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 FEMA, to accomplish the same ends. FEMA and CBP stated that they are phasing out the EFSP-H.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.S-Mexico 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

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 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 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 sub-federal organizations to meet migrants' needs, including for food, shelter, and supportive services, upon arriving in the United States.

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 non-Stafford Act response—"When directed by the President or requested by an agency head, FEMA's incident management capabilities may be used."²⁶

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 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."

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).

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.

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, 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 Senate-passed 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.

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.

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 public-private 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.)

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

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, 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. Primary (food and shelter);
• 2. Secondary (health/medical/other supportive services);
• 3. Administrative (e.g., staff time and postage);
• 4. Equipment and Assets (purchases/leases/necessary renovations); and
• 5. 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

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
• The EFSP-H permits reimbursement for domestic local and long-distance travel-related 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 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

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

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).

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.

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. Notes: 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

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 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

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

Sources: 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 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).

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

Sources: 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

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 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 Congress have cited the need to reduce the burden borne by social service organizations and local governments aiding migrants as justification for funding the EFSP-H.¹¹² The need for long-term, sustainable funding has also been acknowledged by some Members of Congress and humanitarian relief organizations. As explained by Beth Strano, Asylum Seekers and Families Coordinator, International Rescue Committee, in a hearing before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, Subcommittee on Government Operations and Border Management,

funding needs to become more long-term and sustainable.... [W]e see increases and decreases in arrivals, but we also have to compare those numbers alongside expulsions, alongside apprehensions. There are very different ways to see those numbers. The reality is that every day it is a safe assumption that folks are arriving at our border seeking asylum, and that those services are needed.¹¹³

Congress has an oversight role, and may wish to evaluate past trends in how organizations have used funding to help inform and anticipate potential future needs. Changes to U.S. border enforcement actions and policies may also affect the number of migrants arriving at the southern border, including either by increasing or decreasing their numbers or affecting the locations where they arrive. Evaluating these trends could provide insights for future funding needs. It may also be useful to consider ways to preserve flexibility in the allocation and disbursement of funds to account for shifting trends. Given the role of local government and nonprofit organizations in providing support to migrants entering the United States, and the fact that the funding authorized specifically for this purpose—the SSP—has only been made available through FY2023, Congress could consider whether there is a need to provide funding to support organizations meeting the needs of migrants, and could consider the need to authorize funding for the SSP in future fiscal years.

FEMA, CBP, and the EFSP National Board have used selected data sources to inform SSP and EFSP-H funding allocations and awards, respectively, which could be of interest to Congress. For example, EFSP-H request data were used to make SSP funding allocations for the eligible entities identified in the SSP NOFO.¹¹⁴ The National Board also used data to prioritize EFSP-H award determinations, including ICE and CBP migrant release data (such data also informed FEMA and CBP's SSP allocations);¹¹⁵ proximity to ICE and CBP facilities performing releases; number of migrants served; and direct costs incurred serving migrants (see the "Comparing the Funding Award Process and Considerations" section, above). Consideration could be given to information documented and submitted by EFSP-H grant recipients as part of reporting/program oversight (e.g., consideration could be given to the number of migrants served, the types and number of services provided, and the cost of providing such services—such information on unique persons served and expenses incurred are documentation requirements for recipients of EFSP-H funding—this is discussed more below in the "EFSP and EFSP-H Program Oversight" section).¹¹⁶ Further, data on whether previous tranches of EFSP-H program funding were disbursed in their entirety, including whether the program was oversubscribed (i.e., there were more eligible applications for funding than funding available to meet the requested need) could be of use. To this point, the DHS announcement about the allocation of funding pursuant to the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act, 2023, stated that "[d]ue to the significant demand for the limited funds from this competitive grant program, the Board was unable to fully fund all eligible applications."¹¹⁷ These data sources are not currently publicly available, but Congress could consider requesting the above-listed data from FEMA and CBP to support its funding considerations.

As implemented, FEMA and CBP have retained some flexibility with regard to making SSP funding allocation and award determinations. For example, FEMA and CBP decided to make the funding available in two tranches, and FEMA set aside in reserve $10 million of the $77.3 million made available for the second tranche of SSP funding "for allocation prior to the end of September 2023 … to account for rapidly changing trends and operational considerations."¹¹⁸ The reserve is available to eligible applicants from both the first and second tranches.

