Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

July 26, 2023 R47646

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends,
July 26, 2023
Analysis
Erica A. Lee
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act,
Analyst in Emergency
P.L. 93-288, as amended) confers upon the President a broad set of authorities “to
Management and Disaster
alleviate the suffering and damage” caused by disasters and to reduce losses from future
Recovery
disasters. The President has delegated much of this authority to the Federal Emergency

Management Agency (FEMA). Most of the key forms of Stafford Act disaster assistance

include a requirement that receiving states, tribes, and territories, or other awardees
cover a share of the costs eligible for relief. FEMA covers the remainder through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF),
as follows:
• FEMA Public Assistance provides financial and direct assistance to state, local, tribal, territorial
governments and eligible nonprofits for disaster response and recovery work. FEMA covers a
minimum of 75% of costs, which the President may increase. Receiving jurisdictions cover the
remaining share.
• FEMA Individual Assistance for Other Needs provides funds to individuals for critical disaster-
related costs like the costs of replacing damaged cars, personal belongs, or meeting related
uninsured medical and funeral expenses. FEMA covers 75% of costs; states cover 25%. Other
Stafford Act assistance available to individuals and households does not include cost-sharing
requirements.
• FEMA Hazard Mitigation Grant Program provides assistance to disaster-affected states, tribes,
and territories for projects that may reduce future disaster-related losses. FEMA covers a
maximum of 75% of costs; receiving jurisdictions cover the remaining 25%.
• FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation (implemented as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities program; BRIC) provides direct and financial assistance to communities for
projects that may reduce future disaster-related losses: FEMA covers 75% of costs; receiving
jurisdictions cover the remaining 25%. FEMA covers 90% of costs for small, impoverished
communities.
Federal disaster relief authorities have incorporated cost-sharing arrangements for decades. The intent of these
arrangements has evolved over time in accordance with changing congressional priorities. At different times,
Members of Congress have intended cost-sharing requirements to address a number of policy goals related to
federal disaster relief, including curtailing federal disaster-related spending; bolstering the state, local, tribal, and
territorial role in disaster relief; encouraging nonfederal disaster preparedness and planning; and promoting the
completion of hazard mitigation projects to reduce future disaster-related losses.
Since 2020, both Congress and the President have acted to modify cost-sharing requirements for hundreds of
individual emergencies and disasters that received Stafford Act declarations—affecting the majority of all
declared incidents during that time. These actions substantially increased federal contributions towards disaster
relief, and sometimes eliminated requirements for any nonfederal contribution towards certain types of disaster-
related costs. In light of these actions, Congress may revisit longstanding questions regarding the role of the
federal government in domestic disaster relief: how to best manage the increasing federal expenditures on
domestic disaster relief, how to encourage states, tribes, territories, localities, businesses, and individuals to
mitigate disaster-related risks, and how to increase preparedness.

Congressional Research Service

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Introduction
The federal government annually delivers billions of dollars in assistance to disaster-stricken
communities, and spending has increased significantly in recent years. The government’s lead
disaster-relief agency, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), delivers much of
this assistance under the authorities of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act (the Stafford Act, P.L. 93-288, as amended). Much of that assistance literally
comes with a cost: affected communities cover a share of specified disaster-related costs—known
as a “cost share”—and federal relief covers the remainder.
Stafford Act cost shares have generated substantial legislative debate (and occasional
controversy) in the decades since their enactment in 1966. Some legislators and stakeholders
charge that cost-sharing requirements control spending and ensure shared responsibility for
disaster relief across all levels of government, individuals, and businesses.1 Others raise concern
that such requirements burden suffering communities, particularly in low-income and socially
vulnerable areas, and may put disaster relief beyond the reach of those unable to pay. Some
Members of Congress have introduced legislation to increase the federal share of certain disaster-
related costs for certain communities, including those coping with multiple recent disasters,
entities undertaking disaster mitigation projects, and for communities serving remote, low-
income, or otherwise disadvantaged individuals.2 Most recently, both Congress and the President
have acted to increase federal contributions to a record number of domestic disasters. These
actions suggest that disaster relief cost shares may be changing or diminishing—renewing debates
over core policy questions in U.S. emergency management. Who is responsible for providing
disaster relief? What role should the federal government play? Congress may face related
questions as disasters of increasing cost and frequency place greater demands on both the federal
government, disaster-affected communities, and funds available for relief.
Terms
State Within this report, unless otherwise indicated, the term “state” refers to the Stafford Act definition, which
includes the 50 states, five territories, and the District of Columbia. (42 U.S.C. §5122(4)).
Tribe Within this report, the term “tribe” refers to the Stafford Act definition, which is limited to federally
recognized Indian tribal governments. Per the Stafford Act, “[t]he term ‘Indian tribal government’ means the
governing body of any Indian or Alaska Native tribe, band, nation, pueblo, vil age, or community that the Secretary
of the Interior acknowledges to exist as an Indian tribe under the Federally Recognized Indian Tribe List Act of
1994” (42 U.S.C. §5122(6)).
Recipient / Applicant Within this report, the term “Recipient” refers to a state, tribe, or territory that received
a Stafford Act declaration, and the term “Applicant” refers to “the responsible entity for a project,” per FEMA,
Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide (PAPPG), v. 4, FP 104-009-2, June 1, 2020, pp. 21-22,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/ fema_pappg-v4-updated-links_policy_6-1-2020.pdf.

1 See, for example, statement of then-FEMA Deputy Associate Director David McLoughlin, U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on the Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Regional and Community Development,
Hearings on S. 1525, A Bill to Amend the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, 98th Cong., 1st sess., September 29, 1983;
discussion on federal cost shares in U.S. Congress, Disaster Mitigation and Cost Reduction Act of 1999, 106th Cong, 1st
sess., H.Rept. 106-40, March 3, 1999, pp. 15-18; and recommendations from the Association for State Floodplain
Managers in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on
Emergency Management, Role of Mitigation in Reducing Federal Expenditures for Disaster Response, 113th Cong, 2nd
sess., May 14, 2014, p. 11.
2 See, for example, S. 485, 118th Cong., or S. 3093, 117th Cong.
Congressional Research Service

1

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Current Authorities
Under current law, the Stafford Act authorizes the President to deliver several forms of response,
recovery, and hazard mitigation assistance following a declaration of emergency or major
disaster. 3 Assistance that may be available includes
• Public Assistance (PA), which provides grants and direct assistance to state, local,
tribal, and territorial governments (SLTTs), and certain private nonprofit
organizations to cover eligible costs of
• “emergency work” (debris removal and emergency response measures like
sheltering, evacuation, emergency medical care, and emergency power
restoration), and
• “permanent work” (repairing and replacing eligible public and nonprofit
facilities).4
• Individual Assistance (IA), which provides financial and/or direct assistance to
affected individuals and households.5 IA includes assistance for Crisis Counseling,
Disaster Unemployment Assistance, Disaster Legal Services, Disaster Case
Management, and the Individuals and Households Program Housing Assistance and
Assistance for Other Needs (ONA).
• ONA provides funds for critical disaster-related costs, like those incurred to
replace damaged cars or personal belongings, or to pay uninsured medical
and funeral expenses.6
• Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
(HMGP), which funds mitigation and resiliency projects and programs, typically
across the entire state or territory.7
The Stafford Act additionally authorizes the provision of assistance for Pre-disaster Hazard
Mitigation (currently implemented as the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Program, or BRIC). BRIC is a competitive grant for pre-disaster assistance, and is thus not tied to
any specific incident or declaration.8

3 This report focuses on assistance authorized under the Stafford Act; it does not discuss cost shares for other FEMA-
administered assistance, for example, the Flood Mitigation Assistance program. This report does not focus on cost
shares authorized for Fire Management Assistance Grants. For detailed discussion of the declaration process and
different forms of assistance, see CRS Report WMR10001, CRS Guide to Federal Emergency Management, by Lauren
R. Stienstra et al.; and CRS Report R44977, Preliminary Damage Assessments for Major Disasters: Overview,
Analysis, and Policy Observations, by Bruce R. Lindsay.
4 For more information, see CRS Report R46749, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program: A Primer and Considerations
for Congress, by Erica A. Lee.
5 For more information, see CRS Report R46014, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview, by Elizabeth
M. Webster.
6 For more information, see CRS Report R47015, FEMA’s Individuals and Households Program (IHP)—
Implementation and Considerations for Congress, by Elizabeth M. Webster.
7 For more information, see CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation,
by Diane P. Horn
8 For more information, see CRS Report R46989, FEMA Hazard Mitigation: A First Step Toward Climate Adaptation,
by Diane P. Horn.
Congressional Research Service

2

link to page 7 link to page 32 link to page 8 link to page 8 link to page 35 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

The President has delegated the authority to administer these forms of assistance to FEMA.9 As
summarized in Table 1, FEMA provides these forms of assistance on a cost-share basis (i.e., the
costs of eligible response and recovery work are shared by FEMA and entities receiving
assistance). Statute specifies different cost-share provisions, including the means to adjust the
cost share. Cost shares for ONA and HMGP are fixed and capped, respectively. However, the
President may increase the federal cost share of PA at his or her discretion and FEMA may
recommend increasing the federal cost share for PA in extraordinary cases.10 Congress can and
has acted to increase the federal cost share of different Stafford Act assistance for certain
incidents, as detailed in Appendix B.
Table 1. Cost Shares for Stafford Act Assistance
Type of
Stafford Act Cost-Share
Assistance
Federal Statutory Cost
Assistance
Provision
Authorized
Share
Public
Sec. 403(b)
Emergency Work—
Not less than 75% of eligible
Assistance—
(42 U.S.C. §5170b(b))
Emergency Protective
costs
Major Disasters
Measures

Sec. 406(b)(1)
Permanent Work
Not less than 75% of eligible
(42 U.S.C. §5172(b)(1))
costsa

Sec. 407(d)
Emergency Work—
Not less than 75% of eligible
(42 U.S.C. §5173(d))
Debris Removal
costs

Sec. 428(e)(1)(B) and Sec.
Permanent Work—
Not quantified for permanent
428(e)(2)(B)—Debris
Alternative Procedures
work;b statute permits the use of
Removal
and Emergency
a sliding scale for determining the
(42 U.S.C. §5189f(e)(1)(B)
Work—Debris
federal share for debris removal.
and §5189f(e)(2)(B))
Removal
Public
Sec. 503(a)
Emergency Work—
Not less than 75% of eligible
Assistance—
(42 U.S.C. §5193(a))
Emergency Protective
costs
Emergencies
Measures and Debris
Removal
Hazard
Sec. 404(a)
Hazard Mitigation
Up to 75% of eligible costs, up to
Mitigation
(42 U.S.C. §5170c(a))
Grant Program
a capped total amount based on
formula of all other Stafford Act
obligations for a given incident.

Sec. 203(h)
Pre-disaster Hazard
Up to 75% of eligible costs, and
(42 U.S.C. §5133(h))
Mitigation (i.e., Building
up to 90% for a small,
Resilient Communities
impoverished community or for
Sec. 206(g)
and Infrastructure)
“community disaster resilience
(42 U.S.C. §5136(g))
zones.”
Individual
Sec. 408(g)(2)
Assistance to
75% of eligible costs (Other
Assistance
(42 U.S.C. §5174(g)(2))
Individuals and
assistance in Sec. 408 authorized
Households for Other
at 100% of eligible costs)
Needs
Notes:

9 Executive Order 12673, Delegation of Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Functions, 54 Federal Register
12571, March 28, 1989, and Executive Order No. 13286, 68 Federal Register 10617, March 5, 2003, as they amended
Executive Order 12148, Federal Emergency Management, 44 Federal Register 43239, July 24, 1979.
10 44 C.F.R. §206.47 for cost share adjustments for states and territories and Stafford Act Sec. 401(c), 42 U.S.C.
§5170(c) for tribes. Examples of administrative adjustments for extraordinary disasters like Hurricane Katrina are
tabulated in Appendix C.
Congressional Research Service

3

link to page 9 link to page 9 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

a. FEMA may reduce the federal share of assistance on permanent work projects to no less than 25% of
eligible costs if a facility suffered damages due to the same type of hazard in the preceding 10 years and the
owner failed to implement relevant mitigation measures (Stafford Act Sec. 406(b)(2); 42 U.S.C. §5172(b)(2)).
b. CRS research into historical implementation of Stafford Act Sec. 428 projects indicates that Presidents and
FEMA provide Sec. 428 assistance to align with the federal cost share established in a given declaration.
Data sources include FEMA “428 data,” as of 8/21/20, provided directly to CRS by FEMA, and OpenFEMA,
“Public Assistance Funded Projects—Details, v1,” https://www.fema.gov/openfema-data-page/public-
assistance-funded-projects-details-v1.
Meeting the Nonfederal Stafford Act Cost Shares
Public Assistance (PA)
The PA nonfederal cost share is the responsibility of the Recipient (the state, tribe, or territory
with the relevant Stafford Act declaration), though Recipients can and often do pass it on to
Applicants (e.g., local governments, state agencies, and nonprofit entities receiving PA and
HMGP funds) in whole or in part. For example, Florida covers one-half of the nonfederal share
for PA awarded to local governments.11 Federal regulations describe the means through which
Recipients may meet the nonfederal cost share.12 Recipients and/or Applicants may apply the
value of donated goods, in-kind resources, and labor to fulfill the nonfederal cost share.13 A state
may also receive a loan or advance to cover the nonfederal share in certain extraordinary
situations.14
Regulations prohibit the use of other federal funds to meet the nonfederal cost share, unless those
funds are statutorily authorized to meet federal cost-share requirements.15 For example, the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant
(CDBG) and its Disaster Recovery Component (CDBG-DR) are often statutorily authorized to
meet federal cost-share requirements for other federal programs.16 Some Recipients and
Applicants say they have found it cumbersome to use CDBG-DR and broader CDBG funding to
satisfy the FEMA cost share.17 In 2020, FEMA and HUD released joint guidance easing
procedures for Applicants for both forms of assistance (known as a “flexible match” (see Figure
1)).18

