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
DD-02-04 City of Hoisington, KS, FEMA Disaster No.1366-DR-KS, Public Assistance ID No. 009-32550-00 2004
DA-09-23  

>City of Homestead Florid 		2009
DD_07-04 City of Houston, Houston, Texas, FEMA Disaster No. 1379-DR-TX, Public Assistance ID No. 201-35000-00, Audit 2007
DD-09-06 City of Kansas City, Missouri FEMA Disaster Number DR-1403-MO, Audit 2009
DD-09-14  

>City of Kettering, Ohio 		2009
DS-09-10  

>City of Laguna Beach, California 		2009
DS-09-09 City of Los Angeles Department of Water & Power 2010
DS-10-03  

>City of Los Angeles, Department of Public Works  		2010
DS-11-02 Of the $4 million in disaster costs we reviewed, the city generally expended and accounted for costs according to federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. However, the city’s claim for Project Worksheet (PW) 1509 included $12,881 in disaster costs that were the funding responsibility of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), under the Federal-Aid Highways Program. According to Title 44, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 206.226(a)(1), disaster assistance is not available under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act when another federal agency has specific authority to restore facilities damaged or destroyed by an event which is declared a major disaster. Further, FEMA’s Public Assistance Guide (FEMA 322, October 1999) says that funding of work under the authority of FHWA is specifically excluded from funding under FEMA’s Public Assistance Program.

>City of Malibu, California 		2011
DA-10-02 City of Memphis, Tennessee  2010
DA-10-04  

>City of Moss Point, Mississippi  		2010
DD-09-13  

>City of Muncie, Indiana 		2009
DS-10-09  

>City of Napa, California 		2010
DD-09-11  

>City of New Orleans Residential Solid Waste and Debris Removal 		2009
DD-10-07  

>City of North Royalton, Ohio  		2010
DS-09-14  

>City of Oakland, California 		2009
DA-18-05 City of Owensboro, Kentucky FEMA Disaster No. 13 10-DR-KY 2005
DS-02-04 City of Palo Alto, California, Public Assistance ID No. 085-55282, FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2004
DD-11-10  

>City of Port Arthur, Texas 		2011
DA-23-05 City of Portsmouth, VA 2005
DA-18-04 City of Raleigh, North Carolina, FEMA Disaster No. 1292-DR-DC 2004
DA-19-04 City of Raleigh, North Carolina, FEMA Disaster No. 1312-DR-NC 2004
DS-10-11  

>City of Rancho Palos Verdes, California  		2010
DA-09-24  

>City of Richmond, Virginia 		2009
W-05-03 City of Sacramento, CA, Public Assistance ID No. 067-6400, FEMA Disaster No. 1155-DR-CA, 2002
DS-09-12  

>City of San Diego, California 		2009
DS-01-04 City of San Leandro, California, Public Assistance ID No. 001-68084, FEMA Disaster No. 1203-DR-CA 2004
DS-09-08  

>City of Seattle, Washington 		2009
DD-11-08  

>City of Slidell, Louisiana 		2011
DD-10-04  

>City of Springfield, IL  		2010
DD-11-06  

>City of Springfield, Missouri 		2011
DA-11-19  

>City of Vero Beach, Florida -Disaster Activities Related to Hurricane Frances 		2011
DA-11-18  

>City of Vero Beach, Florida -Disaster Activities Related to Hurricane Jeanne 		2011
DA-11-01 City of West Palm Beach, Florida 2011
DD-09-05  

>City of Wichita, Kansas 		2009
DD-06-04 The review in conjunction with the President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency (PCIE) as part of its examination of relief efforts provided by the federal government in the aftermath of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As such, we have forwarded a copy of the report to the PCIE Homeland Security Working Group that is coordinating Inspectors General review of this important subject.

>Clearbrook, LLC Billing Errors Under Contract 		2006
OIG-16-03-D FEMA’s Program Guide for the Alternative Procedures pilot program and letters of undertaking provide acceptable guidance in most areas to ensure compliance with Federal rules and regulations. However, our review of seven large dollar value projects valued at $3.9 billion identified weaknesses in five areas of guidance: (1) estimating project costs; (2) responding to Office of Inspector General (OIG) audits; (3) managing cash responsibly; (4) applying insurance proceeds; and (5) obtaining insurance for future losses. These weaknesses put Federal funds at greater risk of fraud, waste, and abuse. Correcting these weaknesses will better ensure that participants in the pilot program will follow Federal requirements when spending Federal funds. Further, to protect the Federal taxpayer from inflated estimates, FEMA’s oversight should include additional steps to assess the accuracy of subgrantee fixed-cost estimates that exceed certain thresholds. In addition, FEMA needs to make other changes to comply with the Stafford Act and protect the integrity of the program.

