# FEMA Assistance for Migrants Through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program-Humanitarian (EFSP-H) and Shelter and Services Program (SSP)

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR47681

## Record

- **Collection:** Congressional research report
- **Document type:** CRS Report
- **Published:** August 31, 2023
- **Citation:** R47681

## Text

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)
August 31, 2023

Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
R47681

SUMMARY

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

R47681
August 31, 2023
Elizabeth M. Webster

Analyst in Emergency
In FY2022, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) had a record high
Management and Disaster
number of enforcement encounters at the U.S.-Mexico border: 2.4 million individuals
Recovery
who either arrived at a port of entry and were determined to be inadmissible, or who
entered the United States unlawfully between ports of entry. These migrants were either
Audrey Singer
expelled under Title 42 of the U.S. Code (public health) or placed into removal
Specialist in Immigration
proceedings under Title 8 of the U.S. Code (immigration). The public health emergency
Policy
for the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic ended on May 11, 2023, and
expulsions by U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) ceased. Overall encounters by
CBP along the southwest border have been lower in FY2023 (through July), relative to
the previous fiscal year. New policies on border enforcement following the end of the
Title 42 policy are designed to reduce the absolute volume of encounters by U.S. Border Patrol. It is too soon to
know the impact that the entire package of policy changes will have over the longer term.

CBP has the discretion to release certain migrants processed for removal under Title 8 instead of detaining them
while they await removal (deportation) proceedings in immigration court. Once released, many migrants move to
other parts of the country. Other migrants may lack the information or resources necessary to immediately travel,
and may seek assistance from local organizations close to the border where they are released or when they arrive
at their destination point.
Congress has recognized that local governments and nonprofit organizations often bear the financial and social
burden resulting from an influx of migrants. In FY2019, Congress first enacted legislation authorizing the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to provide grants to supplement the humanitarian relief efforts of local
government and nonprofit organizations assisting migrants encountered by DHS at the southern border, including
through the provision of food, shelter, basic medical care, and transportation. These grants to support migrants
were provided through FEMA’s Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)-Humanitarian or EFSP-H.
In FY2023, Congress directed CBP and FEMA to establish a new Shelter and Services Program (SSP) to replace
the EFSP-H. The EFSP-H continued to operate while FEMA and CBP worked to establish the new SSP. FEMA
and CBP have stated that the plan is to phase out the EFSP-H. DHS/FEMA made the first tranche of SSP funding
available in June 2023 and made the second tranche of SSP funding available in August 2023.
This report describes current immigration enforcement issues and migration trends at the southern border, as well
as recent federal immigration policies. This context provides the backdrop to understanding the circumstances that
resulted in the need for increased migrant support, and considerations to address the immigration-related
challenges that have arisen since 2019. The focus of this report is the history and function of the EFSP-H and
FEMA’s support and oversight of the program. Consideration is also given to the funding and implementation of
the SSP.
In sum, human migration patterns may shift in direct response to U.S. border policy changes, or political
instability or the effects of climate change in migrants’ home countries. Fluctuations in the number of migrants
arriving to the southern border seeking asylum could increase or decrease the level of support needed by local
government and social service organizations. To that end, Congress is likely to face continuous monitoring of the
flexibility and sufficiency of federal programs to meet the needs of newly arrived migrants.

Congressional Research Service

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Contents
Introduction ..................................................................................................................................... 1
Southwest Border Context ........................................................................................................ 3
The Roles of Government and Nonprofit Organizations in Supporting Released
Migrants ................................................................................................................................. 5
FEMA’s Role at the Southern Border ................................................................................. 5
Other Assistance Available to Support Migrants ................................................................ 7
FEMA EFSP and SSP for Humanitarian Relief............................................................................... 7
Background ............................................................................................................................... 8
EFSP-H Funding History ................................................................................................... 11
Implementing the EFSP-H ................................................................................................ 14
Comparing Eligible Clients ........................................................................................ 15
Comparing Eligible Costs ........................................................................................... 16
Comparing the Funding Award Process and Considerations ...................................... 19
Geographic Distribution of EFSP-H and SSP Funding .............................................. 21
Shelter and Services Program (SSP) ....................................................................................... 24
Transitioning from the EFSP-H to the SSP....................................................................... 25
Funding the SSP................................................................................................................ 28
Potential Considerations to Help Inform the Need for Future SSP Funding .............. 30
EFSP and EFSP-H Program Oversight ................................................................................... 34
LRO Requirements ........................................................................................................... 34
Local Board Oversight Requirements ............................................................................... 35
National Board Oversight Requirements .......................................................................... 35
FEMA Oversight Requirements........................................................................................ 37
Other Federal Oversight .................................................................................................... 38
Potential Congressional Considerations............................................................................ 38
EFSP-H Oversight and Enforcement of Program Requirements................................ 38
Conclusion ..................................................................................................................................... 39

Figures
Figure 1. Funding Made Available for the EFSP-H and SSP (FY2019-FY2023) ......................... 13
Figure 2. EFSP-H Total Awards by State (FY2019-FY2023) ....................................................... 23
Figure 3. EFSP-H Awards by Funding Phase and State (FY2019-FY2023) ................................. 24
Figure 4. SSP First and Second Tranches Combined Allocations by State (FY2023) .................. 27
Figure 5. SSP Allocations by Funding Tranche and State (FY2023) ............................................ 28

Tables
Table 1. EFSP and SSP Funding...................................................................................................... 9
Table 2. EFSP-H Enacted Language ............................................................................................. 10

Congressional Research Service

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Appendixes
Appendix A. EFSP-H Eligible Costs ............................................................................................. 41
Appendix B. EFSP Program Overview ......................................................................................... 43
Appendix C. EFSP Implementation Notes for Supplemental Funding ......................................... 47

Contacts
Author Information........................................................................................................................ 48

Congressional Research Service

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Introduction
U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) is the component within the U.S. Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) that is responsible for immigration enforcement at or near the
international border, and its functions include the inspection and processing of aliens1 seeking to
enter the United States.2 In FY2022, CBP encountered 2.4 million individuals at the U.S.-Mexico
border who lacked valid entry documents or otherwise entered the United States unlawfully—the
highest number ever recorded; in the first 10 months of FY2023 nearly 2 million were
encountered.3 This number refers to encounters with foreign nationals (aliens) who entered the
United States illegally or who arrived in the United States at a port of entry and were deemed
inadmissible and either placed into the removal (deportation) process or expelled from the United
States under the Title 42 policy (see, “Southwest Border Context”). DHS has the discretion to
release certain migrants instead of detaining them while they await removal proceedings in
immigration court.4 DHS works in coordination with local government and nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) to provide support for shelter, food, transportation, and other basic services
to released migrants.5
Congress has recognized that the financial and social burden resulting from an influx of migrants
is often borne by the local governments and nonprofit organizations that provide social services to
assist such newly arrived individuals, to include meeting their needs for shelter, food, basic
necessities, and transportation.6 Thus, on multiple occasions since FY2019, Congress has directed
the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Food and Shelter Program
(EFSP) to provide grants to such entities to support their humanitarian migrant assistance
programs (this assistance is referred to as the EFSP-H). In FY2023, Congress authorized the
creation of a new Shelter and Services Program (SSP), funded through CBP and managed by
1 The term alien refers to a person who is not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national, as defined in 8 U.S.C. §1101(a)(3). The

definition includes persons both legally and not legally present in the United States. This report uses alien, foreign
national, and migrant interchangeably. The term migrant is not defined in statute. In this report, migrant refers to a
person who has temporarily or permanently crossed an international border illegally, is no longer residing in their
country of origin or habitual residence, and is not recognized as a refugee. Migrants may include asylum seekers.
2 For more information, see CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10150, Immigration Laws Regulating the Admission and Exclusion
of Aliens at the Border, by Hillel R. Smith.
3 U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), “Southwest Land Border Encounters,” https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/
stats/southwest-land-border-encounters. For an overview of recent trends in enforcement encounters at the southwest
border, see CRS Report R47556, U.S. Border Patrol Encounters at the Southwest Border: Fact Sheet, by Audrey
Singer and Sylvia L. Bryan.
4 For additional information on immigration detention, see CRS In Focus IF11343, The Law of Immigration Detention:
A Brief Introduction, by Hillel R. Smith.
5 The Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA’s) Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) funds a
National Board, which awards funding to local government, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations providing such
assistance to migrants for humanitarian relief. See FEMA’s “Emergency Food and Shelter Program” webpage,
available at https://www.fema.gov/grants/emergency-food-and-shelter-program. Congressional Research Service
(CRS) correspondence with U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), August 3, 2021.
6 For example, as Senator Kyrsten Sinema said in her opening statement during a 2021 congressional hearing on the
southwest border as justification for her working to provide EFSP-H funding, “[n]on-government organizations play a
critically important role in managing the ongoing influx. Their efforts to provide migrants with basic assistance,
including food, shelter, and travel aid, is a key link in the ongoing effort to ensure migrants are treated fairly and our
communities can successfully manage this crisis. Without these NGO’s, Arizona, our border States, our nations, and
the migrants themselves would be worse off” (U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Homeland Security and
Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Governmental Operations and Border Management, The Non-Governmental
Organization Perspective on the Southwest Border, 117th Cong., 1st sess., April 28, 2021, S.Hrg. 117-37 (Washington:
GPO, 2021), p. 2, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117shrg45044/pdf/CHRG-117shrg45044.pdf
(hereinafter HSGAC, NGO Perspective on the Border)).

Congressional Research Service

1

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

FEMA, to accomplish the same ends. FEMA and CBP stated that they are phasing out the EFSPH.7 DHS/FEMA made SSP funding available through two funding tranches in FY2023.8
This report begins with an overview of immigration enforcement policies and trends at the U.SMexico border, focusing on the period from FY2019 through July of FY2023. The focus of this
report is on FEMA’s role at the border supporting and overseeing the EFSP, and the humanitarian
relief FEMA provides to migrants through organizations that are eligible for EFSP-H funds. It
also discusses the transition to the SSP.
This report reflects a snapshot in time. As this is an evolving issue, immigration policies,
programs implemented to provide support to migrants, challenges, and considerations are subject
to change.9
Federal Entities (other than FEMA) with a Role at the Southern Border
DHS Components:
•

Customs and Border Protection (CBP): CBP facilitates the flow of lawful travelers and trade, while
providing security against inadmissible persons and illicit goods. CBP is responsible for border security at
land, sea, and air ports of entry (POEs), and also between POEs at U.S. land borders. At POEs, the Office of
Field Operations (OFO) provides inspections of travelers and determines those who are admissible and
those who are inadmissible. Between POEs, the U.S. Border Patrol (USBP) is responsible for security against
unauthorized entries of persons and contraband. Air and Marine Operations (AMO) agents patrol the border
from the air and sea.

•

Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): ICE is responsible for immigration enforcement within
the interior of the United States; it also plays a role in enforcement at the border. ICE’s Enforcement and
Removal Operations (ERO) is primarily responsible for detention, alternatives to detention, and removal
operations, including the removal of individuals who have been encountered at the border and referred by
CBP to ICE.

•

U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS): USCIS adjudicates immigration applications,
including, refugee, humanitarian parole, and certain asylum applications. At the border, USCIS asylum officers
conduct credible fear interviews of migrants placed into expedited removal. If the asylum officer determines
the migrant has a credible fear, the individual is moved out of expedited removal and placed into formal
removal in immigration courts (see DOJ’s Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR), below).
Other Federal Agencies:
•

Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR):
ORR’s Unaccompanied Alien Children Program provides for custody and care of unaccompanied minors who
have been encountered by CBP, ICE, or other federal agencies and referred to ORR. CBP processes and
temporarily holds unaccompanied children when they are encountered at U.S. borders. ICE physically
transports unaccompanied children referred to ORR from CBP to ORR custody. ORR is responsible for
sheltering unaccompanied children while they await immigration hearings.

