pdf.
25 The population figure for 1953 is based on the U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of the Census, Statistical
Abstract of the United States
1955, Washington DC.
26 P.L. 93-288, Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974. Later named in honor of former Vermont Senator Robert
Stafford.
27 Executive Order 12127, “Federal Emergency Management Agency,” 19367, March 31, 1979.
28 Keith Bea, “The Formative Years: 1950-1978,” in Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2010,
ed. Claire B. Rubin, 2nd ed. (Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 2012), p. 111.
Congressional Research Service
13

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

From that period a federal/state framework had been created that was, ironically, not really tested
during the 1980s. That relatively quiet decade for natural disasters did not have large disaster
events to present challenges to the disaster relief programs nor large supplemental expenditure
requests for Congress. As a result, disaster policy changes that would later address an increasing
number of unique and devastating disaster situations and result in Presidential declarations were
not challenged or employed until the 1990s.
P.L. 106-390, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (hereinafter DMA2K) established for the first
time a pre-disaster mitigation program to reduce risk regardless of disaster declarations.29 While
the PDM program was funded separately outside of the President’s Disaster Relief Fund,
DMA2K also permitted increased funding to states under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP), which is funded from the DRF.30 However, while DMA2K increased potential
mitigation spending, it also capped home repair costs at $5,000 per household which limited
disaster spending in that category.31
The most recent significant legislation affecting the administration of disaster relief was the Post-
Katrina Emergency Reform Act of 2006, P.L. 109-295 (hereafter PKEMRA). This legislation was
developed in response to the problems encountered in the recovery from the Gulf Coast storms of
2005. While the legislation did not alter the declaration process it did make several changes to
Stafford Act authorities that increased the available aid for post-disaster recovery. For example,
the $5,000 cap that was enacted in 2000 was repealed. Also, PKEMRA included authority for
states to provide case management services for disaster victims as well as assistance for
transportation.32
Changes in FEMA Policy
In addition to the factors that might influence the President’s decision to issue a declaration, there
are agency-level policy changes at FEMA that may play a role in increasing declarations,
including changes in how FEMA handles snowstorms, the use of pre-landfall declarations for
hurricane response preparations, and the shift to a more transparent declaration process.
Snow Declarations
One example of how an administrative practice can affect the number of major disaster
declarations is FEMA’s recent adjustment in snow policy, which began in November of 2009.
Formerly, FEMA provided federal assistance for snow removal costs for a stipulated period—
usually two or three days. Most of these events were defined as a snow emergency because of the
relatively limited assistance requested and provided. However, since FEMA published new
regulations for snow declarations in 2009, the agency is now considering most, but not all, snow-
related events as a major disaster.33 As FEMA explained, the intent of the change was to make
FEMA’s snow policy conform more closely to the Stafford Act:

29 42 U.S.C. §5133.
30 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
31 42 U.S.C. §5174 (c)(2)(C), later removed by P.L. 109-295.
32 For further analysis on PKEMRA, see CRS Report RL33729, Federal Emergency Management Policy Changes
After Hurricane Katrina: A Summary of Statutory Provisions
, coordinated by Keith Bea, p. 36.
33 One recent exception was the emergency declaration on October 31, 2011, for the snow event in Connecticut. This
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service
14

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

FEMA’s 1999 Snow Assistance Policy evaluated requests for snow assistance under both the
criteria for an ‘‘emergency’’ declaration under 44 CFR 206.35, as well as a request for a
‘‘major disaster’’ declaration under 44 CFR 206.36. However, the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
5122, and FEMA regulations, 44 CFR 206.2(a)(17), expressly include ‘‘snowstorm’’ in the
definition of a ‘‘major disaster.’’ By comparison, FEMA regulations define ‘‘emergencies’’
as those types of events that do not qualify under the definition of a major disaster. In this
revised policy, snowstorm events will be considered by FEMA for major disaster
declarations under 44 CFR 206.36, consistent with the Stafford Act and FEMA regulations.
As discussed below, in response to comments received on the July 2008 proposed policy,
this final Snow Assistance Policy does not include the limitation proposed in 2008 that
FEMA would only make recommendations for major disaster declarations for snow events.34
In FY2010, the change in snow policy meant that 16 previously designated “snow emergencies”
were now “snow disasters” (this number included multiple declarations for states affected by the
storms of December 2009 and February 2010 in the National Capital Region). Without the snow
policy change, the total number of major disasters for FY2010 would have been 65, placing that
year in a tie for the fourth busiest year with FY1998.35 While it was still a significant year for
declarations, the change in snow policy increased the number of major disaster declarations.
Similarly, in 2011, there were 16 major disaster declarations that referenced as their cause either
severe winter storm or snow storm. Absent those declarations, the record setting total number of
declarations for 2011 drops from 99 to 83.
Pre-Landfall Declarations
While traditionally FEMA had taken a “management of consequences” approach to most disasters
and waited for a storm’s impact before addressing a Governor’s request, in the late 1990’s FEMA
began to treat hurricanes differently. Due to the lead time provided by the tracking of hurricanes,
FEMA began, in 1999, to issue emergency declarations in advance of hurricanes making landfall.
The impetus for this policy was to supplement, and thus strengthen, state evacuation efforts and
related work by state and local governments to reduce the impact of the hurricanes.
These types of declarations are now governed by FEMA policy guidance and are frequently
employed.36 For example, during the hurricane season of 2011 there were pre-landfall emergency
declarations made in 11 states and territories for Hurricane Irene. Similar emergency declarations
were made for the Gulf Coast states prior to the impact of Hurricane Katrina. While federal
expenditures may be little different, the number of declarations in these instances is doubled
when a state receives both an emergency and major disaster declaration for the same event.37

