Federal Emergency Management Agency
Challenges Facing the National Flood Insurance Program Gao ID: GAO-06-174T October 18, 2005The disastrous hurricanes that have struck the Gulf Coast and Eastern seaboard in recent years--including Katrina, Rita, Ivan, and Isabel--have focused attention on federal flood management efforts. The National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), established in 1968, provides property owners with some insurance coverage for flood damage. The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland Security is responsible for managing the NFIP. This testimony offers information from past GAO work on (1) the financial structure of the NFIP; (2) why the NFIP insures properties for repetitive flood losses and the impact on NFIP resources; and (3) compliance with requirements for mandatory purchase of NFIP policies. The testimony also discusses recommendations from a report GAO is issuing today on FEMA's oversight and management of the NFIP.
As GAO has reported, the NFIP, by design, is not actuarially sound. The program does not collect sufficient premium income to build reserves to meet long-term future expected flood losses, in part because Congress authorized subsidized insurance rates to be made available for some properties. FEMA has generally been successful in keeping the NFIP on a sound financial footing, but the catastrophic flooding events of 2004 (involving four separate hurricanes) required FEMA, as of August 2005, to borrow $300 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay an estimated $1.8 billion on flood insurance claims. Following Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, legislation was enacted to increase FEMA's borrowing authority from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion through fiscal year 2008. Properties that suffer repeated flooding but generally pay subsidized flood insurance rates==so-called repetitive-loss properties--constitute a significant drain on NFIP resources. These properties account for roughly 1 percent of properties insured under the NFIP, but account for 25 percent to 30 percent of all claim losses. The Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 established a pilot program requiring owners of repetitive-loss properties to elevate, relocate, or demolish houses, with NFIP bearing some of those costs. Future studies of the NFIP should analyze the progress made to reduce the inventory of subsidized repetitive-loss properties, and determine whether additional regulatory or congressional action is needed. In 1973 and again in 1994, legislation was enacted requiring the mandatory purchase of NFIP policies by some property owners in high-risk areas. In June 2002, GAO reported that the extent to which lenders were required to enforce mandatory purchase requirements was unknown. While FEMA officials believed that many lenders often were noncompliant, neither side could substantiate its claims regarding compliance. FEMA did not use a statistically valid method for sampling files to be reviewed in its monitoring and oversight activities. As a result, FEMA cannot project the results of these reviews to determine the overall accuracy of claims settled for specific flood events or assess the overall performance of insurance companies and their adjusters in fulfilling responsibilities for the NFIP-actions necessary for FEMA to have reasonable assurance that program objectives are being achieved. FEMA has not yet fully implemented provisions of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 requiring the agency to develop new materials to explain coverage and the claims process to policyholders when they purchase and renew policies, establish an appeals process for claimants, and provide insurance agent education and training requirements. The statutory deadline for implementing these changes was December 30, 2004, and as of September 2005 FEMA had not developed documented plans with milestones for meeting the provisions of the act.
GAO-06-174T, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges Facing the National Flood Insurance Program
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-174T
entitled 'Federal Emergency Management Agency: Challenges Facing the
National Flood Insurance Program' which was released on October 18,
2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
Testimony Before the Chairman, Committee on Banking, Housing and Urban
Affairs, U.S. Senate:
United States Government Accountability Office:
GAO:
For Release on Delivery Expected at 10:00 a.m. EDT:
Tuesday, October 18, 2005:
Federal Emergency Management Agency:
Challenges Facing the National Flood Insurance Program:
Statement of William O. Jenkins, Jr., Director, Homeland Security and
Justice Issues:
GAO-06-174T:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-06-174T, a testimony before the Chairman, Banking,
Housing, and Urban Affairs Committee, U.S. Senate:
Why GAO Did This Study:
The disastrous hurricanes that have struck the Gulf Coast and Eastern
seaboard in recent years”including Katrina, Rita, Ivan, and Isabel”have
focused attention on federal flood management efforts. The National
Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), established in 1968, provides property
owners with some insurance coverage for flood damage. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of Homeland
Security is responsible for managing the NFIP.
This testimony offers information from past GAO work on (1) the
financial structure of the NFIP; (2) why the NFIP insures properties
for repetitive flood losses and the impact on NFIP resources; and (3)
compliance with requirements for mandatory purchase of NFIP policies.
The testimony also discusses recommendations from a report GAO is
issuing today on FEMA‘s oversight and management of the NFIP.
