Skip to main content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Government Website

Official websites use .gov
A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Safely connect using HTTPS

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS
A lock () or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

Audits, Inspections, and Evaluations

Report Number Title Issue Date Fiscal Year
DS-10-02  

>Nevada Division of Forestry  		2010
DS-10-03  

>City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works  		2010
DS-10-04  

>Chugach Electric Association, Inc.  		2010
DS-10-04 Audit of California Department of Corrections, Sacramento, CA, Public Assistance ID No. 000-92018, FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2004
DS-10-05  

>Rubidoux Community Services District  		2010
DS-10-06  

>County of Mendocino, California  		2010
DS-10-07  

>County of Los Angeles, California  		2010
DS-10-08  

>FEMA's Practices for Evaluating Insurance Coverage for Disaster Damage and Determining Project Eligibility and Costs  		2010
DS-10-09  

>City of Napa, California 		2010
DS-10-10  

>City of Glendale, California 		2010
DS-10-11  

>City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California  		2010
DS-11-01 Capping Report: FY 2009 Public Assistance Grant and Subgrant Audits 2011
DS-11-03 County of Ventura, California 2011
DS-11-04 Audit of Alameda County, Hayward, CA, Public Assistance ID No. 001-00000, FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2004
DS-11-04  

>County of Santa Barbara, California 		2011
DS-11-05  

>Idaho Bureau of Homeland Security 		2011
DS-11-06  

>California Department of Forestry and Fire ProtectionCalifornia Department of Forestry and Fire Protection 		2011
DS-11-07  

>County of Sonoma, California 		2011
DS-11-08  

>Lake County, California 		2011
DS-11-09  

>Reclamation District 768, Arcata, California 		2011
DS-11-10  

>FEMA Public Assistance Funds Awarded to County of Humboldt, California 		2011
DS-11-11  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to City of Petaluma, California 		2011
DS-11-12  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to City of Paso Robles, California 		2011
DS-11-13  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to County of Sonoma, California 		2011
DS-12-01 FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Town of Fairfax, California 2012
DS-12-02 FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Marin Municipal Water District, California 2012
DS-12-03  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Paso Robles Joint Unified School District, California 		2012
DS-12-04  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Napa County, California 		2012
DS-12-05  

>Interim Report on FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to California Department of Parks and Recreation, Sacramento, CA 		2012
DS-12-06  

>Interim Report on FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Los Angeles County, California 		2012
DS-12-07  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to City of Atascadero, California 		2012
DS-12-08  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Amador County, California 		2012
DS-12-09  

>FEMA PA Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Northern Region, Fairbanks, AK 		2012
DS-12-10  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Northern Region, Fairbanks, Alaska 		2012
DS-12-11  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to County of El Dorado, California 		2012
DS-12-12  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Central Region, Anchorage, Alaska  		2012
DS-12-13  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to City of Vacaville, California  		2012
DS-13-01 Our audit objective was to determine whether the Department accounted for and expended Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. The Department received a PA award of $670,251 from the California Emergency Management Agency Cal EMA), a FEMA grantee, for damages resulting from severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides, which occurred from March 29 to April 16, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for four large and eight small 2 projects.The audit covered the period from March 29, 2006, to October 12, 2012. We audited two large projects that incurred charges totaling $280, 112. We also performed a limited review of three small projects and two large projects to identify unused funds that should be put to better use (see Exhibit, Schedule of Audited Projects). As of the date of this report, Cal EMA had completed its review and FEMA was reviewing the Department's final claim.

>The California Department of Parks and Recreation Sacramento, California, Successfully Managed FEMA's Public Assistance Grant Funds 		2013
DS-13-02 Subsequently, FEMA approved project worksheet versions 1 to 4 and increased funding to $830,672 based on actual costs and insurance adjustments. However, during project closeout, the Town submitted to FEMA a cost claim of $1,599,777, or $769,105 more than what FEMA approved. FEMA reviewed the Town’s submission and determined that the additional charges were associated with project improvements that substantially changed the approved SOW and classified it as an improved project—and capped project funding at $830,672. The Town has requested reimbursement for project-related costs totaling $1,599,777, and appealed FEMA’s funding determination.

>The Town of San Anselmo, California, Did Not Properly Account for and Expend FEMA's Public Assistance Grant Funds 		2013
DS-13-03 The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), a FEMA grantee, awarded the City $2,307,402 for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides from December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 11 large projects and 9 small projects. Our audit covered the period from December 27, 2004, to July 11, 2012. We audited five large projects with a total award of $1,425,482 (see Exhibit, Schedule of Audited Projects). As of July 2012, the City had allocated costs totaling $2,131,549 to the projects in our review and had not submitted a final claim for this subgrant award.

>The City of San Buenaventura, California, Did Not Properly Account for and Expend FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds 		2013
DS-13-04 The Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (ADHSEM), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Department $6S4,716 for costs due to damages from severe storms, flooding, landslide and mudslides from August 15 through 25, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for three large projects and four small projects. Our audit covered the period from August 15, 2006, to January 9, 2013. We audited all seven projects with incurred charges totaling $305,319. As of January 2013, the Department has not submitted final costs claimed for two large projects.

