Input:
	Introduction

On March 13, 2020, President Donald J. Trump declared an emergency under Section 501(b) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; 42 U.S.C. Â§5191(b)) in response to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). The President's emergency declaration authorized assistance for COVID-19 response efforts for all U.S. states, territories, tribes, and the District of Columbia in accordance with Stafford Act Section 502. The emergency declaration authorized the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA's) Public Assistance (PA) program, which provides direct and financial assistance for emergency protective measures.
The President's March 13, 2020 emergency declaration letter to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, stated that the President "believe[s] that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude nationwide that requests for a declaration of a major disaster ... may be appropriate." As of March 20, 2020, the President began approving major disaster declaration requests under the Stafford Act. As of April 22, 2020, the President had approved major disaster declaration requests for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands.
This report provides answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) regarding:
Stafford Act declarations, including legal authorities, limitations on assistance, and other information related to the declaration request process; types of assistance available to state, territorial, and tribal governments, private nonprofit organizations, private entities, and individuals and households pursuant to the Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declarations for COVID-19; the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), the source of funding for the Stafford Act emergency and major disaster declarations; and additional references.
The scope of this report is limited to assistance authorized under the Stafford Act. There are, however, other types of assistance extrinsic to the Stafford Act that are activated by a Stafford declaration. This report does not address these other forms of assistance.

	Stafford Act Declarations

The Stafford Act authorizes the President to issue two types of declarations that could provide federal assistance to states and localities in response to a public health incident, such as an infectious disease outbreak: (1) an "emergency declaration" (authorized under Stafford Act Section 501), or (2) a "major disaster declaration" (authorized under Stafford Act Section 401). The following questions relate to the Stafford Act declarations for COVID-19.

		The President declared an emergency for COVID-19. Do states, territories, and tribes still need to request a COVID-19 emergency declaration?

The President's emergency declaration authorized assistance for COVID-19 response efforts for all U.S. states, territories, tribes, and the District of Columbia; specifically, it authorized FEMA Public Assistance (PA) emergency protective measures. Thus, states, territories, and tribes do not need to request separate emergency declarations in addition to the President's emergency declaration. If, however, a state, territory, or tribe needs supplementary federal assistance, the governor or chief executive may request that the declaration be amended to include additional areas or types of assistance. FEMA can approve a request for additional areas or forms of assistance after a presidential emergency declaration.
The assistance provided pursuant to an emergency declaration is limited (see Table 1 , which lists the forms of assistance available pursuant to each type of declaration). If a state, territory, or tribe needs assistance that is only available pursuant to a major disaster declaration, they may submit a major disaster declaration request to the President (through FEMA). Although the President can declare an emergency unilaterally in certain circumstances, a major disaster declaration would need to be requested by state, territory, or tribal governments (see " Why didn't the President declare a national major disaster for COVID-19? ").

		Does the President have the authority to unilaterally declare an emergency under the Stafford Act?

Section 501(b) of the Stafford Act allows the President to unilaterally declare an emergency for certain emergencies involving federal primary responsibility. The President's nationwide emergency declaration for COVID-19 was made under Stafford Act Section 501(b) on the grounds that
the entire country is now facing a significant public health emergency ... [and] [o]nly the Federal Government can provide the necessary coordination to address a pandemic of this national size and scope.... It is the preeminent responsibility of the Federal Government to take action to stem a nationwide pandemic that has its origins abroad, which implicates its authority to regulate matters related to interstate matters and foreign commerce and to conduct the foreign relations of the United States.
This is the first time a President has unilaterally declared a Stafford Act emergency for a public health incidentâspecifically, an infectious disease outbreak. Unilateral presidential declarations, however, have been made for incidents on a limited scale.

		Is there a cap on the amount of funding FEMA can spend under an emergency declaration?

Although Stafford Act Section 503 sets a statutory "cap" of $5 million on spending for a single emergency, there is an exception. The $5 million limit may be exceeded when the President determines that:
(A) continued emergency assistance is immediately required;
(B) there is a continuing and immediate risk to lives, property, public health or safety; and
(C) necessary assistance will not otherwise be provided on a timely basis.
If the $5 million "cap" is exceeded, the President must report to Congress on the "nature and extent of emergency assistance requirements and shall propose additional legislation if necessary."
Although the President's emergency declaration for COVID-19 covers the entire nation, each disaster-affected state and the District of Columbia, as well as some tribal governments, received a distinct emergency declaration (i.e., 57 separate emergency declarations). Therefore, it appears that each distinct emergency declaration may count as a "single emergency" for purposes of Stafford Act Section 503 and that the $5 million "cap" is not the nationwide limit on the amount of emergency assistance that FEMA can provide (see Appendix B for an example of a time when different states, territories, and tribes received presidential emergency declarations under the Stafford Act for the same incident).
Major disaster declarations do not have a statutory or regulatory spending cap. As of April 22, 2020, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have received major disaster declarations for COVID-19. For more information on the funding available for the emergencies and major disasters declared for COVID-19, see the " Funding for Stafford Act Declarations " section.

		Is the COVID-19 emergency assistance time limited?

The federal assistance provided must respond to the effects of the incident warranting an emergency or major disaster declaration "which took place during the incident period or was in anticipation of that incident." The emergency and major disaster declarations for COVID-19 currently list the incident period as "January 20, 2020 and continuing." In previous ongoing disasters, the "continuing" incident period has changed to a set date marking the end of the emergency or major disaster. In the case of COVID-19, the incident period may vary for each state, territorial, and tribal government as the threat of COVID-19 abates. According to federal regulations, FEMA determines the incident period in the FEMA-State Agreement. In May 2016, the agency released a fact sheet on responding to an infectious disease event, which states, "[i]n the event of an emergency declaration, FEMA would determine the incident period in coordination with HHS." The governor of each declared state or territory, or the chief executive for each declared Indian tribal government, must execute a FEMA-State Agreement in order to receive assistance pursuant to their COVID-19 emergency declaration.
It is also possible to extend the incident period. Extensions of the incident period, and program extensions and end dates may be announced via news releases on FEMA's website.

		Why didn't the President declare a national major disaster for COVID-19?

Stafford Act Section 401 states "[a]ll requests for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists shall be made by the Governor of the affected State" or "[t]he Chief Executive of an affected Indian tribal government may submit a request for a declaration by the President that a major disaster exists.... " Although the President is not authorized by the Stafford Act to unilaterally declare a major disaster on behalf of a state, territory, or tribe, the President stated in his emergency declaration letter to the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secretary of the Department of Treasury, the Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency that he "believe[s] that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude nationwide that requests for a declaration of a major disaster ... may be appropriate."
As of March 20, 2020, the President began approving major disaster declaration requests under the Stafford Act. As of April 22, 2020, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have received major disaster declarations for COVID-19.