Local Government and Nonprofit Organization Capacity Challenges

The COVID-19 pandemic and the scale of the need presented by the influx of migrants since 2019 have affected the capacity of local government and nonprofit social service providers to support migrants.¹¹⁹ Media reports from the southwest border describe how the influx of migrants is overwhelming the capacity of local governments and nonprofit organizations receiving and assisting such individuals—the Director of the Rescue Mission of El Paso stated his shelter was "bursting at the seams" and that "[t]he situation is overwhelming us."¹²⁰

In the past, when representatives from NGOs provided recommendations regarding what Congress could do to aid the situation, several recommended providing additional funding and support to NGOs to aid migrants, including through the EFSP and FEMA and/or other federal agencies.¹²¹ Additionally, FEMA and CBP conducted stakeholder engagement sessions while they established the SSP, and the recommendations provided included that the SSP cover the EFSP-H-eligible activities, that advanced funding is needed, and that the program be available nationwide.¹²² Congress could consider requiring FEMA, with other federal agencies that fund the provision of social services, to evaluate additional options for funding and/or directly providing aid to migrants, with consideration given to immigration status and options for meeting the needs of different migrants (e.g., people with or without "A numbers"). This could also include consulting with local governments in southwest border states, nonprofit and faith-based organizations, the EFSP National Board, and other stakeholders to understand their capacity constraints and resource needs (similar to the SSP stakeholder engagement sessions, but with a focus beyond the development of the SSP program).

Additional considerations could include

• evaluating options for ensuring organizations serving the influx of migrants have sufficient staffing;
• funding the leasing or construction of mass shelter and feeding facilities in areas receiving an influx of migrants (similar to the funding for the construction and expansion of shelter facilities made available in FY2023 pursuant to Section 211(b) of Div. F, Title II of P.L. 117-328);
• providing longer-term federal support or a bridge to other federal support programs (e.g., the EFSP-H program provides shorter-term relief than the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development [HUD]). EFSP-H may provide funding for temporary assistance, such as hotel/motel services limited to 5 days per individual or family [or 30 days if the individual or family has no sponsor]. HUD, however, may offer longer-term support through its Continuum of Care [CoC] program—in some instances, the CoC program may be able to provide housing assistance for up to 24 months);¹²³ and
• working to connect and enroll eligible migrants and/or their children in existing federal programs (e.g., migrants may be eligible for assistance through the Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children [WIC], as well as The Emergency Food Assistance Program [TEFAP]).¹²⁴

Implementing such solutions may take time (e.g., time to locate available facilities or construct new facilities) and may require additional support for LROs (e.g., additional administrative funding to hire more staff), and in the meantime, local governments and nonprofit organizations are dealing with a significant influx of migrants who need support.¹²⁵

EFSP and EFSP-H Program Oversight

Both the EFSP and EFSP-H emphasize strong public-private partnerships and reliance on local decision-making. Another program hallmark, and justification for using the EFSP to deliver funding for migrant support through the EFSP-H, is the speed with which funding can be provided because of the existing grant funds delivery structure. These cited program benefits¹²⁶ may also raise oversight concerns related to the use of program funds. When questioned about EFSP oversight in June 2022, FEMA Administrator Criswell described some of the EFSP oversight mechanisms, stating

[FEMA has] a couple of mechanisms in place to ensure that the funding is being spent appropriately. First, there are the local boards for the charities that look at every expenditure to make sure that it's a valid expenditure. Then our National Board also looks at all of the expenditures to make sure that they are authorized expenditures. And then we conduct through FEMA and one of our contractors an annual audit of the program to ensure that we're using the funding is the way it was intended.¹²⁷

In FEMA's Emergency Food and Shelter Program Alignment and Oversight Plan (hereinafter FEMA's EFSP Alignment and Oversight Plan), provided to Congress in November 2018, FEMA stated, "Rigorous oversight and accountability practices by FEMA, the National Board, and independent auditors ensure that there is strong accountability in the stewardship of this public-private program."¹²⁸ The LROs, Local Board, National Board, FEMA, and other federal agency requirements that contribute to EFSP program oversight are described below.¹²⁹

LRO Requirements

Per the statute, recipients of assistance are required to keep records related to the provision of EFSP assistance, which would be needed to facilitate an effective audit.¹³⁰ LROs must account for all EFSP funds received each fiscal year through required reports, with supporting documentation regarding their eligible expenditures and proof of payments.¹³¹ LROs must submit required reports to the Local Board; failure to comply results in the National Board withholding their funds. According to FEMA, "The National Board holds funds until all reporting requirements have been satisfied."¹³²