What GAO Found:
As GAO has reported, the NFIP, by design, is not actuarially sound. The
program does not collect sufficient premium income to build reserves to
meet long-term future expected flood losses, in part because Congress
authorized subsidized insurance rates to be made available for some
properties. FEMA has generally been successful in keeping the NFIP on a
sound financial footing, but the catastrophic flooding events of 2004
(involving four separate hurricanes) required FEMA, as of August 2005,
to borrow $300 million from the U.S. Treasury to help pay an estimated
$1.8 billion on flood insurance claims. Following Hurricane Katrina in
August 2005, legislation was enacted to increase FEMA‘s borrowing
authority from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion through fiscal year 2008.
Properties that suffer repeated flooding but generally pay subsidized
flood insurance rates”so-called repetitive-loss properties”constitute a
significant drain on NFIP resources. These properties account for
roughly 1 percent of properties insured under the NFIP, but account for
25 percent to 30 percent of all claim losses. The Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2004 established a pilot program requiring owners of
repetitive-loss properties to elevate, relocate, or demolish houses,
with NFIP bearing some of those costs. Future studies of the NFIP
should analyze the progress made to reduce the inventory of subsidized
repetitive-loss properties, and determine whether additional regulatory
or congressional action is needed.
In 1973 and again in 1994, legislation was enacted requiring the
mandatory purchase of NFIP policies by some property owners in high-
risk areas. In June 2002, GAO reported that the extent to which lenders
were required to enforce mandatory purchase requirements was unknown.
While FEMA officials believed that many lenders often were
noncompliant, neither side could substantiate its claims regarding
compliance.
FEMA did not use a statistically valid method for sampling files to be
reviewed in its monitoring and oversight activities. As a result, FEMA
cannot project the results of these reviews to determine the overall
accuracy of claims settled for specific flood events or assess the
overall performance of insurance companies and their adjusters in
fulfilling responsibilities for the NFIP”actions necessary for FEMA to
have reasonable assurance that program objectives are being achieved.
FEMA has not yet fully implemented provisions of the Flood Insurance
Reform Act of 2004 requiring the agency to develop new materials to
explain coverage and the claims process to policyholders when they
purchase and renew policies, establish an appeals process for
claimants, and provide insurance agent education and training
requirements. The statutory deadline for implementing these changes was
December 30, 2004, and as of September 2005 FEMA had not developed
documented plans with milestones for meeting the provisions of the act.
What GAO Recommends:
In the report released today, GAO is recommending, among other things,
that FEMA and its partners use a statistically valid approach to sample
NFIP insurance claim files for quality assurance purposes, and that DHS
and FEMA develop and document plans for implementing requirements of
the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, which reauthorized the NFIP.
FEMA disagreed with those recommendations.
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-174T.
To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on
the link above. For more information, contact William O. Jenkins, Jr.,
at (202) 512-8777 or jenkinswo@gao.gov.
[End of section]
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee:
I appreciate the opportunity to participate in today's hearing on the
future of the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to discuss issues
related to the future financial stability of the NFIP and
recommendations we have made for improvements to the management and
oversight of the program. The NFIP combines property insurance for
flood victims, mapping to identify the boundaries of the areas at
highest risk of flooding, and incentives for communities to adopt and
enforce floodplain management regulations and building standards to
reduce future flood damage. The effective integration of all three of
these elements is needed for the NFIP to achieve its goals of:
* providing property flood insurance coverage for a high proportion of
property owners who would benefit from such coverage;
* through this insurance coverage reducing taxpayer-funded disaster
assistance when flooding strikes, and:
* reducing flood damage through flood plain management and the
enforcement of building standards (such as elevating structures).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) within the Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) is responsible for the oversight and management
of the program.[Footnote 1] Under the program, the federal government
assumes the liability for the insurance coverage and sets rates and
coverage limitations, among other responsibilities.
Floods are the most common and destructive natural disaster in the
United States. According to NFIP statistics, 90 percent of all natural
disasters in the United States involve flooding. However, flooding is
generally excluded from homeowner policies that typically cover damage
from other losses, such as wind, fire, and theft. Because of the
catastrophic nature of flooding and the inability to adequately predict
flood risks, private insurance companies have largely been unwilling to
underwrite and bear the risk of flood insurance.
Congress established the NFIP pursuant to the National Flood Insurance
Act of 1968[Footnote 2] to provide policyholders with some insurance
coverage for flood damage, as an alternative to disaster assistance,
and to try to reduce the escalating costs of repairing flood damage. In
creating the NFIP, Congress found that a flood insurance program with
"large-scale participation of the Federal Government and carried out to
the maximum extent practicable by the private insurance industry is
feasible and can be initiated."[Footnote 3] In keeping with this
purpose, FEMA has contractual agreements with 95 private insurance
company partners to sell policies and adjust and process claims.