		Have states, territories, and tribes ever received a major disaster declaration for an outbreak of an infectious disease, such as COVID-19?

The President started approving major disaster declaration requests for COVID-19 as of March 20, 2020. These declarations are the first major disaster declarations issued under the Stafford Act for an infectious disease outbreak.

		Does it take a long time to approve a request for a major disaster declaration?

The State of New York was the first state to receive a major disaster declaration for COVID-19. According to FEMA's "Daily Operations Briefing for Wednesday, March 18, 2020," New York requested a major disaster declaration on March 17, 2020. The President authorized New York's request on March 20, 2020. Other state requests for a major disaster for COVID-19 have also been processed within days of their submission. FEMA lists the approved presidential major disaster declarations for COVID-19 on the agency's "COVID-19 Disaster Declarations" and "Disasters" webpages. As of April 22, 2020, all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands have received major disaster declarations for COVID-19.

	Types of Stafford Act Assistance

Different types of federal assistance are available pursuant to each type of declaration, with emergency declarations providing more limited forms of assistance than major disaster declarations. Federal assistance made available pursuant to Stafford Act declarations is intended to supplement local efforts to respond to and recover from emergencies and major disasters. Federal assistance may support state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, certain nonprofit organizations, and individuals and households. Table 1 lists the forms of assistance available pursuant to each type of declaration. The following questions relate to the federal response efforts for COVID-19, including assistance available to state, territorial, tribal, and local governments, private nonprofit organizations, private entities, and individuals and households.

		What is Emergency Declaration Assistance?

Emergency declarations authorize some forms of Public Assistance (PA) and Individual Assistance (IA) but the assistance is generally more limited than assistance that is made available under a major disaster declaration. Table 1 lists the forms of assistance available pursuant to an emergency declaration.
Emergency declarations often authorize certain forms of PA, which supplement the ability of a state, territory, or tribe to respond to an incident. Emergency declarations may authorize PA "emergency work" undertaken "to save lives, protect property and public health and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe, including precautionary evacuations," per Section 502 of the Stafford Act. FEMA's two categories of PA "emergency work" are debris removal (Category A) and emergency protective measures (Category B). Stafford Act emergency declarations for public health incidents have previously authorized emergency protective measures undertaken to reduce an immediate threat to life, public health, or safety, including emergency shelter and medicine, hazard communication, and provision and distribution of necessities.
Individual Assistance, which helps individuals and households respond to post-disaster needs, can also be made available through an emergency declaration. One form of IAâthe Individuals and Households Program (IHP) (authorized under Stafford Act Section 408) may be authorized pursuant to an emergency declaration.

			What assistance is available for states, territories, and tribes under the emergency declaration for COVID-19?

The emergency declarations issued for COVID-19 on March 13, 2020 authorized Public Assistance (PA) in accordance with Section 502 of the Stafford Act. Under this declaration, FEMA may reimburse states, tribes, and territories for costs incurred while performing emergency protective measures.
Specifically, the COVID-19 emergency declarations authorized PA Category BâEmergency Protective Measures. States, territories, or tribes will be the PA grant Recipients and administer PA awards. State, territorial, and tribal governments that have received emergency or major disaster declarations may apply to FEMA for funds as PA grant Recipients. Local governments and certain nonprofit entities may apply for funds through the PA grant Recipient.
Eligible applicants are to be reimbursed for 75% of eligible costs incurred while performing emergency protective measures. FEMA cannot provide financial assistance for activities that are covered by insurance, or any other source, including activities eligible for financial assistance from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). For example, PA applicants cannot receive reimbursement for COVID-19 public health surveillance work or other activities already funded by the HHS Public Health Emergency Preparedness Cooperation Agreement Program.
Emergency protective measures encompass a wide range of activities. According to a FEMA news release on the COVID-19 emergency declaration , reimbursable activities may include "activation of State Emergency Operations Centers, National Guard costs, law enforcement and other measures necessary to protect public health and safety." On March 19, 2020, FEMA released a non-exclusive list of eligible emergency protective measures that was later supplemented with a non-exclusive list of eligible emergency medical care.

			What assistance is available for private nonprofit organizations and businesses under the emergency declaration for COVID-19?

Under the Stafford Act, eligible private nonprofit organizations may receive reimbursement for costs incurred while performing eligible emergency protective measures through the PA program. For-profit entities are not eligible applicants for PA.
President Trump's emergency declaration for COVID-19 authorized FEMA to reimburse state, territorial, tribal, and local government entities and certain nonprofit organizations (PNPs) for eligible costs incurred while performing emergency protective measures. Under the Stafford Act, certain PNPs may be eligible for PA if they provide "critical services" or non-critical, "essential" services available to the general public. PNPs providing critical services include educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial care facilities. PNPs providing non-critical but essential services include, but are not limited to, community centers, libraries, homeless shelters, food banks, broadcasting facilities, houses of worship, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, and shelter workshops. Religiously affiliated PNPs must meet the same eligibility criteria as other PNPs.
For-profit entities are not eligible to apply for reimbursement through the PA program. For-profit entities, however, may be eligible for COVID-19 assistance through the Small Business Administration (SBA).
Eligible PA applicants and PA grant Recipients may also contract for-profit entities to perform emergency work. For example, FEMA specified that eligible governments "may contract with medical providers, including private for-profit hospitals, to carry out any eligible activity described in the Eligible Emergency Medical Care Activitiesâ¦." FEMA may then reimburse PA grant Recipients for the federal share of eligible costs incurred during the execution of the work. PA grant Recipients may then reimburse PA Applicants for eligible associated costs.

			What assistance is available for individuals under the emergency declaration for COVID-19?

Individual Assistance (IA) was not authorized by the President's initial emergency declaration for COVID-19. However, IAâCrisis Counseling has been authorized for 10 states pursuant to their major disaster declarations for COVID-19 (for more information, see " What assistance is available to individuals under a major disaster declaration? "). Table A-1 includes a list of the categories of FEMA assistanceâincluding Crisis Counselingâauthorized pursuant to the major disaster declarations for COVID-19, organized by state and territory.

			What types of assistance for medical care will FEMA reimburse under the Stafford Act declarations for COVID-19?