7 FEMA, United Way Worldwide, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program Humanitarian Relief: Applicant Webinar

March 2023,” last accessed March 27, 2023, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/
Webinar%20Presentation.pdf (see slide 4 of the PDF, “2023 EFSP-H Funding Amounts”). For additional information
on the transition to the Shelter and Services Program (SSP), see CRS Insight IN12132, FEMA’s Emergency Food and
Shelter Program-Humanitarian Relief (EFSP-H) and the New Shelter and Services Program (SSP), by Elizabeth M.
Webster.
8 Department of Homeland Security (DHS), “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and
Services Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended): Amendment
00001: The purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-14100-99, August 21, 2023 modification.
9 For a broad overview of policy changes, see DHS, Fact Sheet: U.S. Government Announces Sweeping New Actions to
Manage Regional Migration, May 1, 2023, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/04/27/fact-sheet-us-governmentannounces-sweeping-new-actions-manage-regional-migration.

Congressional Research Service

2

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

•

Department of Justice (DOJ), Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR): EOIR administers
the immigration court system and adjudicates DHS cases where a foreign national has violated immigration
laws. EOIR decides whether the individual is removable, and if so, whether they may qualify for relief from
removal.

Southwest Border Context
The public health emergency declared by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
(HHS) in response to the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic temporarily changed
land border policies.10 In general, individuals encountered during an enforcement action by CBP
are inspected and processed under Title 8 of the U.S. Code, which confers DHS with statutory
authority to place inadmissible or unlawfully present foreign nationals into removal proceedings,
but allows those individuals to apply for asylum or other potential forms of relief from removal
for which they may be eligible.11 However, during the public health emergency, the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) invoked authority under Title 42 of the U.S. Code to limit
entry of certain foreign nationals, including those intending to apply for asylum and other
humanitarian protections, to reduce the risk of the spread of COVID-19.12 CBP implemented the
policy as a public health measure, which allowed them to expel certain migrants encountered at
land borders back to the country from which they entered the United States,13 thereby limiting
time spent in congregate settings.14 CBP made exceptions to Title 42 expulsions for certain
individuals considered vulnerable (e.g., age- or health-related conditions); those aliens15 were
placed into Title 8 removal proceedings.16
Between March 21, 2020, and May 11, 2023, both Title 42 and Title 8 were enforced at the
border. At the end of the public health emergency on May 11, 2023, expulsions under Title 42
10 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), “COVID-19 Public Health Emergency (PHE),” press

release, March 2, 2023, https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-public-health-emergency/index.html.
11 8 U.S.C. §§1158(a)(1), 1182(a), 1226(a), 1227(a), 1229a(a), 1229a(c)(4); 8 C.F.R. §1240.11.
12 The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reassessed and extended the initial March 2020 order several
times. The August 5, 2021, order superseded prior Title 42 orders. See “Public Health Reassessment and Order
Suspending the Right to Introduce Certain Persons from Countries Where a Quarantinable Communicable Disease
Exists,” 86 Federal Register 42829, 42830, August 5, 2021 (“CDC has determined that an Order under 42 U.S.C. § 265
remains necessary to protect U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, lawful permanent residents, personnel and noncitizens at the
ports of entry [POEs] and U.S. Border Patrol [USBP] stations, and destination communities in the United States during
the COVID-19 public health emergency” (hereinafter, “CDC Order August 2021”)).
13 Historically the vast majority of CBP enforcement encounters at land borders have occurred at the U.S.-Mexico
border; in FY2022, more than 95% of encounters occurred at the southwest border, while less than 5% occurred at the
U.S.-Canada border. CBP, “Nationwide Encounters,” https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters.
14 See “CDC Order August 2021.” Mexico had agreed to take back nationals from only certain countries; those
agreements changed over time. At the conclusion of the enforcement of Title 42 at the border, that list included
nationals from Cuba, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Mexico, Nicaragua, and Venezuela. By agreement with
Canada, DHS also expelled certain migrants back to Canada on the northern border.
15 Foreign national (alien) refers to a person who is not a U.S. citizen or a U.S. national, as defined in 8 U.S.C.
§1101(a)(3). The definition includes persons both legally and not legally present in the United States. This report uses
foreign national, alien, and migrant interchangeably.
16 See DHS, Privacy Impact Assessment for CBP One, DHS Reference No. DHS/CBP/PIA-068, February 19, 2021,
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-05/privacy-pia-cbp068-cbpmobileapplication-may2023.pdf (hereinafter,
“CBP Privacy Impact Assessment for CBP One”). See Appendix A of the “CBP Privacy Impact Assessment for CBP
One” for an updated section regarding the use of the CBP One app for information on processing of individuals during
the period that the Title 42 order was in effect and after it ended. The list of vulnerability criteria are as follows:
physical or mental illness; disability; pregnancy; no access to safe housing or shelter in Mexico; under the age of 21;
over the age of 70; or have been threatened or harmed while in Mexico (p. 18).

Congressional Research Service

3

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

concluded. As of that date, migrants are once again exclusively processed under Title 8
procedures.
CBP’s enforcement actions at the border require initial vetting of migrants, including health
screenings and background checks for information that could lead to detention by U.S.
Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). This takes place within the constraints of existing
facility capacity, legal restrictions on holding certain migrants, including children, and other
limited resources, such as personnel.17
After CBP has processed encountered migrants, ICE is responsible for detention and removal
operations. Immigration law requires certain migrants to be detained by ICE.18 In other cases,
DHS has the discretion to release certain migrants, who are considered to be a low flight risk,
from their custody into the United States on a case-by-case basis to await their immigration court
proceedings. In addition, when migrants are removed, they must be returned to their home
country. In cases where the home country is unlikely to accept such returns, such migrants are
released into the United States. Certain released migrants may be monitored under ICE’s
Alternatives to Detention (ATD) programs.19
Starting in FY2021, amid a historic increase in enforcement encounters at the southwest border,
several factors led DHS to release more encountered migrants into the United States than had
been typical.20
•

•

First among these factors was the sheer volume of encounters; in FY2022, there
were 2.4 million encounters and in FY2023 (through July 2023) there have been
nearly 2 million. During times when the number of migrants exceeds available
resources (e.g., holding facilities), CBP may choose to release certain migrants
after conducting brief investigations, including collection of biometrics and
conducting criminal and immigration background checks.21 Further, CBP’s
holding capacity for encountered migrants is limited, and during the pandemic
CBP initiated restrictions related to holding migrants in custody, in order to
reduce the spread of COVID-19.22 The majority of migrants disperse from the
border and travel by bus or plane to other areas typically away from their entry
point. Those areas bear the responsibility for providing assistance to new arrivals,
often straining local resources.
Second, the demographic composition of encounters with migrants had been
shifting since the late 2010s from one primarily composed of single adults to

17 For example, U.S. policy restricts how long DHS can detain families with children due to the Flores Settlement

Agreement. See CRS Report R43599, Unaccompanied Alien Children: An Overview, by William A. Kandel.
18 For more information on migrant detention, see CRS In Focus IF11343, The Law of Immigration Detention: A Brief
Introduction, by Hillel R. Smith.
19 For additional information on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s (ICE’s) Alternatives to Detention
(ATD) programs, see CRS Report R45804, Immigration: Alternatives to Detention (ATD) Programs, by Audrey
Singer.
20 In FY2022, CBP encountered 2.4 million individuals at the U.S.-Mexico border who lacked valid entry documents or
otherwise entered the United States unlawfully—the highest number ever recorded (CBP, “Nationwide Encounters,”
https://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/nationwide-encounters). For a broad overview of recent southwest border
enforcement encounter trends, see “CRS Southwest Border Encounters Factsheet.”
21 See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO), Southwest Border: Challenges and Efforts Implementing New
Processes for Noncitizen Families, GAO-22-105456, September 2022.
22 DHS, “Update on Southwest Border Security and Preparedness Ahead of Court-Ordered Lifting of Title 42,” press
release, December 13, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-12/22_1213_plcy_update-sw-bordersecurity-preparedness.pdf.

Congressional Research Service

4

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

•

greater numbers of family members traveling together, as well as more
unaccompanied children. After an overall dip in migration in 2020 (associated
with the COVID-19 pandemic), this trend continued. Recently, released migrants
have typically been members of family units or others with particular
vulnerabilities (e.g., health- or age-related vulnerabilities).23
Third, increases in the number of encounters of migrants from countries of origin
other than Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras has presented more
challenging removal processes.

The significant influx of migrants since 2019 has necessitated support from both federal and subfederal organizations to meet migrants’ needs, including for food, shelter, and supportive services,
upon arriving in the United States.
References to “Southwest Border” and “Southern Border”
This report references both the “southwest border” and “southern border.” These terms are not used
interchangeably.
The distinction is generally included in the program guidance for each of the EFSP-H funding phases; the guidance
varies by phase (each EFSP appropriation has a corresponding program phase). The enacted language (see Table 2
for the EFSP-H legislative text) and EFSP-H Notice of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) explain that the purpose of
the funding is to provide humanitarian relief to migrants encountered by DHS. However, the EFSP-H NOFOs do
not all specify that this means migrants at the “southwest border” or “southern border.”
The EFSP-H guidance for some phases referred to the “southwest border” and were less expansive (i.e., they did
not include the maritime borders). The EFSP-H guidance for FY2023, however, specifically refers to the “southern
border” and defines the term as being inclusive of both the land and maritime borders. (See Appendix C for the
text from the EFSP-H NOFOs and program guidance for each EFSP-H funding phase.) Additionally, the SSP focuses
on migrants encountered and released by DHS, defined in the SSP NOFO as “an apprehension by a U.S. Border
Patrol (Title 8) Agent or a determination of inadmissibility by a CBP Officer at a Port of Entry (Title 8).”24
Thus, for purposes of this report, unless otherwise stated or defined,
•

references to the southwest border are referring to the land border between the United States and Mexico
(i.e., the U.S.-Mexico border);

•

references to the southern border are inclusive of the southwest land border between the United States and
Mexico, as well as the maritime borders of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida.

The Roles of Government and Nonprofit Organizations in
Supporting Released Migrants
This section describes FEMA’s role at the southern border and assistance provided by other
nonfederal entities to support released migrants.

FEMA’s Role at the Southern Border
FEMA’s role is not limited only to disaster response. The National Response Framework (NRF), a
planning document that identifies the roles and responsibilities of federal agencies and
departments, generally guides domestic incident response.25 The NRF may be applied during a
23 See note 16 for the list of vulnerability criteria.
24 DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number:

DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99.
25 President George W. Bush, “Homeland Security Presidential Directive/HSPD–5—Management of Domestic
Incidents,” February 28, 2003, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/PPP-2003-book1/pdf/PPP-2003-book1-doc(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

5

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

non-Stafford Act response—“When directed by the President or requested by an agency head,
FEMA’s incident management capabilities may be used.”26
Emergencies, Major Disasters, and Movements of People
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42
U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.) authorizes the President to declare an incident an “emergency” or a “major disaster.”27
Stafford Act declarations are typically, but not exclusively, authorized for natural hazards that result in tangible,
physical damages, such as hurricanes. Notably, two Presidents—Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush—have issued
Stafford Act emergency declarations specifically for the costs of hosting migrants and disaster evacuees. In 1980,
President Carter declared an emergency in the State of Florida “due to the large numbers of undocumented
aliens” (the incident is known as the “Mariel Boatlift—Cuban Refugees”). In 2005, President George W. Bush
issued emergency declarations for 44 states and the District of Columbia following Hurricane Katrina to
reimburse host states for up to 100% of the costs of transporting, sheltering, schooling, and feeding survivors. 28
At the time of these declarations, some Members of Congress expressed concern. The Stafford Act’s current
“major disaster” definition reflects changes made in response to these instances (i.e., the definition was narrowed
to include only “natural” catastrophes, and fires, floods, or explosions, regardless of cause); the “emergency”
definition, however, remained broad.29

