Disaster Assistance: Information on Federal Costs and Approaches for
Reducing Them (Testimony, 03/26/98, GAO/T-RCED-98-139).

Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO discussed several approaches
for lowering the costs of federal disaster assistance, focusing on: (1)
the components and magnitude of federal disaster assistance costs; and
(2) approaches that could potentially lower those costs in the future.

GAO noted that: (1) federal disaster assistance costs billions of
dollars annually; (2) according to data compiled for the Senate Task
Force, federal agencies obligated about $119.7 billion (in constant 1993
dollars) for disaster assistance during fiscal years (FY) 1977 through
1993, the majority of which was for post-disaster assistance; (3) the
Federal Emergency Management Agency accounted for about 22 percent of
this amount, with the remainder spread across many federal agencies,
including the Small Business Administration, the Army Corps of
Engineers, and the Department of Agriculture; (4) the federal government
provided assistance for an average of nearly 37 disasters or emergencies
annually from FY 1977 through FY 1997; (5) the growth in disaster
assistance costs in the 1990s has been attributed to a number of
factors, including: (a) a sequence of unusually large and costly
disasters, for which the federal government has occasionally borne a
larger-than-usual share of the costs; (b) a general increase per year in
the number of presidential disaster declarations; and (c) a gradual
expansion of eligibility for assistance, through legislation and
administrative decisions; (6) approaches for lowering federal disaster
assistance costs include: (a) establishing more explicit or stringent
criteria for providing federal disaster assistance; (b) emphasizing
hazard mitigation through various incentives, and (c) relying more on
insurance; (7) within these approaches, specific proposals vary; and (8)
the extent to which implementation of these proposals would lower the
costs of federal disaster assistance is unknown.

--------------------------- Indexing Terms -----------------------------

 REPORTNUM:  T-RCED-98-139
     TITLE:  Disaster Assistance: Information on Federal Costs and 
             Approaches for Reducing Them
      DATE:  03/26/98
   SUBJECT:  Disaster relief aid
             Relief agencies
             Property damages
             Eligibility criteria
             Cost effectiveness analysis
             Insurance
             Federal aid to states
             Emergency preparedness
             Federal/state relations
             Cost analysis
IDENTIFIER:  Disaster Relief Fund
             FEMA National Flood Insurance Program
             National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
             
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a  **
** GAO report.  Delineations within the text indicating chapter **
** titles, headings, and bullets are preserved.  Major          **
** divisions and subdivisions of the text, such as Chapters,    **
** Sections, and Appendixes, are identified by double and       **
** single lines.  The numbers on the right end of these lines   **
** indicate the position of each of the subsections in the      **
** document outline.  These numbers do NOT correspond with the  **
** page numbers of the printed product.                         **
**                                                              **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced.  Tables are included, but    **
** may not resemble those in the printed version.               **
**                                                              **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when     **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed     **
** document's contents.                                         **
**                                                              **
** A printed copy of this report may be obtained from the GAO   **
** Document Distribution Center.  For further details, please   **
** send an e-mail message to:                                   **
**                                                              **
**                                            **
**                                                              **
** with the message 'info' in the body.                         **
******************************************************************


Cover
================================================================ COVER


Before the Subcommittee on Water Resources and Environment, Committee
on Transportation and Infrastructure, House of Representatives

For Release
on Delivery
Expected at
10 a.m.  EST
Thursday
March 26, 1998

DISASTER ASSISTANCE - INFORMATION
ON FEDERAL COSTS AND APPROACHES
FOR REDUCING THEM

Statement of Judy A.  England-Joseph, Director,
Housing and Community Development Issues,
Resources, Community, and Economic
Development Division

GAO/T-RCED-98-139

GAO/RCED-98-139T


(385717)


Abbreviations
=============================================================== ABBREV

  FEMA -
  SBA -
  DOT -
  USDA -

============================================================ Chapter 0

Mr.  Chairman and Members of the Subcommittee: 

We are pleased to be here today to discuss several approaches for
lowering the costs of federal disaster assistance.  For a number of
years, there has been concern in the Congress about the increasing
costs of federal disaster assistance provided by the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other agencies.  Our statement
is based on our work for the Senate Bipartisan Task Force on Funding
Disaster Relief,\1 our past reviews of various federal disaster
assistance programs, and our review of FEMA's strategic plan prepared
pursuant to the Government Performance and Results Act.  Our
statement discusses (1) the components and magnitude of federal
disaster assistance costs and (2) approaches that could potentially
lower those costs in the future. 