As of March 30, 2020, Stafford Act declarations for COVID-19 authorized FEMA to reimburse only state, territorial, tribal, and local governments and eligible nonprofits for the cost of uninsured emergency medical care. No assistance for individuals' medical costs has been authorized.
All major disaster and emergency declarations issued under the Stafford Act as of March 30, 2020, authorized PA Category BâEmergency Protective Measures, through which FEMA may reimburse eligible state, territorial, tribal, and local governmental entities and eligible private nonprofit entities for the cost of uninsured emergency medical care directly related to COVID-19. Per Stafford Act Section 312, FEMA may not duplicate assistance provided by other entities, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or private medical insurers.
FEMA may only reimburse medical care that is required as a result of COVID-19, and that eliminates or lessens immediate threats to life, public health, or safety. Typically, emergency medical care costs are eligible for up to 30 days from the date of an emergency or major disaster declaration. In the case of COVID-19, eligible emergency medical care costs are "eligible for the duration of the Public Health Emergency, as determined by HHS." However, the cost of long-term medical treatment is not eligible for reimbursement through PA, including the costs of medical care for COVID-19 patients admitted to a medical facility on an inpatient basis. Also not eligible are the costs of treatment for COVID-19 patients beyond the duration of the Public Health Emergency, and administrative costs associated with the treatment of COVID-19 patients.
The HHS Secretary has invoked several public health emergency authorities for the COVID-19 response. Although FEMA's list of authorized medical care does not specify which public health emergency authority is meant in referring to the duration of eligibility, it probably refers to the declaration authority pursuant to Section 319 of the Public Health Service Act. The "Section 319" authority allows the HHS Secretary to carry out a specified set of actions to address public health emergencies, such as expediting or waiving certain administrative requirements that would otherwise apply to federal activities or federally administered grants. The declaration of a Public Health Emergency for COVID-19 was made on January 31, 2020. It is in effect for 90 days, and is expected by many to be renewed and remain in effect for the duration of the response.
 Table 3 includes the types of emergency medical care necessary to saves lives or protect public health and safety that are listed by FEMA as eligible for PA for COVID-19, as of March 31, 2020.
FEMA may determine that other activities undertaken to reduce the threats to life, public health, or safety by COVID-19 are eligible emergency protective measures. To determine eligibility, FEMA's Regional Administrators may require that local, state, or federal officials certify that the work performed was necessary to cope with such threats.

			What measures must states, tribes, and territories take before FEMA may provide assistance for COVID-19 within their jurisdictions?

According to FEMA, all U.S. states, territories, and the District of Columbia, as well as tribes that have received independent emergency declarations for COVID-19, must execute a FEMA-State/Tribal/Territory Agreement (hereinafter FEMA-State Agreement), as appropriate, and execute an applicable emergency plan in order to receive FEMA assistance. FEMA-State Agreements state the understandings, terms, and commitments under which FEMA disaster assistance is to be provided. FEMA-State Agreements describe the emergency or disaster (incident), the incident period, the type and extent of assistance to be made available, the federal and nonfederal cost share, and other terms and conditions of the declaration and provision of assistance. The state, territory, or tribe with an emergency or major disaster declaration becomes the PA grant Recipient and administers PA awards within its jurisdiction.
FEMA also requires an Application for Federal Assistance and an update of a Public Assistance Plan before it will provide assistance through the PA program. Recipients may register accounts for all PA Applicants on the PA Grants portal, a FEMA maintained database. Eligible PA Applicants within the jurisdiction may then apply for PA, and awarded projects are tracked in the PA grants database.

			Can states/tribes request to receive certain kinds of emergency protective measures?

FEMA has published guidance "on the types of emergency protective measures that may be eligible under FEMA's Public Assistance Program in accordance with the COVID-19 Emergency Declaration in order to ensure that resource constraints do not inhibit efforts to respond to this unprecedented disaster." The list of eligible emergency protective measures is not exhaustive. Moreover, FEMA stated that
In accordance with section 502 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, 42 U.S.C. 5121-5207 (the "Stafford Act"), eligible emergency protective measures taken to respond to the COVID-19 emergency at the direction or guidance of public health officials may be reimbursed under Category B of FEMA's Public Assistance program. FEMA will not duplicate assistance provided by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), to include the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or other federal agencies.
FEMA and PA grant Recipients (i.e., the state, territory, or tribe that administers the PA award) both review applications for Public Assistance to determine whether costs, work, and applicants are eligible to receive PA. FEMA may approve or decline requests for assistance (see Table 2 for a list of eligible emergency protective measures for COVID-19). FEMA regulations provide procedures by which an eligible PA Applicant, Subrecipient, or Recipient "may appeal any determination previously made related to an application for or the provision of Federal assistance."

			May applicants receive PA for management and disposal of medical waste and human remains?

PA for disposal of medical waste and interment of human remains is included in eligible work authorized for all jurisdictions under PA Category BâEmergency Protective Measures.

			How long does it take to receive emergency assistance?

In the case of COVID-19, FEMA introduced streamlined procedures in an effort to expedite the delivery of PA emergency assistance. According to FEMA, "[f]unding is immediately available should state, tribal, territorial or local officials request expedited assistance." On March 21, 2020, FEMA reported that the agency had obligated over $100 million in 24 hours for awards authorized under the March 13, 2020 emergency declarations for COVID-19 authorized under the Stafford Act.
Generally, the time elapsed during delivery of PA emergency assistance will vary by state, incident, applicant, and project. A number of different factors involved in the PA application and reimbursement process affect the delivery of PA. Relevant factors include, but are not limited to, the scope of the project and the time required for the performance of eligible work.
FEMA may obligate and disburse funds for small projects (those up to $131,100 in FY2020) upon the approval of a project worksheet, the form FEMA uses to document the details of the Applicant's work and costs claimed. For large projects (those equal to or greater than $131,100 in FY2020), FEMA may obligate funds to the PA grant Recipient upon the approval of a project worksheet. Applicants may request reimbursement for work completed from the PA grant Recipient.

			Can declarations be amended to provide additional types of assistance?

After the President declares an emergency or major disaster, the governor or chief executive may request that the declaration be amended to include additional types of assistance. FEMA can approve such a request. It is not uncommon to authorize additional types of assistance subsequent to a presidential declaration.
If FEMA denies a requested amendment, the governor or chief executive may appeal the decision in writing. The request and its justification must be submitted to the Assistant Administrator for the Disaster Assistance Directorate through the appropriate FEMA Regional Administrator for the FEMA region in which the state, territory, or tribe is located. The appeal is a "one-time request for reconsideration"âFEMA's determination on the appeal is final.

			Can the federal cost share be adjusted?

