This bill amends section 324 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act to let FEMA (the President) make unspent management-cost allocations—what the bill calls “excess funds for management costs”—available to grantees and subgrantees for other disaster recovery, preparedness, and mitigation management activities.
It restructures the statutory text to carve out these excess funds, specifies eligible grant programs, sets a five-year availability window for redeployed funds, and explicitly disclaims any new appropriations.
The measure also orders a Government Accountability Office study, due within 180 days, to review actual management costs and whether the set-aside amounts are appropriate, using a five-year lookback. The change is limited to disaster or emergency declarations made and funded on or after enactment; it is intended to encourage grantees to close projects and free up management dollars for additional disaster-related tasks.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill defines “excess funds for management costs” as the difference between the authorized management-cost set-aside and what a grantee actually spent at project close, and authorizes the President to offer those excess funds to grantees or subgrantees for other eligible disaster or preparedness management purposes. It adds a new subsection to section 324 spelling out the definition, eligible uses, and a five-year availability period for redeployed funds.
Who It Affects
Directly affects States, Territories, and Indian Tribes that receive FEMA recovery grants under 403, 404, 406, 407, and 502, along with their subgrantees and local emergency management offices; FEMA will need to issue implementation guidance and track reallocated funds. Indirectly affects recipients of mitigation and preparedness grants who could receive additional management resources.
Why It Matters
By converting unspent management allocations into a flexible pool, the bill shifts incentives toward timely closeout of recovery projects and creates new internal funding for capacity building and mitigation management without new appropriations. That changes how jurisdictions plan staffing, closeout, and long-term recovery finance.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill inserts a new mechanism into the Stafford Act that treats unspent management-cost allowances as a resource that FEMA may reassign. Under current practice states and other grantees receive a percentage allocation for management costs tied to specific disaster grants; this bill defines the unspent portion at project close as “excess funds for management costs” and allows those dollars to be made available for other disaster-related management activities.
Availability is discretionary: the President may make the excess funds available, and the statute names the specific grant authorities from which recipients may receive such funds—sections 403, 404, 406, 407, and 502. The bill permits repurposed funds to pay for activities that build capacity to prepare for, respond to, or recover from declared disasters or emergencies and to cover management costs for any disaster, emergency, preparedness measure, or certain mitigation activities (including authorities in sections 203–205 and 404).
Once made available, the funds remain available to the recipient for five years.The change applies only to grants tied to disaster or emergency declarations made and funded on or after enactment. To inform policy calibration, the bill requires the Comptroller General to deliver a report within 180 days that catalogs actual management costs and use of set-asides for each major disaster during the prior five-year period and evaluates whether the statutory set-aside is appropriate.
Finally, the statute states that no additional appropriations are authorized to implement these amendments, so the new flexibility must operate within existing funding levels.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill defines “excess funds for management costs” as the difference between the authorized specific management-cost allocation (under section 324(b)(1) and (b)(2)(B)) and the management-cost funds actually expended by the grantee or subgrantee at project close.
The President may make excess funds available only to grantees or subgrantees receiving financial assistance under Stafford Act sections 403, 404, 406, 407, or 502.
Repurposed excess funds may be used for capacity-building activities to prepare for, recover from, or mitigate disasters or emergencies and to cover management costs tied to any major disaster, emergency, preparedness measure, or mitigation activity enumerated in sections 203–205 or 404.
Any excess funds made available to a grantee or subgrantee remain available for obligation and use for 5 years from the date FEMA (the President) makes them available.
The Comptroller General must submit a report within 180 days that documents actual management costs and set-aside use for each major disaster in the prior five years and evaluate whether the current set-aside amount is appropriate.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Makes the act citeable as the “Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act.” This is a standard caption provision with no programmatic effect.
Restructure subsection (b) and add new subsection on excess funds
The bill redesignates existing language in subsection (b)(2) to create room for an explicit option (A) allowing for excess funds to be identified and offered for re-use, while preserving the percentage-rate language as clause (B). Those drafting changes clarify statutory placement and signal that excess funds are a distinct category from the percentage-rate management allocation.
