Emergency Management: Implementation of the Major Disaster Declaration Process for Federally Recognized Tribes

Since the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013, federally recognized Indian tribes affected by major disasters have had the option to make disaster declaration requests directly to the President of the United States or join a state's request for federal disaster assistance. Prior to this, tribes had to receive assistance through a state.

GAO was asked to assess the implementation of this new authority. This report addresses (1) the factors that influenced selected tribes' decisions about how to seek federal disaster assistance, and (2) the actions FEMA has taken to help tribes exercise the new authority.

GAO analyzed FEMA's pilot guidance for tribal declarations and interviewed FEMA and tribal emergency management experts. GAO also surveyed the 36 tribes who made requests for disaster assistance in fiscal years 2013-2016 about the factors that influenced their decision making. Twenty three tribes responded. GAO visited seven tribes selected from among the survey respondents to represent different FEMA regions and disaster types. The site visits cannot be generalized but provided valuable insights into the opportunities and challenges of exercising this new authority.

According to tribal officials GAO surveyed and interviewed, there are several factors they considered when deciding whether to make a direct request or to join a state's request for a major disaster declaration. Key factors that tribes reported considering were the (1) importance of tribal sovereignty, (2) financial matters such as the timeliness with which they receive funds, (3) the level of support they anticipated receiving from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and (4) their own emergency management capacity. For example, survey results showed that tribal officials' confidence in their capacity to manage the declaration was a key factor in determining whether to make a request directly. Specifically, various elements of emergency management capacity, as illustrated below, could affect tribes' ability to manage a declaration.

FEMA has developed pilot guidance for tribal declarations and solicited comments from tribes, as part of its effort to consider the needs of tribes and develop regulations. According to FEMA officials, they are currently assessing the effectiveness of policies and procedures based on data collected from tribal declarations since the passage of SRIA. These officials said they intend to begin the rulemaking process as soon as 2 years into the pilot, but may delay if they cannot collect enough data about different disaster situations during that time to conduct a complete analysis. Until the regulations are final, officials say they will exercise flexibility whenever possible. In addition, the agency offers training on the tribal declaration process and has dedicated staff who act as primary points of contact for tribal governments that require technical assistance.

GAO is not making any recommendations in this report.

The Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013, which amended  the Stafford Act, gave federally recognized tribes the authority to make  direct requests for major disaster declarations. Prior to 2013, to receive  disaster assistance, tribes had to join a major disaster request made by  the governor of the state in which the tribe is geographically located. The  2013 amendments to the Stafford Act allow the chief executive of an  affected tribal government to make a direct request for a major disaster  declaration or join a state’s request for a major disaster declaration. When  making this decision, tribal officials have to consider whether they have  the ability to meet the federal requirements for managing the disaster  assistance independent of the state, if approved. The 2013 amendments  also direct the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to issue  regulations to carry out these changes and, as part of this process, to  consider the unique conditions that affect the general welfare of tribal  governments.

A major disaster declaration activates numerous assistance programs  from FEMA to assist a state or tribal government in its response and  recovery efforts. FEMA is responsible for processing the requests for  emergency and major disaster declarations and making  recommendations to the President whether to declare a disaster. FEMA is  also the primary federal agency responsible for administering assistance  to aid recovery efforts after a disaster has been declared.

This report examines (1) the factors that influence selected tribes’  decisions about how to seek federal assistance through a major disaster  declaration, and (2) the actions FEMA has taken to help tribes exercise  the new authority.

To address the first objective, we reviewed FEMA’s pilot guidance for  tribal disaster declarations that was published in January 2017, as well as  federal regulations and statutes governing the major disaster declaration  process. We also reviewed emergency management-related documents  provided by tribal governments. We interviewed experts from tribal  emergency management organizations and officials from FEMA to  compile a list of factors that may have influenced a tribe’s decision to  make a direct request or join a state’s request as a sub-recipient. We  used that list to form the basis of a survey designed to collect information  about the factors that influenced whether a tribe used the new authority or  pursued disaster assistance under a state declaration. The survey  questions asked tribal officials to identify whether a particular factor was a  major factor, a minor factor, or not a factor at all in their decisions to make  a direct request or to join a state’s request. We sent our survey to all 36  tribal governments that either (1) received disaster relief funds through a  direct request, (2) received disaster relief funds as a sub-recipient of a  state’s request, or (3) made a direct request that was denied from  January 2013 through December 2016. This time period coincides with  the first year after SRIA was enacted to the most recently completed  calendar year in which full data on declarations were available at the time  we were planning our survey and site visit administration. Officials from  23 of the 36 tribes responded to our survey.