LROs may also be subject to audit requirements, as required by the National Board, depending on the amount of EFSP funding received:

• LROs receiving $100,000 or more in EFSP funding must have an independent annual audit in accordance with Government Auditing Standards;
• LROs receiving $50,000 to $99,999 must conduct an annual accountant's review; and
• any agency expending $750,000 or more in federal funds must comply with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 C.F.R. Part 200).¹³³

Local Board Oversight Requirements

Per the statute, Local Boards must monitor LRO program compliance and ensure proper reporting.¹³⁴ Local Boards are required to submit reports to the National Board, which include supporting documentation of expenditures made with program funds, and that track funds spent, unspent, or reallocated. Additionally, Local Boards must meet at least semiannually to monitor the program and ensure LROs are implementing the program pursuant to the program guidance.¹³⁵

National Board Oversight Requirements

The EFSP National Board is required to adhere to federal grant regulations and requirements, and the National Board's accounts are subject to an annual audit that meets the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 C.F.R. Part 200) and is performed using "Generally Accepted Accounting Principles."¹³⁶ Specifically, the statute states that the National Board's accounts shall be subject to an annual independent audit on site and affording access to all necessary "books, accounts, financial records, reports, files, and all other papers, things, or property," as well as facilities for verifying transactions.¹³⁷ To conduct the audit, the National Board has access to EFSP recipients' books, documents, papers, and records related to EFSP assistance received.¹³⁸

The National Board is required to include the results of the annual audit in the annual report that it submits to Congress.¹³⁹ As described in FEMA's EFSP Alignment and Oversight Plan, the National Board reports to Congress through the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness Annual Report.¹⁴⁰

The National Board is required to

• subject its accounts to an annual independent audit;
• ensure EFSP funds are properly accounted for;
• ensure unused funds and funds that must be returned because of compliance issues are collected;
• compile reports using Local Board-provided data on services provided;
• provide quarterly federal financial reports and a final federal financial report following the period of performance;
• provide quarterly performance progress reports and a final performance progress report following the period of performance that list the LROs and funding award amounts; the total disbursement of funds awarded to LROs; the total numbers of financial reports received from LROs, compliance issues requiring resolution and the number resolved, and audited awarded agencies; estimates of assistance provided in services categories, including the numbers of meals provided, nights of lodging provided, COVID-19 tests administered, medical care provided associated with COVID-19 during quarantine and isolation, and other eligible services; administrative costs incurred; and a narrative of accomplishments;
• participate in the award closeout process;
• submit an annual report to Congress that provides a detailed accounting of use for all program monies (copies are also provided to the FEMA Program Manager and Federal Audit Clearinghouse);
• provide monthly Secretariat Reports with financial status updates to the FEMA Program Manager and FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate;
• conduct compliance reviews of expenditures for specified LROs;
• conduct site reviews for specific LROs; and
• monitor LRO compliance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-133.¹⁴¹

Per FEMA's EFSP Alignment and Oversight Plan, the National Board meets in person on a monthly basis in support of its program administration and oversight responsibilities; two of the meetings each year are held offsite in local communities.¹⁴²

FEMA Oversight Requirements

Per the statute, FEMA—specifically the Director of the National Board—must conduct annual audits of the National Board and "at such other times as may be appropriate."¹⁴³

As described in FEMA's EFSP Alignment and Oversight Plan, the agency monitors the EFSP "both programmatically and fiscally in accordance with federal grant regulations and requirements."¹⁴⁴ In its monitoring capacity, FEMA

• conducts an annual independent audit, as well as audits at other times, as requested (National Board Director);
• reports to Congress through the U.S. Interagency Council on Homelessness Annual Report;
• conducts periodic in-office desk reviews and an annual onsite financial monitoring assessment (FEMA Program Manager and FEMA's Grant Programs Directorate) and shares the resulting report with the National Board;
• conducts Improper Payments Elimination and Recovery Act (IPERA) compliance assessments (FEMA Program Manager and FEMA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer); and
• attends National Board Meetings, and makes site visits (FEMA may also make visits without the National Board's presence).¹⁴⁵