In summary: 

  -- Federal disaster assistance costs billions of dollars annually. 
     According to data compiled for the Senate Task Force, federal
     agencies obligated about $119.7 billion (in constant 1993
     dollars) for disaster assistance during fiscal years 1977
     through 1993, the majority of which was for post-disaster
     assistance.  FEMA accounted for about 22 percent of this amount,
     with the remainder spread across many federal agencies,
     including the Small Business Administration, the U.S.  Army
     Corps of Engineers, and the U.S.  Department of Agriculture. 
     The federal government provided assistance for an average of
     nearly 37 disasters or emergencies annually from fiscal years
     1977 through 1997.  The growth in disaster assistance costs in
     the 1990s has been attributed to a number of factors, including: 
     a sequence of unusually large and costly disasters, for which
     the federal government has occasionally borne a
     larger-than-usual share of the costs; a general increase per
     year in the number of presidential disaster declarations; and a
     gradual expansion of eligibility for assistance, through
     legislation and administrative decisions. 

  -- Approaches for lowering federal disaster assistance costs
     include (1) establishing more explicit and/or stringent criteria
     for providing federal disaster assistance, (2) emphasizing
     hazard mitigation through various incentives, and (3) relying
     more on insurance.  Within these approaches, specific proposals
     vary.  The extent to which the implementation of these proposals
     would lower the costs of federal disaster assistance is unknown. 


--------------------
\1 See Federal Disaster Assistance, Document No.  104-4, U.S.  Senate
(Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Government Printing Office [GPO], 1995). 


   BACKGROUND
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:1

While the term "disaster assistance" brings to mind the aid provided
to communities and individuals after a disaster has struck, the scope
of federal disaster assistance is broader.  Disaster assistance
involves aid provided both before and after disasters and it involves
many federal agencies besides FEMA, including the U.S.  Army Corps of
Engineers (the Corps), the Small Business Administration (SBA), and
the Departments of Agriculture, Transportation, the Interior,
Commerce, and Housing and Urban Development.  Moreover, these and
other agencies may provide assistance under a number of different
statutory authorities.  Because of the numerous agencies and programs
involved in providing disaster assistance, controlling federal
disaster assistance costs is a difficult challenge. 

FEMA is an independent agency charged with helping states and
localities address natural disasters.  Under the Robert T.  Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (the Stafford Act), FEMA
provides financial and technical assistance to communities and
individuals.  In its role as coordinator of federal assistance, FEMA
may request that other federal agencies provide a specific type of
assistance.  FEMA's "blueprint" for the federal response to
disasters, the Federal Response Plan, is a cooperative agreement
signed by 26 federal agencies and the American Red Cross. 

Under the Comprehensive Emergency Management concept--a concept that
assumes all disasters, regardless of their size, require the same
basic government strategies--disaster management is viewed as
consisting of four phases, of which the first two occur before a
disaster strikes.\2

  -- Preparedness activities are designed to help communities and
     governments prepare for dealing with natural disasters; included
     are the development of response plans, establishing the location
     and identity of needed resources, planning for the evacuation of
     residents, and training for emergency officials. 

  -- Mitigation activities are undertaken to reduce the losses from
     disasters or prevent losses from occurring; examples include
     constructing dams and flood control projects, retrofitting
     structures to withstand earthquakes, and developing land-use
     plans and zoning ordinances to discourage development of
     hazardous areas. 

  -- Response activities are accomplished during or immediately
     following a disaster; examples include providing temporary
     shelter, food, and medical supplies and meeting other urgent
     needs of victims. 

  -- Recovery activities are those that help individuals and
     communities rebuild following a disaster; for example, the
     repair or reconstruction of public facilities such as roads,
     water distribution systems, government buildings, and parks. 

Traditionally, the role of the federal government has been to
supplement the emergency management efforts of state and local
governments, voluntary organizations, and private citizens; federal
policy generally assumes that states (and units of local government)
maintain primary responsibility.  The Stafford Act contains several
statements explicitly acknowledging the primary role of states. 
Under the act, postdisaster assistance may be provided only if the
President, at the request of a state governor, declares that an
emergency or disaster exists and that federal resources are required
to supplement state and local resources. 


