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
GC-HQ-06-19 Indirect Costs under Grant Agreement Number EMW-2006-GR-0056 with United Methodist Committee on Relief/Emergency Services International 2006
GC-HQ-06-17 Revised Report - Management Advisory Report on Armed Guard Services Provided by Blackwater Security Consulting, LLC under contract 2006
GC-HQ-06-13 FEMA Should Invest Funds Associated With Grant 2006
GC-HQ-06-12 Mobile Homes and Modular Homes at Hope and Red River 2006
GC-HQ-06-11 Management Advisory Report on the Acquisition of Cruise Ships for Hurricane Katrina Evacuees 2006
GC-HQ-06-10 Strengthening Registration Intake Controls 2006
GC-HQ-06-09 Management Advisory Report on Invoices submitted under Order HSFEHQ-06-F-0047 by Corporate Lodging Consultants, Inc. 2006
GC-HQ-06-06 Expedited Assistance Overpayment 2006
GC-HQ-06-05 Management Advisory Report on the Major Technical Assistance Contracts 2006
GC-HQ-06-01 Process for Preparing Project Worksheets 2006
GC-FL-06-50 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities City of Fort Lauderdale, Florida 2006
GC-FL-06-46 Review of FEMA Contracts Awarded by Contracting Officers at the Orlando, Florida, Long Term Recovery Office 2006
GC-FL-06-44 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities City of Plantation, Florida 2006
GC-FL-06-42 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities Saint Lucie County, Florida 2006
GC-FL-06-39 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities Collier County, Florida 2006
GC-FL-06-33 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities Miami-Dade County, Florida 2006
GC-FL-06-30 Review of Hurricane Wilma Activities Solid Waste Authority of Palm Beach County, Florida 2006
GC-AL-06-38 Review of Hurricane Katrina Debris Removal Contract City of Tuscaloosa, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-31 Black Warrior Electric Membership Cooperative FEMA Disaster 2006
GC-AL-06-27 Review of Hurricane Katrina Contracts City of Orange Beach, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-24 Review of FEMA Contracts Awarded by Contracting Officers Montgomery, Alabama, Joint Field Office 2006
GC-AL-06-22 Review of Hurricane Katrina Contracts City of Daphne, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-21 Review of Hurricane Katrina Contracts City of Fairhope, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-20 Review of Hurricane Katrina Contract City of Bayou La Batre, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-18 City of Gulf Shores, Alabama 2006
GC-AL-06-16 Review of Hurricane Katrina Contracts Baldwin County, Alabama 2006
DS-16-04 The Office of Inspector General (OIG) Audited Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to King County, Seattle, Washington (County), July 27, 2004 2004
DS-15-05 Audit of the Ventura County Flood Control District Ventura, California Public Assistance Identification Number 111-91042 FEM Disaster Number 1008-DR-CA 2005
DS-14-05 Audit of Kern County, California Bakersfield, California Public Assistance Identification Number 029-00000 FEMA Disaster Number 1203-DR-CA 2005
DS-13-14 We interviewed FEMA, SCD,and DDC officials; reviewed judgmentally selected project costs (generally based on dollar value); and performed other procedures considered necessary to accomplish our objective. We did not assess the adequacy of the DDC’s internal controls applicable to grant activities because it was not necessary to accomplish our audit objective. However, we did evaluate fiscal controls, accounting procedures, and whether DDC had a system to account for expenditures on a project ‐ by ‐project basis, in order to determine compliance with governing criteria in effect at the time of the disaster.

>FEMA Should Recover $4.2 Million of Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to the Department of Design and Construction, Honolulu, Hawaii 		2013
DS-13-13 Our audit objective was to determine whether the City accounted for and expended FEMA grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. The California Governor's Office of Emergency Services (Cal OES), a FEMA grantee, awarded the City $2,925,240 for costs resulting from severe storms, flooding, mudslides, and landslides from December 17,2005, through and including January 3, 2006. The award provided 75 percent FEMA funding for 7 large projects and 10 small projects. Our audit covered the period from December 17, 2005, to June 10, 2013. We audited $2,772,687, including six large projects totaling $2,599,005/ and two small projects totaling $173,682.

>The City of Pacifica, California, Generally Followed Regulations for Spending FEMA Public Assistance Funds 		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
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-13-10 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-13-09 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-13-08 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-13-07 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-13-06 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-13-05 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-13-05 Audit of the City of San Jose, California Public Assistance ID. No. 085-68000 FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2005
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-13-03 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-13-02 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-13-01 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-12-13  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to City of Vacaville, 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-12-11  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to County of El Dorado, California 		2012
DS-12-10  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Northern Region, Fairbanks, Alaska 		2012
DS-12-09  

>FEMA PA Grant Funds Awarded to the Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities, Northern Region, Fairbanks, AK 		2012
DS-12-08  

>FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funds Awarded to Amador County, California 		2012

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

Return to top of page