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
OIG-22-51 Assessment of FEMA's Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Program 2022
OIG-11-08 Assessment of Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Support Function Roles and Responsibilities 2011
OIG-11-07 Assessment of Federal Emergency Management Agency's Emergency Support Function Roles and Responsibilities 2011
OIG-15-147-D The City of Asbury Park, New Jersey, (City) received a $9.3 million Public Assistance grant award from the New Jersey Office of Emergency Management (New Jersey), a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grantee, for damages resulting from Hurricane Sandy, which occurred in October 2012. Our audit objective was to determine whether the City accounted for and expended FEMA funds according to Federal requirements. The City generally accounted for and expended FEMA funds for permanent work according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. However, the City did not provide adequate support for $771,461 of the $798,819 it had claimed for debris removal and emergency work at the time of our audit. As a result, FEMA has no assurance that these costs are valid and eligible. FEMA initially estimated that debris and emergency work would exceed $2 million. Because we conducted this audit early in the grant cycle, the City has an opportunity to supplement deficient documentation or locate missing documentation before too much time elapses. FEMA should disallow any costs the City cannot adequately support and direct New Jersey to assist the City in properly supporting the costs it has claimed and additional costs the City plans to claim. The City also did not include all federally required contract provisions in five contracts totaling $3.9 million. We did not question these contract costs, because this instance of noncompliance did not cause negative consequences and because the City otherwise complied with Federal procurement standards.

>Asbury Park, New Jersey, Needs Assistance in Supporting More Than $2 Million in FEMA Grant Funds for Hurricane Sandy Debris and Emergency Work 		2015
OIG-20-12 Aransas County’s procurement policies and procedures are not adequate to meet minimum Federal procurement regulations or address key procurement elements despite guidance and contacts with the Texas Department of Public Safety, Texas Division of Emergency Management (Texas).  We recommended the Regional Administrator, FEMA Region VI, require Texas to continue providing additional technical assistance and monitoring to the County, and provide to DHS OIG documentation supporting FEMA’s actions to that end.  FEMA officials agreed with both recommendations.  Prior to final issuance of this report, FEMA took action to resolve and close both recommendations.  No further action is required. 

>Aransas County, Texas, Needs Continued Assistance and Monitoring to Ensure Proper Management of Its FEMA Grant 		2020
OIG-15-14 This report responds to the annual reporting requirement and summarizes 18 audits completed in fiscal year 2014. The audits included about $447 million in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants awarded by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to 13 states, 4 territories, and the District of Columbia during 3-year periods between fiscal years 2009 and 2012. During fiscal year 2014, we issued reports for Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Delaware, District of Columbia, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Northern Mariana Islands, Oregon, Puerto Rico, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming. In most instances, the states and urban areas administered grant programs efficiently and effectively and in compliance with grant guidance and regulations. We also identified one innovative practice that other jurisdictions could consider using. We identified two major areas for improvement: strategic planning and oversight of grant activities. We also identified about $14.5 million in questioned costs.

>Annual Report to Congress on States’ and Urban Areas’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2014 		2015
OIG-14-22 The objectives of the State and urban area audits were to determine whether each State and urban area distributed and spent the grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently, and (2) in compliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the States’ and urban area’s ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The audits included more than $668 million in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants awarded to the 10 States and 1 urban area during 3-year or 4-year periods between fiscal years 2006 and 2011.

>Annual Report to Congress on States’ and Urban Areas’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2013 		2014
OIG-13-18 The objectives of the State audits were to determine whether each State distributed and spent the grant funds (1) effectively and efficiently, and (2) in ompliance with applicable Federal laws and regulations. We also addressed the extent to which grant funds enhanced the States’ ability to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The audits included more than $924 million in State Homeland Security Program and Urban Areas Security Initiative grants awarded to the 16 States and territories during 3-year periods between fiscal years 2006 and 2010.

>Annual Report to Congress on States’ and Urban Areas’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2012 		2013
OIG-12-22 Annual Report to Congress on States’ and Urban Areas’ Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2011 2012
OIG-11-20 Annual Report to Congress on States' and Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2010 2011
OIG-10-31 Annual Report to Congress on States' and Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs Fiscal Year 2009 2010
OIG-09-17  

>Annual Report to Congress on States' and Urban Areas' Management of Homeland Security Grant Programs 		2009
OIG-16-49 FEMA’s Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) provides funds to state, territorial, local, and tribal governments to enhance their ability to prepare for, prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. FEMA has not adequately analyzed recurring Office of Inspector General recommendations to implement permanent changes to improve its oversight of HSGP. This occurred because FEMA has not clearly communicated internal roles and responsibilities, and does not have policies and procedures for conducting substantive trend analysis of audit recommendations. Without sufficiently analyzing audit findings and recommendations, FEMA may not be able to develop proactive solutions to recurring and systemic problems, resulting in missed opportunities to improve the management and oversight of its HSGP.