As noted above, the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (2 C.F.R. Part 200) apply to the EFSP, and FEMA is responsible for ensuring the EFSP is administered consistent with these requirements.¹⁴⁶ In FEMA's EFSP Alignment and Oversight Plan, FEMA stated that the EFSP program is administered responsibly, noting

• the program has had "clean, annual independent audits (A-133 audits) since the program's inception";
• it has a low risk for improper payments; and
• accountability is ensured through reporting and adherence to all grant requirements.¹⁴⁷

Further, FEMA monitors the National Board's annual program audit through the DHS Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG),¹⁴⁸ and FEMA's Office of the Chief Financial Officer.¹⁴⁹ FEMA also receives monthly reports from the EFSP's Secretariat,¹⁵⁰ and National Board-provided data on how funds were spent and the services provided (annually and as requested).¹⁵¹

FEMA also attends the National Board's monthly meetings, as well as the National Board's agency visits.¹⁵² FEMA also responds to congressional inquiries and requests, including using National Board-provided data.¹⁵³

Other Federal Oversight

Per statute, the Comptroller General also has access to the National Board's books, documents, papers, and records for purposes of conducting an audit.¹⁵⁴ Federal grant recipients, including the National Board, are subject to audit oversight from multiple entities, including the DHS OIG and GAO.¹⁵⁵

Potential Congressional Considerations

EFSP-H Oversight and Enforcement of Program Requirements

On March 28, 2023, the DHS OIG released a report on FEMA's oversight of the EFSP-H funds provided pursuant to the ARPA appropriation ($110 million), which found LROs did not always use funding in accordance with the program guidance, and found some LROs did not maintain or were unable to provide some of the required documentation to support their reimbursement requests.¹⁵⁶ For example, although the ARPA appropriation for the EFSP-H required the funds be used for migrants "encountered by DHS," the ARPA guidance did not require LROs to maintain logs that included the names of the migrants receiving services, nor were they required to record their "A numbers" (i.e., a unique numbers DHS assigns to noncitizens).¹⁵⁷ Thus, the DHS OIG found that some LROs provided services to migrants who had not been encountered by DHS, making those expenses for services provided ineligible for EFSP-H funding. Additionally, services were provided to migrants before they were encountered by DHS or before funding was available.¹⁵⁸

The DHS OIG attributed these issues to insufficient federal oversight and enforcement by FEMA and the National Board.¹⁵⁹ The report cites FEMA and the National Board's reliance on Local Boards and Fiscal Agents to ensure LROs' reimbursement requests were adequately supported.¹⁶⁰ One active oversight step FEMA reported on in its response was to note that the Phase HR FY23 CR Guidance instituted a quarterly reporting requirement to enhance oversight, and reported that the Phase HR23 funding would also require quarterly reporting (this requirement was included in the Phase HR23 Guidance).¹⁶¹ In addition, the Phase HR23 Guidance clarified and specifically defined what is considered a DHS encounter (see the text box on "Emergency Food and Shelter Program (EFSP) Terms," above).¹⁶²

Conclusion

As Title 42 was ending, DHS put new policies into place to deter illegal immigration and to restructure how asylum-seekers are processed at the southwest border.¹⁶³ Examples include a new rule and procedure to request asylum,¹⁶⁴ including a mobile application (app) developed by CBP to schedule appointments for inspections at designated ports of entry;¹⁶⁵ tougher penalties for illegal entry;¹⁶⁶ enhanced programs for certain nationals to be legally paroled into the United States;¹⁶⁷ and increased border resources, including holding facilities, DHS personnel, and increased military personnel at the border to manage anticipated increases in encounters.¹⁶⁸ It is too soon to know how the constellation of new policies will affect the level or the composition of new arrivals of asylum seekers at the border over the long term. Neither is it possible to predict the number of migrants in removal proceedings who may be released from DHS custody at the southern border and may then need services provided by local NGOs or governments, including to assist them with their initial needs upon entering the United States.

To that end, while the federal government has exclusive jurisdiction over policies governing the U.S. border, including immigration enforcement, the challenge of managing the influx of migrants is also carried out by states and localities at the border and destinations well beyond the border in places released migrants initially travel to stay. Acknowledging the challenges of the rising volume of migrants, the changing demographics of the encountered migrant population, and the corresponding need for additional support, Congress has approved the use of funding for humanitarian aid for migrants encountered by DHS at the southwest border or southern border (as specified in the EFSP-H NOFO and/or program guidance for each specific phase—see Appendix C), through the EFSP-H in FY2019, FY2021, FY2022, and FY2023, and also established a new Shelter and Services Program in FY2023 to replace the EFSP-H. Still, this evolving situation may raise questions regarding the need for such assistance, the amount of assistance needed, and the availability of other programs and resources that can support such individuals.