To report on FEMA pre-disaster grant funds select tribes received during  this period, we collected grant data from FEMA Grants Program Division.  To assess the reliability of these data, we performed electronic data  testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and interviewed  agency officials knowledgeable about the collection and processing of  these data. We determined these data to be sufficiently reliable for the  purpose of reporting the grant funds obligated from 2013 through 2016.

In addition, we conducted site visits to 7 tribes selected from the 23 tribes  that responded to our survey in order to obtain tribal officials’ views on  factors influencing their disaster declaration decisions during this period  and to observe recent disaster damages, ongoing recovery projects, and  aspects of each tribe’s emergency management capability. We selected  these sites so that as a set they included tribes that made a direct request  whether granted or denied, joined a state declaration, and were located in  a variety of FEMA regions. Although the information gathered from our  survey and site visits cannot be generalized across all tribes, it added  context to the survey responses, underscored the uniqueness of each  tribe, and offered important details regarding the opportunities and  challenges for tribes under this new authority.

To address the second objective, we reviewed relevant documentation,  such as the Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, and federal regulations  and statutes governing the major disaster declaration process. We  interviewed representatives from two national tribal organizations to  discuss any successes and issues with the new authority that had been  reported by their constituents. In addition, during our seven site visits, we  gathered testimonial evidence of successes and challenges each tribe  faced in implementing the new authority and carrying out the various  requirements associated with requesting and managing a major disaster  declaration directly or as a sub-recipient to a state declaration. We also  interviewed FEMA officials about the actions they had taken to help  position tribes to determine whether to exercise the new authority and  how to do so, if desired. Further details on our objectives, scope, and  methodology are contained in appendix I.

In addition, appendix II contains information on major disaster  declarations and pre-disaster grant funds allocated to the 36 tribes  described above as our target population. We analyzed data from  FEMA’s National Emergency Management Information System to  determine what tribes received major disaster declarations from 2013  through 2016 and the specific amount of pre-disaster grant funds they  received. We discussed, with FEMA personnel who have knowledge of  the data collection and maintenance, the controls used to help ensure the  accuracy and reliability of these data. We determined the data to be  sufficiently reliable for identifying which tribes received what types and  amounts of post-disaster assistance and for reporting the pre-disaster  grants that tribes received.

We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 through May  2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing  standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to  obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for  our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe  that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings  and conclusions based on our audit objectives.

The federal government has consistently recognized Indian tribes as  distinct, independent political communities with inherent powers of limited  sovereignty. The 2013 amendments in SRIA allow tribes to decide how to  request federal disaster assistance, thereby allowing tribes to exercise  their sovereignty.

As of April 2018, there were 573 federally recognized Indian tribes,  residing on more than 56 million acres. Thirty-six states have at least  parts of a tribe within their borders, with fewer tribes located on the East  Coast of the United States and over 300 tribes are located in Alaska and  California. These tribes are each sovereign governments and vary in size,  demographics, and location. For instance, Navajo Nation has the largest  reservation covering over 17.5 million acres, stretching across New  Mexico, Arizona and Utah, and is home to approximately 174,000  residents, while the Mashantucket Pequot Reservation in Connecticut  covers over 2,000 acres and is home to about 350 residents.

Only tribes that are federally recognized can make disaster declaration  requests. The 10 FEMA Regions and the location of each regional office,  along with the number of federally recognized tribes in each region, are  illustrated in figure 1.

Pre-Disaster Emergency Management Grants for Tribes

Before a disaster occurs, tribes may need certain resources to assist in  the development of their local emergency management capacity. In  addition to offering technical assistance for certain administrative  requirements, such as developing a hazard mitigation plan, FEMA  administers four pre-disaster grant programs that tribes may access.

These grant programs could provide tribes, either directly or as a sub- grantee through a state, with funds that would help support aspects of  their emergency management capability. They are:  Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG). The purpose of  EMPG is to help build and sustain core emergency management  capabilities. EMPG is particularly important for building the capacity to  declare and manage a disaster, because it is the primary federal program  for which salaries and training for emergency management personnel is  an allowable expense. Only states and U.S. territories are eligible to  receive EMPG funds directly. According to FEMA officials, after states  receive EMPG funds, they make determinations about whether and under  what conditions to provide the funds to tribes and local governments  within their geographical boundaries. However, according to officials, not  all states will distribute EMPG funds to tribes.

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP). The purpose of SHSP is to  help states and U.S. territories prevent, prepare for, protect against, and  respond to acts of terrorism and otherwise reduce overall risk. Allowable  expenses include, but are not limited to, equipment, training, and  exercises. As with EMPG, states and territories receive SHSP funds and  subsequently decide how to distribute them.