11 National Governors Association, “Cost Share Considerations for FEMA Public Assistance Grants,” memorandum,
April 21, 2020, https://www.nga.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/NGA-Memo_Cost-Share_Final.pdf.
12 2 C.F.R. §200.306; see also FEMA, Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, June 1, 2020, pp. 25-26, 88-92,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_pappg-v4-updated-links_policy_6-1-2020.pdf.
13 2 C.F.R. §200.306(e)-(j); see also FEMA, Public Assistance Program and Policy Guide, June 1, 2020, pp. 25-26, 88-
92, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_pappg-v4-updated-links_policy_6-1-2020.pdf.
14 Sec. 319 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5162; see also 44 C.F.R. §206.45.
15 2 C.F.R. §200.306(b)(5).
16 For more information, see CRS Report R46475, The Community Development Block Grant’s Disaster Recovery
(CDBG-DR) Component: Background and Issues, by Joseph V. Jaroscak.
17 See, for example, Alessandra Jerolleman, Race Hodges, and Miriam Belblidia, “Preventing Fraud Versus Preventing
Risk Reduction—Are We Focusing Too Much on Making Sure That People Don’t Cheat?” in Jane Kushma and Jean
Slick, eds., Case Studies in Disaster Recovery, 2023, pp. 69-85; GAO, Puerto Rico Electricity: FEMA and HUD Have
Not Approved Long-Term Projects and Need to Implement Recommendations to Address Uncertainties and Enhance
Resilience, GAO-21-54, November 2020, pp. 22-23.
18 HUD and FEMA, “Implementation Guidance for Use of Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery
Funds as Non-Federal Cost Share for the Public Assistance Program,” October 2020, available at
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/fema_hud_flexible-match-implementation-guidance_sop_10-14-
2020.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

4

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Figure 1. FEMA Typical Cost Share, Flexible Match, and Global Match
Flexibilities Available for Certain Stafford Act Programs

Source: Adapted by CRS based on HUD and FEMA, “Implementation Guidance for Use of Community
Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Funds as Non-Federal Cost Share for the Public Assistance
Program,” October 2020, available at https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-10/fema_hud_flexible-match-
implementation-guidance_sop_10-14-2020.pdf, and FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide, May
2016, pp. 1-1 through 1-2.
Notes: FEMA currently authorizes a Flexible Match for Public Assistance Funds utilizing HUD funding to cover
the nonfederal share. FEMA Global Match is only available for HMGP awards and may be combined with other
nonfederal funds.
Individual Assistance
Most Individual Assistance programs are 100% federally funded under current law—including
Crisis Counseling, Disaster Case Management, Disaster Legal Services, Disaster Unemployment
Assistance, and Housing Assistance provided through the Individuals and Household Program.19
Only the Individuals and Households Program Assistance for Other Needs (ONA) includes a
nonfederal cost share that must be borne by states.20 The Stafford Act does not allow for donated
goods to count towards the ONA cost-share requirement.21 FEMA policy provides three options
for the administration of the ONA cost share for states, tribes, and territories:
• The “FEMA Option”: FEMA is entirely responsible for the administration of ONA, and the
state, tribe, or territory reimburses FEMA for the nonfederal share.

19 FEMA, Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide (IAPPG), v. 1.1, FP 104-009-03, May 2021, p. 5,
https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_iappg-1.1.pdf. Cost shares for the Individuals and
Households program is at Stafford Act Sec. 408(g), 42 U.S.C. §5174(g). For more information, see CRS Report
R46014, FEMA Individual Assistance Programs: An Overview, by Elizabeth M. Webster.
20 Stafford Act Sec. 408(g)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. §5174(g)(2)(B).
21 FEMA, Disaster Operations Legal Reference, vol. 4, September 25, 2020, p. 6-68 through 6-79.
Congressional Research Service

5

link to page 9 link to page 11 link to page 11 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

• The “Joint Option”: FEMA and the affected state, tribe, or territory administer ONA jointly.
FEMA reimburses the affected government for the federal share of assistance.
• The “State, Territorial, or Tribal Government Option”: the affected jurisdiction
administers ONA independently. FEMA reimburses the affected government for the federal
share of assistance.22
Hazard Mitigation Assistance
As with FEMA Public Assistance, the nonfederal cost shares for the Hazard Mitigation Grant
Program (HMGP) and Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) projects are the
responsibility of the state, tribe, or territorial government (STT) that receives a relevant Stafford
Act declaration or BRIC award. However, STTs may pass the nonfederal share onto entities
responsible for individual HMGP or BRIC projects, including local governments, nonprofits, or
homeowners.23
HMGP and BRIC cost shares may be met with donated resources, Disaster Mitigation Loans from
the Small Business Administration, funds available through the National Flood Insurance Fund’s
Increased Cost of Compliance Funds, loans from the Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan
Fund program, and/or other sources.24 Stafford Act HMGP Recipients may elect to utilize a
“global match” when using other federal funds to meet the nonfederal share for HMGP (see
Figure 1). Under a “global match,” individual projects do not require a 25% cost share. Instead,
the Recipient may contribute 25% towards all submitted projects funded by the program,
affording more flexibility to Recipients and Applicants than a typical per-project cost-share
requirement.25
State and Local Cost Share Practices
As noted above, the Stafford Act specifies that the 25% nonfederal share for Individual
Assistance for Other Needs is the responsibility of the state, tribe, or territory with the relevant
Stafford Act declaration.26 These cost shares may not be passed on to other entities.
Cost shares for Public Assistance, the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, and BRIC may be
passed onto those directly overseeing projects, in whole or in part. State approaches to meeting
PA and HMGP cost shares vary. Recent surveys revealed that a plurality of states share the PA
nonfederal cost share with local governments responsible for particular projects; 6 pay the entire
share, and 17 states pay no portion (Figure 2). Far fewer states contribute to the nonfederal share
for HMGP projects: 32 pay no portion and 3 cover the entire share (Figure 3). States pay for their
portion of nonfederal shares in a variety of ways, including statewide disaster accounts and
contingency accounts.27

22 FEMA, Individual Assistance Program and Policy Guide, pp. 146-148.
23 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide, May 2016, pp. 1-1 through 1-2.
24 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide, May 2016, pp. 2-2 through 2-3, and FEMA, “FEMA’s
Safeguarding Tomorrow Revolving Loan Fund Program,” https://www.fema.gov/fact-sheet/femas-safeguarding-
tomorrow-revolving-loan-fund-program.
25 FEMA, Hazard Mitigation Assistance Cost Share Guide, May 2016, pp. 4-1 through 4-4.
26 Stafford Act Sec. 408(g)(2)(B), 42 U.S.C. §5174(g)(2)(B).
27 For information on state approaches to managing disaster-related costs, see Colin Foard, “How States Pay for Natural
Disasters in an Era of Rising Costs,” Pew Trust, May 12, 2020, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/
reports/2020/05/how-states-pay-for-natural-disasters-in-an-era-of-rising-costs.
Congressional Research Service

6

link to page 29

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Figure 2. State Nonfederal Share Policies: Public Assistance
According to the National Emergency Management Association

Source: CRS adaptation of National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), Biennial Report 2022, pp. 15-
17, and CRS communication with authors.
Note: NEMA’s report specified that these policies were in place for 25%, unadjusted PA nonfederal shares.
Different policies may be in place when cost shares are adjusted. The District of Columbia pays the entire 25%.
Figure 3. State Nonfederal Share Policies: Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
According to the National Emergency Management Association

Source: CRS adaptation of National Emergency Management Association, Biennial Report 2022, p. 17.
Cost Shares: Legislative History and Background
Congress has long debated how much the federal government should contribute to disaster relief
and how much should be the responsibility of states and other nonfederal entities. Congress,
executive agencies, and oversight bodies have gradually formalized cost-sharing arrangements for
different types of assistance since the Disaster Relief Act of 1950 authorized standing federal
disaster relief to affected communities in the United States (see Appendix A). This history
reveals several trends. First, the specified federal share for various programs has generally
increased. Second, the enactment of statutory cost shares often responded to executive proposals
Congressional Research Service

7

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

to reduce federal shares for disaster relief. More recent statutory adjustments have focused on
adjustments for particular entities, incidents, or projects.
1950–1970: Establishment of Federal Disaster Cost Shares
The Disaster Relief Act of 1950 (P.L. 81-875) required governors requesting federal assistance for
disasters to certify that state and local governments had expended “a reasonable amount” on the
incident.28 No specific cost share structured such assistance. Particularly severe disasters in the
early and mid-1960s prompted enactment of several supplementary disaster relief bills,29 and
generated congressional debate on the need for more comprehensive assistance that included
assistance for restoring public facilities and damaged homes, among other losses. This debate
accompanied proposals for individuals, states, and affected communities to “share part of the
loss” with the federal government—particularly amid the growing scope and scale of federal
assistance.30 Cost-sharing requirements in Army Corps of Engineers programs, emergency
assistance for federal aid roads, and the regional development assistance served as models for
various disaster cost-share proposals.31
The Disaster Relief Act of 1966 (P.L. 89-769) was the first general disaster relief statute to
specify quantified cost-sharing requirements. Under the statute, the federal government was to
cover no more than half of the costs of repairing and reconstructing eligible disaster-damaged
state and local public facilities (an early iteration of the FEMA Public Assistance program)—
which was understood to be “a fair and reasonable cost sharing arrangement.”32 When the
Disaster Relief Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-79) further expanded federal assistance to include grants to
states to help cover disaster-related losses incurred by individuals and families, it specified that
states were to cover 50% of the costs.33
1970–1980: Concern over Growing Federal Role in Disaster Relief
These experiments with disaster cost-share requirements briefly ceased under federal disaster
relief authorities enacted in 1970 and 1972, with new federal financial assistance specifically
authorized at up to 100% of eligible costs following several years of severe, costly, and fatal
disasters that were responsible for over 300 deaths. 34 Many Members soon expressed concern
over the growing federal share of costs outlaid for disaster relief. A CRS report from 1973
requested by the House Committee found

28 Sec. 2(a) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1950, P.L. 81-875.
29 Following Incidents like the Pacific Northwest floods in 1964, the Palm Sunday tornado outbreak, and Hurricane
Betsy, Congress and the President enacted the Pacific Northwest Disaster Relief Act of 1965 (P.L. 89-41) and the
Southeast Hurricane Disaster Relief Act (P.L. 89-339).
30 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Flood Control—Rivers and Harbors, “S. 1861,
A Bill to Provide Additional Assistance for Areas Suffering a Major Disaster,” hearings, part 1, 89th Cong., 1st sess.,
June 21-22, 1965, pp. 172-173.
31 See, for example, Rep. Edith Green, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Flood
Control—Rivers and Harbors, “Pacific Northwest Floods,” hearings, 89th Cong., 1st session, March 9-11, 1965, pp.
220-221.
32 Statement of Rep. George Miller, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Flood
Control—Rivers and Harbors, “S. 1861, A Bill to Provide Additional Assistance for Areas Suffering a Major Disaster,”
hearings, part 2, 89th Cong., 1st sess., July 19-20, 1965, p. 104.
33 Sec. 8 of P.L. 91-79.
34 As authorized in the Disaster Relief Act of 1970, P.L. 91-606 and P.L. 92-385.
Congressional Research Service

8

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Federal spending is now a higher proportion of losses in major disasters than it was a
decade ago … 1970 marked a sharp increase in the extent of Federal assumption of disaster
costs…. Federal assistance totaled 12 percent of disaster losses in Hurricane Betsy (1965),
17 percent for Hurricane Camille (1969), 44 percent for Hurricane Celia (1970), 58 percent
for the California earthquake (1971) and 88 percent for Tropical Storm Agnes (1972).35
That same year, President Richard Nixon, in concert with 30 federal agencies and representatives
of state, local, and territorial governments, released a special report evaluating current disaster
relief authorities.36 The Administration regretted that existing disaster authorities made the federal
government “virtually the sole provider or recovery assistance.”37 Introduced legislation proposed
a 75% federal–25% nonfederal cost-sharing model for various forms of federal relief to offer “a
more balanced program of true federalism, with individuals contributing to their own protection
and each level of government doing what it can do best.”38
Not all of these proposals were adopted. The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 (P.L. 93-288)
established a 75% federal–25% nonfederal arrangement for disaster-affected individuals and
families (through the Individuals and Family Grant program, a precursor to the current
Individuals and Households Program).39 The statute authorized the federal government to cover
up to 100% of the costs of assistance to state and local governments for the restoration of public
facilities; assistance for debris removal and emergency response measures did not specify a cost
share.40 It required that governors certify, as a prerequisite for requesting federal assistance, that
state and local government obligations and expenditures constitute “a reasonable amount.”41
1980–1988: Backlash Against Proposed Federal Share Reductions
In the absence of a specific cost share for Public Assistance, the first FEMA Director, John
Williams Macy, Jr., first established the 75% federal–25% nonfederal cost share in 1980,
following the eruption of Mt. St Helens in Washington State.42 Following that incident, FEMA
applied the cost share more broadly. In 1980, GAO reported that FEMA’s policy had provoked
controversy, with many state officials reporting that the 25% nonfederal share exceeded their
capacity and was thus unreasonable.43 The Los Angeles Times reported:

35 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Disaster Relief, To Investigate the Adequacy
and Effectiveness of Federal Disaster Relief Legislation, Part 5, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 11-13, 1973, No. 93-H6, p.
56.
36 The White House, New Approaches to Federal Disaster Preparedness and Assistance, report to the House
Committee on Public Works, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., May 14, 1973, p. 5.
37 The report specifically referenced P.L. 92-385. The White House, New Approaches to Federal Disaster
Preparedness and Assistance, report to the House Committee on Public Works, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., May 14, 1973, p.
89.
38 Statement of Thomas Dunner, Administrator, Federal Disaster Assistance Administration, in U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Public Works, Subcommittee on Disaster Relief, To Investigate the Adequacy and Effectiveness of
Federal Disaster Relief Legislation, Part 5, 93rd Cong., 1st sess., Sept. 11-13, 1973, No. 93-H6, pp. 56-58.
39 Sec. 408(a)-(b) of P.L. 93-288.
40 U.S. Congress, “Disaster Relief Act of 1970,” report no. 91-1752, 91st Cong., 2nd sess., Dec. 15, 1970, p. 35; see also
Senate Committee on Public Works, “Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1974,” report no. 93-778, 93rd Cong, 2nd
sess., p. 2.
41 Sec. 301 of P.L. 93-288.
42 See discussion in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Regional
and Community Development, Amending the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, hearings, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., July 16
and 21, 1981, and April 20, 1982, particularly pp. 72-74.
43 GAO, Requests for Federal Disaster Assistance Need Better Evaluation, CED-82-4, Dec. 7, 1981.
Congressional Research Service

9

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

The … President … issued an executive order cutting the federal share to 75% of the cost,
with the state and local government forced to come up with the rest or get no recovery
aid.… [A FEMA representative comments that] “I don’t thinking (sic) I am speaking out
of school to say there’s a great many of us in the agency who have been very worried and
concerned about the impact of (Carter’s) executive orders ... from the time they were
issued. We realized they can cause hardship and suffering almost in and of themselves.”44
Members of Congress debated the cost-share arrangement within months of implementation.45 At
FEMA’s request, Congress took up several proposals to codify the arrangement in order to
“formalize” and fix a cost-sharing arrangement that had “always been difficult to obtain and
document,” particularly the determination of “reasonable” contributions.46 A Senate report on one
proposed bill explained that cost share would additionally uphold “the supplemental nature of
Federal aid which is a cardinal principle of the underlying Act” and help control costs by “making
grantees … have a stake in the long-term costs related to disaster projects.”47
Several bills introduced over successive Congresses took up the cost-sharing issue; none were
enacted. In 1986, FEMA proposed new federal regulations intended to reduce the overall federal
share of disaster relief to 50% of otherwise eligible costs, to be achieved through a combination
of sliding scale cost shares, the introduction of cost shares to temporary housing and crisis
counseling programs that were otherwise 100% federally funded, and state “deductibles” paid
prior to receiving federal assistance.48 Committee Members of both parties expressed “deep ...
concern” that the procedures abandoned those in need and “cross[ed] over the line” of executive
discretion, referring to the proposal as “planned federal neglect.”49 Other Members spoke about
the shortcomings of existing federal relief programs and stressed that, in practice, affected
communities might ultimately pay much more than the nonfederal share apparent in specific
federal programs:
You know, if we were getting 50 percent on the dollar right now, I would say, “Great,
great, I will take the program, it gives me 50 percent on the dollar.” But we don’t get that
now. They promise 75 percent, we are lucky if we get 38, 40 percent when we finally get
approval on the projects that are supposed to be covered.50

44 David Johnston, “U.S. Disaster Aid: It Too Is a Disaster,” Los Angeles Times, July 6, 1982, p. B1.
45 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Regional and Community
Development, Amending the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, hearings, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., July 16 and 21, 1981,
and April 20, 1982, p. 5.
46 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Subcommittee on Regional and Community
Development, Amending the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, hearings, 97th Cong., 1st and 2nd sess., July 16 and 21, 1981,
and April 20, 1982; and U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Report to Accompany S.
2250, No. 97-259, 97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 28, 1982, pp. 2-3.
47 U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, Report to Accompany S. 2250, No. 97-259,
97th Cong., 2nd sess., May 28, 1982, p. 5.
48 FEMA, “Disaster Assistance; Subpart C, the Declaration Process and State Commitments,” proposed rule, 51
Federal Register 13332-13336, April 18, 1986; FEMA, “Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training,” proposed rule, 51
Federal Register 13336-13340, April 18, 1986; and FEMA, “Temporary Housing Assistance,” proposed rule, 51
Federal Register 13340-13341, April 18, 1986.
49 Chairman James Oberstar, Rep. William Clinger, Jr., Rep. Douglas Applegate, U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Inquiry into FEMA’s Proposed
Disaster Relief Regulations, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., July 23, 1986, pp. 2, 13,16. Rep. Newt Gingrich also said in the same
hearing that “the American people do not want to turn their back on communities that need help.... ” (p. 6).
50 Rep. Leon Panetta and Rep. Robert Lagomarsino similarly noted that many communities cover disaster relief costs
ineligible for federal assistance, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee
on Investigations and Oversight, Inquiry into FEMA’s Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., July
23, 1986, pp. 21-27.
Congressional Research Service

10

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Representatives of the League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Governors
Association, and the National Coordinating Council on Emergency Management, among others,
criticized the proposals’ reduction of support for nonfederal governments and departure from the
authorizing statute.51 Congress subsequently passed legislation prohibiting FEMA from
implementing some of the proposals,52 and FEMA withdrew the rulemaking.53
Congress revisited legislation to codify minimum federal shares for different relief programs, “so
that FEMA cannot again attempt to reduce the federal share,” according to one Member.54 The
enactment of the Robert T. Stafford Act in 1988 codified 75%-25% federal-nonfederal cost shares
for both Public Assistance and financial assistance to individuals, while retaining 100% cost
shares for temporary housing, crisis counseling, and unemployment insurance.55 The Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program assistance was originally authorized for up to 50% of eligible costs,56
though that was increased to a 75% federal share in the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation
Assistance Act of 1993 (P.L. 103-181).57
1988–Present: Adjustments for Mitigation, Flexibility, and Equity
The general 75% federal/25% nonfederal cost-share authorities for Public Assistance, Individual
Assistance for Other Needs, and the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program enacted in the Stafford Act
and the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act remain active, as does the 100% federal
funding for other Stafford Act programs for individuals and households. However, subsequent
legislation has authorized modified cost shares for certain types of applicants or projects in order
to incentivize resilient building, reduce expenditures on disaster-prone properties, and increase
support for particularly vulnerable communities. For example, the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 reduced the federal cost share for Public Assistance properties that had suffered repeated
disaster losses.58 The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 also authorized the provision of pre-disaster
mitigation assistance, which included a federal cost share of 90% for “small, impoverished
communities”—the first enacted cost share designed to address equity concerns.59 More recently,
the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 authorized the President to increase federal cost shares for
Public Assistance for states, tribes, and territories that had undertaken a range of actions (such as
adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes, or promoting purchase of hazard
insurance), though this authority has not yet been implemented.60 The Disaster Recovery Reform
Act eliminated penalties (in the form of reduced federal shares) for “alternative” restoration

51 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and
Oversight, “Inquiry into FEMA’s Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations,” 99th Cong., 2nd sess., July 23, 1986.
52 99th Congress, H.R. 5488, “Disaster Relief Act Amendments of 1986.”
53 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Water Resources,
Reauthorization of the Federal Disaster Relief Program, 100th Cong., 1st sess., July 21, 1987, pp. 2-3.
54 Rep. James Oberstar, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on
Water Resources, Reauthorization of the Federal Disaster Relief Program, 100th Cong., 1st sess., July 21, 1987, p. 4.
55 As under current law, the Stafford Act authorized assistance for nonfederal governments and nonprofits with a
minimum 75% cost share that could be increased by the President. Statute established a fixed 75% federal cost share
for financial assistance to individuals and household, with states (not individuals) paying the 25% nonfederal share, and
no ability for the President to modify the arrangement.
56 Sec. 404 of P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5170c.
57 Sec. 2(a) of P.L. 103-181, as it amended Sec. 404 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172(b).
58 Sec. 205(b) of P.L. 106-390, as it amended Sec. 406(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172(b).
59 Sec. 102 of P.L. 106-390, as it added Sec. 203(h) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5133(h).
60 Sec. 20606 of P.L. 115-123, as it amended Sec. 406(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172(b).
Congressional Research Service

11

link to page 32 link to page 35 link to page 32 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

projects undertaken when a community determines new designs are in the public interest.61 Most
recently, the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act of 2022 authorized the President to
increase the federal share for pre-disaster mitigation (BRIC) for zones including census tracts
with high hazard risks.62
Congress and the President also enacted a number of bills authorizing cost-share adjustments for
particularly severe or widespread incidents, including assistance for hurricanes in 2005, 2008, and
2017 (including Hurricanes Katrina, Ike, Harvey, Irma, and Maria), the 2017 wildfires, and the
COVID-19 pandemic (see Appendix B and Appendix C).
Cost-Share Adjustments: Trends and Context
As noted earlier, the Stafford Act permits the President to increase the federal share of authorized
Public Assistance for a given declaration.63 The President may also decrease the federal share of
assistance authorized for HMGP or BRIC,64 though CRS did not locate instances of such actions
since 1995.65 No federal regulations specify the conditions under which FEMA may recommend
such a reduction.
According to regulations, FEMA may recommend that the President increase the PA cost share:
• to up to 90% for PA for both emergency work and/or permanent work “whenever
a disaster is so extraordinary that actual Federal obligations under the Stafford
Act, excluding FEMA administrative cost, meet or exceed a qualifying threshold”
that is adjusted annually.66 The threshold for CY2023 is $173 dollars per capita
statewide.67
• to up to 100% for emergency work only when “warranted by the needs of the
disaster … for a limited period in the initial days of the disaster irrespective of
the per capita impact.”
Additionally, the Insular Areas Act (P.L. 95-348, as amended) authorizes certain agencies to
“waive any requirement for matching funds otherwise required by law to be provided by the
Insular Area involved…,” which Presidents have invoked to modify cost share requirements for
HMGP and ONA that are otherwise fixed in statute.68 For example, President William J. Clinton

61 Sec. 1207(a)(1)-(2) of P.L. 115-254; Sec. 406(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172(b).
62 Sec. 3(g) of P.L. 117-255, 42 U.S.C. §5136(g).
63 See, for example, 42 U.S.C. §5193(a), which states “[t]he Federal share for assistance … shall be equal to not less
than 75 percent of the eligible costs”; and 42 U.S.C. §5170b(b), which states “[t]he Federal share of assistance … shall
be not less than 75 percent of the eligible cost of such assistance.”
64 See 42 U.S.C. 5170c, which states, “The President may contribute up to 75 percent of the cost of hazard mitigation
measures.... ” and 42 U.S.C. 5133(h).
65 CRS’s methodology for identifying Stafford Act cost share adjustments is detailed in Appendix B. Notably, the
President did reduce the overall amount of HMGP (vs. the cost share for projects) provided for New York’s major
disaster declaration for the September 11th terrorist attacks to 5% of the estimated aggregate amounts of other Stafford
Act assistance for the incident. At the time, it could be authorized to up to 15% of the aggregate amount for a given
incident. See Stafford Act Sec. 404, 42 U.S.C §5170c, as established by P.L. 103-181.
66 44 C.F.R. §206.47(b).
67 FEMA Advisory, “CY 2023 Consumer Price Index (CPI) Adjustments,” February 1, 2023. Provided to CRS by
FEMA Congressional Affairs.
68 48 U.S.C. §1469a(d).
Congressional Research Service

12

link to page 32 link to page 35 link to page 18 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

invoked the Insular Areas Act to authorize a 90% cost share for the Individuals and Family Grant
program for Guam following Typhoon Paka in 1997.69
Such cost-share adjustments have sometimes generated concern among oversight entities.70 In
2012, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) found, among other issues, that there were
no consistent, transparent procedures regarding the extension of cost-share waivers for Public
Assistance for emergency work. GAO recommended that the FEMA Administrator develop and
implement specific criteria for evaluating and extending cost-share adjustments of up to 100%.71
The recommendation was closed without implementation, with the following explanation:
Although FEMA initially concurred with this recommendation, FEMA has concluded that
it will not establish specific criteria or factors to use when evaluating requests for cost share
adjustments that would result in the federal government paying up to 100 percent of
disaster costs. FEMA conducted a historical review of the circumstances that previously
led to these cost share adjustments, and determined that each circumstance was unique in
nature and could not be used to develop criteria or factors for future decision making. In
addition, implementing criteria broad or flexible enough to capture these unique events
would likely result in cost share adjustments for events that would not warrant an
adjustment.72
Trends
CRS used several publicly available databases to identify administrative and legislative Stafford
Act cost-share adjustments. The following section identifies trends in legislative and
administrative cost-share adjustments implemented since 1995 that could be identified by CRS.73
CRS counted unique adjustments for distinct programs (e.g., Public Assistance, Individual
Assistance for Other Needs), types of assistance (e.g., for Debris Removal), amounts (e.g., 90%
federal share), and durations (time-limited, permanent).
A list of enacted statutory adjustments for specific incidents appears in Appendix B. A tabulation
of administrative adjustments implemented for major disasters since 1995 is available in
Appendix C.
Cost-Share Adjustments by Type, 1995-2023
Statutory vs. Administrative Adjustments
Stafford Act cost-share adjustments have taken several forms. Since 1995, the President has
initiated less than half of all cost-share adjustments (referred to as “administrative adjustments”),
while statutory adjustments accounted for the remainder (see Table 2). Congressional cost-share