In April 2022, Secretary Mayorkas issued a memorandum detailing DHS’s “Plan for Southwest
Border Security and Preparedness,” comprised of six “pillars” describing the actions DHS and its
component agencies were taking to prepare for and manage an increased number of migrant
encounters.30 FEMA has a direct role supporting DHS “Border Security Pillar 4,” which addresses
bolstering the capacity of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) to receive noncitizens
after they have been processed by CBP and are awaiting the results of their immigration
removal proceedings. And ... coordination with and support for state, local, and community
leaders to help mitigate increased impacts to their communities.31

FEMA has been funding grants to the local government and nonprofit organizations providing
food, shelter, and supportive services to migrants crossing the southwest border and encountered
by DHS through its Emergency Food and Shelter Program—specifically the funding for
pg229.pdf; FEMA, “National Incident Management System,” https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/nims; DHS,
National Response Framework, 4th ed., October 28, 2019, https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-04/
NRF_FINALApproved_2011028.pdf (hereinafter DHS, NRF).
26 DHS, NRF, p. 47.
27 The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act; P.L. 93-288, as amended; 42
U.S.C. §§5121 et seq.), defines emergencies and major disasters (42 U.S.C. §5122(1) and (2), respectively). Stafford
Act declarations of emergency and major disaster generally respond to rapid-onset events that cause a measurable
amount of damage in a particular geographic area over a defined period of time, such as a hurricane or wildfire.
However, some incidents that, arguably, may not meet the Stafford Act emergency or major disaster definitions have
received Stafford Act declarations, such as the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic (see FEMA,
“Declared Disasters,” https://www.fema.gov/disaster/declarations).
28 See FEMA, “Florida Undocumented Aliens from Cuba ‘Mariel Boatlift,’” EM-3079-FL, https://www.fema.gov/
disaster/3079; GAO, Requests for Federal Disaster Assistance Need Better Evaluation, CED-82-4, December 7, 1981,
https://www.gao.gov/products/ced-82-4; see also DHS/FEMA, “Amendment to Notices of Emergency Declarations,”
71 Federal Register 60554, October 13, 2006, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-2006-10-13/pdf/E6-17027.pdf
(relating to the emergency declarations for the influx of evacuees from areas affected by Hurricane Katrina).
29 For additional information on presidential Stafford Act declarations supporting migrants and evacuees, see CRS
Insight IN12163, Potential Stafford Act Assistance for Migration Activity, by Erica A. Lee and Elizabeth M. Webster.
30 Memorandum from Alejandro N. Mayorkas, Secretary of Homeland Security, to Interested Parties, “DHS Plan for
Southwest Border Security and Preparedness,” memorandum, April 26, 2022, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/
2022-04/22_0426_dhs-plan-southwest-border-security-preparedness.pdf (hereinafter Memo from DHS Secretary
Mayorkas, “DHS Plan for Southwest Border”).
31 Memo from DHS Secretary Mayorkas, “DHS Plan for Southwest Border,” pp. 2-3.

Congressional Research Service

6

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

humanitarian relief (EFSP-H).32 The EFSP is an existing grant program with a 40-year history of
funding local government and nonprofit organizations.33 EFSP-H is the only DHS/FEMA grant
program that has provided funding to nonprofits assisting migrants released from DHS custody.34
Congress has appropriated funding to FEMA to implement the EFSP-H several times since 2019.
Notably, unlike some forms of FEMA assistance, the provision of EFSP funding does not require
a presidential emergency or major disaster declaration.35

Other Assistance Available to Support Migrants
Many sub-federal entities, including state, local, tribal, and territorial governments, and private
nonprofit organizations provide assistance to migrants. In some cases, such assistance may be
federally funded (e.g., through the EFSP-H, which is described in the following section). Funding
to support migrants may also include other sources, such as private donations. Migrants may also
be eligible for certain federal programs, but eligibility varies by program.36

FEMA EFSP and SSP for Humanitarian Relief
Federal support for migrants is limited, and the provision of food, shelter, and other supportive
social services is not generally considered a federal responsibility.37 Still, a federal program has
been used to fund these services for some migrants. Congress has directed FEMA to supplement
the humanitarian relief efforts of local governmental, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations
providing food, shelter, and supportive services to migrants encountered by DHS at the southern
(and southwest) border (see above shaded text box on “References to ‘Southwest Border’ and
‘Southern Border’”). FEMA has done so through a program derivative: EFSP-Humanitarian, or
“EFSP-H.”

32 FEMA’s role at the border, as described by FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell, is a coordinating role with regard

to migrant crossings, and is in support of CBP and ICE (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Homeland Security,
Subcommittee on Emergency Preparedness, Response, and Recovery, Investing in the Future: A Review of the Fiscal
Year 2023 Budget Request for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, 117th Cong., 2nd sess., June 14, 2022,
Serial No. 117-60 (Washington: GPO, 2022), pp. 15-16, https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CHRG-117hhrg48678/
pdf/CHRG-117hhrg48678.pdf (hereinafter House Homeland, Investing in the Future) (see the questions from Ranking
Member Cammack and responses from FEMA Administrator Deanne Criswell); see also U.S. Congress, Senate
Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, DHS Actions to Address Unaccompanied Minors at the
Southern Border, 117th Cong., 1st sess., May 13, 2021, S. Hrg. 117-426 (Washington: GPO, 2022), pp. 7, 54, and 66. A
brief overview of the Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) can be found in CRS In Focus IF12026, FEMA’s
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP), by Elizabeth M. Webster.
33 National Board, “About the Emergency Food and Shelter Program,” last visited December 14, 2022,
https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/index.cfm?template=about.cfm.
34 See GAO, Southwest Border: DHS Coordinates with and Funds Nonprofits Serving Noncitizens: Report to the
Chairman, Committee on Homeland Security, House of Representatives, GAO-23-106147, April 19, 2023, p. 1,
https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-23-106147.pdf (hereinafter GAO, Southwest Border: DHS Coordinates with and
Funds Nonprofits).
35 National Board, Phase 35 Responsibilities and Requirements Manual, p. 8, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/EFSPManual/Phase_35_Manual.pdf (hereinafter National Board, Phase 35 Manual).
36 Additional information on federal programs to support migrants can be found in CRS Report RL33809, Noncitizen
Eligibility for Federal Public Assistance: Policy Overview, coordinated by Abigail F. Kolker.
37 Illustrating this, during President Donald J. Trump’s Administration, the Administration proposed eliminating the
EFSP, including “because emergency food and shelter is primarily a State and local responsibility” (DHS, Federal
Emergency Management Agency Budget Overview: Fiscal Year 2018 Congressional Justification, p. FEMA-FA-13,
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/publications/FEMA%20FY18%20Budget.pdf).

Congressional Research Service

7

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Background
The EFSP was established in 1983 through the Temporary Emergency Food Assistance Act of
1983 (Title I of P.L. 98-8)—referred to as the “Job Stimulus Bill”38 and later authorized under the
Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 (Title III of P.L. 100-77), renamed the
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act in 2000.39 The EFSP is codified at 42 U.S.C. §§11331
et seq.
In 2019, Congress first appropriated funding to the EFSP specifically for aiding migrants. While
no funding was provided to the EFSP for this specific purpose in FY2020, Congress has
authorized FEMA to supplement the humanitarian relief efforts of local nonprofit, faith-based,
and governmental organizations aiding migrants encountered by DHS from FY2021 through
FY2023.
In this period, the EFSP has effectively functioned on two tracks:
•

•

Track 1: EFSP, which funds the primary mission of assisting individuals and
families experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness and/or hunger,
regardless of their immigration status; and
Track 2: EFSP-H, which provides funding to assist migrants encountered by
DHS at the southern border.40

The EFSP-H has operated with funding provided by the enacted appropriations language, which
has leveraged the existing EFSP for its structure, guidance, and network of public-private
partnerships, and has been administered in accordance with Title III of the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act.
The EFSP is typically funded by annual appropriations provided in the DHS Appropriations Act,
as has been the case since FY1995.41 It has also periodically been funded through supplemental
appropriations. On several occasions beginning in FY2019—corresponding with the significant
influx of migrants—Congress has appropriated funding to supplement humanitarian relief efforts
to provide food, shelter, and supportive services to migrants encountered by DHS. Table 1 lists
the funding made available for the SSP, EFSP-H, and EFSP for FY2017-FY2023 by fiscal year,
including funding provided through the annual appropriation process (numbered Phases) and
supplemental funding (acronym named Phases). It also links to the funding measures, and notes
the amounts of funding allocated in millions pursuant to the Notices of Funding Opportunity
(NOFOs) released by DHS/FEMA (as of the date of publication).

38 DHS/FEMA credits the establishment of the EFSP to Congress’s reaction to “demands from charitable organizations

across the country to help supplement the local food and shelter providers dealing with increasing demand for their
services” (DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Emergency Food and Shelter National
Board Program—Humanitarian Relief,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-DAD-024-00-03, p. 6).
39 The McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (P.L. 106-400) renamed the act. The act has also been amended and
reauthorized, including through the Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance Amendments Act of 1988 (P.L. 100628).
40 The Emergency Food and Shelter Program for humanitarian relief (EFSP-H) may also be referred to as the EFSP-HR
program.
41 42 U.S.C. §11352 addressed the authorization of EFSP appropriations from 1987 through 1994, via a series of
amendments. However, since FY1995, the program has been authorized through the de facto authorization provided by
appropriations being approved by Congress for EFSP’s particular activities.

Congressional Research Service

8

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Table 1. EFSP and SSP Funding
FY2017-FY2023

Fiscal Year

Allocation Phase/
Funding
Opportunity

Funding Measure

Announced
Funding
Allocation
(millions)a

FY2023

SSP

P.L. 117-328 (Div. F, Title II)

$364b

FY2023

Phase HR23

P.L. 117-328 (Div. F, Title II)

$350c

FY2023

Phase 41

P.L. 117-328 (Div. F, Title III)

$130

FY2023

Phase HR FY23 CRd

P.L. 117-180 (Div. A; referencing Div. F of P.L.
117-103); and P.L. 117-328 (Div. F, Title II)e

$75

FY2022

Phase 40

P.L. 117-103 (Div. F, Title III)

$130

FY2022

Phase HR22

P.L. 117-103 (Div. F, Title V)

$150

FY2021

Phase ARPA-Rf

P.L. 117-2 (Title IV)

$400

FY2021

Phase ARPAg

P.L. 117-2 (Title IV)

$110

FY2021

Phase 39

P.L. 116-260 (Div. F, Title III)

$130

FY2020

Phase CARES

P.L. 116-136 (Div. B, Title VI)

$200

FY2020

Phase 38

P.L. 116-93 (Div. D, Title III)

$125

FY2019

Phase SAHA

P.L. 116-26 (Title III)

$30

FY2019

Phase 37

P.L. 116-6 (Div. A, Title III)

$120

FY2018

Phase 36

P.L. 115-141 (Div. F, Title III)

$120

FY2017

Phase 35

P.L. 115-31 (Div. F, Title III)

$120

Sources: CRS Appropriations Status Table; National Board website.
Notes: Acronyms used in this table are as follows—SSP: Shelter and Services Program; HR23: Humanitarian
Relief for FY2023; HR FY23 CR: FY2023 EFSP-H funding made available through the continuing resolution (CR);
HR22: Humanitarian Relief for FY2022; ARPA-R: American Rescue Plan Act of 2021-Regular funding made
available for the EFSP; ARPA: American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 funding made available for the EFSP-H; CARES:
Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (or CARES Act); and SAHA: Supplemental Appropriations
for Humanitarian Assistance.
a. “Announced Funding Allocations” refers to the total amount of funding made available, in millions, through a
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) issued by the Department of Homeland Security/Federal
Emergency Management Agency (DHS/FEMA) for the specified funding opportunity, pursuant to the
specified funding measure.
b. A total of $363.8 million is being made available for the SSP in FY2023 in two tranches: (1) the first tranche
made available $291 million; (2) the second tranche made available $77.3 million (DHS, “Notice of Funding
Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-14100-99; DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal
Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this amendment is
to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023
modification). See also Figure 1.
c. The DHS Appropriations Act of 2023 made up to $785 million available for FEMA to implement the EFSP-H
while the SSP was established. A total of $425 million was used for this purpose (one funding phase—
referred to as Phase HR23—provided $350 million, and another—referred to herein as HR FY23 CR—
provided $75 million (see table note e)). See also Figure 1.
d. The $75 million is referred to herein as “Phase HR FY23 CR” to avoid confusion with the other funding
that was subsequently provided in FY2023 through P.L. 117-328; however, in the program guidance, this
phase is referred to as Phase HR23. See also Figure 1.
e. Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328 is the permanent source of budget authority for Phase HR FY23 CR.