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP). THSGP is a tribal- specific grant program intended to serve the same general purpose as  SHSP. THSGP is available to tribes that meet one or more specific  criteria, including comprising at least 1,000 square miles of Indian country  or being near an international border, near prioritized critical  infrastructure, or within or adjacent to one of the 50 most populous  regions in the United States.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM). A PDM grant primarily funds  development and upkeep of hazard mitigation plans, but can be used for  hazard mitigation projects as well. All nonfederal governments—including  tribal governments—must have an up-to-date, FEMA-approved hazard mitigation plan in place before receiving disaster assistance following a  major disaster declaration.

Declaration Process for Major Disaster Declarations

After a disaster, tribal chief executives may request federal assistance, if  the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that effective response is  beyond the capabilities of the affected tribal government and federal  assistance is necessary. Tribes may make a request for assistance as a  direct recipient, or they may join a state’s request as a sub-recipient.

Similar to the state request process, FEMA Regional Administrators  evaluate the tribe’s request and make a recommendation to FEMA  headquarters. The FEMA Administrator then sends the recommendation  to the President for a final decision as to whether the tribe’s, or a state’s,  request for a major disaster declaration should be approved or denied.  Figure 2 illustrates the process tribes follow to make a direct request or  join a state’s request.

Federal Disaster Assistance Available to Tribes Following a Major Disaster Declaration

When a major disaster is declared, FEMA provides disaster assistance  for eligible disaster recovery projects through the Disaster Relief Fund  (DRF). The three types of post-disaster grants, through the DRF, that  state governors or tribal chief executives may request are:  (1) Public Assistance (PA), which provides grants for eligible emergency  work and repairs or restoration to infrastructure.  (2) Individual Assistance (IA), which provides assistance to individuals  and households to meet their sustenance, shelter, and medical needs.  (3) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), which provides grants for  eligible projects to reduce the potential for future damage.

Tribal Requests for Major Disaster Declarations from 2013 through 2016

According to FEMA data, between 2013 and 2016, 36 tribes made  requests for disaster assistance as a direct recipient or by joining a state’s  request. Of those 36 tribes:

Fifteen tribes made a total of 17 direct requests to the U.S. President  through FEMA for major disaster declarations.

Eight of these requests were approved across 7 tribes. From 2013  through 2016, the Pueblo of Santa Clara, New Mexico was the  only tribe approved for two major disaster declarations for severe  storms and flooding in 2013.

The remaining 9 direct requests were denied across 9 tribes.

Twenty-nine tribes were sub-recipients under 36 state major disaster  declaration requests.

Eight tribes made a direct request and also joined at least one state  request for a major disaster declaration.

Figure 3 below shows the types of state requests tribes joined as well as  the direct tribal requests that were approved and denied between 2013  and 2016. See appendix II for background information on the 36 tribes  that made requests for disaster assistance and those that received pre- disaster grants during the study period.

Tribes Considered Sovereignty, Finances, FEMA Support, and Emergency Management Capacity When Deciding How to Request a Disaster Declaration

Officials from the tribes that responded to our survey and those we  interviewed reported that there are several factors they took into  consideration when deciding whether to make a direct request or to join a  state’s request for a disaster declaration, during the 2013 to 2016 period.  On the basis of the cumulative responses from these officials, we found  that tribal sovereignty, financial matters, FEMA support, and the tribe’s  emergency management capacity were key factors in their decision- making process. As shown in figure 4, the 23 survey respondents fall into  three subsets, which totals 29 direct and state requests made by the  survey respondents.

Tribal Sovereignty and Government-to- Government Relationship

Nine of 10 survey respondents that made at least one direct request  during the 2013 to 2016 period reported that tribal sovereignty was a  major factor they considered when making a direct request. Two survey  respondents reported that the new authority is of strategic importance for  tribal sovereignty because they are no longer required to join a state’s  request when seeking a major disaster declaration. For example, in  instances where the state’s request for a major disaster declaration has  been denied, tribes now have the option to request disaster assistance  directly as a result of this new authority.

This factor was also of practical importance for tribes with reservations  located in more than one state or county. During our site visit interviews,  officials from one tribe said it was a challenge to manage multiple state  bureaucracies when the reservation spans multiple states. In some  cases, portions of a reservation may not receive disaster assistance if  one state—or county—did not request or receive a major disaster  declaration. Officials from 5 tribes we visited said they prefer making  direct requests because of the government-to-government relationship  with the United States, and because working through the state as an  intermediary impinged on their sovereignty. An official from one small  rural tribe said that the tribe currently does not have the capacity to make  a direct request but is taking the steps to do so in the future because it is  important to their tribal sovereignty.