69 See FEMA, “Government of Guam; Amendment to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” notice, 65 Federal
Register 79367, December 19, 2000.
70 44 C.F.R. §206.47(d).
71 GAO, “Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction’s Capability to Respond and
Recover on Its Own,” GAO-12-838, Sept. 12, 2012, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-838.
72 GAO, “Federal Disaster Assistance: Improved Criteria Needed to Assess a Jurisdiction’s Capability to Respond and
Recover on Its Own,” GAO-12-838, Sept. 12, 2012, https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-12-838.
73 A full description of the methodology is included in the appendices. This data represents the final cost-share
adjustments for a given incident; it does not include initial cost-share adjustments that were ultimately superseded by
greater federal cost shares and/or cost-share increases of a longer duration. For example, this analysis does not include
data on an initial temporary cost-share increase for an incident that was ultimately superseded by a permanent 100%
cost share increase for the same program.
Congressional Research Service

13

link to page 32 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

adjustments for specific incidents has increased during this time period, including with the
enactment of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, which ordered that the federal
government shall cover a minimum of 90% of eligible costs for all Stafford Act assistance
authorized for a given incident declared or occurring between calendar years 2020-2021,
excepting declarations for the COVID-19 pandemic.74 The Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2022 authorized cost-share increases for 220 declarations under the Stafford Act75—far more than
any previous legislative cost-share adjustments targeting particular incidents.
Table 2. Cost-Share Adjustments by Authority
Authorized Since 1995, as Identified by CRS
Declarations
Number of Cost-
Authority
Affected
Share Adjustments
Administrative Actions
311
607
Statutory Actions
310
815
Balanced Budget Act of 1997, P.L. 105-33
1
1
Cerro Grande Fire Assistance Act, 2000, P.L. 106-246
2
6
Emergency Supplemental Appropriations Act for Defense, the
1
5
Global War on Terror, and Hurricane Recovery, 2006, P.L. 109-234
U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans’ Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
10
40
Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007, P.L. 110-28
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2009, P.L. 111-32
4
12
Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2010, P.L. 111-212
6
16
Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018, P.L. 115-123
2
2
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2019, P.L. 116-6
3
6
Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act,
59
59
2021, P.L. 116-260
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, P.L. 117-103
220
663
Calf Canyon Fire Assistance Act, P.L. 117-180
1
5
Source: Compiled by CRS using federalregister.gov, Congress.gov, and OpenFEMA. Ful section citations and
summaries are available in Table B-1.
Notes:
a. Data reflects unique adjustments by program, amount, duration, and type of assistance. For example, an
adjustment authorizing a 100% waiver for Public Assistance for Debris Removal and Emergency Protective
Measures for the same incident would be treated as two adjustments.
b. Some statutory cost-share adjustments superseded administrative adjustments; both statutory and
administrative adjustments are counted as discrete data (e.g., an administrative 100% cost-share waiver that
is subsequently codified wil appear as two adjustments, one administrative and one statutory).
The Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260 adjusted cost-shares
for all COVID-19 pandemic Stafford Act declarations. FEMA did not modify 41 emergency declarations for
tribes, and noted that “[t]ribal members may apply and receive assistance under the applicable state or territory
declaration.” For this reason, only the 59 major disaster declarations for the pandemic are included in the table
above. FEMA, “COVID-19 Funeral Assistance Individuals and Households Program Policy,” v.2., FEMA Policy #
104-21-0001, June 29, 2021.

74 Div. F, Sec. 311 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2022, P.L. 117-103.
75 As listed in FEMA, “Amendments of Emergency and Major Disaster Declarations,” 87 Federal Register 26362.
Congressional Research Service

14

link to page 19 link to page 20

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Administrative Adjustments by Program
As illustrated in Figure 4, most administrative cost-share adjustments represent federal cost-share
increases for FEMA Public Assistance. A smaller number increase federal shares for the Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program or Individual Assistance for Other Needs and its predecessor, the
Individuals and Family Grant program. These adjustments exercise authorities available under the
Insular Areas Act to waive certain cost-share requirements for the five major territories.76
Figure 4. Administrative Stafford Act Cost-Share Adjustments by Program
Total Number Implemented Since 1995

Source: Compiled by CRS using searches of Federal Register.Gov and OpenFEMA.
Notes: IFG = Individuals and Family Grant Program (precursor to current-day Individuals and Households
Program); ONA = Individual Assistance for Other Needs; HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; DFA =
Direct Federal Assistance (e.g., federal personnel, supplies, facilities provided directly to affected communities).
Cost-Share Adjustments: Duration
As noted earlier, federal regulations specify that FEMA may recommend that the President
increase the federal share for emergency work to up to 100% for a “limited period of time” when
warranted by the severity of the event.
Just under half of administrative adjustments are time-limited, with the remaining being
permanent increases of the federal share of assistance. Historical adjustments indicate that
different administrations have interpreted “a limited period of time” to refer to a period of two
days to up to several months (see Figure 5). Such limited-time cost-share waivers in the 1990s
and 2000s typically lasted as little as 48-72 hours.77 Cost-share waivers lasting under one week
diminished around 2009, and have generally given way to waivers of 30-60 days or more.

76 The Insular Areas Act specifies that “[t]he administering authority of any department or agency, in its discretion,
may (i) waive any requirement for matching funds otherwise required by law to be provided by the Insular Area
involved and (ii) waive the requirement that any Insular Area submit an application or report in writing with respect to
any consolidated grant” (48 U.S.C. §1469a(d)).
77 President William J. Clinton frequently delegated authority to modify the duration of Stafford Act cost-share waivers
to FEMA Administrator James Lee Witt, whose position was included in the President’s Cabinet. See, for example,
declarations for Hurricane Georges in 1998, which generally included the allowance that “the time period may be
extended, if warranted” (FEMA, “Louisiana; Amendment No. 2 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” notice, 63
Federal Register 56029, October 20, 1998); as well as declarations for Hurricane Hortense in 1996, which included
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

15

link to page 19

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

As illustrated in Figure 4, some time-limited adjustments have lasted well over a year; almost all
of these pertain to the COVID-19 pandemic. Upon assuming office in January 2021, President
Biden increased the federal cost share for Public Assistance provided for the Stafford Act
declarations for the COVID-19 pandemic from 75% to 100%.78 The cost-share waiver ultimately
lasted for an unprecedented 894 days, from January 20, 2020, to July 1, 2022, with a 90% cost
share available thereafter through May 11, 2023.79 Prior to that, the longest cost-share
adjustments pertained to Louisiana’s and Mississippi’s major disaster declarations for Hurricane
Katrina, which afforded cost-share waivers for debris removal for 490 and 625 days,
respectively.80
Figure 5. Duration of Time-Limited Cost-Share Adjustments
Administrative Adjustments Since 1995

Source: Compiled by CRS using federalregister.gov and OpenFEMA.
Note: Data reflect final cost-share adjustments, specific to each form of assistance. A 72-hour cost-share waiver
for debris removal and emergency protective measures extended for 30 days appears as two, 33-day waivers.
When adjustments are delimited by a certain date (vs. a specified period of time), the incident period is generally
included in the duration, as FEMA notes that PA awards begin on the first day of the incident period (FEMA,
PAPPG 2020, p. 26).

language that “you or your designee may extend the time period for this direct Federal assistance funding, if necessary”
( FEMA, “Virginia: Major Disaster and Related Determinations,” notice, 61 Federal Register 49774, September 23,
1996).
78 President Joseph R. Biden, “Memorandum to Extend Federal Support to Governors’ Use of the National Guard to
Respond to COVID-⁠19 and to Increase Reimbursement and Other Assistance Provided to States,” January 21, 2021,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/extend-federal-support-to-governors-useof-
national-guard-to-respond-to-covid-19-and-to-increase-reimbursement-and-other-assistance-provided-to-states/;
President Joseph R. Biden., Jr. “Memorandum on Maximizing Assistance to Respond to COVID-⁠19,” March 1, 2022,
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/01/memorandum-on-maximizingassistance-
to-respond-to-covid-19-2/; FEMA Advisory, “COVID-19 Cost Share Extension,” March 1, 2022; FEMA Advisory,
“COVID-19 Cost Share Extension,” March 1, 2022, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_covid-
19-cost-share-extension_03012022.pdf.
79 FEMA, “Major Disaster Declarations: COVID-19 Pandemic,” 87 Federal Register 26366, May 4, 2022.
80 FEMA, “Louisiana; Amendment No. 11 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” notice, 71 Federal Register
41228, July 20, 2006; and FEMA, “Mississippi; Amendment No. 14 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” notice,
71 Federal Register 41228, July 20, 2006.
Congressional Research Service

16

link to page 21 link to page 22

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Cost-Share Adjustments by Year
The number of Stafford Act cost-share adjustments extended has spiked in the past two years
(Figure 6). President Biden’s extension of a 100% cost share for Public Assistance for the
pandemic affected over 100 declarations. Subsequently, the enactment of the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2022 authorized federal share increases for 220 Stafford Act declarations
issued in 2020 and 2021. Other years with numerous cost-share adjustments included those issued
for the 2005 hurricane season and the 2017 hurricane season.
Figure 6. Cost-Share Adjustments by Declaration Year
Administrative and Statutory Adjustments Authorized, 1995-2022

Source: Compiled by CRS using Congress.gov, federalregister.gov, and OpenFEMA.
Cost-Share Adjustments—Geographic Distribution
The geographic distribution of cost-share adjustments generally reflects the geography of some of
the most severe, expensive disasters since 1995. For example, Congress and presidents issued
numerous cost-share adjustments to provide additional federal assistance following the
destruction wrought by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma in the southeast; the terrorist attacks
of September 11, 2001; Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria (2017); and the California wildfires
since 2017 (see Figure 7). Federally recognized tribal governments have received 74 cost-share
adjustments for federally recognized tribes; most of those pertain to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Congressional Research Service

17

Figure 7. Declarations Affected by Cost-Share Adjustments, by State and Territory
January 1995–June 2023

Source: Analysis based on cost-share adjustments announced in federalregister.gov, with reference to OpenFEMA declarations data.
CRS-18

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Issues for Congress
Cost Shares as Incentives and Disincentives
Congress has treated Stafford Act cost shares as a tool to incentivize certain behaviors in disaster-
affected communities (e.g., cost-effective, timely project completion, hazard-resilient rebuilding,
insurance purchasing, building code adoption, preparedness) and disincentivize others (rebuilding
repetitively damaged properties, unreasonable spending, overreliance on federal funds and
emergency resources).
Congressional priorities have evolved since the existing, program-wide cost shares were
established in statute in the late 1980s and early 1990s; Congress may consider amending cost
shares accordingly. In recent years, for instance, Congress has underscored the importance of
building resiliently and undertaking mitigation to reduce the costs and casualties of future
disasters, while also raising concern about the growing costs of expensive post-disaster response
and recovery.81 However, existing statute caps post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
assistance and sets a maximum 75% federal share for eligible costs, while Public Assistance for
post-disaster response and recovery includes no cap and includes a minimum 75% federal share.
Some experts have found that the federal government invests $7 in post-disaster recovery for
every $1 in mitigation and resilience.82 Congress may consider authorizing an increased federal
share for HMGP to incentivize resiliency,83 and reducing the federal share for certain response
and recovery projects in line with congressional priorities (for example, reducing spending in
particularly hazard-prone areas). Congress could also consider authorizing higher federal cost
shares or cost-share waivers to incentivize certain desirable pre-disaster or post-disaster outcomes
and/or projects—for example, recommencing full-time schooling following severe incidents to
reduce student displacement, restoring power and communications services, or completing low-
emissions projects. Congress enacted similar authorities in the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018,
which authorized the President to increase the federal share for certain recovery projects to
incentivize insurance purchasing and building code adoption; eligible activities could be
expanded to reflect additional congressional priorities.
Role of FEMA and the President
The presidential authority to modify cost shares for Public Assistance and the Hazard Mitigation
Grant Program assistance affords significant executive discretion over large portions of federal
spending on disasters. FEMA, similarly, exercises significant authority when recommending such
cost-share adjustments. These authorities have sometimes generated controversy and concern
regarding political motivations behind the provision of federal relief.84 For example, President
Donald J. Trump increased the federal share for PA for permanent work to 90% in Puerto Rico

81 See, for example, Rep. Peter DeFazio, oral testimony, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, FEMA: Prioritizing a Culture of Preparedness, 115th Cong., 2nd sess., April 11, 2018, S.Hrg.
115-442, pp. 6-7; and DRRA, Div. D of P.L. 115-254, especially secs. 1235(b)-(d).
82 Sadie Frank, Eric Gesick, and David G. Victor, Inviting Danger: How Federal Disaster, Insurance, and
Infrastructure Policies Are Magnifying the Harm of Climate Change, Brookings Institution, p. 16.
83 See, for example, S. 485, 118th Cong.
84 See, for example, Thomas Husted and David Nickerson, “Electoral Incentives, Presidential Disaster Declarations and
Federal Disaster Aid,” April 29, 2012, available at SSRN, https://ssrn.com/abstract=2576937 or http://dx.doi.org/
10.2139/ssrn.2576937.
Congressional Research Service

