Potential Stafford Act Assistance for Migration Activity

Potential Stafford Act Assistance for Migration Activity

INSIGHTi

Potential Stafford Act Assistance for
Migration Activity
Updated May 18, 2023
After more than three years, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) order directing U.S.
immigration officials to expel certain migrants (often called “Title 42”) terminated on May 11, 2023—in
concert with the conclusion of different federal emergency declarations. It is too soon to know how this
change might affect migration activity at the border over the long term; currently, reports are mixed.
However, communities across the country have reportedly sought federal support for costs related to
hosting migrants (e.g., shelter), including through the Robert T. Stafford Emergency Assistance and
Disaster Relief Act (Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended) administered by the Federal Emergency
Management Act (FEMA).
Potential Stafford Act Assistance
A state or territorial governor or tribal chief executive may request Stafford Act assistance for response
and recovery from specific incidents. The Stafford Act authorizes the President to issue two types of
declarations: an “emergency declaration” or a “major disaster declaration.” The Stafford Act defines
emergencies broadly as occasions warranting supplemental federal assistance to save lives and protect
public health and safety. By contrast, the Stafford Act defines major disasters exclusively as “natural
catastrophes” or fires, floods, and explosions.
Public Assistance for Emergencies
Emergency declarations often authorize Public Assistance (PA), funding that supplements state, territorial,
or tribal resources in response to an incident. An emergency declaration may authorize one form of PA
potentially relevant to hosting migrants: emergency protective measures, defined as activities undertaken
to reduce an immediate threat to life, public health, or safety. When authorized, state, local, tribal, and
territorial governments (and in certain cases, eligible nonprofits) may receive reimbursement or direct
support (e.g., personnel, facilities) for certain types of work, including the provision of emergency shelter
and transportation, emergency communications, and emergency commodities.
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN12163
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

Congressional Research Service
2
In the past, the PA program has delivered assistance to jurisdictions that host evacuees from certain
domestic Stafford-declared incidents. Agency policy specifies that FEMA reimburses 100% of eligible
costs of emergency protective measures delivered to host-states or host-tribes.
However, FEMA has not delivered Stafford Act assistance specifically for international migration activity
under current law. The Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) recently suggested that
current migration activity would not qualify as a Stafford Act emergency. Congress has repeatedly raised
concern regarding FEMA’s role at the border.
Individual Assistance for Emergencies
Although uncommon, emergency declarations can also authorize the provision of two forms of Individual
Assistance (IA) to help address individuals’ disaster-caused needs: (1) Crisis Counseling, which
supplements nonfederal resources to alleviate incident-related mental/emotional crises; and (2) the
Individuals and Households Program (IHP), which provides financial and/or direct assistance for housing
and financial assistance for other needs.
Crisis Counseling services are available regardless of an individual’s citizenship/immigration status;
however, only U.S. citizens, non-citizen nationals, and qualified aliens are eligible for IHP assistance.
Statutory eligibility requirements could also inhibit the provision of aid to migrants through the IHP.
Historical Emergency Declarations for
Migrants/Evacuees
Only two Presidents have issued Stafford Act declarations specifically for the costs of hosting migrants
and disaster evacuees. At the time of the declarations, some Members of Congress expressed concern
regarding both cases, as detailed below. More recently, the Biden Administration denied Governor Greg
Abbott’s request (and subsequent appeal) for Stafford Act assistance for migration activity in Texas.
Mariel Boatlift—Cuban Refugees (Florida, approved, 1980)
President Jimmy Carter declared an emergency in the State of Florida “due to the large numbers of
undocumented aliens,” finding that “the humanitarian aspects of this exodus from Cuba cannot be
ignored.” Subsequently, the U.S. General Accounting Office (now the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO)) issued a report noting that the declaration, among others, “stirred considerable controversy
regarding whether non-natural ‘catastrophes’ are within the purview of existing law” and recommended
that Congress “spell[] out as clearly as possible the type of incidents which may receive disaster
assistance.” Subsequently, Congress passed the Stafford Act and narrowed the definition of major disaster
to include only “natural” catastrophes and fires, floods, or explosions. The definition of emergency
remained broad.
Hurricane Katrina Evacuees (Multiple States, approved, 2005)
President George W. Bush issued emergency declarations for 44 states and the District of Columbia
following Hurricane Katrina to reimburse host states for up to 100% of the costs of transporting,
sheltering, schooling, and feeding survivors. Following the declarations, Some Members of Congress
raised concern regarding the difficulties of delivering Stafford Act assistance to host jurisdictions—
including the administrative burdens associated with establishing independent declarations for host states.
FEMA subsequently modified its regulations to enable the delivery of PA to host states, thereby avoiding
the need for separate evacuation declarations.

Congressional Research Service
3
Request for “Ongoing Border Crisis” (Texas, denied, 2021)
President Joe Biden denied Texas’s request for a Stafford Act emergency declaration for increased
migration activity, as well as its subsequent appeal (supported by Senators John Cornyn and Ted Cruz).
Texas Governor Greg Abbott reported that the request was denied due to the deployment of other federal
resources (among other reasons). FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell reportedly explained that
“supplemental federal assistance under the Stafford Act is not warranted for this event.”
Other Assistance Programs
Congress has recognized that local organizations often bear significant financial and social burdens
resulting from migration activity. Beginning in 2019 and several times thereafter, Congress enacted
legislation authorizing FEMA to supplement the humanitarian relief efforts of local governmental,
nonprofit, and faith-based organizations that provide food, shelter, and supportive services to migrants
encountered by DHS through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)—referred to as the
EFSP-H (humanitarian). The EFSP-H is the only DHS grant program that provides funding to nonprofits
assisting migrants released from DHS custody. In FY2023, Congress enacted P.L. 117-328, establishing a
new Shelter and Services Program (SSP), which will replace the EFSP-H, and approved FEMA’s use of
some SSP funding to implement the EFSP-H while establishing the SSP.
There are also some federal assistance programs through which migrants may be eligible to receive
assistance (eligibility varies by program). Additionally, nonfederal resources, such as nonprofit
organizations, may also provide assistance to support migrants.

Author Information

Erica A. Lee
Elizabeth M. Webster
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster
Recovery
Recovery

Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN12163 · VERSION 2 · UPDATED