Congressional Research Service

9

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

f.
g.

Phase ARPA-R funding was appropriated for the EFSP (i.e., not humanitarian relief), designated by the “-R”
(for regular).
Phase ARPA funding was appropriated to provide “humanitarian relief to families and individuals
encountered by [DHS].”

The EFSP-H directive language from FY2019-FY2023 can be found in Table 2, which lists the
authorizing bills and EFSP-H phases, and excerpted text.
Table 2. EFSP-H Enacted Language
Authorization/Phase

Text

Emergency
Supplemental
Appropriations for
Humanitarian
Assistance and Security
at the Southern Border
Act, 2019 (Title III of
P.L. 116-26)

For an additional amount for “Federal Assistance,’’ $30,000,000, to remain available
until September 30, 2020, for the emergency food and shelter program under title III of
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. §11331 et seq.) for the
purposes of providing assistance to aliens released from the custody of the Department
of Homeland Security: Provided, That notwithstanding sections 315 and 316(b) of such
Act, funds made available under this section shall be disbursed by the Emergency Food
and Shelter Program National Board not later than 30 days after the date on which such
funds become available: Provided further, That the Emergency Food and Shelter Program
National Board shall distribute such funds only to jurisdictions or local recipient
organizations serving communities that have experienced a significant influx of such
aliens: Provided further, That such funds may be used to reimburse such jurisdictions or
local recipient organizations for costs incurred in providing services to such aliens on or
after January 1, 2019: Provided further, That such amount is designated by the Congress
as being for an emergency requirement pursuant to section 251(b)(2)(A)(i) of the
Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

Phase SAHA

Section 4008 of the
American Rescue Plan
Act of 2021 (Title IV of
P.L. 117-2)
Phase ARPA
Section 543(a)(3) of
the Department of
Homeland Security
Appropriations Act,
2022 (Div. F of P.L.
117-103)

In addition to amounts otherwise made available, there is appropriated to the Federal
Emergency Management Agency for fiscal year 2021, out of any money in the Treasury
not otherwise appropriated, $110,000,000, to remain available until September 30,
2025, for the emergency food and shelter program for the purposes of providing
humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by the Department of
Homeland Security.
SEC. 543. (a) For an additional amount for the accounts, in the amounts, and for the
purposes specified, in addition to amounts otherwise made available for such
purposes—
(3) “Federal Emergency Management Agency—Federal Assistance,” $150,000,000,
to be available for the emergency food and shelter program for the purposes of
providing shelter and other services to families and individuals encountered by the
Department of Homeland Security.

Phase HR22

Congressional Research Service

10

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Authorization/Phase

Text

Section 211 of the
Department of
Homeland Security
Appropriations Act,
2023 (Div. F, Title II of
P.L. 117-328)

That $800,000,000 shall be transferred to ‘‘Federal Emergency Management Agency—
Federal Assistance’’ to support sheltering and related activities provided by non-Federal
entities, including facility improvements and construction, in support of relieving
overcrowding in short-term holding facilities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection, of
which not to exceed $11,200,000 shall be for the administrative costs of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency....

Phase HR23 and
Phase HR FY23 CR

SEC. 211. (a) Of the amounts transferred from ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border Protection—
Operations and Support’’ to ‘‘Federal Emergency Management Agency—Federal
Assistance’’ in this Act, up to $785,000,000 may be made available for the emergency
food and shelter program under title II of the McKinney Vento Homeless Assistance
Act (42 U.S.C. 11331) for the purposes of providing shelter and other services to
families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security.
(b) Notwithstanding sections 313(a) and 316 of such Act, up to $50,000,000 of any
amounts made available to the emergency food and shelter program under
subsection (a) may be used for the construction and expansion of shelter facilities.
(c) Notwithstanding section 311 of such Act, funds made available for the purposes
described in subsection (b) may be awarded to the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program National Board up to 6 months after the date of enactment of this Act.
(d) Notwithstanding sections 315 and 316(b) of such Act, funds made available
under subsection (b) may be disbursed by the Emergency Food and Shelter
Program National Board up to 24 months after the date on which such funds
become available.
(e) Amounts made available under subsection (a) may be available for the
reimbursement of costs incurred after June 30, 2022.
(f) The real property disposition requirements at 2 CFR 200.311(c) shall not apply
to grants funded by the amounts transferred from ‘‘U.S. Customs and Border
Protection—Operations and Support’’ to ‘‘Federal Emergency Management
Agency—Federal Assistance’’ in this Act.

Source: CRS Appropriations Status Table, and the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program
website.

EFSP-H Funding History
In early 2019, concerns related to overcrowded shelters and the conditions experienced by
migrants, including children, reinvigorated the conversation about providing support to the
federal and sub-federal entities supporting migrants at the southwest border.42 The first funding
measure that appropriated specifically-targeted EFSP-H funding was the Emergency
Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border
Act, 2019 (Title III, P.L. 116-26), enacted on July 1, 2019. The funding for EFSP Humanitarian
Relief was one component of the bill, which sought to address numerous humanitarian concerns
related to the surge of migrants.43
Senator Richard Shelby sponsored S. 1900, introduced on June 19, 2019, which included $30
million for EFSP Humanitarian Relief. Representative Nita Lowey sponsored H.R. 3401,
42 On January 8, 2019, President Trump addressed the nation from the Oval Office to discuss the “humanitarian and

security crisis” at the southwest border. The White House, “President Donald J. Trump’s Address to the Nation on the
Crisis at the Border,” remarks, January 8, 2019, https://trumpwhitehouse.archives.gov/briefings-statements/presidentdonald-j-trumps-address-nation-crisis-border/; see also, DHS, “Humanitarian and Security Crisis at Southern Border
Reaches ‘Breaking Point,’” archived release, March 6, 2019, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2019/03/06/humanitarian-andsecurity-crisis-southern-border-reaches-breaking-point.
43 CQ Roll Call Staff, “Trump Signs $4.59B Border Aid Package,” CQ News, July 1, 2019.

Congressional Research Service

11

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

introduced on June 21, 2019, which included $60 million for EFSP Humanitarian Relief when
introduced. The Senate passed H.R. 3401, with amendments, including the reduction in the
funding amount appropriated for the EFSP-H to $30 million, and the House took up the Senatepassed bill.44 There was bipartisan support for the bill.45
Subsequently, Congress authorized FEMA to provide assistance through the EFSP-H in FY2021,
FY2022, and FY2023. The funding level appropriated for EFSP Humanitarian Relief has
fluctuated—ranging from $30 million in FY2019, to $110 million in FY2021, to $150 million in
FY2022. For FY2023, the Biden Administration initially proposed $24 million for the EFSP-H,46
but ultimately Congress provided $800 million to establish the new Shelter and Services Program
(SSP) grant program, and authorized up to $785 million of that $800 million to be used to provide
shelter and supportive services to migrants encountered by DHS through the EFSP-H while the
SSP was established.47
Figure 1 depicts the funding made available for the EFSP-H and SSP, including funding that
FEMA has awarded to the National Board for implementation of the EFSP-H, and the funding
that has been allocated for the SSP in FY2023.

44 Sen. Richard Shelby, “SA 901,” Amendments Proposed to H.R. 3401, Congressional Record, vol. 165, part 108

(June 26, 2019), p. S4581; Rep. Diana DeGette (Speaker pro tempore), “Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for
Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border Act, 2019,” House Debate on H.R. 3401, Congressional
Record, vol. 165, part 107 (June 25, 2019), pp. H5147, H5151, H5153; Engrossed Amendment Senate No: 116-26
(June 26, 2019); CQ Roll Call Staff, “Trump Signs $4.59B Border Aid Package,” CQ News, July 1, 2019.
45 For example, Senators John Cornyn and Dianne Feinstein separately wrote to the Appropriations Committee
requesting that EFSP-H relief be included in the border supplemental (Letter from Senator John Cornyn, to Senator
Richard Shelby, Chairman, Senate Committee on Appropriations et al., June 18, 2019, https://www.cornyn.senate.gov/
sites/default/files/SJC%20Letter%20to%20SAC%206.18.19%20Border%20Supp_0.pdf; Letter from Senator Dianne
Feinstein, to Senator Richard Shelby, Chairman, and Senator Patrick Leahy, Vice Chairman, Senate Committee on
Appropriations, June 12, 2019, https://www.feinstein.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/7/5/7519ca59-0909-4c7f-8ea5fc5783404de9/D459B14337529B6A136032B69B5D592B.feinstein-letter-re-fy20-border-supp-local-govt06122019.pdf). The day the Senate bill was introduced, then-Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated the
supplemental legislation’s likely passage, reportedly stating, “We’re talking about money for non-controversial
purposes, mostly humanitarian efforts” (Tanvi Misra, “Compromise Border Spending Bill Goes to Senate Floor,” CQ
News, June 19, 2019).
46 DHS, FY 2023 Budget in Brief, p. 72, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/22-%201835%20%20FY%202023%20Budget%20in%20Brief%20FINAL%20with%20Cover_Remediated.pdf; DHS, Federal
Emergency Management Agency Budget Overview: Fiscal Year 2023 Congressional Justification, pp. FEMA-FA-15,
https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2022-03/Federal%20Emergency%20Management%20Agency_Remediated.pdf
(hereinafter DHS, FEMA FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification). Most recently, the Biden Administration’s
initial request for FY2023 EFSP-H funding was for $24 million, stating as justification that “[t]he EFSP provides
critical resources to communities providing humanitarian relief to thousands of families and individuals encountered by
DHS at our nations [sic] southern border. Communities in California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas, and as far
reaching as Portland, Maine, are providing food, shelter, transportation, COVID-19 testing, and care associated with
recommended quarantining and isolation of this population and incurring the cost of this relief.
Since 2019, services to migrants provided by NGOs and local jurisdictions have significantly increased and in many
cases quadrupled. ...
In addition, as migrant numbers increase, there is also a rise in agencies outside of the immediate border, in localities
such as Los Angeles, Dallas, Austin, New York City, and Portland, ME that are beginning to provide humanitarian
services to migrants, before they reach a sponsor. The additional jurisdictions also require an increased availability of
EFSP funds for humanitarian relief” (DHS, FEMA FY2023 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. FEMA-FA-15—
FEMA-FA-16). CRS was unable to find references to the EFSP Humanitarian Relief program in the FY2022 budget
request.
47 Section 211 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328).

Congressional Research Service

12

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Figure 1. Funding Made Available for the EFSP-H and SSP (FY2019-FY2023)
(in millions)

Sources: Created by CRS based on the CRS Appropriations Status Table, the EFSP National Board website,
information provided by FEMA’s Office of External Affairs, DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal
Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, and DHS, “The
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and
Services Program (Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for
information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023 modification.
Notes: See Table 1 for SSP and EFSP-H funding information by fiscal year. With regard to the FY2023 funding,
prior to the enactment of the FY2023 annual appropriations measure, FEMA provided $75 million in partial year
funds pursuant to the Continuing Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-180, Div. A). Subsequently, the Department
of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328, Div. F) directed CBP to transfer $800 million of
its FY2023 appropriation to FEMA, of which FEMA could use up to $785 million to implement the EFSP-H. FEMA
awarded $75 million and $350 million to the National Board for the EFSP-H for FY2023. Additionally,
DHS/FEMA allocated $363.8 million for the SSP in FY2023. Further, FEMA was permitted to use up to $11.2
million for its administrative costs. These amounts—the $75 million and $350 million provided for the EFSP-H in
FY2023, the $363.8 million provided for the SSP in FY2023, and the $11.2 million for FEMA’s administrative
costs—total $800 million.