Tribal officials responding to our survey and interview questions reported  that the potential to receive additional assistance from states to pay the  non-federal cost share might influence them to join a state’s request.  Conversely, the timeliness of reimbursement and the potential to receive  administrative costs and HMGP grants might be factors in deciding to  make a direct request.

Eight out of 13 respondents that received disaster assistance only as a  sub-recipient of a state reported that they had concerns about paying the  required nonfederal cost-share. When managing disaster assistance  grants as a direct recipient, a tribal government is solely responsible for  the entire nonfederal cost share. On the other hand, if the tribe is a sub- recipient to a state request, the tribe may have a lighter financial burden  since several states offer partial or full nonfederal cost share assistance  to their local and tribal sub-recipients. For example, officials from one  tribe said that there is a strong financial incentive to join a state’s request  because the state reimburses the tribal government’s half of the cost  share.

In addition, some tribes may face financial hardship with the startup cost  for recovery projects because PA and HMGP are reimbursement  programs. For example, one tribal official said that it is especially  difficult for small, rural, non-gaming tribes to find the financial capital to  initiate recovery and hazard mitigation projects. While some tribes may  have the money set aside for this purpose or may be able to secure loans  to begin projects like the one illustrated in figure 5, other tribes are unable  to start certain internal processes until the FEMA funds have been  obligated. At a minimum, recipients have to present a scope of work before they can receive funds, the preparation of which usually requires  the services of engineers or other technical experts. Therefore, the  timeliness of the reimbursements, especially when the tribe is a sub- recipient under a state request, can result in financial challenges. For  example, one tribal official we interviewed said that it takes much longer,  on average, to request and receive reimbursement for recovery projects  when the tribe has to submit the request through the state. Conversely,  the official noted that reimbursement processes are typically much  quicker when working directly with FEMA.

During our site visit interviews, officials from one tribe told us that they  prefer to make direct requests so they could receive HMGP funds to  make decisions about the hazard mitigation projects on their reservation.  Generally, as a direct recipient, a state or tribe will receive HMGP funding  based on a percentage, usually 15 percent, of the total amount of PA and  IA funds received for the disaster recovery. HMGP funds can be used for  eligible hazard mitigation projects or to create or renew hazard mitigation  plans. Under a state declaration, the state receives these funds and can,  at its discretion, use them anywhere within its boundaries for eligible  projects. According to officials from one tribe, they can ensure they  receive the total amount of HMGP funds to use on hazard mitigation  projects within their own jurisdiction when they are a direct recipient.

FEMA’s Policies, Guidance, and Technical Assistance

Tribal officials’ confidence in the level of support they expected to receive  from FEMA influenced their decision whether to make a direct request or  to join a state. Specifically, in response to our survey, tribes that made  direct requests largely reported that they believed FEMA’s policies and  requirements would be clear enough for them to effectively navigate the  processes and that timely and accurate information would be available. In  contrast, multiple tribes that decided to join a state’s request reported that  their concerns in those areas influenced their decisions to join a state’s  request.

Eight of the 10 tribes responding to our survey that requested a direct  disaster declaration during the 2013 to 2016 period stated that the clarity  of policy and guidance was a factor (five called it a major factor and three  deemed it minor) in their decision making. Conversely, eight of the 13  tribes that only joined a state request reported that concern about FEMA’s  policies and requirements being clear enough to seek a direct request  was a factor in their decision to join a state request.

During our site visit interviews, officials from 2 tribes discussed  challenges they have experienced with FEMA’s policies and requirements  for estimating IA-related damages. Applicants for IA, including owners  and renters, must be able to prove they occupied the damaged dwelling,  pre-disaster, as their primary residence before receiving assistance.  However, according to tribal officials, many homeowners on reservations  do not possess formal deeds to their home or do not carry insurance,  making it difficult for FEMA to ensure that potential recipients of the IA  funds meet the requirements of the program. According to FEMA officials,  the agency has attempted to be flexible during the pilot phase of the tribal  declarations program. For example, FEMA officials in one region told us  that they would accept a tribal government’s declaration of home  ownership in lieu of a formal deed. FEMA officials told us they will  continue to evaluate how issues of homeownership will be adjudicated.

In addition, during our site visit interviews, officials from 3 tribes discussed  various types of difficulty with completing and maintaining the paperwork  associated with recovery projects. For example, officials from a tribe  stated that they are not equipped to manage and comply with processes  such as permit requirements or federal procurement procedures and as a  result are currently seeking to hire a full time emergency manager.  Throughout the life of a major disaster declaration, tribal officials are  required to maintain paperwork to document the recovery projects, which  can require both physical and electronic recordkeeping systems, space,  time, and expertise. For example, figure 6 below shows an example of the  volume of paperwork needed to support and close out the recovery  projects associated with a landslide in Washington State, according to the  tribal and state officials involved.