(...continued)
snow emergency was reclassified as a major disaster declaration on November 17, 2011.
34 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Snow Assistance and Severe
Winter Storm Policy,” 74 Federal Register 57509, November 6, 2009.
35 U.S. Department of Homeland Security , FEMA, “Declared Disasters by Year or State,” available at
http://www.fema.gov/news.disaster_totals_annual.fema.
36 FEMA Policy FP-010-4, “Pre-Disaster Emergency Declarations Requests,” May 18, 2012 (supersedes policy
guidance, July 18, 2007).
37 Spending is likely not increased since, under previous policy, much of the emergency spending may have been
captured as eligible within a longer incident period. The benefit of the separate emergency declaration is that it makes
federal; assistance available more rapidly and likely contributes to the confidence of state and local governments in
carrying out emergency services with an assurance of partial reimbursement.
Congressional Research Service
15

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

These pre-landfall declarations are made for states “immediately threatened with impact from a
major hurricane or typhoon.”38 The guidance suggests these declarations be made for storms
projected to a category 3,4, or 5 on the Saffir/Simpson scale. However, as with any declaration,
the President retains discretion to make the decision on whether a declaration is made. This is an
example of a change in FEMA policy that has increased the number of declarations over the last
dozen years.
Transparency of the Declaration Process
The disaster declaration process begins with a dynamic event and is generally considered to be
open and relatively transparent as it proceeds. As one report summarized it:
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.39
That observation reflects the fact that damage assessments are done publicly with federal, state,
and local officials working together to determine the amount of eligible damage. Similarly the
Governor’s letters requesting federal, supplemental help are usually available to the public. In
that respect, FEMA provides a template to state emergency management offices so they can
anticipate the types of information that should be provided (including legal language regarding
state activities, state commitments toward program cost shares, and other necessary information).
With the encouragement of Congress, FEMA has gradually revealed increased portions of the
disaster declaration process. The prime example of this greater openness is the set of regulations
that details the factors FEMA considers when evaluating a Governor’s request. These regulations
first appeared in the Federal Register in September of 1999.40
Another step in the direction of transparency was the publishing, on FEMA’s website, of the
preliminary damage assessments (PDAs) that help to inform both the Governor’s decision on
whether to make a request as well as the declaration decision itself. FEMA now makes available
for public review all PDAs dating back to 2007.41
The move towards greater transparency may have shifted the way in which FEMA makes
recommendations to the president as to whether incidents are worthy of federal assistance. Prior
to the move for greater transparency, FEMA officials could have private discussions to evaluate a
range of factors when determining a state’s financial capacity to respond to an incident without
federal assistance. These factors could include the state’s economic well-being, whether the state
had a budget surplus, among others. These factors are often subjective and difficult to quantify,
which in turn make the rationale for certain recommendations more difficult to justify. Some
would contend that recommendations that are exclusively based on per capita thresholds make the

38 Ibid.
39 Ibid. CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer, by Francis X. McCarthy, p. 21.
40 Federal Emergency Management Agency, “Disaster Assistance; Factors Considered When Evaluating a Governor’s
Request for a Major Disaster Declaration,” 64 Federal Register 47698, September 1, 1999.
41 U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Preliminary Damage Assessment
Reports,
available at http://www.fema.gov/rebuild/recover/pda_reports.shtm
Congressional Research Service
16