How ‘excess funds for management costs’ is calculated
Provides a precise formula: excess funds equal the authorized management-cost amount minus the amount actually expended by the time the grant award is closed. That formula ties reuse authority to the formal closeout date, creating a clear trigger for identifying reusable balances and reducing ambiguity about timing.
Who can receive excess funds and what they can pay for
Authorizes the President to make identified excess funds available to grantees/subgrantees for grants under sections 403, 404, 406, 407, and 502. The statute limits permitted uses to activities that build preparedness/recovery capacity and to management costs tied to disasters, emergencies, preparedness measures, or certain mitigation activities under sections 203–205 and 404, so the funds must stay within disaster-related management and capacity functions rather than being used for unrelated capital projects.
Five-year availability window for redeployed funds
Any excess funds transferred under this authority remain available to the recipient for five years from the date of transfer, imposing a finite horizon for obligation and reducing the risk of indefinite encumbrances but creating a multi-year accounting obligation for grantees and FEMA.
Scope, oversight, and fiscal constraint
The amendment applies only to declarations and funding provided on or after enactment. The Comptroller General must produce a report within 180 days documenting recent management-cost experience and assessing the appropriateness of the set-aside. The bill explicitly states that no additional funds are authorized, meaning the policy must operate within existing appropriations rather than provide new appropriations authority.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State emergency management agencies and State administrative agencies — they can recover and redeploy unspent management allocations to shore up management of other open or new disaster projects, easing local staffing and contracting gaps without new federal appropriations.
- Indian Tribes and Territorial governments — smaller jurisdictions that struggle with staffing and project closeout can convert leftover management dollars into resources for capacity building, technical assistance, or managing other eligible disaster projects.
- Local governments and subgrantees (including nonprofits administering recovery work) — they may access additional management funding from existing awards to finish, ramp up, or manage mitigation and preparedness activities.
- Communities and households indirectly — by channeling funds toward mitigation and capacity building, the statute can accelerate activities that reduce future disaster impacts if jurisdictions prioritize mitigation uses.
- FEMA (potentially) — fewer protracted open projects could simplify long-term portfolio oversight and reduce backlog if the authority leads to more timely closeouts.
Who Bears the Cost
- FEMA and the Department of Homeland Security — must develop policy, track transferred balances, and enforce use restrictions, increasing administrative and oversight workload without additional appropriations.
- State, Tribal, and Territorial grantees — will need enhanced accounting, tracking, and documentation processes at closeout to calculate excess funds and justify repurposed uses, which may require new internal resources.
- Subrecipients and existing recovery program beneficiaries — reallocation of management funds could redirect administrative capacity away from direct recovery tasks if jurisdictions prioritize other projects.
- Congressional and oversight offices — the GAO, OIG, and appropriations committees may face increased auditing and dispute-resolution work over what counts as management costs and proper transfers.
- Smaller jurisdictions lacking grant-accounting capacity — they may struggle to comply with the new recordkeeping and could face delays or denials when requesting excess funds.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is efficiency versus sufficiency: the bill incentivizes jurisdictions to close grants and recover unspent management dollars for other disaster-related uses (efficiency), but that same incentive and the absence of new appropriations risk under-resourcing ongoing recovery work, invite rushed closeouts, or create accounting-driven reallocations that shift rather than expand support (sufficiency).
The bill creates a tidy statutory formula but leaves important implementation choices to FEMA: the President may, rather than must, make excess funds available, so FEMA policy and prioritization will determine real-world flow. Tensions will emerge over interpretation of eligible “management costs” at project close and whether transfers should favor capacity-building or immediate recovery management needs.
Grantees with weak accounting systems may find it hard to demonstrate unexpended management balances, potentially funneling benefits to larger states or grantees with stronger finance shops.
By forbidding additional appropriations, the statute forces reallocation of existing management dollars rather than creating new capacity. That constraint preserves budget discipline but risks pitting active recovery needs against longer-term mitigation or preparedness investments.
The GAO study deadline is short (180 days) and requires a five-year lookback; its findings may be informative but operationally the agency will need interim guidance to manage disputes and closeouts before GAO recommendations arrive.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.