>FEMA Should Disallow $21,113 of the $654,716 in Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Natural Resources, Wasilla, Alaska 		2013
DS-13-05 Audit of the City of San Jose, California Public Assistance ID. No. 085-68000 FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2005
DS-13-05 The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Department $8,002,596 for costs resulting from severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides during the period from December 17, 2005, through January 3, 2006.' The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 38 large projects and 17 small projects. Our audit covered the period of December 17, 2005, to October 4, 2012. We audited 10 large projects and 2 small projects, with total awarded costs of $2,684,804.

>The California Department of Parks and Recreation Did Not Account for or Expend $1.8 Million in FEMA Grant Funds According to Federal Regulations and FEMA Guidelines ( 		2013
DS-13-06 The Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (ADHSEM), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Department $1.273,176, primarily related to damages resulting from severe storms, flooding. mudslides, and rockslides during the period from October 8 through 13, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for four large projects and one small project.' Our audit covered the period from October 8, 2006, to January 9, 2013. We audited four of the five projects with, charges totaling $958,288. As of January 2013, the Department had not submitted a final costs daim for one large project.

>FEMA Improperly Applied the 50 Percent Rule in Its Decision To Pay the Alaska Department of Natural Resources To Replace a Damaged Bridge 		2013
DS-13-07 The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMAl, a FEMA grantee, awarded the County $54.9 million for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides during the period of December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005.' The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 143 large projects and 35 small projects.' Our audit covered the period from December 27, 2004, to August 15, 2012. We are in the process of auditing a total of 108 large projects, with total awarded funding of $44.8 million. We are comprehensively auditing 12 of those projects-with total awarded funding of $17.0 million-and auditing 96 projects-with total awarded funding of $27.8 million-exclusively for funds that can be deobligated and put to better use.

>LA County Charges FEMA for Unauthorized Fringe Benefits Costs: Second Interim Report on FEMA PA Grant Funds FEMA Disaster Number 1577-DR-CA 		2013
DS-13-08 The County received a PA award of $7.5 million from the State of Arizona Division of Emergency Management (ADEM), a FEMA grantee, for damages resulting from severe storms and flooding. which occurred from July 25 to August 4, 2006, The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 28 large and 19 small projects: The audit covered the period from July 25, 2006, t o February 19, 2013. We audited seven large projects with award amounts totaling $4. 1 million and project charges totaling $3.5 miIlion. We also performed a limited review of one small project and 16 1arge projects with award amount totaling $2.3 million and project charges totaling $ 1.8 million, to identify any unused funds that should be deobligated and put to better use.

>FEMA Needs To Deobligate $1.1 Million in Unneeded Funding and Disallow $52,812 in Unsupported Costs Associated With the FEMA PA Grant Awarded toPima County, Arizona 		2013
DS-13-09 Our audit objective was to determine whether the Central Region accounted for and expended FEMA PA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. The Alaska Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Management (ADHSEM), a FEMA grantee, awarded the Central Region $1,979,312 for costs resulting from damages from severe storms, flooding, landslides, and mudslides during the period from August 15 through 25, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for six large projects and two small project5, Our audit covered the period from August 15, 2006, to January 23, 2013. We audited all six large projects, with a total awarded cost of $1,927,140.

>The Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, Central Region, Did Not Properly Account for and Expend $1.5 Million in FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds 		2013
DS-13-10 Our audit objective Is to determine whether the County accounted for and expended FEMA PA grant funds according to federal regulation and FEMA guide lines. The california Emergency Managemenl Agency (Cal EMA), a FEMA grantee, awarded t he County $54.9 million for costs resulting from storms, flooding. debris flows, and mudslides during the period of Decemher 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 143 large projects and 3S small projects. Our audit covered the period from December 27, 2004, to January 29, 2013. We are in the process of auditing a total of 108 large projects, with total awarded funding of $44.S million. We are comprehensively auditing 12 of those projects-with total awarded funding of $17.0 million- and auditing 96 projects - with total awarded funding of $27.8 miliion- exclusively for funds that can be deobligated and put to better use.

>Unneeded Funding and Management Challenges Associated with the FEMA Grant Awarded to Los Angeles County, California: Third Interim Report 		2013
DS-13-11 The California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMAl, a FEMA grantee, awarded the County $54.9 million for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debriS flows, and mudslides during the period of December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005.' The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 143 large projects and 35 small projects.' Our audit covered the period from December 27, 2004, to May 1, 2013. Thi~ report presents findings related to five projects we comprehensively audited, totaling $10.4 million in awarded project funding for debris-related COSH, for which the County has requested $6 million in reimbursements for costs incurred.

>Los Angeles County, California, Did Not Properly Account For and Expend $3.9 Million in FEMA Grant Funds for Debris-Related Costs 		2013
DS-13-12 The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), a FEMA grantee, awarded the County $54.9 million for costs resulting from storms, flooding, debris flows, and mudslides during the period of December 27, 2004, through January 11, 2005.1 The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 143 large projects and 35 small projects. Our audit covered the period from December 27, 2004 to May 1, 2013.

>Los Angeles County, California, Did Not Properly Account for or Expend About $14,000 in FEMA Grant Funds 		2013

*NDAA, Pub. L. 117-263, section 5274 Response Received. View responses

Return to top of page