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

recommendation process appear more equitable, but in reality just using per capita thresholds to
determine whether to provide disaster assistance eliminates important factors that establish state
capacity. It could be argued that the move toward transparency eliminated private and frank
discussions concerning state capacity that could potentially prevent a state from receiving federal
assistance for an incident it could conceivably have handled on its own.
Finally, as emergency managers have become more knowledgeable of the declaration process and
the use of per capita indicators, they may dissuade the Governor from making a request when
they believe the per capita threshold for their particular incident is too low. Consequently, this
may explain, in part, why the number of declaration turndowns have decreased over the years
because it is possible that fewer incidents are being submitted that are likely to be denied.
Possible Election-Year Influence on Major Disaster and Emergency
Declarations

Critics argue that since 1972 the President has been more likely to issue a declaration during a
presidential election year, and the year prior to an election year.42 There is a slight increase in
major disaster declarations, and a slight decrease in the number of declaration turndowns during
presidential election years. From 1990 to 2008 the average number of major disaster declarations
and emergency declarations during a nonelection year was 46.64 and 11.93 respectively. In
contrast, the average number of declared major disasters during a presidential election year was
61.8. The number of emergency declarations, however, decreased to an average of 7.6 per year
(See Figure 8).
The number of major disaster declaration turndowns during presidential nonelection years from
1990 to 2008 was 12.9, and decreased to 11 during election years (data not shown). Emergency
declarations, on the other hand, averaged 2.29 per year during presidential nonelection years and
increase slightly to 2.6 during election years.
The average number of emergency declarations declared has increased during presidential
election years. The average number of emergency declarations issued during presidential election
years is 5.6 per year, compared to 2.6 in nonelection years. The increase may lead some to
conclude that political factors may influence emergency declarations during presidential election
years. This conclusion could be counter argued because there are not enough data points since
1972 to draw a conclusion on recent elections.43

42 For example, see Jessica Zuckerman, An Election-Year Trend: Disaster Declarations on the Rise, The Heritage
Foundation, January 4, 2012, available at http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/an-election-year-trend-disaster-
declarations-on-the-rise/.
43 Thirty data points are needed to establish statistical significance.
Congressional Research Service
17


Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Figure 8. Possible Influence of Elections on Major Disaster and Emergency
Declarations
1974 to 2011

Source: CRS analysis based on data provided by FEMA.
Note: Declarations for 2012 were not included in this report.
While it could be argued that a President may be motivated to issue a declaration or be reluctant
to deny a declaration for political reasons, it is difficult to establish evidence to support this
position. As demonstrated in Figure 8, the differences in presidential election years and
nonelection years is slight. Moreover, methodologically, there are more nonelection years in the
sample than election years which may skew the sample since an increase in the sample will
usually generate a figure that is more statistically normal. In addition, some may contend that the
correlation between the issuance of FMAG declarations and presidential election years cannot be
established since they are declared by the FEMA Regional Director, therefore they are not
included in Figure 8, nor in the averages discussed above. Finally, the slight increase in
declarations during election years could be the result of other variables that have been described
in this report.
The Debate over Politics and Declarations
Some contend that presidential decisions on whether to issue a declaration are increasingly linked
to political considerations. As with the above example, they argue declarations are more likely to
be issued around presidential election years in an attempt to garner media coverage and gain
approval of voters in a state that has been stricken by an incident.44 Another, similar argument, is

44 For example, see Jessica Zuckerman, An Election-Year Trend: Disaster Declarations on the Rise, The Heritage
Foundation, January 4, 2012, available at http://blog.heritage.org/2012/01/04/an-election-year-trend-disaster-
declarations-on-the-rise/.
Congressional Research Service
18