As of August 2005, the NFIP was estimated to have approximately 4.6
million policyholders in about 20,000 communities. Since its inception,
the program has paid about $14.6 billion in insurance claims, primarily
from policyholder premiums that otherwise would have been paid through
taxpayer-funded disaster relief or borne by home and business owners
themselves. According to FEMA, every $3 in flood insurance claims
payments saves about $1 in disaster assistance payments, and the
combination of flood plain management and mitigation efforts save about
$1 billion in flood damage each year.
The unprecedented damage wrought by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita are
also likely to result in unprecedented claims on the NFIP. GAO is
beginning a body of work on the preparation for, response to, and
recovery from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. As GAO moves forward with
this work, we will continue to work with this and other congressional
committees and the accountability community--federal inspector
generals, state and city auditors--regarding the scope of our future
work on emergency management issues, including the NFIP. Our goal is to
apply our resources and expertise to address long-term concerns, such
as those we are discussing today, and to avoid duplicating the work of
others. Currently, we have teams in the Gulf Coast states collecting
data and observations from hurricane victims and federal, state, local,
and private participants in the preparation for, response to, and
recovery from these devastating hurricanes, including the flooding they
caused.
Past experience can provide context for considering future policy
options. In this spirit, my testimony today is based on a body of work
that GAO has done over the past several years before the nation began
the struggle to respond to the devastating effects of Hurricanes
Katrina and Rita in our Gulf Coast states. This prior work has
addressed the issues of the program's structure and financing,
repetitive loss properties, mandatory and voluntary purchase of flood
insurance, and revising and improving the nation's flood maps. Together
they provide information useful in assessing efforts over the NFIP's
history to enhance the program's financial stability and effectiveness.
Today, we are also releasing a report on FEMA's management and
oversight of the flood insurance program that includes several
recommendations for improvement.[Footnote 4] This report was mandated
by the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004.[Footnote 5] It includes
recommendations on two pre-Hurricane Katrina flood-insurance related
issues that pose a challenge for FEMA. These are (1) improving FEMA's
management and oversight of the NFIP and (2) FEMA's implementation of
provisions of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004 to provide
policyholders a flood insurance claims handbook that meets statutory
requirements, to establish a regulatory appeals process, and to ensure
that flood insurance agents meet minimum NFIP education and training
requirements.
The report we are releasing today is based on interviews with FEMA
officials, documentation of its monitoring and oversight processes, and
our field observations of FEMA's monitoring and oversight activities.
In addition, we analyzed the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as
amended, its legislative history, and FEMA's implementing regulations,
and we examined documentation and interviewed officials about FEMA's
efforts to comply with provisions of the 2004 Flood Insurance Reform
Act. We did our work from December 2004 to August 2005 in accordance
with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Major Program Issues--A Summary:
A key characteristic of the NFIP is the extent to which FEMA must rely
on others to achieve the program's goals. FEMA's role is principally
one of establishing policies and standards that others generally
implement on a day-to-day basis and providing financial and management
oversight of those who carry out those day-to-day responsibilities.
These responsibilities include ensuring that property owners who are
required to purchase flood insurance do so, enforcing flood plain
management and building regulations, selling and servicing flood
insurance policies, and updating and maintaining the nation's flood
maps. In our prior work, we have identified several major challenges
facing the NFIP:
* Reducing losses to the program resulting from policy subsidies and
repetitive loss properties.[Footnote 6] The program is not actuarially
sound because of the number of policies in force that are subsidized--
about 29 percent at the time of our 2003 report. As a result of these
subsidies, some policyholders pay premiums that represent about 35-40
percent of the true risk premium. Moreover, at the time of our 2004
report, there were about 49,000 repetitive loss properties--those with
two or more losses of $1,000 or more in a 10-year period--representing
about 1 percent of the 4.4 million buildings insured under the program.
From 1978 until March 2004, these repetitive loss properties
represented about $4.6 billion in claims payments.
* Increasing property owner participation in the program. As little as
half of eligible properties may participate in the flood insurance
program. Moreover, the extent of noncompliance with the mandatory
purchase requirement by affected property owners is unknown.