--------------------
\2 The Comprehensive Emergency Management concept first appeared in
the work of the National Governor's Association in the late 1970s and
gained acceptance in the professional emergency management community. 


   FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
   COSTS HAVE GROWN IN RECENT
   YEARS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2

For a number of reasons, including a sequence of unusually large and
costly disasters, federal disaster assistance costs have increased in
recent years.  Much of the spending is overseen by FEMA--obligations
from FEMA's Disaster Relief Fund totaled about $3.6 billion in fiscal
year 1996 and about $4.3 billion in fiscal year 1997--but many other
federal agencies are involved as well. 


      COMPONENTS OF FEDERAL
      DISASTER ASSISTANCE COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.1

In our work for the Senate Task Force, we compiled financial data
from many federal agencies concerning their disaster assistance
programs and activities--which encompass all phases of emergency
management--for fiscal years 1977 through 1993.  (Fiscal year 1993
was the latest complete fiscal year at the time we did our work.)
However, with limited exceptions, we have not done work over the past
few years that would have provided us with similar data for fiscal
years 1994 forward, and thus we do not know how overall costs, or
their distribution among emergency management phases, may have
changed. 

According to data compiled for the Senate Task Force, postdisaster
recovery accounted for by far the largest portion of federal disaster
assistance (in constant 1993 dollars)--about $87 billion, almost
three-quarters of the $119.7 billion total federal disaster
assistance from fiscal years 1977 through 1993.  Of the $87 billion,
about $55.3 billion consisted of various disaster recovery loans made
primarily by SBA and USDA; because some portion of the loans will be
repaid, the entire loan amount is not necessarily a federal cost.\3
Of the remaining $31.7 billion, FEMA accounted for about
one-third--$10.2 billion.  Other significant amounts of disaster
assistance provided were the nearly $4.1 billion obligated by the
Department of Transportation for repairs to federal-aid highways and
the $16 billion obligated by USDA to compensate farmers for
production losses from disasters.\4

Disaster mitigation accounted for the second-largest category of
federal disaster assistance obligations--about $27 billion, or 22
percent.  As we noted in our statement for this Subcommittee in late
January, FEMA provides mitigation assistance under several programs
and authorities and has taken a strategic approach to mitigation.\5
However, the large majority--about $25 billion--of federal mitigation
obligations during fiscal years 1977 through 1993 was made by the
Corps of Engineers for the design, construction, operation, and
maintenance of flood control and coastal erosion control facilities. 
Other federal disaster mitigation efforts include (1) establishing
floodplain management and building standards required by FEMA's
National Flood Insurance Program and (2) conducting earthquake
research and related activities under the National Earthquake Hazards
Reduction program, jointly administered by FEMA, the U.S.  Geological
Survey, the National Institute of Standards and Technology, and the
National Science Foundation. 

The remainder of total federal disaster assistance reported to the
Senate Task Force was obligated for immediate responses to disasters
(about $3.4 billion) and for preparedness activities (about $2.3
billion).  In both cases, FEMA accounted for the majority of the
costs. 


--------------------
\3 Federal costs are incurred when the loans are made at subsidized
interest rates and when loans are forgiven or written off.  SBA and
USDA estimate that the credit subsidy rates--an estimate of the
long-term cost to the government (on a net present value basis)
expressed as a percentage of their loan amounts--for their fiscal
year 1998 disaster loans will be about 23.5 percent and about 24
percent, respectively. 

\4 Public Law 103-354, enacted in 1994, combined the policy tools of
farm disaster payments and crop insurance and otherwise attempted to
eliminate the need for future ad hoc disaster payments. 

\5 Disaster Assistance:  Information on Federal Disaster Mitigation
Efforts (GAO/T-RCED-98-67, Jan.  28, 1998). 


      FACTORS UNDERLYING
      INCREASING COSTS
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:2.2

The occurrence of large disaster assistance costs in the 1990's has
been attributed to a number of factors.  Since 1989, the United
States has experienced a sequence of unusually large and costly
disasters, including Hurricane Hugo, the Loma Prieta earthquake,
Hurricane Andrew, Hurricane Iniki, the 1993 Midwest floods, and the
Northridge earthquake.  The close occurrence of such costly disasters
in the United States is unprecedented.  Furthermore, increases in
population and development, especially in hazard-prone areas,
increase the potential losses associated with these disaster events. 
For example, FEMA expects that by the year 2010 the number of people
living in the most hurricane-prone counties (36 million in 1995) will
double. 