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

that congressional districts sharing the President’s party affiliation are more likely to be issued a
disaster declaration. Both of these arguments are difficult to prove and recent studies on this issue
have led to differing conclusions. For example, in a 2002 study economists Thomas A. Garrett
and Russell S. Sobel, postulated:
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. Election year impacts are also found.45
Other researchers have been unable to deduce the same bias:
There was no evidence of a statistically significant relationship between success in acquiring
major disaster declarations and any of the remaining partisanship, biased vote-seeking, or
overwhelming need predictor variables.46
Some may contend that the argument that declaration approvals and denials have increased solely
due to political motivations may be making the unwarranted assumption that weather patterns,
development, and increases in population have remained static, or near static over the past six
decades. For example, it could be argued that President Reagan’s number of approvals of
gubernatorial requests was low and his record of turndowns were high representing a
conservative ideological approach to governing in the disaster realm. However, very few natural
disaster events occurred during President Reagan’s presidency (see Figure 7). Had there been
more disasters he may have approved more gubernatorial requests for assistance. In addition, to
some the argument that declarations are politically motivated is weakened when one questions
what an incumbent President not running for reelection would have to gain by issuing more
declarations.
Finally, if major disaster declarations are tied to elections, then one would expect the number of
major disaster declarations to be high for election year 2012. However, as of July 2012, only 19
major disaster declarations have been declared—too few it would seem to some to support such
an argument.47
24 Hour News Networks and Camcorders
A related issue that may influence the President’s decision to issue a declaration is the rise of 24
hour news networks in the last three decades. As previously mentioned, news coverage and
broadcasts of emergencies and major disasters have increased significantly since in the 1980s.
The rise in news coverage is attributed, in part, to technological advances in electronics and
satellite communications that began in the latter part of the 1980s. These advances eventually
gave rise to 24 hour news networks that provide live coverage of emergencies and disasters. The
striking images of emergencies and major disasters make the footage of these events highly

45 Thomas A. Garrett and Russell S. Sobel, “The Political Economy of FEMA Disaster Payments,” Economic Inquiry,
Vol. 41, No. 3, July, 2003, p. 496, available at http://www.be.wvu.edu/divecon/econ/sobel/All%20Pubs%PDF/
The%20Political%20Economy%20FEMA%20Disaster%20Payments.pdf.
46 Richard S. Salkowe and Jayajit Chakraborty, “Federal Disaster Relief in the U.S.: The Role of Political Partisanship
and Preference in Presidential Disaster Declarations and Turndowns,” Journal of Homeland Security and Emergency
Management,
Vol. 6. 2009. p. 13.
47 See Kerry Young, “Lawmakers Hopeful They Will Not Need More Disaster Money This Fiscal Year,” CQ TODAY
ONLINE NEWS – APPROPRIATIONS
, July 9, 2012, available at http://www.cq.com/doc/news-4119231?print=true.
Congressional Research Service
19

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

desirable in media outlets. The miniaturization of cameras and the availability of camcorders have
increased the availability of footage of such events.
The advances in technology over the past 30 years have led to increased media coverage of
disasters. During that same time frame some have suggested that presidents have taken a greater
interest in disasters as a meeting point of politics and public policy. For example, it is now
customary for a President to visit a major disaster site to demonstrate responsiveness to the
incident as well as show empathy, and concern towards disaster victims.48
In addition, the proliferation of media coverage of emergencies and major disasters extends
public scrutiny of the handling of the incident beyond just those in the disaster area. Higher levels
of scrutiny, whether justified or not, may compel the President to declare an emergency or major
disaster to show compassion to the disaster victims and demonstrate responsiveness to the
incident. As one observer suggests:
Some of the increase in presidential disaster declarations may be directly attributable to
television news coverage; this is because media coverage of disasters and emergencies
imposes political pressure on the president to demonstrate concern and offers a unique
opportunity to demonstrate assertiveness, compassion, and strong decision-making skills.
Public officials tend to use the news media to demonstrate their sympathy for disaster
victims and to decry slow emergency response and relief efforts.49
Scholars studying disasters have argued that the President’s handling of a disaster has
consequences. According to professor Richard T. Sylves, a noted expert on emergency and
disaster declarations, the perceived mishandling of Hurricane Andrew damaged President George
H.W. Bush’s image in Florida and may have contributed to his defeat in the 1992 presidential
election.50 It could be argued that if a President fails to issue a declaration they might be perceived
as callous or indifferent to the disaster stricken state. In the cases of “marginal” disasters—
disasters that arguably could be handled by the state without federal aid—the greater the intensity
of national news coverage of the event, the more the President is arguably compelled to provide
federal aid.
Changes in State Policies and Circumstances
In addition to the federal elements that may have played a role in the increases, there are a
number of state-level factors that have made the states more likely to request a declaration than in
years past. These may be the result of various factors including 1) budget shortfalls, 2) a “learning
curve” in declarations, and 3) the professionalization of emergency management.