Nine of 10 tribes responding to our survey that were awarded a direct  disaster declaration reported that a factor (six major and three minor) in  their decision making was their determination that the availability of timely  and accurate assistance from FEMA would help them successfully  manage the request process. For tribes that only joined state requests,  fewer tribes reported that concerns about receiving timely and accurate  technical assistance affected their decisions than those that had concerns  about the clarity of FEMA’s policy and guidance. Four of the 13 total  tribes that only joined a state declaration cited concerns about having  access to technical assistance as a factor (one called it a major and three  deemed it minor).

Damage Assessments  After a disaster occurs, the first step in the  declaration process is for the tribe to conduct  an assessment of the impacts of the disaster  to determine if there are needs that cannot be  addressed with tribal resources or through  insurance. Using this assessment—known as  an initial damage assessment–-a tribal  government can determine what, if any, needs  or damages are eligible for FEMA disaster  assistance. If a tribe determines that such  needs or damages are beyond its capabilities  to address with its own resources or  insurance, the next step is to request a Joint  Preliminary Damage Assessment (Joint PDA)  from their FEMA Regional Administrator so  that FEMA and the tribe can go through a  process of reaching agreement about what  damages and needs are eligible.

According to FEMA officials, the agency has assigned staff as dedicated  Regional Tribal Liaisons (RTL) in all FEMA regional offices. RTLs help  tribes maintain awareness of various program requirements, including  those for conducting damage assessments and submitting requests for  major disaster declarations. RTLs accomplish this role by connecting  tribes with FEMA subject matter experts, who help tribes navigate the  major disaster declaration processes and programs. During our site visit  interviews, officials from 5 tribes we interviewed discussed the  importance of having a good working relationship with FEMA regional  officials. Some of the steps FEMA has taken to provide technical  assistance to tribes are discussed further below.

Tribal officials’ confidence in the tribe’s capacity to manage the major  disaster declaration process and subsequently administer the recovery  without assistance from a state was a key factor in determining whether  or not to seek a request directly or join a state request.

Tribes, like states, have to carry out specific tasks and meet eligibility  requirements to be able to make a direct request and manage the  recovery processes for a major disaster declaration, as shown in figure 7.  While states have had decades to develop the emergency management  capacity needed to request and administer federal disaster assistance,  tribes have had the opportunity to apply directly for federal disaster  assistance since the passage of SRIA in 2013. Developing and  maintaining such a capacity requires, among other things, having in- house knowledge or the ability to contract for (or otherwise access)  specialized expertise to navigate through complex planning and  processes.

Multiple officials from tribes we interviewed and surveyed reported  challenges building and maintaining emergency management capacity  that affected their ability to make direct requests for, and manage the  recovery effort associated with, a major disaster declaration.

Specifically, 9 of 10 tribes responding to our survey that made a direct  request said determining that their tribes had the emergency  management capacity to successfully manage the major disaster  declaration request process was a factor (6 identified it as minor, 3 as  major). Conversely, 7 of the 13 tribes responding to our survey that only  joined a state request said determining that they did not have the  emergency management capacity to successfully manage the major  disaster declaration request process was a factor in their decisions (4  identified as major, 3 as minor). As with the capacity to handle the  declaration process, determining whether the tribe had the capacity to  manage the recovery process, as illustrated in figure 7, also affected  decision making. Officials from one tribe we interviewed who had not  made direct requests told us that unless they have the emergency  management capacity to manage both the request and the recovery  process, they plan to continue joining states’ requests whenever possible.

Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan  A Tribal Hazard Mitigation Plan describes  sustained actions that may be taken by the  tribal government to reduce or eliminate the  long-term risk of future damage to human life  and property from hazards. When making a  direct request for a major disaster declaration,  a tribal government must have a Federal  Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)- approved Tribal Mitigation Plan that meets the  requirements in 44 C.F.R. § 201.7 before  receiving FEMA disaster assistance funds  under certain programs. If electing to be a  sub-recipient under a state’s major disaster  declaration request, the tribal government  may be eligible to receive disaster assistance  funds through the state without having a Tribal  Mitigation Plan.

