Hurricane Sandy

In July 2017, FEMA reported that it awarded 252 projects under the PA alternative procedures pilot program valued at $11.9 billion, with just 26 of those projects (10.32 percent) closed. During our fieldwork, we gained access to FEMA’s grant management system of record and reviewed supporting documentation for the project worksheets in our scope to determine if FEMA followed its criteria when validating cost estimates. However, FEMA did not sufficiently document actions that it took to validate subrecipient cost estimates to ensure costs are reasonable. Of the three obligated projects we reviewed during our fieldwork, we did not find evidence that FEMA completed the required steps identified to validate the reasonableness of subrecipient cost estimates.

Facing continued negative publicity and pressure from Members of Congress, FEMA established the Sandy Claims Review Process (SCRP). In doing so, FEMA did not rely on legislatively mandated internal controls designed to ensure appropriate payments for flood victims. Additionally, during the formation and operation of the SCRP, FEMA failed to establish contractor expectations or provide consistent guidance and oversight related to Hurricane Sandy claims. These omissions resulted in policyholders receiving unsupported additional payments, excessive costs to operate the SCRP, and time delays in processing the claims

We determined the Borough of Lavallette did not always account for and expend FEMA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines.  Therefore, FEMA should disallow $3.9 million of $13.2 million in grant funds awarded to the Borough.  We made six recommendations to the Regional Administrator, FEMA Region II, to disallow duplicate costs, ineligible labor, contract and excessive equipment costs, unsupported equipment costs, unapplied credits, unneeded funds to put to better use and improve the State’s grant management activities.

We determined that FEMA has not identified and recovered Federal funds that New York City spent, more than three years ago, on repairs to commercial residential properties.  These repairs included short-term measures such as temporary boilers and power generators.  FEMA recognizes that commercial landlords may have received an incidental benefit from the Federal assistance provided to New York City and used it for repairs to multifamily dwellings to ensure tenants could shelter in their homes.  However, it is the responsibility of New York State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services (the grantee) to ensure that the money that FEMA provides is spent in accordance with Federal laws and regulations.  Under FEMA rules, for-profit organizations are ineligible for Public Assistance grant funds.  We recommended that FEMA review and improve, as necessary, policies and procedures that protect government resources used to support disaster response and recovery activities.  We made three recommendations and FEMA concurred with all of them.

We determined that for the projects we reviewed, the City effectively accounted for and expended FEMA Public Assistance grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines.  City officials accounted for disaster expenditures on a project-by-project basis, procured contracts for disaster work appropriately, and maintained adequate documentation to support the costs.  We made no recommendations.

We determined the Town did not always account for and expend FEMA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines.  Therefore, FEMA should disallow $2.0 million of $3.59 million in grant funds awarded to the Town.  We made four recommendations to the Regional Administrator, FEMA Region I, to disallow ineligible or unsupported costs and improve the State’s grant management activities.