The President has the authority to adjust the federal share of Public Assistance programs. The federal cost share may be increased at FEMA's recommendation when requested by a state, territory, or tribe. The federal share is set at 75% for eligible emergency protective measures performed by states pursuant to the Stafford Act declarations for COVID-19 (authorized under Stafford Act Section 502 for the emergency declarations, and Section 403 for the major disaster declarations).
A state may also receive a loan or advance to cover the nonfederal share (i.e., the portion of the costs not borne by the federal government) in certain extraordinary situations. Specifically, Stafford Act Section 319 authorizes the President to either lend or advance the nonfederal share to an eligible Applicant or a state. This may be done whenâ
(1) the State is unable to assume its financial responsibility under such cost-sharing provisionsâ
(A) with respect to concurrent, multiple major disasters in a jurisdiction, or
(B) after incurring extraordinary costs as a result of a particular disaster; and
(2) the damages caused by such disasters or disaster are so overwhelming and severe that it is not possible for the applicant or the State to assume immediately their financial responsibility under this chapter.
Any loan or advance must be repaid with interest. FEMA's regulations, as a condition for making such a loan, require that the state or eligible Applicant not be delinquent in payment of any debts to FEMA. If the governor's request for an advance is denied, the governor may appeal the decision in writing. As with other appeals of federal decisions regarding assistance provided pursuant to a disaster declaration, this is a one-time request for reconsideration.
Congress has, on occasion, adjusted the federal share through legislation. For example, Section 4501 of the U.S. Troop Readiness, Veterans' Care, Katrina Recovery, and Iraq Accountability Appropriations Act, 2007 ( P.L. 110-28 ) authorized 100% federal share for Public Assistance and Individual Assistance for specific states following Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, Dennis, and Rita.

		What is Major Disaster Assistance?

Different types of federal assistance are available pursuant to each type of declaration, with major disaster declarations providing more forms of assistance than emergency declarations. As of April 22, 2020, the President had approved major disaster declaration requests for all 50 states, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, and the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands for COVID-19. The specific types of assistance that may be available under a major disaster declaration are listed in Table 1 . Additionally, Table 4 lists the categories of assistance and the Stafford Act section under which they are authorized.
When the President makes a major disaster declaration under the Stafford Act, states, tribes, and local governments, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations, may receive reimbursement through Public Assistance (PA) for "emergency work" undertaken to save lives, protect property, public health, and safety, and lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe, or for "permanent work" undertaken to repair, restore, reconstruct, or replace disaster-damaged public and eligible private nonprofit facilities. As noted previously, most assistance under the Stafford Act related to public health incidents has been delivered through PA Category BâEmergency Protective Measures, including emergency shelter and medicine, hazard communication, and provision and distribution of necessities.
Individual Assistance (IA) provides aid to affected individuals and households. If a major disaster is declared, the forms of IA that may be authorized include assistance for housing and for other needs assistance through the Individuals and Households Program; crisis counseling; disaster unemployment assistance; disaster legal services; and disaster case management services.
Additionally, pursuant to a major disaster declaration the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) may be authorized. The HMGP funds mitigation and resiliency projects, typically across the entire state or territory. State, territorial, tribal, and local governments, as well as certain private nonprofit organizations, may apply for measures that reduce loss of life or property in future disasters or emergencies. As of April 22, 2020, FEMA reported that all requests for Hazard Mitigation Assistance through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for COVID-19 are under review.

			What assistance is available for states, territories, and tribes under a major disaster declaration for COVID-19?

Major disaster declarations issued as of April 22, 2020 for COVID-19 have all authorized Public Assistance (PA) Category BâEmergency Protective Measures. Major disaster declarations issued for some states also authorized Individual Assistance through the Crisis Counseling Program. Table A-1 includes a list of the categories of FEMA assistance authorized pursuant to the major disaster declarations for COVID-19, organized by state and territory. Major disaster declarations may authorize Hazard Mitigation Assistance through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP). As of April 22, 2020, FEMA reported that all requests for Hazard Mitigation Assistance through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) for COVID-19 are under review.
States, tribes, or territories may request that major disaster declarations be amended to include additional forms of assistance or increase the federal cost-share for PA above 75% (see " Can declarations be amended to provide additional types of assistance? " and " Can the federal cost share be adjusted? ").

			What assistance is available for private nonprofit organizations and businesses under a major disaster declaration?

Certain private nonprofit organizations may be eligible for reimbursement for work performed for eligible emergency protective measures. Eligible PNPs may apply for PA as Applicants or may be contracted by other primary PA grant Recipients or Applicants to perform eligible work.
Businesses are not eligible for assistance authorized under the Stafford Act.
PNPs may be eligible for PA if they provide "critical services" or non-critical, "essential" services available to the general public. PNPs providing critical services include educational, utility, irrigation, emergency, medical, rehabilitational, and temporary or permanent custodial care facilities. PNPs providing non-critical but essential services include, but are not limited to, community centers, libraries, homeless shelters, food banks, broadcasting facilities, houses of worship, senior citizen centers, rehabilitation facilities, facilities that provide health and safety services of a governmental nature, and shelter workshops. Religiously affiliated PNPs are eligible but must meet the same eligibility criteria of other PNPs.
For-profit entities are not eligible to apply directly for public assistance as authorized under the Stafford Act. However, eligible PA applicants and PA grant Recipients may contract with for-profit entities to perform emergency work. FEMA may then reimburse PA grant Recipients for the federal share of eligible costs incurred during the execution of the work, and PA grant Recipients may then reimburse PA Applicants for eligible associated costs. For-profit entities may also be eligible for SBA COVID-19 assistance.

			What assistance is available to individuals under a major disaster declaration?

As of April 22, 2020, the FEMA Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP) is the only form of Individual Assistance that has been authorized for some states pursuant to their major disaster declarations for COVID-19. IA-CCP was not authorized for every state that received a major disaster declaration; nor were the territories of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, or Guam authorized to receive IA-CCP. Table A-1 includes a list of the categories of FEMA assistance authorized pursuant to the major disaster declarations for COVID-19, organized by state and territory.
The CCP provides financial assistance to state, territorial, tribal, and local government agencies through a grant or cooperative agreement, which allows them to either provide or contract for crisis counseling services. The crisis counseling services are intended to assist disaster survivors "to prevent or mitigate adverse psychological effects caused or aggravated by a major disaster." FEMA operates the CCP with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
An emergency declaration or a major disaster declaration may be amended to allow for additional types of IA to be authorized (see Table 1 for a list of IA programs). The governor may request that the declaration be amended to include additional types of assistance. FEMA can approve a request for additional forms of assistance after a presidential declaration. If a governor of an affected state requested types of IA be authorized in their major disaster declaration request, and those forms of IA were not authorized, the governor may appeal the decision in writing (if a request to amend a declaration to add types of IA is denied, that decision may also be appealed).
Although the CCP is the only form of IA authorized to date, individual relief has been provided through other sources. For example, the supplemental appropriations acts for COVID-19 address some of the other unmet needs of individuals (e.g., Section 2102 of the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136 ) provides pandemic unemployment assistance).

			How do applicants receive funds through the Public Assistance program?