19

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

following Hurricane María.85 The assistance was conditioned on Puerto Rico’s use of alternative
procedures that transfer cost overruns entirely to affected communities (removing the federal
share) and the formation of a fiscal oversight body, among other requirements.86 Following
congressional concern over the consequences for Puerto Rico and the politics of the decision,87
Congress amended the Stafford Act to prohibit the conditioning of federal assistance in this way.88
Congress may consider redressing concerns that decisions over whether and how to increase the
federal shares for Stafford Act assistance may be politicized. Congress could, for example,
establish statutory parameters for such increases, require FEMA to implement more detailed
rulemaking on their procedures (particularly for administrative waivers of nonfederal cost shares),
or require FEMA to release analyses of historical cost-share increases to increase transparency
and foster trust in agency procedures. Alternatively, Congress may retain the initial deference to
FEMA’s expertise and presidential discretion demonstrated in current authorities.
Balancing Federal and Nonfederal Roles and Responsibilities
Congress intended Stafford Act cost shares to help reinforce the tenet of shared responsibility for
disasters across levels of government. Congress may revisit this tenet as both Congress and the
President increase the federal share of Stafford Act assistance with increasing frequency. Some
experts have raised concerns that the growing federal role in disaster relief may lead to state and
local overreliance on federal resources, personnel, and funds—potentially discouraging
nonfederal investment in hazard mitigation, disaster budgeting, and incentivizing risky
development.89 For its part, FEMA has persistently stressed that the agency must judiciously
conserve its financial and nonfinancial resources to be able to respond to the most catastrophic
incidents. In 2020, for example, FEMA wrote:
FEMA is unable to properly meet … demands when such a large portion of FEMA’s
staffing and focus are committed to numerous and cumulative smaller disasters that are
actually, or should be, within the States’ capabilities to handle on their own.... In order to
build a more prepared and resilient nation, it is essential that State, local, Tribal, and
Territorial governments continually mitigate risk to hazards posed by natural disasters, and

85 FEMA, “Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” 82 Federal Register 53514,
November 16, 2017.
86 FEMA, “Puerto Rico; Amendment No. 5 to Notice of a Major Disaster Declaration,” 82 Federal Register 53514,
November 16, 2017.
87 Letter from Peter A. DeFazio, Ranking Member, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Bennie G.
Thompson, Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland Security, and Frank Pallone, Jr., Ranking Member, Committee
on Energy and Commerce, to William B. “Brock” Long, FEMA Administrator, March 20, 2018; Letter from Senators
Robert Menendez, Sherrod Brown, Elizabeth Warren, and Catherine Cortez Masto, to Kathy Kraninger, OMB Program
Associate Director, July 10, 2018, pp. 2-3; and Rep. DeFazio, U.S. Congress, House Committee on Transportation and
Infrastructure, Emergency Response and Recovery: Central Takeaways from the Unprecedented Hurricane Season,
hearing, 115th Cong., 1st sess., Nov. 2, 2017, H.Hrg. 115-29 (Washington, DC: GPO, 2017), p. 95.
88 Division D, Sec. 1207(c) of P.L. 115-254, as it amended Sec. 428(d)(2) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5189f(d)(2).
89 Jason Thomas Barnosky, Noreen Clancy, and Lloyd Dixon, Insuring Public Buildings, Contents, Vehicles, and
Equipment Against Disasters, RAND, 2020, https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RRA332-1.html; GAO,
Budgeting for Disasters: Approaches to Budgeting for Disasters in Selected States, GAO-15-424, March 2015,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-15-424.pdf; Sadie Frank, Eric Gesick, and David G. Victor, Inviting Danger: How
Federal Disaster, Insurance, and Infrastructure Policies Are Magnifying the Harm of Climate Change, Brookings
Institution, March 2021, https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Inviting_Danger_FINAL.pdf.
Congressional Research Service

20

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

build their response and recovery capabilities for future incidents, including the creation of
dedicated financial reserves to respond to incidents.90
Given these concerns, Congress may consider reducing the federal share of post-disaster response
and recovery assistance, or restricting authorities to increase the federal share for Public
Assistance.91 Congress could also reduce the federal share of assistance for states that lack
current, enforced hazard-resistant building codes or disaster preparedness capability, though these
options may particularly burden small, low-income communities. Alternatively, Congress may
consider alternative means to incentivize nonfederal governments to build financial capacity,
staffing and resources to manage future disasters—for example, by requiring states to maintain
disaster reserves or permanently employ disaster mitigation personnel in order to access federal
assistance.
Equity and Cost-Share Adjustments
Disaster-affected communities and their congressional representatives have raised concerns about
the burdens imposed by Stafford Act cost shares for decades.92 Lower-income communities that
are unable to meet the 25% nonfederal cost shares for PA, HMGP, and ONA may struggle to
recover, or not pursue every possible assistance opportunity.93 Some recent research and reporting
support these concerns.94 GAO and other experts have also found that cost-share adjustments are
extended without transparency or consistency—which risks inequitable distribution of federal
relief.95 Furthermore, FEMA currently recommends permanent federal share increases for Public
Assistance if other disaster aid exceeds certain thresholds—which may favor more densely-built
communities with higher property values and higher homeownership rates.96

90 FEMA, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Proposed Rule: Cost of Assistance Estimates in the Disaster
Declaration Process for the Public Assistance Program,” 85 Federal Register 80719-80745, December 14, 2020, quote
at 80723-80724.
91 David Conrad and Edward Thomas, “Reforming Federal Support for Risky Development,” The Hamilton Project,
2013, pp. 4-6, https://www.hamiltonproject.org/assets/legacy/files/downloads_and_links/
THP_15WaysFedBudget_Prop2.pdf.
92 See, for example, testimony of Governor Albert Bryan Jr., U.S. Virgin Islands, in U.S. Congress, Senate Committee
on Energy and Natural Resources, The State of the U.S. Territories, 118th Cong., 1st sess., February 9, 2023; statements
and testimony of Reps. Leon E. Panetta, Robert Lagomarsino, and Mel Levine, pp. 21-23, 35-36 in U.S. Congress,
House Committee on Public Works and Transportation, Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, Inquiry into
FEMA’s Proposed Disaster Relief Regulations, 99th Cong., 2nd sess., July 23, 1986.
93 Jasmine Butler, “Turning the Tide Toward Equity: Simplifying Federal Flood Assistance Applications,” American
Flood Coalition Blog, May 2020, https://floodcoalition.org/2020/05/turning-the-tide-toward-equity-simplifying-federal-
flood-assistance-applications/; FEMA National Advisory Council, 2020 Report to the FEMA Administrator, p. 12.
94 See, for example, GAO, Emergency Management: Implementation of the Major Disaster Declaration Process for
Federally Recognized Tribes, GAO-18-443, May 2018, pp. 13-14; CNA, Review of FEMA’s Public Assistance
National Delivery Model, January 2023, p. 34; Government of Puerto Rico, Ninth Congressional Status Report, June
16, 2023, p. 36; Testimony of Casey Hatcher, Butte County, California in U.S. Congress, House Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Subcommittee on Economic Development, Public Buildings, and Emergency
Management, Are FEMA’s Assistance Programs Adequately Designed to Assist Communities Before, During, and After
Wildfire, 117th Cong., 1st sess., October 26, 2021; FEMA, “Request for Information Summary Report,” August 2021, p.
3; Meg Duffy and H. Luke Shaefer, “In the Aftermath of the Storm: Administrative Burden in Disaster Recovery,
Social Service Review, vol. 96, no. 3, September 2002, p. 520.
95 Carolyn Kousky, Karina French, Carlos Martín, and Manann Donoghoe, The U.S. Needs a New System for Declaring
Natural Disasters and Distributing Federal Aid, Brookings Institute, July 14, 2023, https://www.brookings.edu/
articles/the-us-needs-a-new-system-for-declaring-natural-disasters-and-distributing-federal-aid.
96 See discussion in CRS Report R47280, Defining FEMA’s Approach to Equity and Emergency Management: Policy
Considerations, coordinated by Erica A. Lee; and CRS Report R47244, FEMA’s Approach to Equity and Emergency
Management: Disaster Declarations and Policy Considerations, coordinated by Elizabeth M. Webster.
Congressional Research Service

21

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Congress may consider addressing concerns regarding disparate SLTT capacity to cover
nonfederal cost shares. To that end, Congress could consider authorizing a means for the
President to provide additional assistance to disaster-stricken, underserved communities. For
example, Congress could amend the Stafford Act to allow for an increased cost share for the
Public Assistance program for small, rural, impoverished, or otherwise disadvantaged
communities, and require FEMA to engage in a rulemaking or develop guidance detailing such
implementation.97 However, Congress may weigh the potential problems and legal restrictions on
targeting federal assistance based on race or national origin, and consider alternative means of
defining underserved populations.98 For example, Congress could target assistance based on
historical access to federal disaster assistance, vulnerability to future hazards, or geographic
isolation from emergency services.
However, existing FEMA resources may strain under new commitments to vulnerable
communities without additional appropriations. Congress may also consider whether additional
nonfederal assistance is at odds with the tenet that Stafford Act assistance should supplement—
rather than supplant—SLTT resources. Should Congress seek to promote more equitable cost
shares without increasing the federal share, Congress could consider standardizing cost shares
across federal relief programs to enhance simplicity.99 Congress could also consider proposals to
codify the Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery Program (CDBG-DR)
and/or align CDBG’s requirements with Stafford Act programs to ease its use to meet Stafford
Act cost-share requirements.100
Managing Federal Funds in an Age of Increasing Disaster Costs
Disaster-related losses and costs substantially increased in recent years in the United States; these
trends are expected to continue.101 Federal expenditures out of the Disaster Relief Fund in recent
years have exceeded historical records, in part due to the costs of incidents with increased federal
cost shares.102 Several scholars and oversight entities have found that the federal government is
bearing an increasing share of disaster-related costs, including through increased Stafford-Act
federal shares.103 For example, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) found the federal share of

97 See related recommendation and discussion in CRS Report R47280, Defining FEMA’s Approach to Equity and
Emergency Management: Policy Considerations, coordinated by Erica A. Lee; and CRS Report R47244, FEMA’s
Approach to Equity and Emergency Management: Disaster Declarations and Policy Considerations, coordinated by
Elizabeth M. Webster.
98 See CRS Report R45481, “Affirmative Action” and Equal Protection in Higher Education, by Christine J. Back; and
CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10631, The American Rescue Plan Act: Equal Protection Challenges, by Christine J. Back and
April J. Anderson.
99 Carlos Martín and Alexander Williams, A Federal Policy and Climate Migration Briefing for Federal Executive and
Legislative Officials, Urban Institute, March 2021, p. 27; GAO, Disaster Recovery: Actions Needed to Improve the
Federal Approach, p. 37.
100 GAO, Disaster Recovery: Actions Needed to Improve the Federal Approach, p. 37.
101 Adam Smith of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), “2021 U.S. Billion-Dollar Weather
and Climate Disasters in Historical Context,” April 2022, https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/billions/docs/
billions-risk-mapping-2021-ams-forum.pdf; Congressional Budget Office (CBO), Potential Increases in Hurricane
Damage in the United States: Implications for the Federal Budget, 2016, https://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/114th-
congress-2015-2016/reports/51518-hurricane-damage.pdf; Vijai Bhola et al., “Escalating Cost of Billion-Dollar
Disasters in the US: Climate Change Necessitates Disaster Risk Reduction,” Journal of Climate Change and Health,
vol. 10 (March–April 2023).
102 For more information, see CRS Report R45484, The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, by William L.
Painter, particularly pp. 24-25.
103 See, for example, CBO, Potential Increases in Hurricane Damage in the United States: Implications for the Federal
(continued...)
Congressional Research Service

22

link to page 11 Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

hurricane-related costs to increase from 17% before Hurricane Katrina to 62% thereafter.104 Given
these trends, policymakers and some experts have called for the federal government to consider
shifting more of the costs of disasters onto state and local governments.105
One potential option is to reduce the federal share of costs covered by some Stafford Act
programs, or reduce the share available for certain awardees or projects. This could be achieved
administratively, by reducing the number or extent of presidential cost-share increases under the
Public Assistance program. Congress could also consider legislation to achieve cost-share
reductions. Congress could consider reducing the federal share of certain forms of assistance,
though prior efforts prompted widespread criticism.106 Alternatively, Congress could limit or
remove the presidential authority to increase cost shares for Public Assistance (e.g., allowing an
increase only to 90%, or only under specific circumstances), to rein in the largest source of
Disaster Relief Fund outlays.107
Any of these options are likely to increase the financial burden on disaster-affected individuals,
communities, and governments, and could result in the abandonment of certain response,
recovery, or mitigation projects that are no longer affordable. To mitigate such adverse effects,
Congress may consider pairing any reduction in cost shares for certain programs with financial
incentives that reduce overall disaster risks and costs. For example, Congress could pair a phased
reduction in federal shares for certain recovery assistance with an increased cost share for
mitigation projects—which may be less expensive and are likely to reduce disaster costs for all
parties.108
Congress may also consider the increasing burdens on nonfederal governments confronting the
same increasingly expensive, frequent disasters, and consider proposals to reduce their share of
related costs.109 For example, introduced legislation in the 117th Congress would have reduced
Stafford Act nonfederal cost shares for communities affected by multiple declared major disasters

