Disasters are becoming more frequent and more expensive in the United States. Understanding who receives federal disaster assistance and who is denied or unable to access it is essential to evaluating how well the disaster response and recovery system works. An analysis of newly available county-level data offers insight into where disaster declarations have been successful and establishes a baseline to measure the impact of future policy changes.
When a major disaster overwhelms state, Tribal, and local capacity, governors and Tribal leaders can request a disaster declaration from the president through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). If approved, the declaration can make different types of federal assistance available for disaster response, recovery, and mitigation. The largest share financially is Public Assistance, which reimburses local governments for a portion of costs related to emergency response, debris removal, and repairs to public infrastructure like roads and power lines. Since the Disaster Relief Act established the foundations for Public Assistance in 1974, FEMA has provided billions of dollars to communities recovering from disasters.
Despite the scale of this federal investment, we know relatively little about which communities are denied disaster declarations. FEMA has long made state-level data publicly available, but county-level denial data have not been readily available in a national dataset
To better understand these patterns, Headwaters Economics analyzed federal disaster declaration requests from 2008 to 2025 and developed a new county-level dataset of Public Assistance denials. We then combined these data with our Rural Capacity Index to examine whether counties with lower administrative and fiscal capacity have historically been denied Public Assistance declarations. Our findings reveal that lower-capacity counties have not been disproportionately denied Public Assistance declarations. However, approval and denial rates for disaster declarations vary across states and communities, and proposed changes to FEMA could shift where capacity matters in the disaster recovery process.
Subscribe to our newsletter!
A new county-level view of disaster declaration requests
FEMA publishes state-level declaration and denial records through its OpenFEMA databases, but its denial records do not identify the counties involved. That information exists online in FEMA’s Preliminary Damage Assessment PDFs, a format that makes it challenging to assess trends over time. Headwaters Economics built a replicable method to extract the missing county data, producing the first publicly available county-level dataset covering both approved and denied Public Assistance requests. See the data sources and methods section for more information.
Explore the data below. Select a state to see all of its declaration requests, or a county to see the Public Assistance requests it has been part of between 2008 and 2025.
State level data on all disaster declaration requests
The statewide view above covers all major disaster declaration requests, including those that sought forms of assistance other than Public Assistance. The county-level view below is narrower. It includes only requests that sought Public Assistance, because those are the requests documented in the Preliminary Damage Assessments we used to identify individual counties. Both views also identify flood- and fire-related requests. We flagged those by searching each request’s official disaster name, incident type, and damage assessment narrative for the words “flood” and “fire,” which means the fire category includes wildfires along with other kinds of fire.
County level data on requests for Public Assistance
How disaster declaration requests are made
After a major disaster, state, tribal, and local officials assess whether the damage exceeds their capacity to respond and recover. If so, a governor or Tribal chief executive can request a joint preliminary damage assessment (PDA) with FEMA and then, based on the assessment, submit a request for a major disaster declaration to the president.
FEMA’s regional office reviews the request before forwarding it to FEMA headquarters, which makes a recommendation to the president. FEMA considers multiple factors when evaluating requests, including a per-capita damage indicator to assess whether the disaster has overwhelmed state and local capabilities. The president makes the final decision on whether to approve or deny the request and determines which forms of federal assistance are authorized.
The three types of major disaster assistance
A major disaster declaration can authorize three broad forms of federal assistance:
Public Assistance reimburses public entities for emergency response, debris removal, and the repair or replacement of public infrastructure and facilities.
Individual Assistance provides direct support to individuals and households, including temporary housing, home repair, and other disaster-related needs.
Hazard Mitigation funds projects that reduce the risk of damage from future disasters, including through the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.
This analysis covers Public Assistance requests.
Most requests are approved, but denial rates vary widely across states
From 2008 to 2025, FEMA approved most requests for Public Assistance. States received declarations for 90% of the requests they submitted. Tribal governments submitted far fewer requests (66, compared with 1,095 from states) and were denied at a higher rate, 15% versus 10%.
| Total Public Assistance requests 2008-2025 | Approved (% of total requests) | Denied (% of total requests) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| State governments | 1,095 | 982 (90%) | 113 (10%) |
| Tribal governments | 66 | 56 (85%) | 10 (15%) |
Denial rates have differed substantially from state to state. In eight states, more than 20% of requests were denied during the study period (see the table below). These differences could reflect a range of underlying issues such as capacity constraints, FEMA’s bureaucratic complexity, or political considerations.
| State | Approved Public Assistance Requests | Denied Public Assistance Requests | % of Requests Denied |
|---|---|---|---|
| Pennsylvania | 11 | 5 | 31% |
| Ohio | 7 | 3 | 30% |
| Arizona | 5 | 2 | 29% |
| Louisiana | 21 | 8 | 28% |
| Indiana | 8 | 3 | 27% |
| Texas | 21 | 7 | 25% |
| Alaska | 29 | 9 | 24% |
| Michigan | 7 | 2 | 22% |
Several of these states submitted relatively few requests, so a handful of denials produces a high rate. For instance, Arizona’s 29% reflects two denials out of seven requests. These data show where access to declarations has been uneven but not why.