* Developing accurate, digital flood maps.[Footnote 7] In our report on
the NFIP's flood map modernization program, we discussed the multiple
uses and benefits of accurate, digitized flood plain maps. However, the
NFIP faces a major challenge in working with its contractor and state
and local partners of varying technical capabilities and resources to
produce accurate, digital flood maps. In developing those maps, we
recommended that FEMA develop and implement data standards that will
enable FEMA, its contractor, and its state and local partners to
identify and use consistent data collection and analysis methods for
developing maps for communities with similar flood risk.
* Providing effective oversight of flood insurance operations. In the
report we are releasing today, we note that FEMA faces a challenge in
providing effective oversight of the 95 insurance companies and
thousands of insurance agents and claims adjusters who are primarily
responsible for the day-to-day process of selling and servicing flood
insurance policies.
The NFIP Pays Expenses and Claims with Premiums, but Its Financial
Structure Is Not Designed to be Actuarially Sound:
To the extent possible, the NFIP is designed to pay operating expenses
and flood insurance claims with premiums collected on flood insurance
policies rather than with tax dollars. However, as we have reported,
the program, by design, is not actuarially sound because Congress
authorized subsidized insurance rates to be made available for policies
covering some properties to encourage communities to join the program.
As a result, the program does not collect sufficient premium income to
build reserves to meet the long-term future expected flood
losses.[Footnote 8] FEMA has statutory authority to borrow funds from
the Treasury to keep the NFIP solvent.[Footnote 9]
Until the 2004 hurricane season, FEMA had been generally successful in
keeping the NFIP on sound financial footing. It had exercised its
authority to borrow from the Treasury three times in the last decade
when losses were heavy and repaid all funds with interest. As of August
2005, the program had borrowed $300 million to cover an estimated $1.8
billion in claims from the major disasters of 2004, including
hurricanes Charley, Frances, Ivan, and Jean, which hit Florida and
other East and Gulf Coast states. The large number of claims arising
from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita will require FEMA to borrow heavily
from the Treasury, because the NFIP does not have the financial
reserves necessary to offset heavy losses in the short-term. Following
Hurricane Katrina in August 2005, legislation was enacted that
increased FEMA's borrowing authority from $1.5 billion to $3.5 billion
through fiscal year 2008.[Footnote 10] Additional borrowing authority
may be needed to pay claims arising from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
Premium Subsidies and Repetitive-Loss Properties Affect NFIP's
Actuarial Soundness:
In reauthorizing the NFIP in 2004, Congress noted that "repetitive-loss
properties"--those that had resulted in two or more flood insurance
claims payments of $1,000 or more over 10 years--constituted a
significant drain on the resources of the NFIP. [Footnote 11] These
repetitive loss properties are problematic not only because of their
vulnerability to flooding but also because of the costs of repeatedly
repairing flood damages. While these properties make up only about 1
percent of the properties insured under the NFIP, they account for 25
to 30 percent of all claims losses. At the time of our March 2004
report on repetitive loss properties, nearly half of all nationwide
repetitive loss property insurance payments had been made in Louisiana,
Texas, and Florida. According to a recent Congressional Research
Service report, as of December 31, 2004, FEMA had identified 11,706
"severe repetitive loss" properties defined as those with four or more
claims or two or three losses that exceeded the insured value of the
property.[Footnote 12] Of these 11,706 properties almost half (49
percent) were in three states--3,208 (27 percent) in Louisiana, 1,573
(13 percent) in Texas, and 1,034 (9 percent) in New Jersey.
As the destruction caused by horrendous 2004 and 2005 hurricanes are a
driving force for improving the NFIP today, devastating natural
disasters in the 1960s were a primary reason for the national interest
in creating a federal flood insurance program. In 1963 and 1964,
Hurricane Betsy and other hurricanes caused extensive damage in the
South, and, in 1965, heavy flooding occurred on the upper Mississippi
River. In studying insurance alternatives to disaster assistance for
people suffering property losses in floods, a flood insurance
feasibility study found that premium rates in certain flood-prone areas
could be extremely high. As a result, the National Flood Insurance Act
of 1968, which created the NFIP, mandated that existing buildings in
flood-risk areas would receive subsidies on premiums because these
structures were built before the flood risk was known and identified on
flood insurance rate maps.[Footnote 13] Owners of structures built in
flood-prone areas on or after the effective date of the first flood
insurance rate maps in their areas or after December 31, 1974, would
have to pay full actuarial rates.[Footnote 14] Because many repetitive
loss properties were built before either December 31, 1974 or the
effective date of the first flood insurance rate maps in their areas,
they were eligible for subsidized premium rates under provisions of the
National Flood Insurance Act of 1968.