For several of these large disasters, the federal government has
borne a larger-than-usual share of the costs.  The Stafford Act
provides that many disaster relief costs are to be shared by the
federal government with the affected states and localities.  For
example, the federal share of funding is at least 75 percent for
public assistance projects (to repair or replace disaster-damaged
public and nonprofit facilities).  Following several more recent
disasters, the President has raised the federal share for some of
these costs; for example, to 90 percent for the Northridge earthquake
and to 100 percent for Hurricane Andrew. 

There has also been an upward trend in the annual number of
presidential disaster declarations.  The Stafford Act authorizes the
President to issue major disaster or emergency declarations and
specifies the types of assistance the President may direct federal
agencies to provide.  For fiscal years 1984 through 1988, the average
number of such declarations was 26 per year, whereas, for the periods
from fiscal years 1989 through 1993 and from fiscal years 1994
through 1997, the average number was nearly 42 and 49 per year,
respectively. 

Additionally, more facilities have become eligible for disaster
assistance.  Over the years, the Congress has generally increased
eligibility through legislation that expanded the categories of
assistance and/or specified persons or organizations eligible to
receive assistance.  For example, 1988 legislation expanded the
categories of private nonprofit organizations that are eligible for
FEMA's public assistance program.  FEMA can influence program costs
by establishing and enforcing procedures and criteria for assistance
within the eligibility parameters established in statutes.  FEMA's
Inspector General reported in 1995 that the agency's administrative
decisions on eligibility for disaster assistance--such as the
threshold for determining whether to repair or replace a damaged
public facility--may have expanded federal disaster assistance
costs.\6 We have recommended that FEMA improve program guidance and
eligibility criteria in part to help control these costs.\7

According to the Senate Task Force report, federal budgeting
procedures for disaster assistance may have influenced amounts
appropriated for disaster assistance.  This is because disaster
relief appropriations have often been designated as "emergency"
spending.  If the Congress and the President agree to designate
appropriations as emergencies, the appropriations are excluded from
the strict budget disciplines that apply to other
spending--specifically, the discretionary spending limits under the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, as amended
by the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.\8 As noted in the task force
report, funds for natural disasters and other emergencies will
undoubtedly be needed from time to time in amounts that are
impossible to predict and thus difficult to budget for.  On the other
hand, one criticism of the procedures for emergency spending is that
the assistance provided is more "generous" than would be the case if
it had to compete with other spending priorities. 


--------------------
\6 Options for Reducing Public Assistance Program Costs (Inspection
Report I-02-95, July 1995). 

\7 See Disaster Assistance:  Guidance Needed for FEMA's "Fast Track"
Housing Assistance Process (GAO/RCED-98-1, Oct.  17, 1997); and
Disaster Assistance:  Improvements Needed in Determining Eligibility
for Public Assistance (GAO/RCED-96-113, May 23, 1996). 

\8 The Congress may offset the disaster spending in order to remain
within the limits. 


   APPROACHES FOR LOWERING FEDERAL
   DISASTER ASSISTANCE COSTS
---------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3

Approaches for lowering federal disaster assistance costs include (1)
establishing more explicit and/or stringent criteria for providing
federal disaster assistance, (2) emphasizing hazard mitigation
through various incentives, and (3) relying more on insurance. 
Within these approaches, specific proposals--made by various
entities, including the National Research Council, National
Performance Review, and FEMA's Inspector General--vary.  The extent
to which the implementation of these approaches would lower the costs
of federal disaster assistance is unknown. 