48 Richard T. Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington D.C.:
CQ Press, 2008), p. 219.
49 Claire Rubin, Ed. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2010, 2nd Edition, (CRC Press: Boca
Raton, 2012), p.131,Excerpt: Gary L. Wamsley, et al. Coping with Catastrophe: Building an Emergency Management
System to Meet People’s Needs in Natural and Manmade Disasters (
Washington DC: National Academy of Public
Administration, 1993).
50 Richard T. Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington D.C.:
CQ Press, 2008), p. 85.
Congressional Research Service
20

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

State Budget Gaps
The recession that began at the end of 2007 has led many states to experience heightened levels
of fiscal stress, primarily because state revenue growth has either stagnated, or in some states,
declined. Because most states are required to balance their budgets, states have been forced to
increase taxes and fees and/or reduce expenditures to address gaps in their budgets. According to
a report issued by the National Governors Association and the National Association of State
Budget Officers, state fiscal conditions are improving but many states are still not back to
prerecession levels.51
It could be argued that the budgetary stress caused by the economic contraction has encouraged
states to seek federal funds to help offset state disaster costs. In prior years they may have funded
the recovery with their own funds, but now they may be more likely to seek assistance from the
federal government. Similarly, in years past, a state may have had sufficient funds for a rainy day
fund to pay for unanticipated incidents. However, during periods of budgetary constraints, some
states may not have any rainy day funds available to use for disaster assistance.
The Learning Curve of Declarations
When a request for an emergency or major disaster is approved by the President for a certain type
of incident, other states may take notice and request assistance for a similar incident. It is
conceivable that the state may not have thought to ask for the declaration had it not been
previously approved for another state. In this way, “declaration creep” might occur as states learn
what types of incidents might qualify for a declaration.
The Professionalization of Emergency Management
Since 2001, many states have created state emergency management agencies staffed by
professional emergency managers. In addition, many colleges and universities offer degrees in
emergency management and homeland security. In a speech at the FEMA Higher Education
Conference in 2004, Wayne Blanchard, manager of the Emergency Management Higher
Education Project at FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute, stated that emergency
management programs had grown from 95 to 113 since 2003, with another 97 programs under
investigation or development.52 By 2006, the number of emergency management programs had
grown to 120.53 By 2012, the number of programs in emergency management was 177.54 The
increase in the number of programs may be producing graduates who go on to be emergency
managers that are more likely to be knowledgeable with the declaration process. In addition,

51 National Governors Association and the National Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of States,
Washington, DC, 2012, p. vii, available at http://www.nasbo.org/sites/default/files/
Spring%202012%20Fiscal%20Survey_1.pdf.
52 Federal Emergency Management Agency, Status Report: Emergency Management Higher Education Project,
Emmitsburg, MD, June 8, 2004.
53 Lucien G. Canton, Emergency Management: Concepts and Strategies for Effective Programs (Hoboken, NJ: Wiley,
2007), p. 79.
54 Based on a count of associates, bachelors, masters, and PhD. degree programs, as well as concentrations and
specializations in emergency management drawn from Federal Emergency Management Agency, The College List:
Colleges, Universities and Institutions Offering Emergency Management Courses
, Emmitsburg, MD, February 7,
available at http://www.training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/collegelist/.
Congressional Research Service
21

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

technological advances enable emergency managers at the state level to gather information
necessary to make a disaster declaration request more rapidly than in the past:
Owing to advances in information technology, state emergency managers at the close of the
twentieth century were likely better able to document the disaster loss than they were in the
1970s. State and local governments became more expert in using information technology to
document disaster losses and more proficient in proving their need for federal assistance,
which gave them a stronger factual basis for requesting a presidential disaster declaration.
This may have contributed to the trend in declining turndowns of requests for federal
assistance.55
As a result of this changing environment, state emergency managers may have more confidence
in advocating a request for a declaration. Conversely, the state emergency manager may dissuade
the governor from requesting a declaration if the emergency manager believes the incident is
likely to be turned down.
Potential Methods for Controlling Declarations and
Their Cost

If the increase in the number of declarations is a concern perhaps for the federal costs that
accompany them (or for the other reasons discussed in this report), Congress may choose to
address the issue. Addressing the issue may be conceptualized as two approaches: 1) limiting the
number of declarations and 2) limiting the amount of spending that can occur after the declaration
has been made.
The following section could be used to frame a potential debate on limiting the number of
declarations being issued, limiting the assistance provided after a declaration has been declared,
or both.
Rationale for Keeping the Declaration Process the Same
To many, providing relief to disaster victims is an essential role of the government. In their view,
the concern over costs is understandable given concerns over the national budget. However, they
may argue that the increase in the number of declarations being issued is justified because the
declarations are tied to increased inclement weather, population growth, and development.
Moreover, they say providing assistance to disaster stricken areas is both acceptable and needed
to help a state and region’s economy to recover from a storm that otherwise may not be able to
recover from on its own.
A similar argument could be made that the number of declarations should be allowed to increase
to meet the needs caused by population growth and development as well as inclement weather
activity. However, there could be adjustments to limit the amount of federal assistance that is
granted once the declaration has been issued.