FEMA introduced procedures the agency says are designed to simplify the PA application process for COVID-19 response work.
State, territories, and tribes that have received emergency declarations or major disaster declarations for COVID-19 are PA grant Recipients, which administer PA awards in their jurisdictions. Prior to receiving funding, PA grant Recipients must execute FEMA-State/Tribal/Territorial Agreements, submit federal grant applications, and update Recipient Public Assistance Administrative Plans (see " What measures must states, tribes, and territories take before FEMA may provide assistance for COVID-19 within their jurisdictions? ").
Eligible applicants may apply for funding through the Recipient's PA award. FEMA generally refers to PA Applicants as any entity that is responsible for PA-eligible work. Applicants may be state, tribal, territorial, and local governments, as well as eligible private nonprofits. For example, the Texas Department of State Health Services applied for PA funds for COVID-19 response as a PA Applicant. Those funds were administered by the state of Texas as the PA grant Recipient. As the PA Recipient, the state of Texas also administered funds through its PA award for state and local PA Applicants including the Texas Division of Emergency Management, Harris County, and the Texas Military Department.
To receive PA funds, Applicants may submit a request for grant funds, a project worksheet describing the details of the work and costs claimed, and supporting documentation though the PA Grants Portal. FEMA and the PA grant Recipient evaluate these documents for eligibility and reasonableness. Once a project worksheet is approved, Applicants may receive reimbursement for eligible costs incurred while executing eligible emergency protective measures.
FEMA's fact sheet on PA Simplified Application procedures for COVID-19 notes that expedited assistance may be available in certain cases. When expedited assistance is approved for large projects (in FY2020, projects over $131,100), FEMA obligates 50% of the total expected costs as soon as the project worksheet is approved, and the PA Applicant may be reimbursed at that time. The remaining federal share may be reimbursed once the Applicant submits documentation of actual costs incurred while performing eligible work. FEMA has provided expedited PA for multiple COVID-19 response efforts.

			How do applicants receive financial or direct assistance through the Individual Assistance program?

The FEMA Crisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP) is the only form of IA that has been authorized for some states, as of April 22, 2020 (see Table A-1 for the list of states that have been authorized for Crisis Counseling). FEMA operates the CCP with the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA) within the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). Local, state, territorial, or tribal governments may apply for a grant to administer the CCP, or may contract with local mental health service providers. The CCP supports crisis counseling services for disaster survivors, and disaster survivors receive the assistance for free. Generally, the CCP is designed to connect individuals with community resources. CCP services may be advertised to disaster survivors through media outlets, websites, community events, etc.
If other forms of IA are authorized pursuant to a major disaster declaration for COVID-19, those assistance programs would include different application requirements and processes. For example, if the Individuals and Households Program (IHP) is authorized, applicants in a declared disaster area may register for FEMA IA and Small Business Administration (SBA) disaster loan assistance. Individuals and households can register for assistance online, by telephone, or in-person at a Disaster Recovery Center (DRC). Individuals and households generally have 60 days from the date of a declaration to apply for FEMA IHP assistance.

	Funding for Stafford Act Declarations

The following questions relate to the funding sources for the federal assistance under the Stafford Act that may supplement state, tribal, and local response efforts for COVID-19.

		Where does funding for Stafford Act assistance come from?

Many forms of assistance made available pursuant to a Stafford Act declaration are funded through the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF), which is the primary source of funding for the federal government's domestic general disaster relief programs.
The DRF is managed by FEMA, but as a funding structure, it predates both FEMA and the Stafford Act, having first been funded in 1948.

		Is there enough funding in the DRF for COVID-19?

As a result of prior-year appropriations to fund long-term recovery work from previous disasters, the DRF had about $42.6 billion in unobligated balances as of the beginning of March 2020. Division B of the CARES Act ( P.L. 116-136 ), included $45 billion more for the DRF. This put the balance of funding in the DRF at its highest level in history.
DRF resources are available for past, current, and future incidents. However, the majority of its funding is specifically set aside for the costs of major disasters. $41.6 billion of what was in the DRF was specifically for the costs of major disasters, and roughly $600 million was potentially available for emergencies. Of the funding provided in the CARES Act for the DRF, $25 billion was for major disasters and $15 billion was for any Stafford Act costs, including both emergency declarations and major disasters.
It is not clear what the total draw on the DRF will be, since the pandemic is an evolving situation, there are other federal programs providing resources, and there is no precedent for using the Stafford Act to respond to a public health crisis.

		Is DRF funding set aside for COVID-19?

DRF appropriations are not provided for specific emergencies or disasters; there is no COVID-19 account within the DRF.
The most recent iterations of the appropriations bill text for the DRF indicate the funds are provided for the "necessary expenses in carrying out the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act," thus covering all past and future disaster and emergency declarations. Previous versions of the appropriations language going back to 1950 also referenced the legislation authorizing general disaster relief rather than targeting specific disasters. On a number of occasions, specific disasters have been mentioned in the appropriation, but funding was not specifically directed to one disaster over others.
While many disaster supplemental appropriations bills are associated with a specific incident or incidentsâsuch as P.L. 113-2 , "the Sandy Supplemental"âthe language in such acts does not limit the use of the supplemental appropriations to specific incidents. It provides funding "for major disasters declared pursuant to the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act." This is also the case with the funding provided in Division B of the CARES Act. The DRF supplemental appropriation itself includes no incident-specific direction, or reference to COVID-19. While one of the general provisions of the law states that the funds provided in the act "may only be used to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus," the last subsection of that general provision indicates that restriction does not apply to the title that included the DRF appropriation.

	References

Additional sources of assistance may be available to support the nation's response to and recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. CRS has developed products on various topics related to the COVID-19 pandemic, including global issues, public health, economic impacts on individuals, impacts on business and the U.S. economy, executive branch response, congressional response and legislation, and legal analysis. The CRS COVID-19 resources are available at https://www.crs.gov/resources/coronavirus-disease-2019 . Some select products CRS has developed related to the COVID-19 pandemic and Stafford Act assistance programs are included below.
For more information on the President's declarations under the Stafford Act for COVID-19, see CRS Insight IN11264, Presidential Declarations of Emergency for COVID-19: NEA and Stafford Act , by L. Elaine Halchin and Elizabeth M. Webster; CRS Insight IN11251, The Stafford Act Emergency Declaration for COVID-19 , by Erica A. Lee, Bruce R. Lindsay, and Elizabeth M. Webster; and CRS Insight IN11229, Stafford Act Assistance for Public Health Incidents , by Bruce R. Lindsay and Erica A. Lee. Stafford Act major disaster declarations for COVID-19 will automatically authorize Small Business Administration (SBA) Economic Injury Disaster Loans (EIDL) for businesses in declared counties and contiguous counties. For more information, see CRS Report R46284, COVID-19 Relief Assistance to Small Businesses: Issues and Policy Options , by Robert Jay Dilger, Bruce R. Lindsay, and Sean Lowry For additional information about relief and assistance resources for small businesses, see CRS Insight IN11301, Small Businesses and COVID-19: Relief and Assistance Resources , by Maria Kreiser. For additional information about the actions taken by the U.S. federal government to quell the introduction and spread of COVID-19 in the United States, see CRS Report R46219, Overview of U.S. Domestic Response to Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) , coordinated by Sarah A. Lister and Kavya Sekar.
Appendix A. COVID-19 Approved Major Disaster Declarations and Authorized Assistance
The following information is current as of April 22, 2020. Public Assistance Category BâEmergency Protective Measures has been authorized for all states and territories. Ten states have been authorized to receive Individual AssistanceâCrisis Counseling Assistance and Training Program (CCP) (referred to in Table A-1 as "Crisis Counseling").
Appendix B. Example of Emergency Declarations for the Same Incident
Stafford Act emergencies have been declared for different states, territories, and tribes for the same incident. For example, the states of Florida, Georgia, South Carolina, and North Carolina, the U.S. Virgin Islands, and the Florida Seminole Tribe of Florida all received emergency declarations for Hurricane Dorian in 2019. The incident period and declaration date for the emergency declarations varied by state, territory, and tribe. This information is captured in Table B-1 .