A tribal emergency management consultant who works with several tribes  in one of the areas where we conducted site visits told us that the lack of  a FEMA-approved tribal hazard mitigation plan limits the ability of many of  these tribes to receive disaster funding. A hazard mitigation plan is  required prior to a recipient being able to receive PA permanent work or  HMGP. As of December 2017, 143 out of 567 tribes had a FEMA- approved Tribal Mitigation Plan, according to FEMA. In addition, the  consultant reported that some tribes also lacked a designated emergency  manager and hiring one may be unaffordable or in some cases, the  applicants lack qualifications. For another tribe, the designated  emergency manager had several job titles, including the tribe’s first  responder and fire chief, which the official said makes it difficult to  dedicate the time required to hone the skills necessary to manage the  FEMA declaration processes. The official recounted an attempt to  develop a hazard mitigation plan that at the time of our interview was still  incomplete due, in part, to the complexity of the FEMA guidelines. In such  cases, tribes may need to hire a specialist to assist with this  administrative requirement, but may not have the budget to do so.

Another challenge tribal officials identified is that tribes face barriers to  accessing federal pre-disaster funding that could help them build capacity  to manage post-disaster grants following a successful declaration  request. During our site visit interviews, officials from two tribes told us  they have considered seeking federal grant opportunities to help enhance  emergency management capacity, but the eligibility requirements, such  as the requirement to be near designated critical infrastructure or within  100 miles of the border, for the tribal homeland security grants program  precluded them from applying. They also said that they have received  few, if any, state homeland security grant funds from states.

EMPG pays for salaries and is the primary source of support for  developing and maintaining the requisite emergency management expertise. According to the FEMA and tribal officials we spoke with, as  well as grant data provided by FEMA, tribes receive relatively low  amounts of EMPG funding (see table 1 below) through the states. Tribes  are not eligible to apply directly to FEMA for EMPG funds. In addition,  according to tribal officials, when tribes apply to states for EMPG funds,  the states can impose conditions that impinge on tribal sovereignty. For  example, one state requires tribes to waive their legal immunity and agree  to follow state laws, which some tribal officials viewed as contradictory to  their sovereignty. As a result, these officials said they choose not to apply  for these grants through the states and have never received EMPG funds.

FEMA officials acknowledged that tribes face challenges getting federal  grant funds to help them enhance their emergency management capacity.  According to the officials there are statutory, policy, and budget  considerations that limit their ability to make significant changes in the  way such grant funds are distributed. However, they told us that they  continue to work under their current authorities to assist tribes that seek  to develop and maintain their emergency management capacity, primarily  through training and technical assistance, as described later in this report.

FEMA Has Created Pilot Guidance for Tribes and Offers Training and Technical Assistance on Directly Requesting Disaster Declarations

Since the passage of SRIA in 2013, FEMA has implemented various  policies tailored to tribes that wish to make a direct request to the  President, through FEMA, for federal disaster assistance. In December  2013, FEMA issued a policy regarding coordination with tribal  governments. As part of this policy, FEMA committed to consulting tribal  governments before taking proposed actions that would have a  substantial direct effect on tribes. In addition, the policy recognized the  tribes’ rights to self-governance and tribal sovereignty.

Since 2013, according to FEMA officials, the agency has provided  multiple opportunities through Federal Register notices and ongoing  consultations for input into the development of the guidance that currently  governs the tribal request process for major disaster declarations.  Specifically, FEMA reported that it is implementing this authority in three  phases: (1) use of existing regulations, (2) pilot period, and (3)  rulemaking. During phase 1, from 2013-2016, FEMA processed tribal  declaration requests using existing state declaration regulations in order  to allow tribal governments the choice to use the new authority  immediately and to provide time for consultation on drafts of the Tribal  Declarations Pilot Guidance.

In January 2016, FEMA published a draft of the Tribal Declarations Pilot  Guidance and requested comments on the draft guidance through April  2016. Based on feedback received, FEMA issued a final version of the  guidance, with which it will manage tribal declaration requests during the  pilot phase, in January 2017. The publication of this guidance in  January 2017 officially started phase 2, the pilot phase, of the tribal  declarations implementation.

FEMA officials told us that, before beginning the development of  regulations on tribal disaster declarations, they intend to operate under  the pilot guidance for at least 2 years. They noted that they cannot specify  an exact date on which they expect to finalize the guidance because  there is uncertainty about what kind of disasters will strike and where.

According to officials, they have identified data they would like to collect  to assess the guidance before finalizing it. Among other things, they said  they plan to do economic analyses using quantitative data such as the  types of disaster assistance requests from tribes (PA, IA, and HMGP) and  the amount of funding allocated to tribes. In addition, these officials said  they plan to conduct focus groups with tribal officials to learn more about  how the disaster declaration policies and guidance have worked for tribal  governments that used them. In the meantime, according to these  officials, their aim is to be as flexible as possible while maintaining  consistency with other relevant disaster regulations, so that they can  respond to any unique challenges that arise in implementing this new  authority.