>Analysis of Recurring Audit Recommendations Could Improve FEMA's Oversight of HSGP 		2016
OIG-04-12 An Audit of FEMA's Acquisition Workforce, March 2004 (PDF, 22 pages - 1.9MB) 2004
OIG-04-15 An Audit of Distributing and Spending "First Responder" Grant Funds, March 2004 2004
OIG-14-16 We incorporated the formal comments from the Office of Policy, Program Analysis and International Affairs and the American Samoa Department of Homeland Security in the final report. The report contains 17 recommendations aimed at improving the overall effectiveness of !merican Samoa’s management of State Homeland Security Program grants. Your office concurred with all of the recommendations. Based on information provided in your response to the draft report, we consider recommendations 2, 5, and 6 closed, and recommendations 1, 3, 4, and 7 through 17 unresolved and open.

>American Samoa’s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2009 Through 2011 		2014
OIG-11-03 American Samoa 2009 Earthquake and Tsunami: After-Action Report 2011
OIG-08-38 Allision of the M/V COSCO BUSAN with the San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge 2008
OIG-14-62 The audit objective was to determine whether Alaska used Homeland Security Grant Program funds in accordance with the law, program guidance, and state homeland security plans and other applicable plans. We also addressed the extent to which funds awarded enhanced the ability of grantees to prevent, prepare for, protect against, and respond to natural disasters, acts of terrorism, and other manmade disasters. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) awarded Alaska approximately $14.6 million in State Homeland Security Program grants during fiscal years 2010 through 2012.

>Alaska’s Management of Homeland Security Grant Program Awards for Fiscal Years 2010 Through 2012 		2014
W-11-03 Alameda County Flood Control & Water Control District Zone 7, Pleasanton, CA, Public Assistance ID No 001-91017, FEMA Disaster No. 1046-DR-CA, 2003
OIG-17-41-D We determined that for the projects we reviewed, the County effectively accounted for and expended FEMA Public Assistance grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. Because the audit did not identify any issues requiring further action from FEMA Region IV, we consider this audit closed.

>Aiken County, South Carolina, Effectively Managed FEMA Grant Funds Awarded for Severe 2014 Winter Storm 		2017
OIG-19-37 This interim report is part of an ongoing audit to determine the extent FEMA is meeting disaster survivors’ transitional shelter needs after the California wildfires and Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria in 2017. We determined that FEMA does not require disaster survivors to notify the agency when they vacate hotels participating in the TSA program, thus allowing the hotels to continue to bill FEMA for unoccupied rooms. Because FEMA is unaware when disaster survivors vacate the hotels, the agency does not know the magnitude of unnecessary hotel charges. Consequently, FEMA could not account for associated TSA payments it may have paid since August 2017, related to the 2017 hurricane season and California wildfires.

>Additional Controls Needed to Better Manage FEMA's Transitional Sheltering Assistance Program 		2019
OIG-11-52  

>Actions Taken by the Federal Emergency Management Agency in Response to an Allegation Concerning the Application for a Station Construction Grant Submitted by the University City, Missouri, Fire Department 		2011
OIG-08-21 A Review of World Trade Center Captive Insurance Company 2008
OIG-22-72 A Review of FEMA Funding for Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Response and Relief 2022
OIG-06-32 A Performance Review of FEMA's Disaster Management Activities in Response to Hurricane Katrina 2006
OIG-09-16  

>2007 Debris Removal Pilot Program and Initiatives 		2009
OIG-12-93  

> Progress Has Been Made in Securing Laptops and Wireless Networks at FEMA 		2012
OIG-17-48-D We determined that the Iron County Forestry and Parks Department’s (Department) accounting policies, procedures, and business practices are adequate to account for grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines.  However, the Department needs to revise its procurement policies and procedures to comply fully with all Federal procurement standards.  If the Department makes these revisions and follows them, FEMA should have reasonable assurance that (1) small and minority businesses, women’s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms will receive sufficient opportunities to compete for federally funded work; (2) the risk of misinterpretations and disputes relating to contracts will be minimized; and (3) contracts are awarded to individuals, companies, or recipients who do not pose a business risk to the government.  Department officials acknowledged that they had improperly procured their contracts, but said they plan to seek FEMA reimbursement for the $72,235 in disaster-related contract costs they had incurred.  We recommended that FEMA not fund $72,235 of ineligible contract costs and direct the Wisconsin Emergency Management Agency to provide additional technical assistance and monitoring to the Department to ensure it complies with applicable Federal procurement standards and to prevent the improper spending of approximately $3.2 million in estimated disaster work.  FEMA concurred with all of our findings and recommendations.

> Iron County Forestry and Parks Department, Wisconsin, Needs Assistance and Monitoring to Ensure Proper Management of Its FEMA Grant 		2017
OIG-ISP-01-03 A Review of the Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program 2003
OIG-11-40  

> FEMA's Oversight and Management of Debris Removal Operation 		2011
OIG-09-31  

> FEMA's Implementations of Best Practices in the Acquisition Process 		2009

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

Return to top of page