Low-capacity counties are denied Public Assistance less often than other counties
For counties with three or more declaration requests, we grouped them into low-, medium-, and high-capacity categories using our Rural Capacity Index, which measures administrative and fiscal capacity of local governments, and compared their outcomes. On average, high-capacity counties are denied PA requests more often than low-capacity counties: the average denial rate for counties in the low-capacity category was 3.5% compared with 4.0% for medium-capacity counties and 5.5% for high-capacity counties.
Counties with unusually high and unusually low denial rates included a mix of capacity levels. Of the counties involved in three or more requests, 228 have denial rates of 20% or more, including 101 with high capacity (44% of those with high denial rates) and 57 with low capacity (25% of those with high denial rates). Of the counties involved in three or more requests, 1,866 counties have never had a request denied: 30% were high capacity and 36% were low capacity.
Low-capacity counties are also well represented among the counties that take part in requests. Of the counties involved in three or more requests, 845 were low capacity, 826 were medium capacity, and 788 were high capacity. The balance is similar among counties involved in 10 or more requests: 200 low capacity, 159 medium capacity, and 117 high capacity. Note that any given request could cover multiple counties.
These tables rank counties by the number of requests they have been part of: the first lists counties where more than 20% of requests were denied, and the second lists counties where every request was approved.
Capacity does not appear to determine the outcome of a request once it has been filed. What these data do not show is how many disasters were never submitted for a declaration or were too small to be eligible.
Counties with 9 or more Public Assistance requests where 20% or more were denied, ranked by the number of requests
| County | Total requests (% denied) | Capacity |
|---|---|---|
| Cleveland County, OK | 10 (20%) | High |
| Hidalgo County, TX | 10 (30%) | Medium |
| Fayette County, WV | 10 (20%) | Medium |
| Essex County, NY | 10 (20%) | Medium |
| Kenai Peninsula Borough, AK | 10 (30%) | Low |
| Ottawa County, KS | 10 (20%) | Low |
| Cameron County, TX | 9 (44%) | Medium |
| Jackson County, WV | 9 (22%) | Low |
| McDowell County, WV | 9 (22%) | Low |
| Jefferson County, OK | 9 (22%) | Low |
| Garvin County, OK | 9 (22%) | Low |
Counties with >15 requests where 100% were approved, ranked by the number of requests
| County | Total requests | Capacity |
|---|---|---|
| Clay County, KY | 22 | Low |
| Estill County, KY | 19 | Low |
| Perry County, KY | 17 | Low |
| St. Louis County, MO | 17 | High |
| Shannon County, MO | 16 | Low |
| Ozark County, MO | 16 | Low |
| Metcalfe County, KY | 16 | Low |
| Leslie County, KY | 16 | Low |
| Webster County, MO | 16 | Medium |
| Orleans County, VT | 16 | Medium |
| Baltimore County, MD | 16 | High |
| Lewis County, WA | 16 | High |
| Saunders County, NE | 16 | High |
FloodWise Community Assistance
Our FloodWise Community Assistance program provides communities with strategic planning assistance, capacity building, and customized research that helps decrease flood risk.
What the data cannot show
Previous research has documented that communities with limited capacity are less likely to request assistance, may face greater challenges documenting damage, and can have more difficulty administering federal funds after a declaration. Our finding that low-capacity counties are approved at comparable rates therefore applies only to counties that were part of a request. It says nothing about the communities that never entered the process.
FEMA weighs multiple factors when evaluating whether a disaster exceeds state and local capabilities, but the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) has found the agency has historically relied on its per capita damage indicator when recommending Public Assistance declarations. The indicator compares disaster-related costs with population, set at $1.94 per resident statewide and $4.86 per resident countywide for FY2026. Yet the indicator does not account for the resources available to a particular community or how a disaster’s costs compare with its local fiscal capacity.
This creates an important limitation for understanding access to federal disaster assistance. National declaration data capture disasters that generate requests but provide little insight into disasters that never result in a request, whether because the damage does not meet the relevant indicators, local officials determine that federal assistance is unlikely, or communities lack the capacity to pursue it.
For small or rural communities, these kinds of disasters can easily compound over time. A washed-out road or a failed culvert might not warrant a FEMA disaster application, but if these types of events occur repeatedly, they can overwhelm a county budget and lead to deferred maintenance. This kind of cumulative toll is largely invisible in national disaster data.
Using the data to inform federal disaster policy
The new county-level dataset provides a clearer picture of who has historically received or been denied Public Assistance declarations. These data offer a baseline for evaluating proposed changes to FEMA and understanding where capacity may matter in the disaster recovery process. However FEMA reform occurs, the test of any declaration process is the same: it should measure disaster impacts accurately, deliver assistance predictably enough that governments can plan, and leave communities less exposed to the next disaster.