The provision of subsidized premiums encouraged communities to
participate in the NFIP by adopting and agreeing to enforce state and
community floodplain management regulations to reduce future flood
damage. In April 2005, FEMA estimated that floodplain management
regulations enforced by communities participating in the NFIP have
prevented over $1.1 billion annually in flood damage. However, some of
the properties that had received the initial rate subsidy are still in
existence and subject to repetitive flood losses, thus placing a
financial strain on the NFIP.
For over a decade, FEMA has pursued a variety of strategies to reduce
the number of repetitive loss properties in the NFIP. In a 2004
testimony, we noted that congressional proposals have been made to
phase out coverage or begin charging full and actuarially based rates
for repetitive loss property owners who refuse to accept FEMA's offer
to purchase or mitigate the effect of floods on these
buildings.[Footnote 15] The 2004 Flood Insurance Reform Act created a 5-
year pilot program to deal with repetitive-loss properties in the NFIP.
In particular, the act authorized FEMA to provide financial assistance
to participating states and communities to carry out mitigation
activities or to purchase "severe repetitive loss properties."[Footnote
16] During the pilot program, policyholders who refuse a mitigation or
purchase offer that meets program requirements will be required to pay
increased premium rates. In particular, the premium rates for these
policyholders would increase by 150% following their refusal and
another 150% following future claims of more than $1,500.[Footnote 17]
However, the rates charged cannot exceed the applicable actuarial rate.
It will be important in future studies of the NFIP to continue to
analyze data on progress being made to reduce the inventory of
subsidized NFIP repetitive loss properties, how the reduction of this
inventory contributes to the financial stability of the program, and
whether additional FEMA regulatory steps or congressional actions could
contribute to the financial solvency of the NFIP, while meeting
commitments made by the authorizing legislation.
Data Inconclusive on Compliance with Requirements for Mandatory
Purchase of NFIP Policies:
In 1973 and 1994, Congress enacted requirements for mandatory purchase
of NFIP policies by some property owners in high risk areas. From 1968
until the adoption of the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973, the
purchase of flood insurance was voluntary. However, because voluntary
participation in the NFIP was low and many flood victims did not have
insurance to repair damages from floods in the early 1970s, the 1973
act required the mandatory purchase of flood insurance to cover some
structures in special flood hazard areas of communities participating
in the program. Homeowners with mortgages issued by federally-regulated
lenders on property in communities identified to be in special flood
hazard areas are required to purchase flood insurance on their
dwellings for the amount of their outstanding mortgage balance, up to a
maximum of $250,000 in coverage for single family homes. The owners of
properties with no mortgages or properties with mortgages held by
lenders who are not federally regulated were not, and still are not,
required to buy flood insurance, even if the properties are in special
flood hazard areas--the areas NFIP flood maps identify as having the
highest risk of flooding.
FEMA determines flood risk and actuarial ratings on properties through
flood insurance rate mapping and other considerations including the
elevation of the lowest floor of the building, the type of building,
the number of floors, and whether or not the building has a basement,
among other factors. FEMA flood maps designate areas for risk of
flooding by zones. For example, areas subject to damage by waves and
storm surge are in zone with the highest expectation for flood loss.
Between 1973 and 1994, many policyholders continued to find it easy to
drop policies, even if the policies were required by lenders. Federal
agency lenders and regulators did not appear to strongly enforce the
mandatory flood insurance purchase requirements.[Footnote 18] According
to a recent Congressional Research Service study,[Footnote 19] the
Midwest flood of 1993 highlighted this problem and reinforced the idea
that reforms were needed to compel lender compliance with the
requirements of the 1973 Act. In response, Congress passed the National
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 1994. Under the 1994 law, if the property
owner failed to get the required coverage, lenders were required to
purchase flood insurance on their behalf and then bill the property
owners. Lenders became subject to civil monetary penalties for not
enforcing the mandatory purchase requirement.