      DISASTER CRITERIA
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.1

One approach to lower disaster assistance costs is to establish more
explicit and/or stringent criteria for providing federal disaster
assistance.  Currently, much assistance is contingent on the
President's declaration of an emergency or major disaster under the
Stafford Act, 42 U.S.C.  5170, which provides that requests for
declarations (and therefore federal assistance) "shall be based on a
finding that the disaster is of such severity and magnitude that
effective response is beyond the capabilities of the State and the
affected local governments and that federal assistance is necessary."
State governors request such declarations; FEMA gathers and analyzes
facts and makes a recommendation to the President.  However, the
Stafford Act does not prescribe specific criteria to guide FEMA's
recommendation or the President's decision.  FEMA considers a number
of factors, such as the number of homes destroyed or sustaining major
damage, but there is no formula for applying them quantitatively.\9

The flexibility and generally subjective nature of FEMA's criteria
have raised questions about the consistency and clarity of the
disaster declaration process.  FEMA's Inspector General reported in
1994 that (1) neither a governor's findings nor FEMA's analysis of
capability is supported by standard factual data or related to
published criteria and (2) FEMA's process does not ensure equity in
disaster declarations because it does not always review requests for
declarations in the context of previous declarations.  In response to
specific congressional concerns about the process, we have reviewed
and reported on the potential effects of two factors--political party
affiliation and the nature of the affected area.  In 1989, we
reported that, for disaster declaration requests made in fiscal year
1988 and a portion of fiscal year 1989, we found no indication that
political party affiliation affected the President's decisions.\10 In
1995, we reported that FEMA's disaster declaration policies and
procedures do not differ with respect to whether the affected area is
considered rural or urban.\11

More explicit criteria for disaster declarations could provide a
number of potential benefits.  A 1993 report conducted by the
National Performance Review concluded that "clear criteria need to be
developed for disaster declarations to help conserve federal
resources."\12 Additionally, we previously reported that disclosing
the process for evaluating requests would help state and local
governments decide whether they had a valid request to make, enable
them to provide more complete and uniform information, and minimize
doubts as to whether their requests were treated fairly and
equitably.\13


--------------------
\9 The Stafford Act provides, through 42 U.S.C.  5163, that "[n]o
geographic area shall be precluded from receiving assistance under
this Act solely by virtue of an arithmetic formula or sliding scale
based on income or population."

\10 Disaster Assistance:  Timeliness and Other Issues Involving the
Major Disaster Declaration Process (GAO/RCED-89-138, May 25, 1989). 

\11 Disaster Assistance:  Information on Declarations for Urban and
Rural Areas (GAO/RCED-95-242, Sept.  14, 1995). 

\12 National Performance Review, Creating a Government That Works
Better and Costs Less:  Federal Emergency Management Agency
(Washington, D.C.:  U.S.  Government Printing Office, 1993). 

\13 Requests For Federal Disaster Assistance Need Better Evaluation
(GAO/CED-82-4, Dec.  7, 1981). 


      MITIGATION
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.2

A second approach to reduce costs is to emphasize hazard mitigation
through incentives.  Mitigation consists of taking measures to
prevent future losses or to reduce the losses that might otherwise
occur from disasters.  For example, building codes that incorporate
seismic design provisions can reduce earthquake damage.  In hearings
before the U.S.  Senate, the Director of the California Office of
Emergency Services testified that structures designed and built to
seismic design provisions of the state's Uniform Building Code
withstood the forces of the Loma Prieta earthquake with little or no
damage while structures built to lesser code provisions suffered
extensive damage.  Additionally, floodplain management and building
standards required by the National Flood Insurance Program may reduce
future costs from flooding.  For example, FEMA estimates that the
building standards that apply to floodplain structures annually
prevent more than $500 million in flood losses.  At a September 1993
congressional hearing, the FEMA Director said that structures built
after communities join the program suffer 83 percent less damage than
those built before the standards were in place. 

There are a number of approaches that can provide federal incentives
to encourage hazard mitigation.  Our March 1995 testimony discussed
recommendations by FEMA, the National Research Council, and the
National Performance Review promoting the use of federal incentives
to encourage hazard mitigation.\14 For example, specific initiatives
for improving earthquake mitigation included linking mitigation
actions with the receipt of federal disaster and other assistance and
providing federal income tax credits for investments to improve the
performance of existing facilities.  Furthermore, to the extent that
the availability of federal relief inhibits mitigation, amending
postdisaster federal financial assistance could help prompt
cost-effective mitigation.  The National Performance Review, for
example, recommended providing relatively more disaster assistance to
states that had adopted mitigation measures than to states that had
not.  These or other proposals would require analysis to determine
their relative costs and effectiveness. 