In addition to assessing how the pilot is working for tribes, FEMA has  developed and implemented training to help tribes understand the  disaster declaration process and provided technical assistance to tribes  as needed, prior to, during, and after disasters. FEMA has offered  training opportunities at the Emergency Management Institute in  Emmitsburg, Maryland, and has hosted regional training workshops and  consultations throughout the country. According to tribal officials, these  training courses have helped increase tribes’ emergency management  expertise. One of the offerings, Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, was a  1-hour briefing offered in multiple locations and provided to dozens of  tribes and other government agencies. In addition, FEMA has RTLs in  each regional office that are a primary point of contact for tribal  governments that have questions or require technical assistance on  FEMA programs. Officials from one tribe we visited told us they believe  the technical assistance they received from a FEMA RTL was timely and  thorough. These officials said the tribe contacted FEMA for assistance  following the Tribal Council’s decision to declare a state of emergency on  the reservation. According to the tribal officials, a fire had started on a  Sunday and the FEMA team was on-site at the reservation by  Wednesday to conduct a joint preliminary damage assessment with tribal  officials. The officials also said they were impressed with FEMA’s quick  response on the damage assessment results, which they received within  a week. The tribe did not ultimately request a major disaster declaration  because the damage assessment fell short of the minimum damage  amount at that time. However, officials from the tribe said the experience  they gained was helpful for the tribe’s emergency management staff and  that they are now confident they will be able to conduct an initial damage  assessment should a future disaster occur.

We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Homeland Security  and FEMA for review and comment. They provided technical comments,  which we incorporated as appropriate.

We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional  committees and the Secretary of Homeland Security. In addition, the  report is available at no charge on the GAO website at  http://www.gao.gov.

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (404) 679-1875 or curriec@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices  of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last  page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report  are listed in appendix V.

The objectives of this study were to examine (1) the factors that influence  selected tribes’ decisions about how to seek federal assistance through a  major disaster declaration and (2) the actions the Federal Emergency  Management Agency (FEMA) is taking to assist tribal efforts to request  and manage disaster declarations.

To report on the factors that tribes consider when seeking federal disaster  assistance, we reviewed FEMA’s pilot guidance for tribal disaster  declarations that was published in January 2017 and discussed the  program’s pilot plans with key agency officials. We also interviewed  officials from two national tribal organizations (the National Congress of  American Indians and the National Tribal Emergency Management  Council) and FEMA to develop a preliminary list of potential factors that  may influence a tribe’s decision to make a direct request or to join a  state’s request as a sub-recipient. Using these factors, we developed a  survey with both closed and open-ended questions. To minimize non- response error, we pre-tested the survey instrument with officials from  two tribes in FEMA Regions VI and X (see figure 1) to ensure the  questions were clear and unbiased and that the survey questions were  culturally appropriate. We also consulted tribal officials during a FEMA  training course and held additional interviews with officials from tribal  organizations to ensure that the questions were clear, understandable,  and appropriate. An independent reviewer within our agency also  reviewed a draft of the survey prior to the pre-tests. We made appropriate  revisions to the content and format of the questionnaire based on the  pretests and independent review.

We sent our survey to the 36 tribal governments that either (1) received  declaration funds through a direct request,  (2) received declaration  funds as a sub-recipient of a state’s request, or (3) made a direct request  that was denied between January 2013 and December 2016.The time  period we chose coincides with the year SRIA was enacted to the most  recent calendar year in which a full year of data on major disaster  declarations was available when we began this work. Using e-mail  addresses provided by FEMA Regional offices, we emailed the survey in  an attached document that respondents could complete electronically or  by hand and return via email or mail. We sent an invitation letter to the  tribes on July 12, 2017, informing them of the purpose of the survey and  the date it would be sent. We then sent the survey on July 18, 2017 and  began soliciting survey responses from August 7, 2017 until January 12,  2018, by phone and email. We received completed surveys from 23 of the  36 tribes in the target population. We compared selected characteristics  of the tribes responding to the survey with the same characteristics of the  36 tribes in the target population, as well as the completion of individual  questions, and did not find a nonresponse bias. The final survey  questionnaire is in appendix III.