Budget, June 2016, pp. 21-22, 44 (hereinafter CBO, Potential Increases in Hurricane Damage), https://www.cbo.gov/
sites/default/files/114th-congress-2015-2016/reports/51518-hurricane-damage-onecol.pdf; J. David Cummins, Michael
Suher, and George Zanjani, “Federal Financial Exposure to Natural Catastrophe Risk,” in Deborah Lucas, Ed.,
Measuring and Managing Federal Financial Risk, pp. 61-92 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2007).
104 Based on data available to CBO taken through 2015. CBO, Potential Increases in Hurricane Damage, pp. 21-22,
44.
105 See CRS Report R46749, FEMA’s Public Assistance Program: A Primer and Considerations for Congress, by Erica
A. Lee, p. 25.
106 See “Cost Shares: Legislative History and Background,” above. FEMA has suspended related efforts; for example,
in 2018 FEMA withdrew its 2016-2017 proposal for a “disaster deductible” intended to reduce federal contributions to
disaster relief and increase nonfederal shares, following significant criticism. See FEMA, “Establishing a Deductible
for FEMA’s Public Assistance Program,” January 26, 2018, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/do/eAgendaViewRule?
pubId=201804&RIN=1660-AA84.
107 For analysis of the DRF, see CRS Report R45484, The Disaster Relief Fund: Overview and Issues, by William L.
Painter.
108 Mitigation investments were found to save an average of $4-$11 for every $1 invested. National Institute of
Building Sciences Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council, Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: 2019 Report, Dec. 1, 2019,
https://www.nibs.org/projects/natural-hazard-mitigation-saves-2019-report.
109 Overall state spending is not consistently tracked. The Congressional Budget Office reports that federal funds,
primarily from FEMA, covered an average of 62% of the costs of hurricanes between 2005 and 2015, and only 17%
previously. See also Colin Foard, “What We Don’t Know About State Spending on Natural Disasters Could Cost Us,”
Pew Trusts, June 18, 2018, https://www.pewtrusts.org/en/research-and-analysis/reports/2018/06/19/what-we-dont-
know-about-state-spending-on-natural-disasters-could-cost-us.
Congressional Research Service

23

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

over a three-year period.110 Other experts have recommended implementing higher federal shares
for communities with particular disaster vulnerability and relocation needs.111
Conclusion
How much should the federal government help—and pay for—following a disaster in the United
States? How much of the burden should fall upon affected state, local, tribal, territorial
governments, individuals, and businesses? To what extent is federal disaster relief enabling risky
development in hazard zones and discouraging states from building fiscal, social and
infrastructural resilience to disasters? While these questions have animated policymakers for
decades, they may have renewed relevance for Congress following years of historic federal
obligations for disaster relief, numerous acts to increase the federal share of recent disaster costs,
and persistently expensive, frequent domestic disaster activity. Congress may evaluate and decide
what the federal government’s role in disaster mitigation, response, and recovery should be, and
to what extent it should continue to grow, and whether or to what extent cost shares may help
achieve those ends.

110 H.R. 6461; S. 3531, National Climate Adaptation and Resilience Strategy Act, 117th Cong.
111 Carlos Martín and Alexander Williams, A Federal Policy and Climate Migration Briefing for Federal Executive and
Legislative Officials, Urban Institute, March 2021, pp. 19-20.
Congressional Research Service

24

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Appendix A. Legislative History: Stafford Act Cost-
Share Authorities
Table A-1. Legislative History: Stafford Act Cost-Share Provisions
Selected Legislative Amendments, in Chronological Order
Statute
Summary of Relevant Provisions
Disaster Relief
The Disaster Relief Act of 1950 defines a major disaster, in part, as an event in which a state
Act of 1950
governor “certifies the need for disaster assistance under this Act, and shall give assurance of
expenditure of a reasonable amount of the funds of the government of such State, local
governments therein, or other agencies, for the same or similar purposes with respect to such
catastrophe…” No further cost share is specified.112
Disaster Relief
The Disaster Relief Act of 1966 authorizes the President to reimburse “not more than 50
Act of 1966
per centum of eligible costs” for the repair, restoration, and reconstruction of eligible public
facilities damaged as a result of a major disaster.113
Disaster Relief
The Disaster Relief Act of 1969 authorizes the President to pay “not less than 50 per
Act of 1969
centum” of the eligible costs of repair of eligible streets, roads, and highways damaged as a
result of a major disaster,114 and to fund up to the total incurred costs of debris removal.115
The act also authorizes the President to provide direct temporary housing assistance to
individuals and families displaced as a result of disasters; rent for such assistance is not to
exceed 25% of the awardees’ monthly income.116 Finally, the act authorized the federal
government to cover up to 50 % of the one-time costs of the development of a state disaster
assistance plan that may assist disaster-affected individuals.117
Disaster Relief
The Disaster Relief Act of 1970 specified that in the event of a major disaster, the governor
Act of 1970
“gives assurance of the expenditure of a reasonable amount of the funds of such State, its local
governments, or other agencies for alleviating the damage, loss, hardship or suffering resulting
from such catastrophe….”118 Assistance for restorations of public facilities authorized up to
100% of eligible costs.119 The act retained authorities for the federal government to
contribute up to 50% of the costs for the development of disaster assistance and
preparedness plans.120
Disaster Relief
The Disaster Relief Act of 1974 specified that as a prerequisite for requesting assistance, the
Act of 1974
governor shall certify that “State and local government obligations and expenditures’ (of which
State commitments must be a significant proportion) wil constitute the expenditure of a
reasonable amount” of disaster-related losses and suffering.121
Section 402 authorizes the President to reimburse eligible governments and nonprofits for the
repair and reconstruction of disaster-damaged facilities, specifying that “[t]he Federal
contribution for grants made under this section shall not exceed 100 per centum of the
net cost of repairing, restoring, reconstructing, or replacing any such facility on the basis of

112 Sec. 2(a) of the Disaster Relief Act of 1950, P.L. 81-875, enacted September 30, 1950.
113 Sec. 9 of P.L. 89-769, enacted November 6, 1966.
114 Sec. 2 of P.L. 91-79, enacted October 1, 1969.
115 Sec. 14 of P.L. 91-79, enacted October 1, 1969.
116 Sec. 10(b) of P.L. 91-79, enacted October 1, 1969.
117 Sec. 8(b) of P.L. 91-79, enacted October 1, 1969.
118 Sec. 102(1) of P.L. 91-606, enacted December 31, 1970.
119 Sec. 252(a) of P.L. 91-606, enacted December 31, 1970. Facilities under construction at the time of the incident
were eligible for a 50% federal cost share. Sec. 252(b).
120 Sec. 206(b) and (e) of P.L. 91-606, enacted December 31, 1970.
121 Sec. 301(b) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
Congressional Research Service

25

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Statute
Summary of Relevant Provisions
the design of such facility” immediately prior to the disaster.122 Reconstruction of alternate
facilities may receive 90% of eligible costs.123 A cost share is not specified for debris
removal.124
The statute further authorizes the Individual and Family Grant program, which provides
assistance to disaster-affected individuals and households for serious needs on the basis of a
75% federal, 25% state cost share.125 Other assistance for individuals and households,
including for food and unemployment, does not specify a cost share.
The Robert T.
The Stafford Act amended and superseded the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, and specified that
Stafford Disaster
the President may fund “no less than 75%” of the eligible costs of debris removal,
Relief and
emergency protective measures, and the repair, restoration, and reconstruction of eligible
Emergency
public and nonprofit facilities.126 The Stafford Act retained the cost share established for the
Assistance Act of Individual and Family Grant: 75% federal, 25% for the state or territory, and also
1988
provided temporary housing assistance with the same cost share.127 Finally, the Stafford Act
provides hazard mitigation assistance for “up to 50%” of the cost of eligible hazard mitigation
measures, up to a cap determined on the basis of obligations for facility reconstruction.128
Hazard
The Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Assistance Act of 1993 increased the federal cost share
Mitigation and
for hazard mitigation assistance from 50% to 75% and increased the cap for all hazard
Relocation
mitigation assistance that could be provided for a given incident.129
Assistance Act of
1993
Disaster
DMA modified the cost share for reimbursement for reconstruction and repair of nonprofit
Mitigation Act of
and public facilities by
2000 (DMA)
(1) directing the President to issue regulations reducing the federal share of assistance to a
floor of 25% for properties that suffered “repetitive loss” when “the owner of which has
failed to implement appropriate mitigation measures to address the hazard that caused the
damage to the facility.”130
(2) reducing the federal cost share for “alternate” facilities (e.g., facilities reconstructed in lieu
of reconstructing the original, disaster-damaged facility) from 90% to 75% of the estimated
federal share of the original reconstruction project.131
(3) reducing the federal cost share for alternate reconstruction projects on unstable soil to
90% of the estimated federal share.132
DMA establishes a 100% share for assistance for individuals and households, excepting
assistance for “other needs,” which retains a 75% federal, 25% state cost share.133

122 Sec. 402(e) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
123 Sec. 402(f) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
124 Sec. 403 of P.L. 93-288, 42 U.S.C. §5172, enacted May 22, 1974.
125 Sec. 408(b) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
126 Secs. 403(b) and 406(b) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
127 Secs. 411(b) and 408(a)(4) of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
128 Sec. 404 of P.L. 93-288, enacted May 22, 1974.
129 Sec. 2(a) of P.L. 103-181, as it amended Sec. 404 of the Stafford Act.
130 Sec. 205(b) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, as it amended Sec. 406(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5172(b).
131 Sec. 205(c) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, as it amended Sec.406(c) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5172(c).
132 Sec. 205(c) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, as it amended Sec.406(c) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5172(c).
133 Sec. 206(a) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, as it amended Sec. 408 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5174.
Congressional Research Service

26

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Statute
Summary of Relevant Provisions
Additionally, DMA authorized pre-disaster mitigation assistance on a 75% federal / 25%
nonfederal cost-share basis, and a higher federal cost share (up to 90%) for “small,
impoverished communities.”134 DMA also provided increased federal share for hazard
mitigation measures if states and communities had an approved mitigation plan in place at the
time of a declared disaster.135
Security and
The SAFE Port Act reduces the cost-share penalty for constructing alternate facilities, as
Accountability
opposed to rebuilding the original disaster-damaged facility. The act increases the federal cost
For Every (SAFE) share for “alternate” reconstruction projects from at least 75% to at least 90% of the
Port Act of 2006 estimated federal share for the original project.136
Sandy Recovery
SRIA authorized “alternative procedures” for Public Assistance projects, which included a
Improvement
sliding-scale cost share for debris removal projects based on the speed of project
Act of 2013
completion to encourage cost-effective, timely work.137
(SRIA)
Bipartisan Budget To incentivize hazard resilience, the BBA authorized the President to increase the minimum
Act of 2018
federal cost share to up to 85% for public and nonprofit reconstruction projects for a given
(BBA)
declaration when states, tribes, or territories had undertaken a range of actions.138 Actions
included encouraging the adoption and enforcement of hazard-resistant building codes,
promoting hazard insurance coverage, and funding mitigation projects.
Disaster
DRRA modified the cost share for Public Assistance by eliminating the reduced federal share
Recovery Reform for alternate projects (i.e., aligning the cost share for alternate projects with that for other
Act of 2018
eligible projects).139
(DRRA)
Community
The Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act authorized the President to increase the
Disaster
federal share of contributions to not more than 90% for pre-disaster mitigation
Resilience Zones
(implemented as BRIC) for zones designated on the basis of high hazard risks, high social
Act of 2022
vulnerability, and related factors.140
Source: Compiled by CRS using Congress.gov and ProQuest Congressional.
Notes: Does not include authorities that modified the formula to provide assistance for management costs for
Stafford Act assistance.

134 Sec. 102(a) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, adding Sec. 203(h) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5133.
135 Sec. 104(a) of P.L. 106-390, enacted October 30, 2000, as it amended sec. 322(a) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5133.
136 Sec. 609 of P.L. 109-347, enacted October 13, 2006, as it amended Sec. 406 of the Stafford Act. For example, an
alternate project would be capped at $900,000—rather than $750,000—if the federal share of reconstruction of the
original disaster-damaged facility would be $1,000,000. The act also removes language that provided for federal
funding of 90% of the federal share of the approved federal estimate of eligible costs for alternate projects in areas with
unstable soil.
137 Sec. 1102(2)(B) of Division B, P.L. 113-2, enacted January 29, 2013, adding Sec. 428 of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5189f.
138 Sec. 20606 of P.L. 115-123, enacted February 9, 2018, as it amended Sec. 406(b) of the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.
§5172(b).
139 Sec. 1207(a)(1)-(2) of Division D, P.L. 115-254, enacted October 5, 2018, as it amended Sec. 406(c) of the Stafford
Act, 42 U.S.C. §5172(c).
140 Sec. 3 of P.L. 117-255, enacted December 20, 2022, adding Sec. 206(g) to the Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C. §5136(g)).
Congressional Research Service

27

Appendix B. Incident-Specific Statutory Cost-Share Adjustments Enacted
Since 1995
To identify relevant legislation enacted since 1995, CRS conducted full-text searches of Congress.gov using search terms including variations of,
and combinations of, the following: “Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act,” “amend,” “make changes to,” “waiver,”
“cost share,” “federal share,” “non-federal share,” “eligible costs,” “administrative costs,” “legislative costs,” “assistance,” and “percent.” CRS
then reviewed the results, analyzed relevant provisions, and compiled them below. CRS supplemented this search with statutes cited in Federal
Register notices amending federal shares for Stafford Act assistance. While CRS attempted to be comprehensive in its searches for legislation,
due to the complexity and volume of legislation, CRS may not have captured all relevant items.
Table B-1. Legislation Enacted Since 1995 Adjusting Stafford Act Cost Shares for Specific Incidents
In Reverse Chronological Order
Bill No.
Status
Summary of Relevant Provision
Applicable Jurisdictions
H.R. 6833, Div. G, Hermit’s
Enacted as P.L.
Sec. 104(k)(1) waived state or local matching funds for “a State or
Effective in “an area affected by the Hermit’s
Peak/Calf Canyon Fire
117-180 on
local project that is determined by the Administrator to be carried out Peak/Calf Canyon Fire” where PA is
Assistance Act
9/30/22.
in response to the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire under any Federal
authorized under a Stafford Act emergency
(117th Cong.)
program…” FEMA rulemaking notes that this includes assistance
or majority disaster declaration.
provided through FEMA’s PA programs.141
H.R. 2471, Div. F,
Enacted as P.L.
Sec. 311 established a minimum federal cost share of 90% for PA for
All jurisdictions with a Stafford Act
Department of Homeland
117-103 on
the eligible costs of emergency work and permanent work.
emergency or major disaster declaration with
Security Appropriations Act,
3/15/22.
either an incident period or declaration date
2022
between Jan. 1, 2020, and Dec. 31, 2021.
(117th Cong.)
H.R. 133, Coronavirus
Enacted as P.L.
Section 201 authorized funeral assistance (a form of Other Needs
Al jurisdictions nationwide, for the
Response and Relief
116-260, Div. M,
Assistance, ONA) at a 100% federal cost share for the COVID-19
emergency declaration issued by the
Supplemental Appropriations
on 12/27/20.
pandemic.
President on March 13, 2020, pursuant to
Act, 2021
section 501(b) of the Stafford Act and for any
(117th Cong.)
subsequent major disaster declaration.