FEMA's September 1997 strategic plan, entitled "Partnership for a
Safer Future," states that the agency is concentrating its activities
on reducing disaster costs through mitigation because "no other
approach is as effective over the long term." The agency's hazard
mitigation efforts include grants and training for state and local
governments; funding for mitigating damage to public facilities and
purchasing and converting flood-prone properties to open space;
federal flood insurance; and programs targeted at reducing the loss
of life and property from earthquakes and fires. 

However, as we noted in our previous testimony for the Subcommittee,
quantifying the effects of mitigation efforts can be difficult. 
Specifically, determining the extent to which cost-effective
mitigation projects will result in federal dollar savings is
uncertain, as it depends on the actual incidence of future disaster
events and the extent to which the federal government would bear the
resulting losses.\15


--------------------
\14 GAO/T-RCED-95-140. 

\15 GAO/T-RCED-98-67, Jan.  28, 1998. 


      INSURANCE
-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.3

A third approach to reduce disaster assistance costs is to rely more
on insurance.  Insurance provides a way of "prefunding" disaster
recovery because premiums provide a source of funds for compensating
the victims of disaster losses.  Like other forms of disaster relief,
insurance spreads the burden of the losses borne by the disaster
victims over a large number of individuals, potentially reducing the
effect of the disaster on the victims without substantially
increasing the burden borne by those who are otherwise unaffected. 

Some studies of disaster assistance programs have concluded that
providing assistance through insurance can be more efficient and more
equitable than providing it through other means.  As early as 1980,
we reported that the combination of insurance and mitigation measures
can be a better means of fairly and efficiently providing federal
disaster assistance than other forms of federal disaster assistance,
such as loans and grants.\16

Over the years the Congress has considered all-risk insurance
programs, under which homeowners would purchase a single,
comprehensive natural hazard policy and would be able to file claims
for damage to their property whenever the damage was caused by any
type of natural hazard.  Such an insurance program--whether operated
by the private insurance industry, the government, or both--would
have to be structured and priced carefully to avoid increasing
federal liabilities.  In previous testimony, we expressed concerns
about the ability of proposed primary insurance and reinsurance
programs to fairly and efficiently spread insurance risks among
policyholders, insurance companies, and the government.\17


--------------------
\16 Federal Disaster Assistance:  What Should the Policy Be? 
(GAO/PAD-80-39, June 16, 1980). 

\17 Federal Disaster Insurance:  Goals Are Good, But Insurance
Programs Would Expose The Federal Government to Large Potential
Losses (GAO/T-GGD-94-153, May 26, 1994). 


-------------------------------------------------------- Chapter 0:3.4

In summary, Mr.  Chairman, the growth in the size and number of
federally declared disasters in recent years is unprecedented and
there is the potential for continuing increases in disaster
assistance costs.  We look forward to working with the Subcommittee
as you consider the various proposals to help contain these costs. 

This concludes my prepared remarks.  We will be pleased to respond to
any questions that you or other Members of the Subcommittee might
have. 

RELATED GAO PRODUCTS

Disaster Assistance:  Information on Federal Disaster Mitigation
Efforts (GAO/T-RCED-98-67, Jan.  28, 1998). 

Disaster Assistance:  Guidance Needed for FEMA's "Fast Track" Housing
Assistance Process (GAO/RCED-98-1, Oct.  17, 1997). 

Disaster Assistance:  Improvements Needed in Determining Eligibility
for Public Assistance (GAO/RCED-96-113, May 23, 1996). 

Natural Disaster Insurance:  Federal Government's Interests
Insufficiently Protected Given Its Potential Financial Exposure
(GAO/T-GGD-96-41, Dec.  5, 1995). 

Disaster Assistance:  Information on Declarations for Urban and Rural
Areas (GAO/RCED-95-242, Sept.  14, 1995). 

Disaster Assistance:  Information on Expenditures and Proposals to
Improve Effectiveness and Reduce Future Costs (GAO/T-RCED-95-140,
Mar.  16, 1995). 

GAO Work on Disaster Assistance (GAO/RCED-94-293R, Aug.  31, 1994). 

Federal Disaster Insurance:  Goals Are Good, But Insurance Programs
Would Expose The Federal Government to Large Potential Losses
(GAO/T-GGD-94-153, May 26, 1994). 


*** End of document. ***