In June 2002, we reported that the extent to which lenders were
enforcing the mandatory purchase requirement was unknown. Officials
involved with the flood insurance program developed contrasting
viewpoints about whether lenders were complying with the flood
insurance purchase requirements primarily because the officials used
differing types of data to reach their conclusions. Federal bank
regulators and lenders based their belief that lenders were generally
complying with the NFIP's purchase requirements on regulators'
examinations and reviews conducted to monitor and verify lender
compliance. In contrast, FEMA officials believed that many lenders
frequently were not complying with the requirements, which was an
opinion based largely on noncompliance estimates computed from data on
mortgages, flood zones, and insurance policies; limited studies on
compliance; and anecdotal evidence indicating that insurance was not
always in place where required. Neither side, however, was able to
substantiate its differing claims with statistically sound data that
provide a nationwide perspective on lender compliance. [Footnote 20]
Accurate, Updated Flood Maps Are The Foundation of the NFIP:
Accurate flood maps that identify the areas at greatest risk of
flooding are the foundation of the NFIP. Flood maps must be
periodically updated to assess and map changes in the boundaries of
floodplains that result from community growth, development, erosion,
and other factors that affect the boundaries of areas at risk of
flooding. FEMA has embarked on a multi-year effort to update the
nation's flood maps at a cost in excess of $1 billion. The maps are
principally used by (1) the approximately 20,000 communities
participating in the NFIP to adopt and enforce the program's minimum
building standards for new construction within the maps' identified
flood plains; (2) FEMA to develop accurate flood insurance policy rates
based on flood risk, and (3) federal regulated mortgage lenders to
identify those property owners who are statutorily required to purchase
federal flood insurance. Under the NFIP, property owners whose
properties are within the designated "100-year floodplain" and have a
mortgage from a federally regulated financial institution are required
to purchase flood insurance in an amount equal to their outstanding
mortgage balance (up to the statutory ceiling of $250,000).
FEMA expects that by producing more accurate and accessible digital
flood maps, the NFIP and the nation will benefit in three ways. First,
communities can use more accurate digital maps to reduce flood risk
within floodplains by more effectively regulating development through
zoning and building standard. Second, accurate digital maps available
on the Internet will facilitate the identification of property owners
who are statutorily required to obtain or who would be best served by
obtaining flood insurance. Third, accurate and precise data will help
national, state, and local officials to accurately locate
infrastructure and transportation systems (e.g., power plants, sewage
plants, railroads, bridges, and ports) to help mitigate and manage risk
for multiple hazards, both natural and man-made.
Success in updating the nation's flood maps requires clear standards
for map development; the coordinated efforts and shared resources of
federal, state, and local governments; and the involvement of key
stakeholders who will be expected to use the maps. In developing the
new data system to update flood maps across the nation, FEMA's intent
is to develop and incorporate flood risk data that are of a level of
specificity and accuracy commensurate with communities' relative flood
risks. Not every community may need the same level of specificity and
detail in its new flood maps. However, it is important that FEMA
establish standards for the appropriate data and level of analysis
required to develop maps for all communities of a similar risk level.
In its November 2004 Multi-Year Flood Hazard Identification Plan, FEMA
discussed the varying types of data collection and analysis techniques
the agency plans to use to develop flood hazard data in order to relate
the level of study and level of risk for each of 3,146 counties.
FEMA has developed targets for resource contribution (in-kind as well
as dollars) by its state and local partners in updating the nation's
flood maps. At the same time, it has developed plans for reaching out
to and including the input of communities and key stakeholders in the
development of the new maps. These expanded outreach efforts reflect
FEMA's understanding that it is dependent upon others to achieve the
benefits of map modernization.
Monitoring and Oversight of NFIP Identifies Specific Problems, but Does
Not Provide Comprehensive Information on Overall Program Performance:
To meet its monitoring and oversight responsibilities, FEMA is to
conduct periodic operational reviews of the 95 private insurance
companies that participate in the NFIP. In addition, FEMA's program
contractor is to check the accuracy of claims settlements by doing
quality assurance reinspections of a sample of claims adjustments for
every flood event. For operational reviews, FEMA examiners are to do a
thorough review of the companies' NFIP underwriting and claims
settlement processes and internal controls, including checking a sample
of claims and underwriting files to determine, for example, whether a
violation of policy has occurred, an incorrect payment has been made,
and if files contain all required documentation. Separately, FEMA's
program contractor is responsible for conducting quality assurance
reinspections of a sample of claims adjustments for specific flood
events in order to identify, for example, whether an insurer allowed an
uncovered expense, or missed a covered expense in the original
adjustment.
The operational reviews and follow-up visits to insurance companies
that we analyzed during 2005 followed FEMA's internal control
procedures for identifying and resolving specific problems that may
occur in individual insurance companies' processes for selling and
renewing NFIP policies and adjusting claims. According to information
provided by FEMA, the number of operational reviews completed between
2000 and August 2005 were done at a pace that allows for a review of
each participating insurance company at least once every 3 years, as
FEMA procedures require. In addition, the processes FEMA had in place
for operational reviews and quality assurance reinspections of claims
adjustments met our internal control standard for monitoring federal
programs.