Congressional Research Service

13

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Implementing the EFSP-H
According to the EFSP National Board, Congress selected the EFSP as the vehicle for disbursing
supplemental funding for humanitarian relief through the EFSP-H
because of the program’s established mission in supplementing and expanding the ongoing
work of local social service organizations, both non-profit and governmental, to provide
shelter, food, and supportive services to those who are, or who are at risk of becoming,
homeless and/or hungry. The program’s existing grant fund delivery structure and publicprivate partnership made it a viable means for providing funds quickly to organizations
providing humanitarian relief to families and individuals encountered by DHS.48

The following sections describe unique aspects of the EFSP-H’s implementation, including
information on eligible clients, eligible costs and services, and the funding award process, which
distinguishes key EFSP-H and EFSP program differences. (Additional information on how the
EFSP program operates can be found in Appendix B.)
Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) Terms
•

Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) and Emergency Food and Shelter Program
Humanitarian (EFSP-H): The EFSP is a FEMA-funded grant program that addresses hunger and
homelessness. It has also been used to support migrants encountered by DHS (EFSP-H). The availability of
EFSP funding is not associated with presidential Stafford Act declarations.

•

National Board (EFSP Recipient): The EFSP is governed by a National Board, comprised of
representatives of (1) the American Red Cross, (2) Catholic Charities U.S.A., (3) the Council of Jewish
Federations, Inc., (4) the National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A., (5) the Salvation Army, and (6)
the United Way of America (also referred to as United Way Worldwide). United Way Worldwide serves as
the National Board’s Secretariat and Fiscal Agent and administers the program day to day. The National
Board is responsible for establishing program policies, procedures, and guidelines, and disbursing the funding
as smaller grants. For the EFSP-H, the National Board reviews the applications, makes the final award
determinations, and disburses funding directly to awarded organizations.

•

Director: The National Board is chaired by the Director, who is the FEMA Administrator, by statute.

•

Local Board (EFSP Subrecipient): Each jurisdiction (i.e., county or city, or combination) designated for
EFSP funding must establish a Local Board, which mirrors the composition of the National Board and is the
local EFSP governing body. Each Local Board is responsible for advertising funding availability, setting funding
priorities, determining community needs, establishing client eligibility, selecting grant recipients, monitoring
recipients’ program compliance, and grant reporting. For the EFSP-H, Local Boards review funding
applications from potential Local Recipient Organizations (defined below) for eligibility and completeness, and
submit the applications to the National Board.

•

State Set-Aside Committee (SSA) (EFSP Subrecipient): SSAs also mirror the composition of the
National Board. They act as Local Boards, but represent statewide interests. As such, SSAs can help direct
funding to areas of need regardless of whether an area was formula-qualified for EFSP funding, and can ensure

48 National Board, Humanitarian Relief Funding Guidance Fiscal Year 2023 (Department of Homeland Security

Appropriations Act, 2023—$350 Million), last accessed March 16, 2023, p. 4, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/Fiscal%20Year%202023%20Humanitarian%20Relief%20Funding%20Guidance.pdf
(hereinafter National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance). Such statement is also reflected in the EFSP Humanitarian Relief
guidance—see, for example, National Board, “Supplemental Funding Information Details,” available from the Internet
Archive as of July 18, 2022, at https://web.archive.org/web/20220718130108/https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/index.cfm?template=suppFundingInfoDetails.cfm. Such statement is also reflected in the
EFSP Humanitarian Relief guidance. See also DHS Office of Inspector General (OIG), FEMA Should Increase
Oversight to Prevent Misuse of Humanitarian Relief Funds, OIG-23-20, March 28, 2023, p. 1,
https://www.oig.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/assets/2023-03/OIG-23-20-Mar23.pdf (hereinafter DHS OIG, FEMA Should
Increase Oversight). DHS/FEMA has further stated that the “success of the program lies with the speed with which
these emergency funds are awarded to the National Board and then made available to the local social service agencies
… that are serving our country’s most vulnerable populations.” (DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)
Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-17-DAD-024-00-01, p. 3.)

Congressional Research Service

14

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

state interests are represented in the context of the EFSP-H. As with Local Boards, SSAs review EFSP-H
funding applications from potential LROs for eligibility and completeness, and submit the applications to the
National Board.
•

Local Recipient Organization (LRO) (EFSP Subrecipient): LROs are EFSP grant recipients, which can
be local government, nonprofit, or faith-based organizations.

•

Fiscal Agent: Fiscal Agents are agencies that must meet all LRO requirements and be approved by the Local
Board and the National Board’s Secretariat and Fiscal Agent (i.e., United Way Worldwide). Fiscal Agents are
responsible for receiving and disbursing funding to vendors, and maintaining financial records and
documentation on behalf of another LRO. For the EFSP-H, Fiscal Agents must meet all LRO requirements, be
a member of the Local Board, and be approved by the National Board’s Secretariat and Fiscal Agent. Fiscal
Agents are responsible for preparing EFSP-H advanced funding requests on behalf of LROs, the receipt and
disbursement of funds to LROs and vendors, maintaining funding documentation, and verification of
subrecipients’ eligibility to receive funds. Fiscal Agents are responsible for EFSP-H program compliance and
there can be one per community.

•

Phase: Each EFSP appropriation has a corresponding program phase. Funding provided through the annual
appropriations process is referred to by numbered phases (e.g., the EFSP FY2023 funding is referred to as
Phase 41). Funding provided through supplemental appropriations is referred to by named phases (e.g., the
EFSP Humanitarian Relief FY2019 funding provided through the Border Supplemental is referred to as Phase
SAHA, which stands for Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance).

•

Humanitarian Advanced Funding Requests (HAFRs): The EFSP-H implementation permits requests
for prospective or advanced funding, which are submitted via HAFRs (referred to in earlier EFSP-H Phases as
Special Funding Requests [SFRs]) to the National Board. (For more, see the “EFSP-H Application for
Prospective or Advanced Funding” shaded textbox, below.)

•

Migrants Encountered by DHS: According to the program guidance for the FY2023 EFSP-H funding
authorized pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of
P.L. 117-328), “encountered by the Department of Homeland Security” is defined “as interaction with DHS
that results in a non-citizen receiving an Alien Identification Number” (also referred to as an “A number”).49

•

Shelter and Services Program (SSP): The SSP is a new grant program that Congress established through
the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328). Congress
authorized FEMA to use a portion of the funding provided for the SSP to implement the EFSP-H while the
SSP was established.

Comparing Eligible Clients
Both the EFSP and EFSP-H may fund supportive services that local government, nonprofit, and
faith-based organizations provide to migrants. The EFSP permits Local Recipient Organizations
(LROs) to serve clients—including migrants—who are experiencing or at risk of experiencing
homelessness and/or hunger (regardless of their immigration status).50 The text of the enacted
EFSP-H legislation has more narrowly identified the specific migrant clients that can be served
with EFSP-H funding.51
49 According to the answers to the frequently asked questions provided regarding the FY2023 EFSP-Humanitarian

Relief guidance, if there is no “A number,” there was no DHS encounter. Emergency Food and Shelter National Board
Program, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program Humanitarian Funding Frequently Asked Questions,” last accessed
March 27, 2023, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/Webinar%20FAQ.pdf
(hereinafter National Board, “EFSP-H FAQs”). FEMA confirmed that entities can be reimbursed only for assistance
provided to people with “A numbers” (i.e., Alien Identification Numbers)—“under the FY 2023 EFSP-Humanitarian
program entities can only be reimbursed for assistance provided to individuals and families encountered by DHS at the
southern border. The ‘encounter’ would be documented by the ‘Alien Identification Number’ or ‘A’ number” (email
from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 20, 2023).
50 National Board, Phase 35 Manual, p. 18. The Phase 35 Manual states, “In providing assistance under the EFSP,
verification of proof of citizenship or qualified alien status of any applicant for assistance is not required.”
51 According to FEMA, the National Board’s guidance has been consistent with the appropriations language (email
from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 20, 2023).

Congressional Research Service

15

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Initially, EFSP-H funding was intended to support “aliens released from the custody of the
Department of Homeland Security.”52 Subsequent EFSP-H appropriations language referred to
“families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security” (see the
legislative text excerpts of the enacted legislation in Table 2). However, “DHS encounter” was
not specifically defined in the program guidance until the release of the Phase HR23 Guidance,
which defined it as
Interaction with DHS that results in a noncitizen receiving an Alien Identification
Number.53

Additionally, the Phase HR23 Guidance specified that such assistance may be provided to
migrants from the “southern border.” Previous EFSP-H program guidance referred to the
“southwest border” and were less expansive (i.e., they referred only to the U.S.-Mexico border
and did not reference the maritime borders). The Phase HR23 Guidance defines “southern
border” as
The entire southern international border of the United States (California, Arizona, New
Mexico, Texas) to include maritime borders of Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama,
and Florida.54

Comparing Eligible Costs
The National Board establishes the EFSP and EFSP-H guidelines for each phase, including
detailing the eligible expenses.55 Funding for newly established programs is not available through
the EFSP or the EFSP-H because the EFSP-H operates under the same statutory authority and is
subject to the same restrictions as the EFSP.56
EFSP-H-eligible expenditures generally include “[s]helter, food, transportation, basic health and
first aid, COVID-19 testing and associated medical care needed during quarantine and isolation,

52 See the Emergency Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance and Security at the Southern Border

Act, 2019 (Title III of P.L. 116-26).
53 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, pp. 5, 57. The funding for this phase was made available pursuant to Section
211 of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328). According to
the answers to the frequently asked questions provided regarding the Phase HR23 Guidance, “Any encounter with
DHS will result in an individual receiving an Alien Identification Number (“A number”). If the individual(s) does not
have an “A” number, then there was no encounter with DHS” (National Board, “EFSP-H FAQs”).
54 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 5.
55 42 U.S.C. §11346(a)(3). The National Board is not subject to the procedural rulemaking requirements of the
Administrative Procedure Act; the EFSP guidelines must be published in the Federal Register annually and whenever
they are modified (42 U.S.C. §11346(b)) (CRS was only able to find National Board plans for carrying out the EFSP in
the Federal Register for FY1994, FY1995, FY1997, FY1998, and FY1999 (searching with the terms “National Board”
and “Federal Emergency Management Agency”).
56 42 U.S.C. §11343(a); FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program,” last updated August 8, 2022,
https://www.fema.gov/grants/emergency-food-and-shelter-program (hereinafter FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter
Program”); National Board, Phase 35 Manual, pp. 28, 39 (see “Use of Funds” section). CRS clarified with FEMA that
while the EFSP-H authorizing language and program guidance do not reference limitations on the establishment of new
programs, and the EFSP National Board’s webpage states that “Any nonprofit, faith-based or government agency that
can document expenditures made to migrants encountered by DHS at the southern border may be considered to receive
funds for eligible services provided,” the EFSP-H does not fund new programs because the EFSP-H leverages the
EFSP (email from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 20, 2023). Of note, one exception for the EFSP-H in
FY2023 is that up to $50 million of the funding potentially available in FY2023 “may be used for the construction and
expansion of shelter facilities” pursuant to Section 211(b) of Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328—notwithstanding the
eligible activities established in the EFSP’s statutory text or program guidance.

Congressional Research Service

16

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

and other supportive services” that are provided in the United States.57 Over the course of three
rounds of funding from the initial FY2019 appropriation, the program guidance developed five
categories of funding that all EFSP-H eligible expenditures must fall within:58
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.

Primary (food and shelter);
Secondary (health/medical/other supportive services);
Administrative (e.g., staff time and postage);
Equipment and Assets (purchases/leases/necessary renovations); and
Transportation (local/long-distance domestic travel).