55 Claire Rubin, Ed. Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2010, 2nd Edition, (CRC Press: Boca
Raton, 2012), p.158.
Congressional Research Service
22

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

Limiting the Number of Declarations Being Issued
Others however, may disagree with the views outlined in the previous section and argue that the
number of declarations being issued should be limited. The following sections review some
policy mechanisms that could be employed to decrease the number of declarations that are being
issued. The primary method consists of preventing what may be perceived to be marginal
incidents from triggering federal assistance. These include changing the definitions of emergency
and disaster in the Stafford Act, and changing the per capita formula for determining whether a
disaster is sufficiently large to warrant federal assistance.
Changing Emergency and Disaster Definitions in the Stafford Act
Some argue that the Stafford Act has enhanced presidential declaration authority because
emergencies and major disasters in sections 102(1) and 102(2) of Stafford Act are ill-defined.56
Because of the expansive nature of the definitions under the Stafford Act there are not many
restrictions on the types of emergencies and disasters for which the President may issue a
declaration.57
Changing the Per Capita Formula
The DHS Inspector General (IG) issued a report in May of 2012 which noted that FEMA had
been using a $1 per capita damage amount since 1986 for determining during its preliminary
damage assessment process if it would recommend to the President that the event was beyond the
capacity of state and local governments to deal with without federal assistance. They also
explained that FEMA did not begin adjusting that number for inflation until 1999. The IG pointed
out that if the inflation adjustment had been occurring over that thirteen year period, from 1986 to
1999, fully 36% fewer disasters would have qualified for a Presidential declaration based on that
factor.58
However, the actual factors considered for a declaration did not become public until 1999. At the
behest of Congress, it was in that year that FEMA began to print the factors that were considered
in regulation. Until then, that information had been within the “pre-decisional” part of the process
in the Executive Branch. However, in 1999 FEMA began to identify factors considered for both
Public and Individual Assistance.59 That is not to say FEMA was not using the per capita amount
in its considerations, only that the process was not widely known or understood as it presently is.
As the DHS IG notes, FEMA could have increased the thresholds gradually beginning in 1986.
However, adjusting the per capita amount on an annual basis for inflation did not begin until more
than a dozen years later. On the other hand, it should also be considered that when FEMA
discussed such proposals (e.g., adjusting per capita figures) with Congress in 1986, Congress
passed Section 320 of the Stafford Act that stated:

56 P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5122.
57Richard T. Sylves, Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security (Washington D.C.:
CQ Press, 2008), p. 79.
58 Department of Homeland Security, Office of Inspector General, Opportunities to Improve FEMA’s Public Assistance
Preliminary Damage Assessment Process,
pp. 5-7.
59 For further information on this process, see CRS Report RL34146, FEMA’s Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer,
by Francis X. McCarthy.
Congressional Research Service
23

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

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.60
While it can be argued that FEMA should have been increasing the per capita amount to account
for inflation in each succeeding year, it can also be argued that Congress’ passage of Section 320
was also expressing its will that such measurements of need would not be the sole determinant for
a disaster declaration.
The Use of State Capacity Indicators
In 2001, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) issued a report on disaster declaration
criteria. This report was a comprehensive review of FEMA’s declaration criteria factors. GAO
recommended that FEMA “develop more objective and specific criteria to assess the capabilities
of state and local governments to respond to a disaster” and “consider replacing the per capita
measure of state capacity with a more sensitive measure, such as a state’s total taxable resources.”
The state’s Total Taxable Resources (TTR) was developed by the Department of the Treasury.
GAO reported that TTR:
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. For example, TTR
includes much of the business income that does not become part of the income flow to state
residents, undistributed corporate profits, and rents and interest payments made by
businesses to out-of-state stock owners. This more comprehensive indicator of state funding
capacity is currently used to target federal aid to low-capacity states under the Substance
Abuse and Mental Health Service Administration’s block grant programs. In the case of
FEMA’s Public Assistance program, adjustments for TTR in setting the threshold for a
disaster declaration would result in a more realistic estimate of a state’s ability to respond to
a disaster.61
It could be argued that the use of TTR would conflict with the prohibition against arithmetic
formulas established by Congress. However, just as FEMA’s per capita measurement is one of
several factors considered and not the “sole” determinant of a declaration, GAO stated that TTR
would not violate Section 320 because TTR could also be used with other criteria such as those
identified in regulations. Thus, some could contend that TTR could fill a similar role with perhaps
more accuracy. It may also help reduce federal costs for disaster assistance by denying assistance
to marginal incidents that could be otherwise handled by the state.
Expert Panels
S. 1630, the Disaster Recovery Act of 2011, which was introduced on September 23, 2011 and
referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, would amend the
Stafford Act to authorize the President to declare a catastrophic incident if a recommendation was
issued by an independent panel of experts which may be comprised of individuals with
specialized knowledge in certain subject areas, such as disasters, economics, and public health.