However, the process FEMA used to select a sample of claims files for
operational reviews and the process its program contractor used to
select a sample of adjustments for reinspections were not randomly
chosen or statistically representative of all claims. We found that the
selection processes used were, instead, based upon judgmental criteria
including, among other items, the size and location of loss and
complexity of claims. As a result of limitations in the sampling
processes, FEMA cannot project the results of these monitoring and
oversight activities to determine the overall accuracy of claims
settled for specific flood events or assess the overall performance of
insurance companies and their adjusters in fulfilling their
responsibilities for the NFIP--actions necessary for FEMA to meet our
internal control standard that it have reasonable assurance that
program objectives are being achieved and that its operations are
effective and efficient.
To strengthen and improve FEMA's monitoring and oversight of the NFIP,
we are recommending in today's report that FEMA use a methodologically
valid approach for sampling files selected for operational reviews and
quality assurance claims reinspections.
FEMA Has Not Fully Implemented NFIP Program Changes Mandated by the
Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004:
As of September 2005, FEMA had not yet fully implemented provisions of
the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. Among other things, the act
requires FEMA to provide policyholders a flood insurance claims
handbook; to establish a regulatory appeals process for claimants; and
to establish minimum education and training requirements for insurance
agents who sell NFIP policies.[Footnote 21] The 6-month statutory
deadline for implementing these changes was December 30, 2004.
In September 2005, FEMA posted a flood insurance claims handbook on its
Web site. The handbook contains information on anticipating, filing and
appealing a claim through an informal appeals process, which FEMA
intends to use pending the establishment of a regulatory appeals
process. However, because the handbook does not contain information
regarding the appeals process that FEMA is statutorily required to
establish through regulation, it does not yet meet statutory
requirements. With respect to this appeals process, FEMA has not stated
how long rulemaking might take to establish the process by regulation,
or how the process might work, such as filing requirements, time frames
for considering appeals, and the composition of an appeals board.
Therefore, it remains unclear how or when FEMA will establish the
statutorily required appeals process. With respect to minimum training
and education requirements for insurance agents who sell NFIP policies,
FEMA published a Federal Register notice on September 1, 2005, which
included an outline of training course materials. In the notice, FEMA
stated that, rather than establish separate and perhaps duplicative
requirements from those that may already be in place in the states, it
had chosen to work with the states to implement the NFIP requirements
through already established state licensing schemes for insurance
agents. The notice did not specify how or when states were to begin
implementing the NFIP training and education requirements. Thus, it is
too early to tell the extent to which insurance agents will meet FEMA's
minimum standards. FEMA officials said that, because changes to the
program could have broad reaching and significant effects on
policyholders and private-sector stakeholders upon whom FEMA relies to
implement the program, the agency is taking a measured approach to
addressing the changes mandated by Congress. Nonetheless, without plans
with milestones for completing its efforts to address the provisions of
the act, FEMA cannot hold responsible officials accountable or ensure
that statutorily required improvements are in place to assist victims
of future flood events.
We are recommending in today's report that FEMA developed documented
plans with milestones for implementing requirements of the Flood
Insurance Reform Act of 2004 to provide policyholders a flood insurance
claims handbook that meets statutory requirements, to establish a
regulatory appeals process, and to ensure that flood insurance agents
meet minimum NFIP education and training requirements.
FEMA did not agree with our recommendations. It noted that its current
sampling methodology of selecting a sample based on knowledge of the
population to be sampled was more appropriate for identifying problems
than the statistically random probability sample we recommended.
Although FEMA's current nonprobability sampling strategy may provide an
opportunity to focus on particular areas of risk, it does not provide
management with the information needed to assess the overall
performance of private insurance companies and adjusters participating
in the program--information that FEMA needs to have reasonable
assurance that program objectives are being achieved.
FEMA also disagreed with our characterization of the extent to which
FEMA has met provisions of the Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004. We
believe that our description of those efforts and our recommendations
with regard to implementing the Act's provisions are valid. For
example, although FEMA commented that it was offering claimants an
informal appeals process in its flood insurance claims handbook, it
must establish regulations for this process, and those are not yet
complete.
Concluding Observations:
The most immediate challenge for the NFIP is processing the flood
insurance claims resulting from Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. Already,
according to FEMA, the NFIP has received about twice as many claims in
2005 as it did in all of 2004, which was itself a record year. The need
for effective communication and consistent and appropriate application
of policy provisions will be particularly important in working with
anxious policyholders, many of whom have been displaced from their
homes.