To complement the survey responses, we conducted site visits to 7 tribes  selected from among the 23 tribes that responded to our survey. The  objectives of these site visits were to obtain added information from the  tribal officials regarding the factors influencing their disaster declaration  decisions during this period. We also observed recent disaster damage;  ongoing recovery projects; and aspects of each tribe’s emergency  management capability. We selected these various sites so that, as a set,  they included a mixture of tribes that had participated in direct  declarations; in state declarations as a sub-recipient; participated in  declarations that were granted and denied; and were located in different  FEMA regions. The selected tribes are located in Arizona, New Mexico,  Washington, and Idaho, representing FEMA Regions VI, VIII, IX, and X.  During our site visits, we interviewed tribal executives and emergency  management officials and toured completed projects. Although the  information gathered from our survey and site visits cannot be  generalized across the tribes, our observations and the tribal officials’  responses underscored the uniqueness of each tribe and each disaster,  as well as offering important details regarding the opportunities and  challenges for tribes under this new authority.

To report on related FEMA grant funds obligated from 2013 through 2016,  we collected data regarding the Homeland Security Grant Program, Tribal  Homeland Security Grant Program, Emergency Management  Performance Grant, and the Pre Disaster Mitigation grant data from  FEMA Grants Program Division officials. We selected these programs  because they provide pre-disaster grant funds to states and tribes that  are, in part, intended to enhance grantees emergency management  capacity. To assess the reliability of these data, we performed electronic  data testing for obvious errors in accuracy and completeness, and  interviewed agency officials knowledgeable about the collection and  processing of these data. We determined these data to be sufficiently  reliable for the purposes of reporting FEMA’s awards of these grant  funds.

To address the second objective, we reviewed federal documentation— such as FEMA’s Tribal Declarations Pilot Guidance, federal regulations  and statutes governing the major disaster declaration process to see what  actions FEMA has taken specifically related to tribe’s requesting and  managing major disaster declarations. We also reviewed disaster-related  documentation provided by tribal governments and available on-line,  including correspondence between tribes and FEMA, testimony  statements, and additional documents that provided details of tribes’  experiences requesting and managing major disaster declarations. In  addition, we interviewed officials from the two aforementioned national  tribal organizations to discuss any successes or challenges they were  familiar with related to the new authority that allows tribes to request a  major disaster declaration directly from the President of the United States.  During our interviews with tribal organizations and tribal officials, we  examined challenges related to implementing the new authority and  carrying out the various requirements associated with requesting and  managing a major disaster declaration.

We also interviewed FEMA officials about the actions they had taken to  help tribes make informed decisions about whether they would prefer to  exercise the new authority. In addition, we interviewed FEMA officials  about how they assisted tribes that were considering whether to exercise  the new authority and how to do so, if desired, as well as what, if any,  steps they had taken to address the challenges identified by tribes. For  example, we discussed what actions FEMA has taken to assess the pilot  program, offer training opportunities, and provide technical assistance to  tribes that seek to enhance their emergency management capacity. We  also attended a tribal emergency management conference in June 2017,  attended a FEMA tribal emergency management training session in  person in March 2017, and attended two FEMA-sponsored webinars  designed specifically for tribal participants.

Appendix II: Grant Funds Received by Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016

State Homeland Security Program (SHSP) provides funding to support  states’ implementation of homeland security strategies to address the  identified planning, organization, equipment, training, and exercise  needs at the state and local levels to prevent, protect against, respond             to, and recover from acts of terrorism and other catastrophic events.

Tribal Homeland Security Grant Program (THSGP) provides funding  to eligible tribes to strengthen their capacity to prevent, protect  against, mitigate, respond to, and recover from potential terrorist  attacks and other hazards.

Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program  provides funding to assist local, tribal, territorial, and state  governments in enhancing and sustaining all-hazards emergency  management capabilities.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program provides funds to  communities for hazard mitigation planning and the implementation of  mitigation projects prior to a disaster event. Funding these plans and  projects reduces overall risks to life and property and the future cost  of recovering from a disaster event. The goal of the program is to  reduce overall risk to the population and structures, while at the same  time also reducing reliance on Federal funding from actual disaster  declarations.

Post-Disaster Grant Programs through a Major Disaster Declaration

Individual Assistance (IA) provides financial assistance to individuals.

Public Assistance (PA) provides financial assistance to jurisdictions for  debris removal, emergency protective measures, and the restoration of  disaster-damaged, publicly-owned facilities and the facilities of certain                   private nonprofit organizations, such as utilities.

Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) provides additional funds to  assist communities in implementing long-term measures to help  reduce the potential risk of future damages to facilities.

Appendix III: GAO Survey to Tribes that Requested or Joined a State’s Major Disaster Declaration, 2013-2016

In addition to the contact named above, Kathryn Godfrey (Assistant  Director), R. Denton Herring (Analyst-In-Charge), Pat Donahue, Dainia  Lawes, and Claudia Rodriguez made key contributions to this report. In  addition, Eric Hauswirth, Susan Hsu, Tracey King, Gary Malavenda, Jeff  Malcolm, and Heidi Nielson also provided assistance.