As legal challenges to the recent post-Title 42 policies and procedures mount and as it remains to be seen how well policy changes that depend on the cooperation of other nations may proceed (e.g., by agreement, Mexico currently accepts the return of certain migrants to Mexico following a CBP encounter), DHS and other agencies may have to alter existing practices going forward.¹⁶⁹ As such, Congress may contemplate the need for an oversight review of current practices and their effectiveness toward achieving their intended effects (e.g., related to the volume of migrants encountered, the efficacy of asylum process changes, and how quickly aliens are removed under the new procedures). These practices are intended to limit the number of migrants who would potentially be released at the border, where DHS capacity to hold migrants is constrained. The policy changes may thus—potentially—reduce the burden on local entities providing assistance to migrants.

Human migration patterns may shift, potentially in direct response to U.S. border policy changes or due to other factors, such as political instability or the effects of climate change in migrants' home countries. This may cause fluctuations in the number of migrants arriving to the southern border seeking asylum and could affect the level of support local government and social service organizations need (to increase or decrease). 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.

Appendix A. EFSP-H Eligible Costs

The EFSP-H guidance groups eligible expenditures into five categories: (1) Primary; (2) Secondary; (3) Administrative; (4) Equipment and Assets; and (5) Transportation, with priority being given to Primary services. Detailed examples of eligible costs, organized by category, are listed below.

• 1. Primary Services (only food and shelter), such as
• shelter/lodging expenses related to mass sheltering
• shelter/lodging expenses related to hotel/motel shelter nights (limited to a maximum of 5 days, or 30 days if the individual/family has no sponsor;¹⁷⁰ reimbursement is based on actual costs, not to exceed the rate set by the U.S. General Services Administration [GSA] for the location¹⁷¹)
• food purchases (contracted meals, congregate meals, or food pantry services)
• food bank direct support of migrants (i.e., giving food/meal-supportive purchases to migrants), and indirect support of migrants (i.e., giving food/meal-supportive items to other agencies providing the direct services to migrants)
• t-shirt bags
• hygiene items
• consumable supplies essential to mass feeding (e.g., plastic utensils) or mass shelters (e.g., personal hygiene items)
• equipment purchases or rentals for mass feeding (e.g., pots and pans, storage containers) or mass shelters (e.g., cots and linens, washer/dryer)
• feeding facility/mass shelter utilities
• maintenance and housekeeping
• contracted services (i.e., security and trash pickup)
• personal protective equipment (PPE)
• basic first aid and over-the-counter medication
• 2. Secondary Services (health/medical and other supportive services), such as
• health and medical services (i.e., basic first aid, health screenings, medical care limited to assessment and stabilization for onward travel, COVID-19 testing and limited care related to quarantine and isolation,¹⁷² mental health)
• legal aid (limited to "know your rights" presentations and completion of forms necessary for onward travel)
• translation services
• clothing, shoes, and belts
• backpacks
• 3. Administrative Services (e.g., staff time and postage), such as¹⁷³
• staff time to provide direct services to migrants or to support migrant needs (e.g., meal preparation, shelter intake, translation, casework, maintenance, transportation coordination)¹⁷⁴
• staff time to prepare/complete an application
• postage to send/mail documentation as part of the application process
• expenses to purchase supplies to complete the application
• 4. Equipment and Assets Services (purchases/leases, and necessary renovations), such as
• purchase of vehicle or equipment necessary to perform humanitarian relief functions (e.g., HVAC system) (limited to a fair market value up to $5,000 at the time of purchase)
• facility repairs for the provision of services to make it safe, sanitary, or compliant with local codes
• 5. Transportation Services (local and long-distance domestic travel for migrants and staff supporting migrants), such as:
• local transportation expenses via taxi, rideshare, or charter bus, including contracted services, vehicle rental, gas, insurance, and drivers (limited to the federal mileage rate or actual fuel costs)
• domestic long-distance transportation costs to move migrants to another city or state via bus, train, or airplane (limited to coach class fares; airfare not to exceed $700 per ticket;¹⁷⁵ long-distance travel will be prioritized for up to 30% of the migrant population, unless otherwise permitted by the National Board¹⁷⁶)
• transport of LRO staff "that may be required to assist [migrants] while traveling"

Appendix B. EFSP Program Overview

The EFSP funds grants to local government, nonprofit, and faith-based organizations to supplement and expand efforts to provide shelter, food, and supportive services to individuals and families experiencing (or at risk of experiencing) hunger, or homelessness.¹⁷⁷ This appendix provides information on the EFSP to complement the report's discussion of the EFSP-H's eligible clients, eligible costs, and the funding award process.