Three changes would move the process toward that standard:
Rethink how disaster impacts are assessed
Our analysis shows that Public Assistance requests that include low-capacity counties are approved at about the same rate as other requests.
As noted earlier, FEMA’s per-capita damage indicator can influence which disasters result in requests for federal assistance. Under the Stafford Act, a major disaster declaration is intended for events that exceed local and state capabilities. But the per-capita indicator does not fully capture differences in fiscal resources, response and recovery capacity, or the scale of a disaster relative to a community’s ability to recover. The GAO reached the same conclusion in 2012, finding that the indicator does not accurately reflect a jurisdiction’s capability to respond or recover, and recommended measures of fiscal capacity such as total taxable resources instead. FEMA concurred and has attempted rulemaking three times to revise its methodology, in 2016, 2017, and 2020, without issuing a final rule.
A multi-criteria approach that considers the jurisdiction’s fiscal and administrative capacity would bring the evaluation closer to the standard the statute already sets.
This could include measures such as a county-level version of Treasury’s Total Taxable Resources or local-impact indicators that weigh disaster costs against a jurisdiction’s own budget and revenue base. Headwaters Economics’ Rural Capacity Index illustrates how differently counties may be positioned to respond to the same level of damage.
Track where recovery dollars go
A significant theme of current FEMA reform proposals focuses on shifting more responsibility for disaster recovery to states, Tribes, and territories. For example, the FEMA Review Council’s proposed RAPID program would replace project-by-project reimbursement with formula-based funding and give states, Tribes, and territories more responsibility for managing recovery.
There are tradeoffs to this approach. Faster, more predictable payments could help local governments, particularly small ones that cannot carry costs for months while waiting to be reimbursed. However, it could also change where administrative and fiscal capacity are needed in the process.
Our analysis finds that low-capacity counties are not disproportionately denied Public Assistance declarations once they submit a request. If states take on more responsibility for distributing and administering recovery funds, capacity could become more consequential at different stages. Any new funding model should make it possible to easily track where recovery dollars go by jurisdiction, so Congress, FEMA, and the states can see whether communities with different levels of capacity continue to receive comparable support once the rules change.
Pair recovery with mitigation
Recovery funding can also reduce future losses when damaged infrastructure is rebuilt to better withstand future disasters. Under Section 406 of the Stafford Act, FEMA can fund eligible, cost-effective mitigation measures as part of the repair or replacement of disaster-damaged infrastructure or facilities, such as rebuilding a flood-damaged culvert to a higher standard.
Making Section 406 and similar mitigation opportunities easier for applicants to identify and use could help communities reduce future damage while they rebuild. Federal policymakers and state agencies can encourage mitigation investments through incentives, such as providing cost-share funding that reduces the impact of mitigation work on local budgets. Local officials can adopt modern infrastructure standards and building codes before a disaster occurs. These investments can reduce the likelihood that the same infrastructure will be damaged again and again, lowering future costs for communities and taxpayers. Rebuilding with future risks in mind can make recovery dollars do more than restore what was lost: It can help reduce the costs of the next disaster.
The novel county-level dataset created for this analysis provides a measurable starting point for evaluating how the federal disaster assistance system works across communities, states, and Tribes. Historically, low-capacity counties have not been disproportionately denied Public Assistance declarations once they submit a request, although approval and denial rates vary across states. As policymakers weigh changes to FEMA, these data can help track whether communities with different levels of capacity receive improved, decreased, or comparable support under new rules.
Data sources and methods
This research examined Public Assistance major disaster declaration requests approved or denied between 2008 and 2025. The analysis focused on natural hazards; COVID-19 (Biological) disaster declarations were excluded. Requests for IA or IHP were combined into one category named IA.
State-level data in this dashboard come from OpenFEMA databases. Data were downloaded on July 17, 2026.
County-level information for denials is not available in any public database. To collect these data, we created a novel dataset from FEMA’s database of Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs). We used AI to build a replicable method that extracts and organizes data from PDFs of FEMA’s Preliminary Damage Assessments, including identifying the county or counties where the disaster occurred. Headwaters Economics’ research team reviewed the outputs for accuracy.
To identify flood- and fire-related requests, we searched each request’s disaster name, incident type, and PDA title and narrative (where available) for the terms “flood” and “fire.” We also used FEMA’s official incident type codes to flag disasters classified as Flood or Fire. Because this method relies on keyword and category matching, fire-related requests are not necessarily wildfires, since the category includes any request where “fire” appears in the disaster’s name, incident type, or narrative.
Editors note 10/6/2026
After publication of this post we updated our process to better scrape data from FEMA’s Preliminary Damage Assessments. This allowed for a more precise measurement of denial rates for low-, medium- and high-capacity counties. We have updated the copy in the post to reflect that the Public Assistance denial rate for low-capacity counties is 3.5% compared with 4.0% for medium-capacity counties and 5.5% for high-capacity counties.