141 A subsequent provision, Sec. 104(k)(2) of P.L. 117-180, established a 100% federal cost share of IA-IHP program for Other Needs Assistance for jurisdictions with a
Stafford Act emergency or majority disaster declaration for the Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire. For further discussion, see FEMA, Department of Homeland Security,
“Hermit’s Peak/Calf Canyon Fire Assistance,” interim final rule, 87 Federal Register 68085, Nov. 11, 2022.
CRS-28

Bill No.
Status
Summary of Relevant Provision
Applicable Jurisdictions
H.J.Res. 31, Div. A,
Enacted as P.L.
Sec. 309(a)-(b) established a minimum 90% federal cost share for PA
Applicable for jurisdictions with major
Department of Homeland
116-6 on 2/15/19. for the eligible costs of emergency protective measures and debris
disaster declarations for wildfires that
Security Appropriations Act,
removal for major disasters for wildfires in calendar year 2018.
occurred in calendar year 2018.
2019
(116th Cong.)
H.R. 1892, Bipartisan Budget
Enacted as P.L.
Title VI, Sec. 20605 established a 90% federal cost share for PA for
Jurisdictions with major disasters declared for
Act, Div. B, Subdivision 1,
115-123 on
eligible costs of debris removal for major disasters declared for
wildfires that occurred in calendar year 2017.
Further Additional
2/9/18.
wildfires that occurred in calendar year 2017.
Supplemental Appropriations
for Disaster Relief
Requirements Act, 2018
(115th Cong.)
H.R. 4899, Supplemental
Enacted as P.L.
Title I, Sec. 603 provided that the FEMA Administrator “shall consider Jurisdictions with a Stafford Act declaration
Appropriations Act, 2010
111-212 on
satisfied” cost-share requirements for Hazard Mitigation Grant
for Hurricane Katrina.
(111th Cong.)
7/29/10.
Program (HMGP) for Hurricane Katrina.
H.R. 4899, Supplemental
Enacted as P.L.
Title I, Sec. 606 established a minimum 90% federal cost share for PA
Jurisdictions with Stafford Act declarations
Appropriations Act, 2010
111-212 on
for emergency work and permanent work.
for severe storms and flooding in Rhode
(111th Cong.)
7/29/10.
Island, Mississippi, and Tennessee, “and all
other areas Presidentially declared a disaster,
prior to or fol owing enactment, and resulting
from the May 1 and 2, 2010 weather events
that elicited FEMA-1909-DR….” (Specifically
listed declarations: FEMA-3311-EM-RI; FEMA-
1894; FEMA-1906-DR; and FEMA-1909-DR).
H.R. 2346, Supplemental
Enacted as P.L.
Title VI, Sec. 609(a) established a 90% cost share for PA for permanent Jurisdictions with Stafford Act major disaster
Appropriations Act, 2009
111-32 on
work and 100% cost share for PA for emergency work.
declarations for Hurricane Ike in Texas and
(111th Cong.)
6/24/09.
Louisiana; Kentucky Severe Storms,
Tornadoes, and Mudslides in 2009; and severe
storms, flooding, and mudslides in West
Virginia in 2009 (specifically listed
declarations: FEMA-1791-DR and FEMA-
1792-DR; FEMA-1841-DR; and FEMA-1838-
DR).
CRS-29

Bill No.
Status
Summary of Relevant Provision
Applicable Jurisdictions
H.R. 2206, U.S. Troop
Enacted as P.L.
Title IV, Sec. 4501(a)-(b) established a 100% cost share for PA for
Jurisdictions in Louisiana, Mississippi, Florida,
Readiness, Veterans’ Care,
110-28 on
emergency work and permanent work, as well as for IA-IHP
Alabama, and Texas with Stafford Act
Katrina Recovery, and Iraq
5/27/07.
authorized at Stafford Act Sec. 408. Only PA projects submitted prior declarations for Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma,
Accountability Appropriations
to enactment are eligible for the 100% cost share.
Dennis, and Rita.
Act, 2007
(110th Cong.)
H.R. 4939, Emergency
Enacted as P.L.
Title II, Chap. 4, established that “for States in which the President
“for States in which the President declared a
Supplemental Appropriations
109-234 on June
declared a major disaster…on September 24, 2005, as a result of
major disaster … on September 24, 2005, as
Act for Defense, the Global
15, 2006.
Hurricane Rita, each county or parish eligible for individual and public
a result of Hurricane Rita”
War on Terror, and
assistance under such declaration in such States wil be treated equally
Hurricane Recovery, 2006
for purposes of cost-share adjustments under such Act, to account for
(109th Cong.)
the impact in those counties and parishes of Hurricanes Rita and
Katrina…”
H.R. 4425, Cerro Grande Fire Enacted as P.L.
Sec. 104(k) established a 100% federal share for assistance for state or Jurisdictions receiving assistance “under any
Assistance Act, 2000
106-246, Div. C,
local projects carried out in response to the Cerro Grande fire.
Federal program that applies to an area
(106th Cong.)
Title I, on July 13,
affected by the Cerro Grande fire…”
2000.
H.R. 2015, Balanced Budget
Enacted as P.L.
Sec. 9301 established a minimum 90% federal share for Stafford Act
Kittson, Marshall, Polk, Norman, Clay, and
Act of 1997
105-33, Subtitle
assistance in particular counties damaged by severe storms and
Wilkin Counties in Minnesota and North
(105th Cong.)
C, Sec. 9301
flooding in the Red River Valley.
Dakota
signed on August
5, 1997.
Source: Compiled by CRS based on Congress.gov search data.
CRS-30

link to page 36
Appendix C. Administrative Cost-Share Adjustments: Major Disasters
Table C-1 tabulates discrete cost-share adjustments issued by the Executive for a given major disaster declaration. Adjustments of different
duration and/or amounts for the same incident are listed separately. Columns represent the date of the relevant disaster declaration, the
declaration number, the specified federal share, affected categories of Stafford Act assistance, the duration of the adjustment, and the related
incident. Categories are inclusive, unless otherwise specified. For example, a cost-share adjustment provided for PA—Emergency Protective
Measures including Direct Federal Assistance (DFA) will appear as simply PA—Emergency Protective Measures. A cost-share adjustment
provided for PA—Emergency Protective Measures limited to assistance for the STEP Housing Program will appear as PA—Emergency
Protective Measures for STEP Housing Program.
To reduce redundancy, CRS did not include cost-share adjustments for the COVID-19 pandemic. All jurisdictions received 100% federal
funding for PA for emergency protective measures from January 20, 2020, through July 1, 2022 (894 days), after which PA was provided at a
90% federal share from July 2, 2022, generally through midnight on May 11, 2023.142
Adjustments enacted by statute are not included. Adjustments for emergency declarations are not included. CRS may provide this data to
congressional members and staff upon request.
Methodology
To assemble a list of administrative cost-share adjustments, CRS searched Federal Register notices issued by FEMA using search terms and
variations of “federal funds,” “federal share,” “cost-sharing,” “cost share,” “100 percent,” and “90 percent.” Please note that these search results
are generally limited to notices published in the Federal Register since 1995. Due to the search terms used and inherent limitations of text-based
searches, the results may not be comprehensive.

142 President Joseph R. Biden, “Memorandum to Extend Federal Support to Governors’ Use of the National Guard to Respond to COVID-⁠19 and to Increase Reimbursement and
Other Assistance Provided to States,” January 21, 2021, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2021/01/21/extend-federal-support-to-governors-useof-
national-guard-to-respond-to-covid-19-and-to-increase-reimbursement-and-other-assistance-provided-to-states/; President Joseph R. Biden., Jr. “Memorandum on Maximizing
Assistance to Respond to COVID-⁠19,” March 1, 2022, https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-actions/2022/03/01/memorandum-on-maximizingassistance-to-
respond-to-covid-19-2/; FEMA Advisory, “COVID-19 Cost Share Extension,” March 1, 2022, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_covid-19-cost-share-
extension_03012022.pdf.
CRS-31

Table C-1. Administrative Cost-Share Adjustments: Major Disaster Declarations
According to Federal Register Notices published since 1995
Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2023-04-02
4698
Arkansas
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storms and tornadoes
2023-03-26
4697
Mississippi
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storms, straight-line
winds, and tornadoes
2023-01-15
4684
Alabama
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storms, straight-line
winds, and tornadoes
2023-01-18
4683
California
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
60
severe winter storms,
flooding, landslides, and
mudslides
2022-09-30
4675
Seminole Tribe
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
60
Hurricane Ian
of Florida
2022-09-29
4673
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
75
Hurricane Ian
2022-09-23
4672
Alaska
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storm, flooding, and
landslides
2022-09-21
4671
Puerto Rico
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
60
Hurricane Fiona

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Fiona
Permanent Work
2022-07-29
4663
Kentucky
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storms, flooding,
landslides, and mudslides
2022-05-04
4652
New Mexico
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
180
wildfires
2021-12-12
4630
Kentucky
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
severe storms, straight-line
winds, flooding, and
tornadoes
2021-08-29
4611
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
45
Hurricane Ida

Louisiana
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Ida
Permanent Work
CRS-32

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2020-09-15
4562
Oregon
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
wildfires and straight-line
winds
2020-08-28
4559
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
45
Hurricane Laura
2020-08-22
4558
California
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
wildfires
2020-01-16
4473
Puerto Rico
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
earthquakes
Permanent Work
2019-06-17
4446
Ponca Tribe of
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Nebraska
Permanent Work
2019-03-28
4423
Cahuil a Band of
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Indians
Permanent Work
2019-03-26
4422
La Jol a Band of
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding,
Luiseño Indians
Permanent Work
landslides, and mudslides
2019-03-21
4420
Nebraska
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe winter storm,
Permanent Work
straight-line winds, and
flooding
2019-01-31
4413
Alaska
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
earthquake
Permanent Work
2018-10-26
4404
Northern
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
180
Super Typhoon Yutu
Mariana Islands

100
HMGP, PA—Mitigation
None
Super Typhoon Yutu

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Super Typhoon Yutu
Permanent Work, IA—ONA
2018-10-11
4399
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
45
Hurricane Michael

90
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
Hurricane Michael
2018-09-29
4396
Northern
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Mangkhut
Mariana Islands
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
CRS-33

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2018-03-02
4357
American Samoa
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Storm Gita
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
2017-12-20
4352
Pueblo of Acoma 90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Permanent Work
2017-10-10
4344
California
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
wildfires
2017-09-27
4341
Seminole Tribe
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
30
Hurricane Irma
of Florida

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Irma
Permanent Work
2017-09-20
4340
U.S. Virgin
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
240
Hurricane María
Islands

100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures for
360
Hurricane María
STEP Housing Program

100
HMGP
None
Hurricane María

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane María
Permanent Work, IA—ONA
2017-09-20
4339
Puerto Rico
100
PA—Debris Removal
270
Hurricane María

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
240
Hurricane María

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures—Emergency Power
230
Hurricane María
Support

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures—Emergency Power
360
Hurricane María
Restoration

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane María
Permanent Work (requires use of Alternative Procedures)
2017-09-10
4337
Florida
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
30
Hurricane Irma

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
30
Hurricane Irma
Permanent Work
CRS-34

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2017-09-07
4335
U.S. Virgin
100
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures—STEP 360
Hurricane Irma
Islands
housing program

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
240
Hurricane Irma

100
HGMP
None
Hurricane Irma

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Irma
Permanent Work, IA—ONA
2017-08-25
4332
Texas
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
30
Hurricane Harvey