Priority is given to Primary services.59 Details and examples of the types of expenditures that
qualify for each of these categories can be found in the program guidance and in Appendix A.60

57 Per the EFSP-H guidance, expenditures made and services provided to migrants outside the United States are

ineligible for reimbursement—“Services are intended to assist migrants with their initial emergency needs upon
entering the United States.” See Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program (National Board), National
Board, Humanitarian Relief Funding Guidance Fiscal Year 2023 (Continuing Resolution $75 Million) Application and
Funding Guidance, last accessed December 9, 2022, p. 10 (hereinafter National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR Guidance);
National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 23.
58 National Board, Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance Funding Supplemental Funding
Guidance, last accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/
Supplemental%20Funding%20Guidance.pdf (hereinafter National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 1)); National
Board, Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance Funding: Supplemental Funding Guidance Round 2
Application Period, last accessed December 7, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/
PDFs/Supplemental%20Funding%20Guidance%20-%20Round%202.pdf (hereinafter National Board, Phase SAHA
Guidance (Round 2)); National Board, Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance (SAHA) Funding
Special Funding Request Guidance for the Round 3 Application Period, last accessed December 7, 2022,
https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/SAHA%20Round%203%20Guidance.pdf
(hereinafter National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 3)); National Board, American Rescue Plan Act of 2021
Humanitarian Relief Funding and Application Guidance, last accessed December 8, 2022,
https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/
American%20Rescue%20Plan%20Act%20Guidance.pdf (hereinafter National Board, Phase ARPA Guidance);
National Board, Humanitarian Relief Funding Guidance Fiscal Year 2022 Application and Funding Guidance, last
accessed December 9, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/
HumanitarianGuidance.pdf (hereinafter National Board, Phase HR22 Guidance); National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR
Guidance; National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance.
59 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 12; National Board, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program: FY 2022
Humanitarian Relief Funding Frequently Asked Questions,” May 5, 2022, p. 3, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/Frequently%20Asked%20Questions.pdf (hereinafter National Board, “EFSP FY22
Humanitarian Relief FAQs”).
60 National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 1); National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 2); National
Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 3); National Board, Phase ARPA Guidance; National Board, Phase HR22
Guidance; National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR Guidance; National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance.

Congressional Research Service

17

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Interstate Migrant Busing and EFSP-H Guidance Update to Coordinate Transport
In April 2022, Texas Governor Greg Abbott began busing migrants released from DHS custody in Texas to
Washington, DC, the first of many chartered buses to arrive in cities far from the southwest border, without
providing advance notice to the local governments and NGOs that would receive them.61 Since then, there have
been numerous bus arrivals of migrants transported from the southwest border to locations around the United
States by various state and municipal officials. Such actions have prompted different responses in different places. 62
Other migrants released at the southwest border have traveled by plane or bus to areas away from the border
using their own resources, some assisted by nonprofits and local governments, who provide supportive services.63
These actions have generated attention and awareness within communities far from the border of the need for
the federal government to support local governments and nonprofit organizations engaged in supporting migrants.
For example, in summer 2023, the Mayor of New York City called for assistance from federal and state officials to
help with housing migrants who have overwhelmed the City’s shelter system.64
In response to the humanitarian challenges arising due to the interstate busing of migrants in 2022, the EFSP
National Board issued an addendum to the Phase HR22 Guidance requiring coordination between the sending and
receiving jurisdictions as a condition of eligibility for interstate charter busing. This coordination requirement for
interstate bus chartering also applies in Phase HR FY23 CR and Phase HR23 (the SSP also includes this
transportation coordination requirement).65

There are some significant distinctions between the eligible expenditures under the EFSP and
EFSP-H. Selected examples are included below.
Transportation
A broader set of transportation costs are eligible for reimbursement under the EFSP-H program
than the EFSP.
•

The EFSP provides limited local transportation costs related to the direct
provision of food and shelter. Transportation to another city or to a relative or
friend’s home, and air travel (except as an administrative allowance) are listed as
ineligible.66

61 The Texas Governor’s office estimated that 9,100 migrants were sent to Washington, DC; 5,200 to New York City;

1,500 to Chicago; and 890 to Philadelphia. See, Michael Adkinson, “Migrant Busing Initiative Costing Taxpayers
More per Migrant, State Records Show,” CBS Austin, February 21, 2023.
62 See, for example, Camilo Montoya-Galvez, “Texas Gov. Greg Abbott Expands Migrant Bus Operation, Sending
First Group to Denver,” CBS News, May 18, 2023; Laura Benshoff, “Busing migrants was a partisan lightning rod.
Here’s why Democrats have embraced it,” NPR, February 6, 2023.
63 Tim Henderson, “Minus the Politics, Migrants Often Use Buses, Planes to Reach Shelter,” Stateline, October 4,
2022.
64 See Jasmine Garsd, “NYC has seen an influx of 90,000 migrants and asylum-seekers since last spring,” NPR, August
1, 2023; Jericka Duncan, “New York City Mayor Eric Adams responds to migrant crisis criticism: ‘Everything is on the
table’,” CBS News, August 22, 2023.
65 National Board, Humanitarian Relief Funding Guidance Addendum: Fiscal Year 2022, September 2022,
https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/AddendumtotheHumanitarianGuidance.pdf;
National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR Guidance, pp. 19-20; National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, pp. 21-23. FEMA
confirmed that staff salaries related to providing long-distance transportation services, including coordinating
transportation, should be claimed under the Administration category as a payroll expense (email from FEMA Office of
External Affairs staff, April 20, 2023). The SSP NOFO for the first and second tranches of funding also include the
coordination requirement (DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services
Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of
Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended): Amendment 00001: The
purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August
21, 2023 modification).
66 National Board, Phase 35 Manual, pp. 50 and 75.

Congressional Research Service

18

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

•

The EFSP-H permits reimbursement for domestic local and long-distance travelrelated costs. This includes local transportation costs to and from shelters and
food services, and domestic long-distance transportation costs to aid migrants
traveling to other cities or states.67 Methods of EFSP-H eligible transportation
may include car, taxi, bus, train, and airplane.68

Primary (Shelter)
EFSP-H housing assistance is more limited than what may be provided by the EFSP, which may
be rooted in a distinction in the purposes of the programs.
•

•

EFSP housing assistance is focused on meeting short-term needs, and is provided
to prevent homelessness or evictions and enable people to maintain their housing
(e.g., through the provision of up to 90 days of hotel/motel assistance, up to three
months of rent or mortgage assistance).69
EFSP-H is focused on meeting the immediate sheltering needs of migrants
entering the United States—the EFSP-H may provide migrants with shelter in a
hotel/motel for up to five days (or 30 days if the individual has no sponsor).70
Rent/mortgage assistance are not listed as an eligible expenditure for mass shelter
services under the EFSP-H.71

Comparing the Funding Award Process and Considerations
When Congress appropriates funding to FEMA for the EFSP and EFSP-H, DHS/FEMA issues a
Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO)72 and awards the funding as a single grant to the National
Board—the entity that governs the EFSP and is responsible for establishing program policies,
procedures, and guidelines, and disbursing the funding as smaller grants.73 From there, a
significant difference between the implementation of the EFSP and EFSP-H is the process by

67 National Board, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance

Funding: Frequently Asked Questions,” p. 3, last accessed December 8, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/Supplemental%20Funding%20FAQs%20Final%20508%20Compliant.pdf. See also
National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 1). The Phase SAHA guidance notes that “[d]omestic air travel for
long distance transportation to move migrants to another city may be an allowable activity. However, international air
transportation of people and property are not allowable activities that can be funded with SAHA funds.” This is also
stated in the Phase ARPA Guidance on page 48, the Phase HR22 Guidance on page 49, the Phase HR FY23 CR
Guidance on page 50, and the Phase HR23 Guidance on page 51.
68 National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 1), pp. 9, 21; National Board, Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 3), p.
4.
69 National Board, Emergency Food and Shelter Program Changes/New Guidance: Implementation Beginning with
Phases 39 and ARPA-R Awards, last accessed February 28, 2023, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/
websiteContents/pdfs/EFSP%20Program%20Changes.pdf.
70 National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR, p. 15.
71 National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR, p. 15. The EFSP-H also does not provide utility assistance to prevent the
disconnection of utility services.
72 Descriptions of the Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) for the EFSP-H are included in Appendix C.
73 42 U.S.C. §11341; FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program.” The National Board, by statute, includes
representatives from six private nonprofit organizations: (1) the American Red Cross; (2) Catholic Charities U.S.A.; (3)
the Jewish Federations of North America (referred to in statute as the Council of Jewish Federations, Inc.); (4) the
National Council of Churches of Christ in the U.S.A.; (5) the Salvation Army; and (6) United Way Worldwide
(referred to in statute as the United Way of America). United Way Worldwide serves as the National Board’s
secretariat and fiscal agent, and administers the program day-to-day, along with the Director (the FEMA Administrator)
(42 U.S.C. §11331).

Congressional Research Service

19

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

which funding gets awarded to the LROs.74 While EFSP funding is formula-based and set at the
jurisdiction level, with Local Boards determining local funding priorities and selecting LROs,
EFSP-H funding is competitive,75 and the National Board makes award determinations, as further
described below.76
Eligible organizations apply for EFSP-H funding through their Local Board or State Set-Aside
Committee (acting as a Local Board). Local Boards and State Set-Aside Committees then review
the local and statewide applications, respectively, for completeness and eligibility, and submit the
applications, with supporting documentation, to the National Board.77 The National Board
reviews the applications, makes the final award determinations, and directly awards funding to
eligible LROs (LROs may be represented by a Fiscal Agent).78
The National Board has stated that they prioritize award determinations by considering a number
of factors, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

ICE and CBP migrant release data;
proximity to ICE and CBP facilities performing releases;
number of migrants served;
direct costs incurred serving migrants;
National Board discretion and subject matter expertise;
sufficiency of available funding; and
other applicable information.79

74 The EFSP program guidance includes minimum award amounts that may be provided by a State Set-Aside

Committee to a Jurisdiction ($2,800) and a Local Board to a Local Recipient Organization ($500; if only administrative
funding is provided, the award amount may be less than the $500 minimum) (see National Board, Phase 35 Manual, p.
11. The subsequent addendums to the Phase 35 Manual (through Phase 38) do not address the minimum award
amount). The EFSP Humanitarian Relief program guidance does not specify any minimum award amounts.
75 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 7.
76 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 7. In previous EFSP-H Phases, “Funds are largely awarded to service
organizations assisting migrants in the Southwest Border states, but organizations in all states may apply if they are
serving families and individuals encountered by DHS” (National Board, “EFSP FY22 Humanitarian Relief FAQs,” p.
3).
77 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 8. Local Boards and State Set-Aside Committees may also submit
administrative expenses to the National Board (National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 9). They can also make
recommendations to the National Board (National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 9; FEMA, “Emergency Food and
Shelter Program” (see section on “Funds for Organizations Assisting Migrants—How to Apply?”); National Board,
“EFSP FY22 Humanitarian Relief FAQs,” pp. 1-2).
78 National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, pp. 7-10; FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program” (see section on
“Funds for Organizations Assisting Migrants—How Funds Will Be Awarded”); National Board, “EFSP FY22
Humanitarian Relief FAQs,” pp. 3-4. Per the Phase HR23 Guidance, Fiscal Agents prepare advanced funding requests
on behalf of LROs, and the National Board will disburse payments for Humanitarian Advanced Funding Requests to
the Fiscal Agent, which will then disburse funds to recipient agencies and vendors, and manage documentation (see
page 11).
79 National Board, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance
Funding: Frequently Asked Questions,” p. 2, last accessed December 8, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/Supplemental%20Funding%20FAQs%20Final%20508%20Compliant.pdf; National
Board, “Update Notice Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian Assistance: August 1, 2019,” p. 2, last accessed
December 8, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/PDFs/Update%20Notice%20%20Supplemental%20Appropriations%20for%20Humanitarian%20Assistance.pdf. Per the most recent EFSP-H
NOFO, the National Board will consider these factors when reviewing LRO applications and making award
determinations (DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Emergency Food and Shelter
National Board Program—Humanitarian Relief,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-DAD-024-00-03, p. 46); National Board,
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

20

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

EFSP-H Application for Prospective or Advanced Funding
The initial EFSP-H phases were only awarded as reimbursement, but since Phase ARPA, funding has been issued
for both reimbursements and prospective or advanced funding.80
The EFSP-H program Phases have given potential Local Recipient Organizations, represented by a Fiscal Agent, the
option to submit prospective or advanced funding requests to the National Board—referred to as Humanitarian
Advanced Funding Requests (HAFRs) (earlier EFSP-H Phases called these Special Funding Requests [SFRs]). Fiscal
Agents must meet all LRO requirements and be a member of the Local Board. They must also be approved by the
National Board Secretariat (i.e., United Way Worldwide). HAFRs can only be submitted by Fiscal Agents.
When the National Board awards funding pursuant to a HAFR, such payments are disbursed directly to the Fiscal
Agent, who then pays the subrecipient organizations/vendors for services provided.
HAFRs are intended to expedite funding because potential LROs would not need to submit individual requests for
consideration by the National Board—instead, such requests can be submitted collectively in a single request.