60 42 U.S.C. §5163.
61 U.S. General Accounting Office, Disaster Assistance: Improvement Needed in Disaster Declaration Criteria and
Eligibility Assurance Procedures
, GAO-01-837, August 31, 2001, pp. 11-12, available at http://www.gao.gov/assets/
240/232622.pdf.
Congressional Research Service
24

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

The panel would take into account the severity of the incident as well as other factors that might
indicate how well the state could respond to, and recover from the incident. The panel would then
make recommendations to the President whether the circumstances of the incident worthy of
federal assistance based on their assessment.62
Some might argue that the use of an expert panel would make decisions about whether to provide
assistance more objective. Others might argue that the use of a panel may slow down the
declaration process and impede the provision of important assets and resources. It may be argued
that the panel’s recommendation would infringe on the President’s authority to issue a
declaration. On the other hand, it could also be argued that the President would retain the
authority to issue a declaration despite the panel’s recommendation.
Emergency Loans
Another potential method to reduce the number of declarations and the costs of federal disaster
assistance would be to create incentives to dissuade states from requesting assistance. One
method would be converting some, or all, federal assistance provided through emergency
declarations into a loan program. For example, emergency declarations could be altered to
provide up to a specified amount (for example, $5 billion dollars) in low interest recovery loans.63
Under this arrangement a state could elect to handle the incident without federal assistance rather
than having to reimburse the federal government for recovery loans.
Changes to the Stafford Act
The following section discusses some potential changes to the Stafford Act that might limit the
number of declarations being issued each year.
Repeal of Section 320
As mentioned previously, Section 320 of the Stafford Act restricts the use of an arithmetic or
sliding scale to provide federal assistance. Repealing Section 320 would allow formulas that
establish certain thresholds that states would have to meet to qualify for assistance.
Section 404
Section 404 of the Stafford Act64 authorizes the President to contribute up to 75% of the cost of an
incident toward mitigation measures that reduce the risk of future damage, loss of life, and
suffering. Section 404 could be amended to make mitigation assistance contingent on state codes
being in place prior to an event. For example, states that have met certain mitigation standards
could remain eligible for the 75% federal cost share. States that do not meet the standards would

62 For example, in the 112th Congress, Section 109 of S. 1630 proposed the use of an expert panel to designate a new
category of declaration known as a “catastrophic” declaration. In this case, the panel would have determined whether
the incident met the threshold of being catastrophic. For further analysis on catastrophic declarations see CRS Report
R41884, Considerations for a Catastrophic Declaration: Issues and Analysis, by Bruce R. Lindsay and Francis X.
McCarthy.
63 Assistance for emergency declarations is capped at $5 billion per incident.
64 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
Congressional Research Service
25

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

be eligible for a smaller share, such as 50% federal cost share. The amendment may incentivize
mitigation work on the behalf of the state and possibly help reduce damages to the extent that a
request for assistance is not needed, or the cost of the federal share may be lessened. The
amendment could be set to take effect in three years, giving states time to act, or not.
Other Potential Amendments to the Stafford Act
Other amendments to the Stafford Act could either limit the number of declarations being issued,
or the amount of assistance provided to the state by the federal government.
• The Stafford Act could be amended so that there could be no administrative
adjustment of the cost-share. The cost-share could only be adjusted through
congressional action. The amendment could be designed to apply immediately.
• The Stafford Act could be amended so that federal assistance would only be
available for states with corollary programs (such as Public Assistance,
Individual Assistance, and housing assistance). Establishing these programs at
the state level may increase state capacity to handle some incidents without
federal assistance. The amendment could be designed to take effect in three
years, giving states time to act, or not.
• The Stafford Act could be amended to discontinue all assistance for snow
removal unless directed by Congress. The amendment could be designed to take
effect in three years to give states and localities an opportunity to increase snow
removal budgets, or not.
Reducing the Amount of Assistance Provided through Declarations
Adjust the State Cost Share
Most discussions regarding state cost-shares in disaster programs and projects involve ways in
which the state amount may be reduced and the federal share increased.65 Some may contend,
however, that the opposite approach should be adopted and efforts should be undertaken to reduce
disaster costs by shifting the costs to the state and local level. Currently, state and local
governments provide 25% of disaster costs on projects and grants to families and individuals with
the federal government assuming, at a minimum, 75% of all costs.66
There is no statutory limit on the number of people that can be helped following a disaster.67
Similarly, when assessing damage to state and local infrastructure there is no cap on the amount
of federal funds that can be expended to make the repairs or accomplish a replacement. The only
limitation is that the damage must be eligible facilities and that it is disaster-related damage.
Given that open-ended commitment by the federal government, some may argue that increasing
the state share of 25% to a higher percentage would be warranted given the federal government’s