Eligible Clients

Local Boards may choose to establish client eligibility criteria based on community needs. If the Local Board does not establish client eligibility criteria, LROs may use their existing criteria or set criteria for assistance provided under the EFSP award (with Local Board approval). Criteria used must not discriminate based on age, race, sex, religion, national origin, disability, economic status, or sexual orientation.¹⁷⁸

The EFSP does not restrict the eligibility of the clients served on the basis of their immigration status—meaning EFSP-funded LROs may be reimbursed for assistance provided to migrants (as they would any client experiencing or at risk of experiencing homelessness and/or hunger).¹⁷⁹

Eligible Costs

As established in statute, the EFSP provides funding for shelter, food, and supportive services, and the specific details of the assistance provided are included in the program guidance for each funding phase. There are several program categories detailed in the program guidance for Phase 35 (FY2017)—referred to as the Phase 35 Manual—which is also referenced in the subsequent EFSP program phases.¹⁸⁰ These include "mass feeding, other food, mass shelter, other shelter, supplies/equipment, rent/mortgage, utilities and administration."¹⁸¹ To provide a more detailed, albeit not exhaustive list, the Phase 35 Manual includes as eligible program costs:¹⁸²

• Mass Feeding and Other Food-Related Costs, such as
• food purchases, including for food banks/pantries and other food providers, as well as purchases for mass feeding
• transportation, including to pick up and deliver or distribute purchased and donated food to food banks/pantries and other food providers (limited to a dated mileage log at the federal mileage rate)
• Mass Shelter and Other Shelter, and Rent/Mortgage-Related Costs, such as
• local transportation to pick up and deliver food, and transport clients to a mass shelter or feeding site (limited to a dated mileage log at the federal mileage rate, contracted services, or public transportation)
• off-site hotel/motel or other shelter (initially limited to 30 days, assistance was increased to up to 90 days if necessary to prevent homelessness for Phase 39 and Phase ARPA-R)
• rent/mortgage assistance (initially limited to 30 days, assistance was increased to up to 90 days if necessary to maintain housing for Phase 39 and Phase ARPA-R)
• first month's rent payment (e.g., if moving from a temporary shelter to longer-term accommodations; cannot be provided in addition to rent/mortgage assistance)
• Supplies and Equipment-Related Costs, such as
• small equipment purchases (not exceeding $300 per item) that are essential to the operation of food banks/pantries (e.g., shelving and storage containers), or essential to mass feeding (e.g., pots and pans) or mass shelters (e.g., cots and linens)
• minor emergency repair (not to exceed $300 per item) of small equipment essential to mass feeding or mass shelters (e.g., hot water heater)
• consumable supplies essential to mass feeding (e.g., plastic utensils) or mass shelters (e.g., personal hygiene items)
• limited first aid supplies for mass sheltering and mass feeding (e.g., Band-Aids)
• Facility-Related Costs, such as
• building code/accessibility improvements (not to exceed $2,500) for mass feeding facilities or mass shelters (if owned by a nonprofit LRO), with prior EFSP National Board and Local Board approval
• Utility-Related Costs, such as
• metered utility assistance (initially limited to one month, assistance was increased to up to 90 days if necessary to prevent disconnection of service for Phase 39 and Phase ARPA-R)
• limited non-metered utility assistance (limited to one-time delivery—e.g., the minimum amount of delivery for firewood)
• utility reconnect fees and required fees
• Diapers and Feminine Hygiene Items:
• diapers for direct distribution to individuals, residents of mass shelters, or vouchers to grocery stores
• basic feminine hygiene items for direct distribution to individuals, residents of mass shelters, or vouchers to grocery stores

The Phase 35 Manual also included an administrative allowance by Local Boards, State Set-Aside Committees, and LROs.¹⁸³