Input:
	Background

VA provides or pays for long-term care—ranging from assistance with  dressing and bathing to clinical care for spinal injuries or dementia— through three institutional and 11 noninstitutional programs. (See fig. 1 for  a list of VA’s institutional and noninstitutional long-term care programs  and app. I for brief descriptions of these programs.)
VA’s long-term care programs serve over 500,000 veterans with a wide  range of characteristics and needs. Further, certain Community Nursing  Homes, Adult Day Health Care, and Hospice and Respite Care programs  have specially trained staff to serve veterans with dementia, and the  Spinal Cord Injury and Disability Home Care program and certain VA  Community Living Centers are equipped to serve veterans needing  ventilator care.
All veterans enrolled in the VA health care system are eligible for VA’s  basic medical benefits package, which includes coverage for certain  institutional and noninstitutional long-term care services. A veteran’s  eligibility for fully or partially covered nursing home care is determined by  the veteran’s priority for care, which is generally based on the veteran’s  service-connected disability status. VA must cover the full cost of nursing  home care for veterans who need this care for a service-connected  disability and for veterans with service-connected disabilities rated at 70  percent or more. Veterans’ placement into particular long-term care  programs may depend on their clinical needs, disability ratings,  preferences, and the availability of VA programs. When funds are limited,  the agency may prioritize program placement based on veterans’ service- connected disability ratings. Decisions about which long-term care  programs may be the best fit are made at the VA medical center (VAMC)  level between VA providers, veterans, and their families.

	Utilization of and Spending for VA Long-Term Care Have Increased in Recent Years and Are Projected to Increase

As we reported in February 2020, VA data shows that utilization of and  spending for VA long-term care programs generally increased from fiscal  years 2014 through 2018. Specifically, the number of veterans receiving  care in VA’s long-term care programs increased 14 percent from fiscal  years 2014 through 2018, from 464,071 to 530,327 veterans, while  spending grew 33 percent from $6.8 billion to $9.1 billion. Further, we  found that VA projects utilization and expenditures for long-term care to  increase for most of the programs included in VA’s EHCPM from fiscal  years 2017 through 2037. Specifically, over that time period VA’s model  projects the following:
Utilization of long-term care—in terms of various VA workload units— is projected to grow in one of the two institutional programs and nine  of the 10 noninstitutional programs included in the EHCPM from fiscal  years 2017 through 2037.
Spending, which VA reports as expenditures, is projected to more  than double from fiscal years 2017 through 2037, increasing from $6.9  billion to $14.3 billion. (See fig. 2.) VA also projects that the  proportion of expenditures for institutional long-term care will  decrease from 63 percent to 53 percent while the proportion of  noninstitutional program expenditures is projected to grow from 37  percent to 47 percent in that same time period.
According to VA officials, these projected increases are due to a variety of  factors, including that VA plans to continue expanding the availability of  noninstitutional care, and plans on providing care to an increasing  number of aging veterans and veterans rated in the highest service- connected disability groups. Officials also noted that expanding veterans’  access to noninstitutional care programs is less costly than institutional  care, and veterans prefer to delay or reduce the amount of institutional  care they receive. VA’s strategies to meet the growing demand for long- term care are operationalized by GEC at the program level and  implemented at the regional and VAMC level.

	VA Has Identified Several Key Challenges to Meeting the Demand for Long-Term Care, but Lacks Measurable Goals for Addressing Them

In our February 2020 report, we found that VA faces a number of key  challenges in meeting veterans’ growing demand for long-term care:  workforce shortages, geographic alignment of care, and difficulty meeting  veterans’ needs for specialty care.
While GEC recognizes and has taken some steps to address the  challenges it faces, it has not established measurable goals for its efforts  to address these three key challenges:
GEC has not established measurable goals to address workforce  shortages, such as staffing targets to address the waitlist for the  Home-Based Primary Care program.
GEC has not established measurable goals for its efforts to address  the geographic alignment of care, such as specific targets for  providing long-term care within the Home Telehealth and Veteran  Directed Care programs.
GEC has not established measurable goals for its efforts to address  difficulties meeting veterans’ needs for specialty care, such as specific  targets for the number of available ventilators or the number of  caregivers educated to help veterans with dementia.
As we noted in our report, without measurable goals, VA is limited in its  ability to better plan for and understand progress towards addressing the  challenges it faces meeting veterans’ long-term care needs. To address  this issue, we recommended that GEC develop measurable goals for its  efforts to address these key long-term care challenges. VA concurred  with this recommendation.
In our February 2020 report we also found that VA had identified, but had  not planned to take steps to fully address, challenges at the VAMC level  that affect VA’s ability to meet veterans’ long-term care needs:
VA identified that VAMCs do not have a consistent approach to  managing VA’s 14 long-term care programs. At VAMCs where there  are not GEC staff, long-term care programs could be run by one or  more departments within the VAMC, for example the Nursing  department or the Social Work department. GEC officials told us that  this fragmentation hinders standardization and the ability to get  veterans the appropriate care.
VA also identified that VAMCs use different approaches to assess the  amount of noninstitutional long-term care services veterans need.  While GEC has developed a tool to improve the consistency in these  determinations, VA has not required the tool be used in all VAMCs, as  of October 2019. As a result, decisions about the amount of services  veterans receive may vary by VAMC.
To address these issues, we recommended that GEC leadership set time  frames for and implement (1) a consistent GEC structure at the VAMC  level and (2) VAMC-wide standardization of the tool for assessing  noninstitutional program needs of veterans. VA concurred with our  recommendations.
Chairwoman Brownley, Ranking Member Dunn, and Members of the  Subcommittee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

	GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact A. Nicole Clowers, Managing Director, Health Care at (202) 512- 7114 or clowersa@gao.gov or Sharon Silas, Director, Health Care, at  (202) 512-7114 or silass@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of  Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page  of this statement. In addition to the contacts named above, key  contributors to this statement were Karin Wallestad (Assistant Director),  Luke Baron (Analyst-in-Charge), Summar C. Corley, and Laurie Pachter.  Also contributing to the underlying report for this statement were Kye  Briesath, Vikki Porter, Corinne Quinones, and Jennifer Rudisill.