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Harvey
Permanent Work
2017-05-02
4312
Resighini
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
flooding
Rancheria
Permanent Work
2017-02-14
4302
Hoopa Valley
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe winter storm
Tribe
Permanent Work
2016-08-14
4277
Louisiana
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Permanent Work
2016-06-25
4273
West Virginia
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding,
Permanent Work
landslides, and mudslides
2015-08-05
4235
Northern
100
HMGP and PA—Mitigation
None
Typhoon Soudelor
Mariana Islands

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Soudelor
Permanent Work, IA—ONA
2015-01-27
4206
Soboba Band of
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding, and
Luiseño Indians
Permanent Work
mudslides
2014-09-10
4192
American Samoa
100
HMGP
None
severe storms, flooding,
landslides
2013-10-24
4151
Santa Clara
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Pueblo
Permanent Work
CRS-35

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2013-03-01
4103
Eastern Band of
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding,
Cherokee
Permanent Work
landslides, and mudslides
Indians
2012-10-30
4087
Connecticut
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures for emergency power
18
Hurricane Sandy
and emergency transportation
2012-10-30
4086
New Jersey
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures for emergency power
10
Hurricane Sandy
and emergency transportation

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Sandy
Permanent Work
2012-10-30
4085
New York
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures for emergency power
18
Hurricane Sandy
and emergency transportation

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Sandy
Permanent Work
2012-08-24
4079
New Mexico
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
flooding
Permanent Work
2011-09-01
4022
Vermont
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Storm Irene
Permanent Work
2011-08-12
4013
Nebraska—
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
flooding
Omaha Indian
Permanent Work
Reservation
2011-06-27
1998
Iowa—Omaha
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
flooding
Tribe of
Permanent Work
Nebraska and
Iowa
2011-05-10
1981
North Dakota
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
flooding
Permanent Work
2011-05-09
1980
Missouri
90
PA—Debris Removal
77
severe storms, tornadoes,
flooding
CRS-36

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2011-04-29
1972
Mississippi
90
PA—Debris Removal limited to DFA
75
severe storms, tornadoes,
straight-line winds, and
associated flooding
2011-04-28
1971
Alabama
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, tornadoes,
Permanent Work
straight-line winds, and
flooding
2010-12-21
1950
Arizona—
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Sovereign Tribal
Permanent Work
Nation of the
Havasupai Tribe
of Arizona
2010-07-10
1922
Montana—
100
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Chippewa Cree
Permanent Work
Tribe of the
Rocky Boy’s
Reservation
2009-09-29
1859
American Samoa
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
30
earthquake, tsunami, and
flooding

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
earthquake, tsunami, and
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
flooding
2009-03-24
1829
North Dakota
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms and flooding
Permanent Work
2008-09-13
1792
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
44
Hurricane Ike
2008-11-26
1791
Texas
100
PA—Debris Removal & Emergency Protective Measures
224
Hurricane Ike
2008-09-02
1786
Louisiana
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Gustav
Permanent Work
2008-06-25
1773
Missouri
90
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
47
severe storms and flooding
2008-06-24
1771
Il inois
90
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
66
severe storms and flooding
CRS-37

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2008-06-14
1768
Wisconsin
90
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
51
severe storms, tornadoes,
and flooding
2008-06-24
1766
Indiana
90
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
24
severe storms and flooding
2008-05-27
1763
Iowa
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
14
severe storms, tornadoes,
and flooding

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, tornadoes,
Permanent Work
and flooding
2007-05-06
1699
Kansas
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
severe storms, tornadoes,
and flooding
2007-03-03
1687
Alabama
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
2
severe storms and tornadoes
2007-03-03
1686
Georgia
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
2
severe storms and tornadoes
2006-06-30
1649
Pennsylvania
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
severe storms, flooding, and
mudslides
2005-11-08
1611
Northern
100
HMGP
None
Typhoon Nabi
Mariana Islands
2005-10-24
1609
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Wilma

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Wilma
Permanent Work
2005-09-24
1607
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
280
Hurricane Rita

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Rita
Permanent Work
2005-09-24
1606
Texas
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
34
Hurricane Rita
2005-08-29
1605
Alabama
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
60
Hurricane Katrina

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Katrina
Permanent Work
2005-08-29
1604
Mississippi
100
PA—Debris Removal
625
Hurricane Katrina
CRS-38

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
306
Hurricane Katrina

90
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
Hurricane Katrina
2005-08-29
1603
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal
490
Hurricane Katrina

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
312
Hurricane Katrina

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Katrina
Permanent Work
2005-08-28
1602
Florida
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Katrina
2005-07-10
1595
Florida
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Dennis
2005-07-10
1594
Mississippi
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Dennis
2005-07-10
1593
Alabama
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Dennis
2005-02-18
1582
American Samoa
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Cyclone Olaf
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
2004-10-07
1567
U.S. Virgin
100
HMGP
None
Tropical Storm Jeanne
Islands
2004-09-26
1561
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Jeanne and
successive hurricanes

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Jeanne and
Permanent Work
successive hurricanes
2004-09-20
1558
West Virginia
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
severe storms, flooding, and
landslides
2004-09-18
1554
Georgia
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan
2004-09-18
1553
North Carolina
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan
2004-09-17
1552
Puerto Rico
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Tropical Storm Jeanne,
mudslides, and landslides
2004-09-16
1551
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan and
successive hurricanes
CRS-39

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Ivan and
Permanent Work
successive hurricanes
2004-09-15
1550
Mississippi
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan
2004-09-15
1549
Alabama
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Ivan
Permanent Work
2004-09-15
1548
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Ivan
2004-09-10
1546
North Carolina
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Tropical Storm Frances
2004-09-04
1545
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Frances

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Frances
Permanent Work
2004-08-26
1541
Northern
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Super Typhoon Chaba
Mariana Islands
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
2004-08-13
1539
Florida
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Tropical Storm Bonnie and
Hurricane Charley

100
PA—DFA
None
Tropical Storm Bonnie and
Hurricane Charley

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Storm Bonnie and
Permanent Work
Hurricane Charley
2004-07-29
1532
Northern
100
HMGP
None
Typhoon Tingting
Mariana Islands

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Tingting
Permanent Work
2004-04-10
1511
Federated States
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Sudal
of Micronesia
Permanent Work
2004-01-13
1506
American Samoa
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Cyclone Heta
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
CRS-40

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
2003-12-09
1503
U.S. Virgin
100
HMGP
None
severe storms, flooding,
Islands
landslides, and mudslides
2003-06-06
1473
American Samoa
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
heavy rainfall, flooding,
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
landslides, and mudslides
2002-12-11
1447
Northern
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Super Typhoon Pongsona
Mariana Islands
Permanent Work, IA—ONA, HMGP
2002-12-08
1446
Guam
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Super Typhoon Pongsona
IA—ONA

90
PA—Permanent Work, HMGP
None
Super Typhoon Pongsona
2002-08-06
1430
Northern
100
HMGP
None
Typhoon Chata'an
Mariana Islands

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Chata'an
Permanent Work
2002-07-11
1427
Federated States
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Tropical Storm Chata'an
of Micronesia
Permanent Work
2002-07-06
1426
Guam
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Typhoon Chata'an
Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP
2001-09-21
1392
Virginia
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
fires and explosions on
September 11, 2001
2001-09-11
1391
New York
100
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
fires and explosions on
Permanent Work
September 11, 2001
2001-01-12
1357
Louisiana
100
PA—Debris Removal
90
severe winter ice storm
2001-01-08
1356
Texas
100
PA—Debris Removal
202
severe winter ice storm
2001-01-05
1355
Oklahoma
100
PA—Debris Removal
194
severe winter ice storm
2000-12-29
1354
Arkansas
100
PA—Debris Removal
185
severe winter storm
2000-06-27
1334
North Dakota
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding, and
Permanent Work
ground saturation
CRS-41

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
1999-11-23
1309
U.S. Virgin
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Lenny
Islands
Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP
1999-09-16
1292
North Carolina
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Floyd
Permanent Work
1999-06-08
1279
North Dakota
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe storms, flooding,
Permanent Work,
snow and ice, ground
saturation
1999-05-04
1273
Kansas
100
PA—Debris Removal
30
severe storms and tornadoes

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
4
severe storms and tornadoes
1999-05-04
1272
Oklahoma
100
PA—Debris Removal
30
severe storms and tornadoes

100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
4
severe storms and tornadoes
1999-01-23
1266
Arkansas
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures for
None
severe storms, tornadoes,
temporary schools
and high winds
1998-09-24
1248
U.S. Virgin
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Georges
Islands
Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP
1998-09-24
1247
Puerto Rico
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Georges
Permanent Work
1998-09-23
1246
Louisiana
100
PA—Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Georges
1998-08-27
1240
North Carolina
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
3
Hurricane Bonnie
1998-03-20
1210
Marshall Islands
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
severe drought
Permanent Work
1997-12-24
1194
Northern
100
IA—IFG, HMGP
None
Typhoon Paka
Mariana Islands

100
DFA
3
Typhoon Paka
1997-12-17
1193
Guam
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
Typhoon Paka

90
PA—Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP
None
Typhoon Paka
CRS-42

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
1997-12-08
1192
Northern
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Super Typhoon Keith
Mariana Islands
Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP
1997-04-08
1175
Minnesota
100
PA—DFA
58
severe storms and flooding

100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
severe storms and flooding

90
PA—Permanent Work
None
severe storms and flooding
1997-04-08
1174
North Dakota
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
severe flooding and severe
winter storms

90
PA—Permanent Work
None
severe flooding and severe
winter storms
1997-04-07
1173
South Dakota
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
severe flooding and severe
winter storms

100
PA—DFA
58
severe flooding and severe
winter storms

90
PA—Permanent Work
None
severe flooding and severe
winter storms
1997-03-01
1163
Kentucky
100
PA—DFA
None
severe storms, tornadoes,
and flooding
1997-03-02
1162
Arkansas
100
PA—DFA
None
severe storms and tornadoes
1996-09-11
1136
Puerto Rico
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Hortense
Permanent Work

100
PA—DFA
3
Hurricane Hortense
1996-09-06
1135
Virginia
100
PA—DFA
3
high winds, tornadoes, wind-
driven rain, and river and
flash flooding
1996-09-06
1134
North Carolina
100
PA—DFA
9
Hurricane Fran

90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Fran
Permanent Work
CRS-43

Federal
Time
Declaration
Disaster
State, Tribe,
Share
Limit
Date
No.
Territory
(%)
Category
(days)
Incident
1996-02-11
1102
Idaho
100
PA—DFA
3
severe storms and flooding
1996-02-09
1099
Oregon
100
PA—DFA
3
high winds, severe storms,
and flooding
1995-10-04
1070
Alabama
100
PA—DFA
3
Hurricane Opal
1995-10-04
1069
Florida
100
PA—DFA
3
Hurricane Opal
1995-09-16
1068
Puerto Rico
100
PA—DFA
3
Hurricane Marilyn
1995-09-16
1067
U.S. Virgin
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Marilyn
Islands
Permanent Work, IA—IFG, HMGP

100
PA—DFA
10
Hurricane Marilyn
1995-07-01
1059
Virginia
100
PA—DFA
3
severe storms and flooding
1995-05-10
1049
Louisiana
100
PA—DFA
3
severe storms, tornadoes,
and flooding
1995-04-26
1048
Oklahoma
100
PA—Debris Removal and Emergency Protective Measures
None
explosion occurred at a
federally owned courthouse
1990-02-09
855
American Samoa
90
PA—Debris Removal, Emergency Protective Measures,
None
Hurricane Ofa
Permanent Work
Source: Compiled by CRS using federalregister.gov and OpenFEMA, “Web Declaration Areas” dataset; data current through June 20, 2023.
Notes: When adjustments are delimited by a certain date (vs. a specified period of time), the incident period is generally included in the duration. PA = Public
Assistance; IA = Individual Assistance; IFG = Individuals and Family Grant Program (precursor to current-day Individuals and Households Program); ONA = Individual
Assistance for Other Needs; HMGP = Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; DFA = Direct Federal Assistance (e.g., federal personnel, supplies, facilities provided directly
to affected communities). Note that the 1990 declaration for Hurricane Ofa received cost-share adjustments in 1995.

CRS-44

Stafford Act Cost Shares: History, Trends, Analysis

Author Information

Erica A. Lee

Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster
Recovery

Acknowledgments
Jason Heflin, Legislative Attorney; Diane Horn, Specialist in Flood Insurance and Emergency
Management; Eddie Liu, Legislative Attorney; Bruce Lindsay, Specialist in American National
Government; William Painter, Specialist in Homeland Security and Appropriations; and Elizabeth Webster,
Analyst in Emergency Management and Disaster Recovery, provided structural and editorial comments and
suggestions. Maura Mullins, Senior Research Librarian, provided research support. Chris Casey, Analyst in
International Trade and Finance, provided data analysis support, and Mari Lee, Visual Information
Specialist, authored graphics in the report. Lauren R. Stienstra, Federalism and Emergency Management
Section Research Manager, advised the author throughout the report’s development, and provided
structural and editorial comments and suggestions. Shelley Harlan, Editor, helped edit the report text and
footnotes. A report by Fran McCarthy was an invaluable model for this report.
CRS would like to thank Matt Cowles and Jessica Byrski of the National Emergency Management
Association for contributing data and information to this report.

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.

Congressional Research Service
R47646 · VERSION 2 · NEW
45

Download PDF

Download EPUB

Revision History

Jul. 26, 2023

HTML · PDF

Metadata

Topic areas

Foreign Affairs

Industry and Trade

Report Type: CRS Report

Source: CRSReports.Congress.gov

Raw Metadata: JSON