Disasters are costly to state departments of transportation (DOTs), which are challenged with expanding roles and responsibilities and increasing public expectations. An important aspect of recovery from any event is cost recovery, and reimbursement processes “play an important role in establishing and maintaining the readiness of resources and should be in place to ensure that resource providers are reimbursed in a timely manner” (National Incident Management System 2008, p. 39). This synthesis focuses on state DOT experiences and practices related to the federal disaster reimbursement programs: FHWA Emergency Relief (ER) and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Public Assistance (PA). Severe weather events can be extremely costly, and with the continuing threat of terrorism, technological hazards, and accidents, state DOTs need efficient and effective ways to manage the processes required for reimbursement programs to obtain their eligible reimbursement amounts. However, the processes and required procedures can be difficult to navigate. The intention of the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs is to supplement state and local resources to address the significant expenses caused by extraordinary conditions such as natural disasters. Neither program is intended to reimburse state DOTs fully. The FEMA PA program emanates from the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, which authorizes federal assistance to be provided to local, state, tribal, territorial, and insular area governments and certain non-profit organizations. The FEMA PA program is not an individual assistance program. Effective practices were identified through an information review, a screening survey to state DOT members of the AASHTO Special Committee on Transportation Security and Emergency Management (SCOTSEM), follow-up telephone calls, and case studies. Thirty-five state DOTs responded to the screening survey. The information review included interviews and communications with panel members, representatives of FHWA and FEMA, two state emergency management agencies (EMAs), and American Public Works Association (APWA); and a literature review of relevant legislation, FEMA PA and FHWA ER guidance, Government Accountability Office (GAO) and Congressional Research Service (CRS) reports, and other relevant information. This process yielded information about the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs along with ongoing and planned changes. Because of continuing efforts to improve the programs, additional changes that have not been identified in this synthesis are expected. Case study interviews were performed with the following state DOTs: * California–Caltrans * Florida–FDOT * Iowa–IDOT * Louisiana–DOTD * Missouri–MoDOT * New York State–NYSDOT * Tennessee–TDOT * Texas–TxDOT * Wisconsin–WisDOT * Vermont–VTrans Interviews were also performed with the state EMAs for Arizona and California. State DOTs, in general, have extensive knowledge of FHWA and federal aid processes and procedures. They have developed ongoing professional relationships with their FHWA Division Office representatives and understand their Division Office requirements. State DOTs tend to have less familiarity and knowledge of FEMA processes, procedures, and requirements. The state DOTs that coordinated more closely with their FEMA representatives had better experiences in terms of the reimbursement process. State DOTs stated that additional training on both programs and funds to provide more training and support to local public agencies (LPAs) would be desirable. State DOTs also noted that they have expended time and resources to assist LPAs because they require substantial assistance on both the FEMA and FHWA programs and look to their state DOTs for leadership and assistance. State DOT experiences of both programs were influenced by specific program components, implementation, and administration methods, as determined by state and local laws, regulations, and guidance. The changes being made to the programs through the Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA), Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21), the 2013 National Review of the Emergency Relief Program, and increased coordination between FHWA and FEMA are expected to result in improvements in the FHWA ER and FEMA PA programs and consequently better experiences for state DOTs. Nonetheless, these changes can pose a challenge to state DOTs during the adjustment period. Effective practices in the state DOT’s business and management functions facilitate the reimbursement process for state DOTs. These functions include accounting and financial management, information management, project management, and procurement. The reimbursement process is also facilitated by the alignment of systems, processes, and technologies with the requirements of the FEMA PA and FHWA ER programs. Such practices are also part of an effective cost management strategy that keeps agency costs and resource utilization under control and supports agency leadership in its planning, analysis, and resource allocation decisions. A high level of preparedness leads to better outcomes for state DOTs. Useful strategies for state DOT preparedness include establishing effective working relationships with federal, state, and local partners; seeking their input when developing or changing systems and processes; and resolving issues identified in previous disasters. Furthermore, because state DOTs need to meet FHWA ER and FEMA PA program deadlines for emergency work to maximize their eligible reimbursements, measures that streamline emergency work are instrumental in meeting these deadlines. Useful practices in these topics identified during the synthesis study are summarized in Table 1. (Author/publisher)
Abstract