Appendix I: Department of Veterans Affairs’ (VA) Institutional and Noninstitutional Long- Term Care Program Descriptions

Appendix I: Department of Veterans Affairs’  (VA) Institutional and Noninstitutional Long- Term Care Program Descriptions This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.


Input:
	The Federal Government Has Invested in Projects That May Convey Some Climate Resilience Benefits but Does Not Have a Strategic Investment Approach

As we reported in October 2019, the federal government has invested in  projects that may enhance climate resilience but does not have a  strategic approach for investing in high-priority climate resilience projects.  Some federal agencies have made individual efforts to manage climate  change risk within existing programs and operations, and these efforts  may convey climate resilience benefits. For example, the U.S. Army  Corps of Engineers’ civil works program constructs flood control projects,  such as sea walls, that could convey climate resilience benefits by  protecting communities from storms that may be exacerbated by climate  change.
However, even with individual agency efforts, federal investment in  projects specifically designed to enhance climate resilience to date has  been limited. As we stated in our Disaster Resilience Framework, most of  the federal government’s efforts to reduce disaster risk are reactive, and  many revolve around disaster recovery. As a result, we reported in  October 2019 that additional strategic federal investments may be  needed to manage some of the nation’s most significant climate risks  because climate change cuts across agency missions and presents fiscal  exposures larger than any one agency can manage. Our analysis shows  the federal government does not strategically identify and prioritize  projects to ensure they address the nation’s most significant climate risks.
In addition, our October 2019 report discusses our past work that shows  an absence of government-wide strategic planning for climate change.  For example, in our March 2019 update to our high-risk list, we reported  that one area of government-wide action needed to reduce federal fiscal  exposure is in the federal government’s role as the leader of a strategic  plan that coordinates federal efforts and informs state, local, and private- sector action. For this 2019 update, we assessed the federal  government’s progress since 2017 related to climate change strategic  planning against five criteria and found that the federal government had  not met any of the criteria for removal from the high-risk list. Specifically,  since our 2017 high-risk update, four ratings regressed to “not met” and  one remained unchanged as “not met.”
Also, although we have made 17 recommendations that address  improving federal climate change strategic planning, as of August 2019,  no action had been taken toward implementing 14 of those  recommendations—including one dating from 2003. Our enterprise risk  management framework calls for reviewing risks and selecting the most  appropriate strategy to manage them. However, no federal agency,  interagency collaborative effort, or other organizational arrangement has  been established to implement a strategic approach to climate resilience  investment that includes periodically identifying and prioritizing projects.  Such an approach could supplement individual agency climate resilience  efforts and help target federal resources toward high-priority projects.

	Six Key Steps Provide an Opportunity for the Federal Government to Strategically Identify and Prioritize Climate Resilience Projects

Six key steps provide an opportunity for the federal government to  strategically identify and prioritize climate resilience projects for  investment, based on our review of reports (including a National  Academies report and the U.S. Global Change Research Program’s  Fourth National Climate Assessment) that discuss adaptation as a risk  management process, as well as on international standards, our past  work (including our enterprise risk management criteria), and interviews  with stakeholders. The six key steps are (1) defining the strategic goals  of the climate resilience investment effort and how the effort will be  carried out, (2) identifying and assessing high-risk areas for targeted  resilience investment, (3) identifying potential project ideas, (4) prioritizing  projects, (5) implementing high-priority projects, and (6) monitoring  projects and climate risks. (See fig. 1.)
In our October 2019 report, we used one domestic and one international  example to illustrate these key steps: Louisiana’s Coastal Protection and  Restoration Authority (CPRA) coastal master planning effort and  Canada’s Disaster Mitigation and Adaptation Fund (DMAF).
In the domestic example, to address the lack of strategic coordination, in  2005 the state of Louisiana consolidated coastal planning efforts  previously carried out by multiple state entities into a single effort, led by  CPRA. CPRA periodically identifies high-priority coastal resilience  projects designed to address two primary risks: flooding and coastal land  loss. To identify potential projects, CPRA sought project proposals from  citizens, nongovernmental organizations, and others. To prioritize  projects, CPRA used quantitative modeling to estimate project outcomes  under multiple future scenarios of varied climate and other conditions and  coordinated with stakeholders to understand potential project impacts.  CPRA has published three coastal master plans in which it identified and  evaluated potential projects. For example, in its 2017 Comprehensive  Master Plan for a Sustainable Coast, CPRA identified $50 billion in high- priority projects to be implemented as funding becomes available.
In the international example, in 2018 the Canadian government launched  the DMAF, a financial assistance program, to provide $1.5 billion (in U.S.  dollars) over 10 years for large-scale, nationally significant projects to  manage natural hazard risks, including those triggered by climate change.  Infrastructure Canada, the entity responsible for administering the DMAF,  seeks project ideas from provinces and territories, municipal and regional  governments, indigenous groups, and others. These entities apply directly  to Infrastructure Canada for funding. According to Canadian officials, two  committees of experts—one composed of experts from other federal  departments and the other composed of nonfederal experts (e.g., urban  planners and individuals with regional expertise)—provide feedback on  potential projects. These projects are prioritized based on multiple criteria  such as the extent to which they reduce the impacts of natural disasters.