Geographic Distribution of EFSP-H and SSP Funding
The EFSP-H program can distribute funds across a broad geographic area, to include the southern
border and U.S. interior.
With regard to the first EFSP-H Phase (Phase SAHA funding ($30 million)), to ensure the
funding went to communities experiencing a significant influx of migrants, the NOFO that
DHS/FEMA issued for the 2019 Border Supplemental limited the geographic distribution of the
appropriated funding such that the majority of the funding ($25 million) was allocated for the
reimbursement of eligible services by LROs in Arizona, California, New Mexico, and Texas,
while the remaining $5 million was allocated nationwide.81 While the subsequent EFSP-H
funding phases did not similarly limit the provision of the majority of the funding to the four
southwest border states, the program guidance stated that funding priority would be given to the
most impacted communities and noted most of the funding was anticipated to be awarded to
organizations in southwest border states.82 Still, any eligible organization providing eligible
services to migrants encountered by DHS—both LROs at the southern border and in the interior
of the United States—could be eligible for EFSP-H funding.83

Phase ARPA Guidance, p. 7; National Board, Phase HR22 Guidance, p. 9; National Board, Phase HR FY23 CR, p. 8;
National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 7.
80 See, for example, DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2022 Emergency Food and Shelter
National Board Program DHS Appropriations Act, 2022, Section 543,” NOFO Number: DHS-22-DAD-024-00-01, p.
7. Organizations may submit applications for reimbursement requests directly, but Special Funding Requests (SFRs)
for advance/prospective funding must be submitted by way of the Local Boards or State Set-Aside Committees; GAO,
Southwest Border: DHS Coordinates with and Funds Nonprofits, pp. 4-5.
81 DHS, “Fiscal Year 2019 Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Supplemental Appropriations for Humanitarian
Assistance Emergency Food and Shelter National Board Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-19-DAD-024-00-02, p. 6;
National Board, “The National Board for the Emergency Food and Shelter Program Announces $30 Million Available
to Organizations Providing Humanitarian Aid to Southern Border Migrants Eligible Nonprofit, Faith-Based, and
Government Entities Invited to Apply,” p. 1, last accessed December 8, 2022, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/
website/websiteContents/PDFs/EFSP%20NB-UWW%20Advisory%20Supp%20Funds_Final_508%20Compliant.pdf.
82 See, for example, National Board, Phase ARPA Guidance, pp. 2, 4.
83 National Board website, “Humanitarian Funding Info” tab (also referenced as “Humanitarian Funding Information
Details”), last accessed July 25, 2023, https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/websiteContents/index.cfm?
template=fy2021info.cfm. Notably, the Phase HR23 Guidance expanded the eligibility of the migrant population
served beyond those individuals entering by way of the land border to also include maritime entrances (including
California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida) (National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 5).

Congressional Research Service

21

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

FEMA’s statement that it expected most of the funding to be awarded to service organizations
from southern border states was borne out by the program award data.84 Figure 2 depicts the total
EFSP-H awards by state and shows the majority of the EFSP-H funding provided from FY2019
to FY2023 went to the four southwest border states, with Texas, California, Arizona, and New
Mexico receiving the most funding (in that order). Additionally, Figure 3 provides a more
granular view of the EFSP-H awards for each funding phase by state.85
Additionally, DHS’s SSP announcement regarding its plan to award approximately $360 million
through the SSP later in FY2023,86 stated that DHS anticipated that “this next round of funding
will be focused on the needs of interior cities, in addition to border communities.”87 Subsequently,
the SSP NOFO, which specified the eligible applicants for the first tranche of funding ($291
million of the total available funding amount of $363.8 million), did provide more funding to
interior cities than had been provided previously through the EFSP-H. The second tranche of SSP
funding ($77.3 million) provided the majority of the funding to border jurisdictions, but left $10
million in reserve for allocation prior to the end of September 2023. According to the NOFO, the
reserve funding will be available to eligible applicants from both the first and second tranches of
SSP funding “to account for rapidly changing trends and operational considerations.”88 Figure 4
depicts the total consolidated allocations for the first and second tranches of FY2023 SSP funding
by state, and Figure 5 provides a more granular view of the allocations for both FY2023 SSP
funding tranches by state).

84 FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program” (see section on “Funds for Organizations Assisting Migrants—How

Funds Will Be Awarded”). Per the Phase HR23 Guidance, “Funding is prioritized for those service organizations at the
Southern Border (to include maritime entrances)” (National Board, Phase HR23 Guidance, p. 4).
85 In general, unlike the EFSP funding, most information on the distribution of EFSP-H funding was not made publicly
available on the National Board’s website; information on EFSP program funding is available on the National Board’s
website at https://www.efsp.unitedway.org/efsp/website/index.cfm; see also Appendix B). However, on May 5, 2023,
DHS announced the National Board’s allocation of $332.5 million (i.e., the $350 million made available pursuant to the
Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 [Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328], minus administrative
costs) (see DHS, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program National Board Allocates Over $300 Million to Local
Communities for Humanitarian Support,” press release, May 5, 2023, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/05/05/
emergency-food-and-shelter-program-national-board-allocates-over-300-million-local (hereinafter DHS, “National
Board Allocates Over $300 Million for EFSP-H”); and FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program” [see the
“Fiscal Year 2023 Funding” shaded text box]). Associated with the DHS announcement, FEMA’s website reflected
awards under the EFSP-H for the FY2023 funding, including listing the state, fiscal agent, and total funding for Phase
HR23 (FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program—Humanitarian Awards,” last updated May 5, 2023,
https://www.fema.gov/grants/emergency-food-and-shelter-program/humanitarian-awards).
86 FEMA stated, “Future support for emergency migrant care will be supported by the newly created Shelter and
Services Program, which has about $360 million to grant before the end of the Fiscal Year” (FEMA, “FEMA Bulletin
Week of May 9, 2023,” May 9, 2023, https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USDHSFEMA/bulletins/359821f).
87 DHS, “National Board Allocates Over $300 Million for EFSP-H.”
88 DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number:
DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; and DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this
amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023
modification.

Congressional Research Service

22

Figure 2. EFSP-H Total Awards by State (FY2019-FY2023)
(as of May 23, 2023)

Source: Created by CRS from data provided to CRS by FEMA Office of External Affairs staff on June 26, 2023.
Notes: This figure includes award information for all EFSP-H Phases (SAHA, ARPA, HR22, CR23, and HR23) (refer to Figure 3 for the breakdown of awards by funding
Phase). Most awards are represented in millions of dollars (indicated with an M), but awards totaling less than $1 million are represented in thousands of dollars
(indicated with a K). The Excel workbook provided by FEMA’s Office of External Affairs staff included the date label May 23, 2023 and is referenced in the subheading of
the figure. Each tab of the Excel workbook, by Phase, also listed an “as of” date: the Phase SAHA data tab is as of April 6, 2023; the Phase ARPA data tab is as of May 17,
2023; the Phase HR22 data tab is as of May 17, 2023; the Phase CR23 data tab is as of April 28, 2023; and the Phase HR23 data tab is as of April 28, 2023.

CRS-23

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Figure 3. EFSP-H Awards by Funding Phase and State (FY2019-FY2023)
(as of May 23, 2023)

Source: Created by CRS from data provided to CRS by FEMA Office of External Affairs staff on June 26, 2023.
Note: This figure includes award information for all EFSP-H Phases. States receiving awards in EFSP-H Phases
totaling less than $1 million are not included (i.e., LA, IN, NJ, IA, CT, MD, VA, PA, and NC) (refer to Figure 2
for award totals for all Phases by state). The Excel workbook provided by FEMA’s Office of External Affairs staff
included the date label May 23, 2023 and is referenced in the subheading of the figure. Each tab of the Excel
workbook, by Phase, also listed an “as of” date: the Phase SAHA data tab is as of April 6, 2023; the Phase ARPA
data tab is as of May 17, 2023; the Phase HR22 data tab is as of May 17, 2023; the Phase CR23 data tab is as of
April 28, 2023; and the Phase HR23 data tab is as of April 28, 2023.

Shelter and Services Program (SSP)
The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2023 (P.L. 117-328) directed the establishment of a new
grant program—the Shelter and Services Program (SSP).89 Specifically, the Department of
Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328), transferred $800
million from CBP to FEMA “to support sheltering and related activities provided by non-Federal
entities, including facility improvements and construction, in support of relieving overcrowding
in short-term holding facilities of [CBP].”90

89 A brief overview of the SSP can be found in CRS Insight IN12177, Shelter and Services Program (SSP) FY2023

Funding, by Elizabeth M. Webster.
90 See also the Senate Explanatory Statement for Division F—Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act,
(continued...)

Congressional Research Service

24

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Transitioning from the EFSP-H to the SSP
Congress authorized a portion of the SSP funding to be used to implement the existing EFSP-H in
order to provide time for CBP and FEMA to establish the SSP, and noted that
While the Emergency Food and Shelter National Board has performed admirably in
administering EFSP-H since it was first funded in fiscal year 2019, funding the SSP
through CBP will facilitate more effective support of CBP efforts to efficiently process and
humanely treat noncitizens. It also acknowledges the existing vital partnership between
CBP and NGOs.91

Through the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of P.L.
117-328), Congress made funding available for FEMA to implement the EFSP-H in a different
manner than EFSP-H had previously been authorized. Instead of appropriating a set amount of
funding directly to FEMA for the EFSP-H, Section 211(a) stated that a portion of the $800
million—specifically, up to $785 million—may potentially be used to provide shelter and
supportive services to migrants encountered by DHS through EFSP-H.92 Although it was initially
unclear how much, if any, funding would be provided for the EFSP-H, FEMA awarded grants of
$75 million and $350 million of the potentially available $785 million (totaling $425 million) for
the EFSP-H.93
DHS announced that the remaining funding, totaling approximately $360 million, would be
awarded through the new SSP later in FY2023.94 To that end, on June 12, 2023, DHS/FEMA
published the first NOFO for the new SSP after FEMA and CBP developed the new grant

2023, which notes the SSP is intended “to support CBP in effectively managing noncitizen processing and preventing
the overcrowding of short-term CBP holding facilities” (Senate Explanatory Statement, p. S8557).
91 Senate Explanatory Statement, pp. S8557-S8558, S8564, and S8568-S8569.
92 Senate Explanatory Statement, p. S8557.
93 FEMA, “Emergency Food and Shelter Program,” accessed May 18, 2023, https://www.fema.gov/grants/emergencyfood-and-shelter-program. The text box on “Fiscal Year 2023 Funding,” stated, “In December 2022, the Emergency
Food and Shelter Program’s National Board awarded $71.2 million ($75 million minus administrative costs) to assist
communities receiving noncitizens released from custody as they await the outcome of their immigration
proceedings. On May 5, 2023, the National Board announced an additional $332.5 million ($350 million minus
administrative costs) in assistance.” See also, DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security Awards $350 Million for
Humanitarian Assistance Through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program,” press release, February 28, 2023,
https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/02/28/department-homeland-security-awards-350-million-humanitarian-assistancethrough (hereinafter DHS, “DHS Awards $350 Million for EFSP-H”); FEMA, “DHS Awards $350 Million for
Humanitarian Assistance Through the Emergency Food and Shelter Program,” press release, HQ-23-031, February 28,
2023, https://www.fema.gov/press-release/20230228/dhs-awards-350-million-humanitarian-assistance-throughemergency-food-and; FEMA, “FEMA Bulletin: Week of March 7, 2023,” https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/
USDHSFEMA/bulletins/34d3b54 (see section on “FEMA Awards $350 Million for Humanitarian Assistance”); email
from FEMA Office of External Affairs staff, April 27, 2023; DHS, “National Board Allocates Over $300 Million for
EFSP-H.” For additional information on the Shelter and Services Program, see CRS Insight IN12132, FEMA’s
Emergency Food and Shelter Program-Humanitarian Relief (EFSP-H) and the New Shelter and Services Program
(SSP), by Elizabeth M. Webster.
94 DHS, “National Board Allocates Over $300 Million for EFSP-H.”