>Clearer Guidance Would Improve FEMA's Oversight of the Public Assistance Alternative Procedures Pilot Program 		2016
DA-16-04 Coast Electrical Power Association, Bay St. Louis, Mississippi, FEMA Disaster No. 1251-DR-MS 2004
OIG-11-108  

>Coast Guard Has Taken Steps To Strengthen Information Technology Management, but Challenges Remain 		2011
OIG-18-15 Coast Guard IT Investments Risk Failure Without Required Oversight 2018
OIG-24-08 Coast Guard National Maritime Center's Oversight of Merchant Mariner Training and Examinations 2024
OIG-21-65 Summary: Rescue 21 Alaska, Coast Guard’s maritime search and rescue communication system, has experienced outages resulting from antiquated equipment in Coast Guard’s District 17.  Challenges and funding shortages during system acquisition caused Coast Guard to limit the purchase of new equipment for Rescue 21 Alaska, requiring District 17 to maintain existing equipment for longer than initially planned.  Alaska’s winter weather conditions and remote access to communication site locations cause lengthy repair times, further exacerbating the outage impacts.  The outages have prevented Coast Guard, at times, from effectively receiving and responding to distress calls from mariners.  Coast Guard has made some upgrades to the Rescue 21 Alaska system to enhance distress communication availability and reliability.  Although Coast Guard plans for further upgrades, outages persist.  When notifying the public about the outages, Coast Guard primarily relies on a “Local Notice to Mariners” posted on their public website.  However, this limits who can receive the notices, as not all mariners go to the internet to determine outage locations.  Alaska mariners shared other effective methods Coast Guard could use to improve its notifications to the public when there are known VHF distress communications outages.  Adequately upgrading the communications equipment and ensuring robust attempts are made to notify the public when outages occur is essential for Coast Guard to achieve its search and rescue mission in Alaska.  We made two recommendations to ensure the Coast Guard is prioritizing Rescue 21 Alaska upgrades and appropriately notifying the public of outages. Coast Guard concurred with both recommendations.

>Coast Guard Should Prioritize Upgrades to Rescue 21 Alaska and Expand Its Public Notifications during Outages 		2021
OIG-10-84  

>Coast Guard's Blueprint for Acquisition Reform Needs Improved Oversight  ( 		2010
DA-11-16  

>Coast Transit Authority 		2011
OIG-17-57-D We determined that the County can account for and adequately support disaster-related costs.  However, the County’s procurement policies, procedures, and business practices do not meet all Federal procurement standard requirements.  As a result, the County awarded two bridge construction contracts totaling $458,150 without full and open competition.  We recommended that FEMA not fund $458,150 of ineligible contract costs, unless FEMA grants an exception for all or part of the costs according to Federal regulations.  Because of our audit, County officials said they will not claim FEMA reimbursement for either of the two contracts.  We discussed this decision with FEMA Region VI officials who said they will be alert for these costs should the County seek reimbursement for either of the two bridge construction contracts.  Based on FEMA’s response we consider this report closed and require no further action from FEMA.

>Colorado County, Texas, Has Adequate Policies, Procedures, and Business Practices to Manage Its FEMA Grant 		2017
OIG-16-78-D The City of Evans, Colorado (City) received a $10.8 million grant from Colorado, a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) grantee, for damages from severe storms and flooding in September 2013. We conducted this audit early in the grant process to identify areas where the City may need additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance.

>Colorado Should Provide the City of Evans More Assistance in Managing FEMA Grant Funds 		2016
OIG-16-40-D Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado (Utilities), received a $937,367 Public Assistance grant for damages from storms occurring May through June 2015. We conducted this audit early in the grant process to identify areas where the Utilities may need additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance with Federal requirements. The Utilities has established policies, procedures, and business practices to account for and expend Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. Therefore, if the Utilities follow those policies, procedures, and business practices, FEMA has reasonable assurance that the Utilities will properly manage its FEMA grant.

>Colorado Springs Utilities, Colorado, Has Adequate Policies, Procedures, and Business Practices to Effectively Manage Its FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funding 		2016
OIG-16-42-D At the time of our audit, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) estimated that the City of Colorado Springs, Colorado, (City) had sustained approximately $3.6 million in damages from storms in 2015. We conducted this audit early in the grant process to identify areas where the City may need additional technical assistance or monitoring to ensure compliance with Federal requirements. The City has established policies, procedures, and business practices to account for and expend FEMA Public Assistance grant funds according to Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines. Therefore, if the City follows those policies, procedures, and business practices, FEMA has reasonable assurance that the City will properly manage its FEMA grant.

>Colorado Springs, Colorado, Has Adequate Policies, Procedures, and Business Practices to Effectively Manage Its FEMA Public Assistance Grant Funding 		2016
OIG-17-34-D We determined that the Columbia County Roads Department (Department) does not have written procurement policies and procedures that fully conform to Federal procurement standards; is not accounting for direct administrative costs properly; and cannot yet initiate large permanent work projects more than 9 months after the disaster.  These findings occurred because Department officials were not familiar with applicable Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines adequately.  In addition, the Oregon Office of Emergency Management (Oregon) is responsible for ensuring that its subrecipient,the Department, is aware of and complies with these requirements, as well as for providing technical assistance and monitoring grant activities.  Because of our audit, the Department is revising its policies and procedures to comply with Federal requirements.  However, the Department needs additional, ongoing assistance from Oregon and FEMA to ensure that it properly manages the $2 million FEMA grant it expects to receive.  Therefore, we recommended that FEMA disallow contract costs that do not comply with applicable Federal procurement standards, unless FEMA grants an exception to the administrative requirements as 2 CFR 200.102 allows and determines the costs are reasonable.  The OIG made three other recommendations to FEMA related to directing Oregon, as its grant recipient, to provide increased monitoring and technical assistance to the Department, to ensure the Department follows Federal regulations and FEMA guidelines and avoids misspending its $2 million grant award.

>Columbia County Roads Department, Oregon, Needs Continued State and FEMA Assistance in Managing Its FEMA Grant 		2017
DD-05-05 Columbia Space Shuttle Mission Assignment National Forests and Grasslands in Texas, Lufkin, Texas FEMA Disaster Number EM-3171-TX 2005

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

Return to top of page