In the longer term, Congress and the NFIP face a complex challenge in
assessing potential changes to the program that would improve its
financial stability, increase participation in the program by property
owners in areas at risk of flooding, reduce the number of repetitive
loss properties in the program, and maintain current and accurate flood
plain maps. These issues are complex, interrelated, and are likely to
involve trade-offs. For example, increasing premiums to better reflect
risk may reduce voluntary participation in the program or encourage
those who are required to purchase flood insurance to limit their
coverage to the minimum required amount (i.e., the amount of their
outstanding mortgage balance). This in turn can increase taxpayer
exposure for disaster assistance resulting from flooding. There is no
"silver bullet" for improving the current structure and operations of
the NFIP. It will require sound data and analysis and the cooperation
and participation of many stakeholders.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, this concludes my prepared
statement. I would be pleased to respond to any questions you and the
Committee Members may have.
GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Contact points for our Office of Congressional Relations and Public
Affairs may be found on the last page of this statement. For further
information about this testimony, please contact Norman Rabkin at (202)
512-8777 or at rabkinn@gao.gov, or William O. Jenkins, Jr. at (202) 512-
8757 or at jenkinswo@gao.gov. This statement was prepared under the
direction of Christopher Keisling. Key contributors were Amy Bernstein,
Christine Davis, Deborah Knorr, Denise McCabe, and Margaret Vo.
FOOTNOTES
[1] In March 2003, FEMA and its approximately 2,500 staff became part
of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Most of FEMA--including
its Mitigation Division, which is responsible for administering the
NFIP--is now part of the department's Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate. However, FEMA retained its name and individual
identity within the department. Under a reorganization plan proposed by
the current Secretary of DHS, the Emergency Preparedness and Response
Directorate would be abolished, and FEMA would report directly to the
Undersecretary and Secretary of DHS.
[2] The National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, as amended, is codified
at 42 U.S.C. 4001 to 4129.
[3] 42 U.S.C. 4001(b)(2).
[4] GAO, Federal Emergency Management Agency: Improvements Needed to
Enhance Oversight and Management of the National Flood Insurance
Program, GAO-06-119 (Washington, D.C.: Oct. 18, 2005).
[5] Bunning-Bereuter-Blumenauer Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004,
Pub. L. No. 108-264, 118 Stat. 712, 727 (2004).
[6] GAO, Flood Insurance: Challenges Facing the National Flood
Insurance Program,GAO-03-606T (Washington, D.C.: April 1, 2003);
National Flood Insurance Program: Actions to Address Repetitive Loss
Properties,GAO-04-401T (Washington, D.C.: March 25, 2004).
[7] GAO, Flood Map Modernization: Program Strategy Shows Promise, but
Challenges Remain, GAO-04-417 (Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2004).
[8] GAO, Flood Insurance: Information on the Financial Condition of the
National Flood Insurance Program, GAO-01-992T (Washington, D.C.: July
2001).
[9] See 42 U.S.C. 4016.
[10] The National Flood Insurance Program Enhanced Borrowing Authority
Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-65 (Sept. 20, 2005).
[11] Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-264, section
2(3),(4), (5), 118 Stat. 712, 713 (2004).
[12] Congressional Research Service, Federal Flood Insurance: The
Repetitive Loss Problem, RL32972 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2005).
[13] 42 U.S.C. 4014(a)(2), 4015(a), (b).
[14] 42 U.S.C. 4014(a)(1), 4015(c)
[15] GAO, National Flood Insurance Program: Actions to Address
Repetitive Loss Properties, GAO-04-401T (Washington, D.C.: Mar. 25,
2004).
[16] Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-264, section
102(b), (c), 118 Stat. 712, 714 (2004). The act defines a "severe
repetitive loss property" to mean single-family properties that have
received at least $20,000 in flood insurance payments based on 4 or
more claims of at least $5,000 each. The act requires FEMA to define in
future regulation which multi-family properties constitute "severe
repetitive loss properties."
[17] Id., section 102(h)(1), (2), (3).
[18] The federal entities for lending regulation are the Board of
Governors of the Federal Reserve System, the Office of the Comptroller
of the Currency, the Office of Thrift Supervision, the Federal Deposit
Insurance Corporation, the National Credit Union Administration, and
the Farm Credit Administration.
[19] Congressional Research Service, Federal Flood Insurance: The
Repetitive Loss Problem (June 30, 2005).
[20] GAO, Flood Insurance: Extent of Noncompliance with Purchase
Requirements is Unknown, GAO-02-396 (Washington, D.C: June 21, 2002).
[21] Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-264, sections
204, 205, and 207.