65 For additional discussion on this topic see CRS Report R41101, FEMA Disaster Cost-Shares: Evolution and
Analysis
, by Francis X. McCarthy.
66 Ibid.
67 There is however, a limit on how much any one household can receive ($31,400 at the time of this report).
Congressional Research Service
26

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications

fiscal condition. Another option would be to make the cost-share arrangement not subject to
administrative adjustment.
Disaster Loans
As mentioned previously, the assistance provided for emergency declarations could be provided
through the form of loans. Similarly, some, or all of the assistance provided to the state after a
major disaster could be converted to low-interest or no interest loans. For example, a state may
receive the traditional 75% cost share for an incident but be required to reimburse 25% of that
funding to the federal government. Loans for disaster recovery could also be incentivized. For
instance, states that undertook certain pre-established preparedness mitigation measures could
qualify for a larger federal share or a lower interest rate.
Concluding Observations
Given the variables described in this report that can lead to increased declarations, including
trends in severe weather patterns, population growth and development, the upward trend of
declarations will likely continue if declarations policies remain unchanged. Some may contend
that the policy mechanisms used to address the increase in declarations should be shaped by its
causes. Others may argue that if the causes are due to an increase in severe weather incidents,
population growth, or development, then the declaration process should remain unchanged.
Alternatively, thresholds for federal assistance could be adjusted to eliminate what are perceived
to be marginal incidents and focus federal assistance on large scale disasters. Another method
would be shifting a greater share of the responsibility for providing assistance from the federal
government to states and localities.
The approach to reduce declarations might shift somewhat if the increase in declarations and their
costs is due primarily to federal policies. If that is the case, it could be argued that methods that
constrain the President’s discretion to issue declarations, or reforming FEMA policies may be
more suitable. If the increase is tied to state policies, then mechanisms such as the use of loans or
other incentives could be implemented to help decrease the number of state requests for
assistance. Finally, as mentioned throughout this report, a combination of all of the above could
be implemented.
At the heart of the declaration phenomenon is the role of the government when a disaster strikes.
While it is generally agreed that the government should help disaster victims in time of need, it is
unclear whether the fiscal responsibility resides primarily with the federal or the state
government. Finding the balance has thus far been elusive and altering the declaration process
could have important implications for both federal and state officials, as well as disaster victims.
Many of the policy options described in this report would shift a greater share of disaster related
costs to states and localities. It remains to be seen if reducing declarations and/or limiting the
amount of disaster assistance provided to requesting states would severely disrupt the state’s
ability to adequately recover from an incident, or if states would be able to adjust to the changes
by reallocating available state resources.


Congressional Research Service
27

Stafford Act Declarations 1953-2011: Trends and Analyses, and Implications




Author Contact Information

Bruce R. Lindsay
Francis X. McCarthy
Analyst in American National Government
Analyst in Emergency Management Policy
blindsay@crs.loc.gov, 7-3752
fmccarthy@crs.loc.gov, 7-9533

Acknowledgments
Richard T. Sylves, Ph.D. University of Delaware and the staff of GAO provided input and insight
on presidential declarations. Robert Dilger, Senior Specialist, Government and Finance Division,
assisted with editorial comments and suggestions; Amber Wilhelm, Graphics Specialist,
Publishing and Editorial Resources Section, assisted with figures in this report; James Uzel, GIS
Analyst, Resources, Science and Industry Consulting Section, assisted with NOAA data; William
A. Kandel, Analyst in Immigration Policy, Domestic Security and Immigration Section, assisted
with demographic information and census data.
Congressional Research Service
28