	Options for Focusing Federal Funding on High-Priority Climate Resilience Projects Have Strengths and Limitations, and Opportunities Exist to Increase Funding Impact

As we reported in October 2019, on the basis of our review of relevant  reports and our past work, interviews with stakeholders, and illustrative  examples, we identified two options—each with strengths and  limitations—for focusing federal funding on high-priority climate resilience  projects. The options are (1) coordinating funding provided through  multiple existing programs with varied purposes and (2) creating a new  federal funding source specifically for investment in climate resilience. In  addition, our analysis of these sources identified opportunities to increase  the climate resilience impact of these two funding options.
A strength of coordinating funding from existing sources is access to  multiple funding sources for a project. For example, one stakeholder we  interviewed whose community used federal funding to implement large- scale resilience projects said that having multiple programs is  advantageous because when funding from one program is not available— such as when the project does not match that program’s purpose or when  there are insufficient funds—funds could be sought from another  program. The state of Louisiana’s coastal master planning effort also  uses multi-program coordination to fund projects. Specifically, funding for  high-priority resilience projects identified in the master plan is provided via  several federal and nonfederal programs designed for wetlands  restoration, hurricane risk reduction, oil spill recovery, and community  development, among other purposes. A limitation of that option, according  to CPRA officials, is that coordinating funding from multiple sources could  be administratively challenging and could require dedicated staff to  identify programs, assess whether projects meet program funding criteria,  apply for funds, and ensure program requirements are met.
Alternatively, one strength of creating a new federal funding source, such  as a federal financial assistance program that could provide loans or  grants or a climate infrastructure bank, is that it could encourage cross- sector projects designed to achieve benefits in multiple sectors. For  example, according to one stakeholder, such a funding source could  allow experts from multiple sectors—such as infrastructure, housing,  transportation, and health—to collaborate on projects, leading to more  creative, comprehensive approaches to enhance community resilience.  However, such a new funding source would have to be created, which  would require congressional authorization.
In addition, we identified opportunities to increase the climate resilience  impact of federal funding options based on our review of our past work,  related reports, an international standard, and the Louisiana and  Canadian examples, as well as interviews with stakeholders:
Using both existing and new funding options. Several  stakeholders told us that using both funding options—multiple,  existing federal programs with varied purposes and a new funding  source for high-priority climate resilience projects—in a strategic,  coordinated way could help increase the impact of federal investment.  Two stakeholders told us that in practice, multiple, existing federal  funding sources that are not specific to climate resilience could be  coordinated to fund projects when their purposes and rules align and  adequate funding is available. A funding source specifically for climate  resilience could be used to fund proposed projects when no related  program exists or when existing programs do not have sufficient  funding available, according to these and other stakeholders.
Helping ensure adequate and consistent funding. Several  stakeholders we interviewed identified the need for adequate and  consistent funding to implement high-priority climate resilience  projects. For example, according to one stakeholder we interviewed,  inconsistent, inadequate funding makes it difficult to complete large- scale projects and can lead to additional costs if significant delays  occur during which existing work deteriorates. In addition to adequate  and consistent funding, funding options should be designed to  accommodate long-term projects since high-priority climate resilience  projects can take multiple years to design and implement, according  to two stakeholders we interviewed.
Encouraging nonfederal investment. Several stakeholders we  interviewed told us that the federal government could use a federal  climate resilience investment effort to encourage nonfederal  investment in high-priority climate resilience projects, thereby  increasing the impact of federal investment. For example, several  stakeholders identified the importance of a cost-share component so  that funding recipients are invested in a project’s success. Canada’s  DMAF encourages nonfederal investment by partially funding projects  of national significance and requiring different levels of cost-share  from funding recipients, ranging from 25 percent for indigenous  recipients to 75 percent for private-sector and other for-profit  recipients. Several stakeholders also identified potential funding  mechanisms—for example, public-private partnerships and loan  guarantees—that could leverage federal dollars to encourage  additional investment in climate resilience projects by nonfederal  entities, including the private sector.
Encouraging complementary resilience activities. To increase the  impact of federal investment in climate resilience, a federal investment  effort presents an opportunity to encourage complementary resilience  activities by nonfederal actors such as states, localities, and private- sector partners, based on interviews with several stakeholders, the  Canadian example, and reports we reviewed. For example, this could  include establishing conditions that funding recipients must meet in  exchange for receiving federal funding. Alternatively, the federal  government could use incentives (e.g., providing greater federal cost- share or giving additional preference in the project prioritization  process) to encourage complementary resilience activities by  nonfederal actors. Our Disaster Resilience Framework states that  incentives can make long-term, forward-looking risk reduction  investments more viable and attractive among competing priorities.  The federal government could use these conditions and incentives to  encourage several types of complementary resilience activities by  nonfederal actors. For example, the federal government could  encourage the use and enforcement of building codes that require  stronger risk-reduction measures. In addition, a federal investment  effort could provide an opportunity to encourage communities to limit  or prohibit development in high-risk areas to minimize risks to people  and assets exposed to future climate hazards. One example of this  would be through zoning regulations. Another stakeholder suggested  that communities receiving federal funding for resilience projects  should be adequately insured against future climate risks so they  have a potential source of funding for rebuilding in the event of a  disaster.
Allowing funds to be used at various stages of project  development. Several stakeholders suggested that federal funds be  used for multiple stages of project development—such as project  design, implementation, or monitoring—to increase the impact of  federal funds. For example, two stakeholders we interviewed told us  that resilience projects can require significant amounts of design work  to develop an implementable and effective project concept and that  making funds available for project design could improve the quality of  project proposals, thereby maximizing the impact of federal funds. In  addition to providing federal funds for project design, one stakeholder  suggested making federal funding available to measure project  outcomes (e.g., how effectively projects increased resilience) to  improve future decisions by both the federal government and others  making resilience investments.
Based on the findings of our October 2019 report, we recommended that  Congress consider establishing a federal organizational arrangement to  periodically identify and prioritize climate resilience projects for federal  investment. Such an arrangement could be designed using the six key  steps for prioritizing climate resilience investments and the opportunities  to increase the climate resilience impact of federal funding options that  we identified in our report.
Chairwoman Castor, Ranking Member Graves, and Members of the  Select Committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be  pleased to respond to any questions that you may have at this time.

	GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments

If you or your staff have any questions about this testimony, please  contact Mark Gaffigan at (202) 512-3841 or gaffiganm@gao.gov. Contact  points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may  be found on the last page of this statement.
GAO staff members who made key contributions to this testimony and the  underlying report are Joseph “Joe” Thompson (Assistant Director), Celia  R. Mendive (Analyst in Charge),Taiyshawna Battle and Paige Gilbreath.  Also contributing to this report were Alicia Puente Cackley, Colleen M.  Candrl, Kendall Childers, Steven Cohen, Christopher Curry, Cindy  Gilbert, Kathryn Godfrey, Holly Halifax, Carol Henn, Susan Irving, Richard  Johnson, Gwendolyn Kirby, Joe Maher, Gregory Marchand, Diana  Maurer, Kirk Menard, Tim Persons, Caroline N. Prado, William Reinsberg,  Oliver Richard, Danny Royer, Jeanette Soares, Kiki Theodoropoulos,  Sarah Veale, Patrick Ward, Jarrod West, Kristy Williams, Eugene  Wisnoski, and Melissa Wolf.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright protection in the  United States. The published product may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety  without further permission from GAO. However, because this work may contain  copyrighted images or other material, permission from the copyright holder may be  necessary if you wish to reproduce this material separately.