Congressional Research Service

25

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

program.95 DHS/FEMA amended the original NOFO, updating it for the second tranche of SSP
funding, on August 21, 2023.96
FEMA and CBP stated that the SSP will replace the EFSP-H.97 Consistent with this, the Biden
Administration’s FY2024 budget request did not request funding for the EFSP-H, because “DHS
has transitioned to the Shelter and Services Program.”98

95 DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number:

DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; DHS, “DHS Awards $350 Million for EFSP-H.” FEMA and CBP began developing the
SSP, starting with conducting stakeholder listening sessions with tribal nations, NGOs, and state and local governments
to inform the future SSP’s implementation—according to FEMA and CBP, they conducted 14 listening sessions; see
FEMA and CBP, “Shelter and Services Program Stakeholder Engagement,” presentation slides, April 2023, p. 4,
https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDHSFEMA/2023/04/17/file_attachments/2469612/
SSP%20Stakeholder%20Engagement_Phase%202%20_4-14-2023.pdf (hereinafter FEMA and CBP, “SSP Stakeholder
Engagement”); and FEMA and CBP, “Shelter and Services Program: Stakeholder Listening Session,” presentation
slides, March 2023, https://content.govdelivery.com/attachments/USDHSFEMA/2023/03/03/file_attachments/
2427106/SSP%20Stakeholder%20Engagement_Listening%20Sessions%203-3-2023.pdf (hereinafter FEMA and CBP,
“SSP Stakeholder Listening Session”). See also DHS, Federal Emergency Management Agency Budget Overview:
Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, March 12, 2023, p. FEMA-FA-20, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/
files/2023-03/FEDERAL%20EMERGENCY%20MANAGEMENT%20AGENCY_Remediated.pdf (hereinafter DHS,
FEMA FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification). They then worked to design the program, including proposing a
framework for operating the SSP (FEMA and CBP, “SSP Stakeholder Engagement,” pp. 5-8).
96 DHS, “Department of Homeland Security Announces Distribution of More Than $77 Million in Congressional
Funding for Communities Receiving Migrants,” press release, August 21, 2023, https://www.dhs.gov/news/2023/08/21/
dhs-announces-distribution-more-77-million-congressional-funding-communities; DHS, “The Department of
Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program
(Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche
2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023 modification.
97 FEMA and CBP, “SSP Stakeholder Listening Session.” This information was provided by FEMA and CBP during
the virtual listening session conducted on March 3, 2023, and is consistent with the Senate Explanatory Statement (see
Senate Explanatory Statement, p. S8557).
98 DHS, FEMA FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. FEMA-FA-98.

Congressional Research Service

26

Figure 4. SSP First and Second Tranches Combined Allocations by State (FY2023)
(as of August 21, 2023)

Source: Created by CRS based on DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-14100-99; and DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended):
Amendment 00001: The purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023 modification.
Note: This figure reflects the consolidated allocation information for FY2023 SSP funding tranches (i.e., first and second tranches) by state, to include the District of
Columbia. The first tranche of SSP funding made $291 million available, and the second tranche made $77.3 million available. There is $10 million in reserve from the
$77.3 million “for allocation prior to the end of September 2023 [to] eligible applicants from the first tranche and second tranche to account for rapidly changing trends
and operational considerations.” Most awards are represented in millions of dollars (indicated with an M), but awards totaling less than $1 million are represented in
thousands of dollars (indicated with a K).

CRS-27

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Figure 5. SSP Allocations by Funding Tranche and State (FY2023)
(as of August 21, 2023)

Source: Created by CRS based on DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and
Services Program,” NOFO Number: DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; and DHS, “The Department of Homeland
Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program
(Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this amendment is to update the NOFO for information about
Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023 modification.
Notes: This figure reflects the consolidated allocation information for FY2023 SSP funding tranches (i.e., first
and second tranches) by state, to include the District of Columbia. The value for NJ is not visible due to scale
(refer to Figure 4 for award totals for the first and second tranches by state). The first tranche of SSP funding
made $291 million available, and the second tranche made $77.3 million available. There is $10 million in reserve
from the $77.3 million “for allocation prior to the end of September 2023 [to] eligible applicants from the first
tranche and second tranche to account for rapidly changing trends and operational considerations.”

Funding the SSP
In FY2023, a total of $363.8 million is being made available for the SSP in two tranches. The first
tranche of funding, made available through the SSP NOFO, was for $291 million, and the second
tranche of funding made $77.3 million available.99
99 DHS, “Notice of Funding Opportunity (NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program,” NOFO Number:

DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99; and DHS, “The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Notice of Funding Opportunity
(NOFO) Fiscal Year 2023 Shelter and Services Program (Amended): Amendment 00001: The purpose of this
amendment is to update the NOFO for information about Tranche 2,” DHS-23-GPD-141-00-99, August 21, 2023
modification. For additional information on the SSP, see CRS Insight IN12177, Shelter and Services Program (SSP)
FY2023 Funding, by Elizabeth M. Webster.

Congressional Research Service

28

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

In its FY2024 budget, DHS proposed a $4.7 billion Southwest Border Contingency Fund to
provide additional funding for three of its components most directly involved in processing and
supporting migrants at the southwest border—CBP, ICE, and FEMA—for purposes including
funding the SSP.100 Funds would be appropriated quarterly only in the event that migrant
encounters at the border reach specified levels.101
Regarding the SSP, the FY2024 budget request acknowledged that
the costs NGOs and local and state jurisdictions incur [providing shelter and other services
to migrant families and individuals] are significant and the SSP represents an important
source of funding for these partners.102

While the budget did not request $800 million for the implementation of the SSP, the DHS budget
documentation stated that the budget assumed that the SSP would receive at least $800 million to
operate in FY2024 from the Southwest Border Contingency Fund, if the pre-defined thresholds
are fully met in FY2024.103 Further, the budget requested $83.5 million be appropriated directly to
FEMA to implement the SSP (with the remainder being made available from the proposed
Southwest Border Contingency Fund).104
The EFSP-H, SSP, and Southwest Border Contingency Fund were not included for funding in the
FY2024 DHS Appropriations Act introduced in the House of Representatives (H.R. 4367).
Further, the bill summary states that funding is not provided for the EFSP-H or SSP, and that the
Southwest Border Contingency Fund is excluded.105 One proposed amendment to the bill by
Representative Chellie Pingree sought to provide $200 million for the SSP, but the amendment
was not adopted.106 Proponents of the amendment cited it as a vital resource for both U.S. border
and interior communities and nonprofit organizations, acknowledged the work of social services
providers, and noted that more resources are needed to support the asylum seeking population and
provide for immigrants’ basic needs. Opponents of the amendment noted that the SSP funding
does not end up close to the border (referencing the SSP first tranche allocations of funding for
New York, Chicago, and Washington, DC), and criticized funding the SSP and “failed border
management programs,” instead emphasizing the need to fund border security measures.107
100 DHS, Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification, March 13, 2023, DHS-8, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/

files/2023-03/DEPARTMENT%20OF%20HOMELAND%20SECURITY%20OVERVIEW_Remediated.pdf; DHS
Office of the Secretary and Executive Management Budget Overview: Fiscal Year 2024 Congressional Justification,
March 12, 2023, p. OSEM SWBCF-3, https://www.dhs.gov/sites/default/files/2023-03/
OFFICE%20OF%20THE%20SECRETARY%20AND%20EXECUTIVE%20MANAGEMENT_Remediated.pdf
(hereinafter DHS, OSEM FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification). Additional information on the Southwest
Border Contingency Fund can be found in CRS Report R47496, DHS Budget Request Analysis: FY2024, by William L.
Painter.
101 DHS, OSEM FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, pp. OSEM SWBCF–3-4.
102 DHS, OSEM FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. OSEM SWBCF-5.
103 See the thresholds listed in the DHS, OSEM FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. OSEM SWBCF-3.
104 DHS, FEMA FY2024 Congressional Budget Justification, p. FEMA-29.
105 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, FY24 Homeland Security—Bill Summary, 118th Cong., 1st
sess., May 18, 2023, pp. 1 and 8, https://appropriations.house.gov/sites/republicans.appropriations.house.gov/files/
documents/FY24%20Homeland%20Security%20-%20Bill%20Summary.pdf.
106 Representative Chellie Pingree requested a roll call vote on her amendment to increase the SSP by $200 million.
The amendment was not adopted—25 yeas to 32 nays (U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Full
Committee Votes: Homeland Security Bill, FY 2024, Roll Call 3,” June 21, 2023, https://docs.house.gov/meetings/AP/
AP00/20230621/116152/HMKP-118-AP00-20230621-SD008.pdf).
107 U.S. Congress, House Committee on Appropriations, “Full Committee Markup of Fiscal Year 2024 Homeland
Security,” June 21, 2023, https://appropriations.house.gov/legislation/markups/full-committee-markup-fiscal-year2024-homeland-security-and-legislative-branch (see video recording at 02:46:55-02:54:56).

Congressional Research Service

29

Migrant Assistance Through the FEMA Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP)

Another amendment, which was proposed and withdrawn by Representative Juan Ciscomani,
sought $83.5 million for the SSP, but would have limited the availability of funding to states
along the southwest border. In support, Representative Ciscomani recognized the important work
of social services providers in border communities, criticized the FY2023 SSP first tranche
allocations of funding outside the border states, and asked the question: whose role is it to help
migrants?108
The EFSP-H and Southwest Border Contingency Fund were not included for funding in the
FY2024 DHS Appropriations introduced in the Senate; however, the SSP is included (see S.
2625). As with the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023 (Div. F, Title II of
P.L. 117-328), Title II of S. 2625, if enacted, would transfer funding from CBP to FEMA “to
support sheltering and related activities provided by non-Federal entities, in support of relieving
overcrowding in short-term holding facilities of U.S. Customs and Border Protection.” The
Senate bill would transfer $752 million for the SSP, of which FEMA’s administrative costs could
not exceed $10.5 million.109
Thus, in their current forms (as of the date of publication), the House committee version of the
FY2024 DHS appropriations bill would not fund the SSP, but the Senate committee version
would (and in the manner it was funded in FY2023).110

Potential Considerations to Help Inform the Need for Future SSP Funding
Data Sources
In initially establishing the EFSP, as described by FEMA, “Congress recognized the burden
placed on charitable groups and local governments in addressing unmet needs of families and
individuals who were experiencing homelessness or at-risk of becoming homeless.”111 Similarly,
some Members of C

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/crs%3AR47681. Public record. Not legal advice.