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a new eligible cost was added for Phase 37 (FY2019) and Phase CARES (FY2020)—the program guidance added, as eligible, funding to purchase Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) for use by LRO staff and volunteers conducting and delivering services and/or to clients to receive services (limited to 10% of an LRO's award).¹⁸⁴ Additionally, COVID-19 testing and associated medical care during quarantine and isolation were added as eligible expenses in Phase 39 (FY2021), Phase 40 (FY2022), and in FY2023.¹⁸⁵

Funding Award Process

The National Board is responsible for selecting the "jurisdictions of highest need for food and shelter assistance and determin[ing] the amount to be distributed to each."¹⁸⁶ To determine a jurisdiction's (i.e., county or city, or a combination's) eligibility for EFSP funding, the National Board uses a formula that considers population data, poverty data from the U.S. Bureau of the Census's American Community Survey, and unemployment data from the U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. Jurisdictions must meet specific criteria to qualify for EFSP funding. These criteria may vary for different Phases (i.e., grant cycles aligning with each tranche of funding).¹⁸⁷ Funding provided under the EFSP is set at the jurisdiction level and grant award amounts to formula-qualified jurisdictions are based on a per capita rate, which is determined by dividing the available funds by the number of unemployed persons within each qualifying jurisdiction. In addition, there is a "State Set-Aside" process that allows any jurisdiction—formula-qualified or not—to receive EFSP funding. The National Board allocates a portion of the appropriated funds for such purposes based on the unemployment rates in the jurisdictions that do not qualify under the formula.¹⁸⁸ These grants can be used to address pockets of homelessness and poverty or immediate needs.¹⁸⁹ The National Board notifies qualifying jurisdictions of their allocations and publishes the allocations for the Phases.

Each locality designated for funding must establish a Local Board, which determines how to distribute the locality's funding allocation.¹⁹⁰ The Local Boards and State Set-Aside Committees (acting as Local Boards) of the jurisdictions designated for funding select the LROs that are to be awarded funds (i.e., Local Boards make the EFSP award determinations).¹⁹¹ The National Board disburses funds directly to LROs selected by the Local Boards/State Set-Aside Committees.

EFSP awards are typically reimbursement based, but some EFSP NOFOs note that the National Board determines whether reimbursements or advanced funding, or both, will be allowable.¹⁹²

Appendix C. EFSP Implementation Notes for Supplemental Funding

The EFSP Notices of Funding Opportunities (NOFOs) provide additional award information, including related to allowable program costs. This is true of the NOFOs for the supplemental funding provided for the EFSP through the CARES Act and ARPA,¹⁹³ as well as the funding approved for the EFSP-H. The NOFOs for the EFSP-H explain that the purpose of the funding is to provide humanitarian relief to migrants encountered by DHS. The EFSP-H NOFOs do not all specify that this means migrants at the "southwest border" or "southern border," but this distinction is generally included in the program guidance for the EFSP-H funding phases.

• The Phase SAHA (FY2019) NOFO states, "The EFSP Supplemental Appropriations for Southern Border Humanitarian Assistance is available for the purposes of helping aliens from the southern border that are released from the custody of DHS."¹⁹⁴ Also, the Phase SAHA Guidance (Round 1) states that the funding is to reimburse costs of entities that "experienced a significant influx of migrants from the southern border."¹⁹⁵
• The Phase ARPA (FY2021) NOFO states that the funding made available will "provide humanitarian relief to individuals and families encountered by the Department of Homeland Security."¹⁹⁶ There is no specific mention of the southwest border in the Phase ARPA NOFO. The Phase ARPA Guidance states "most of the funding is anticipated to be awarded to service organizations in southern border states where the greatest needs are expected to be met."¹⁹⁷
• The Phase HR22 (FY2022) NOFO states that the funding made available will "provide shelter and other services to families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security."¹⁹⁸ There is no specific mention of the southwest border in the Phase HR22 NOFO. The Phase HR22 Guidance states "Unless directed otherwise, these funds are solely intended for migrants crossing the Southwest Border and encountered by DHS."¹⁹⁹
• The Phase HR FY23 CR (FY2023) NOFO states that the funding made available will "provide shelter and other services to migrant families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security."²⁰⁰ There is no specific mention of the southwest border in the Phase HR FY23 CR NOFO. The Phase HR FY23 CR Guidance states "Unless directed otherwise, these funds are solely intended for migrants crossing the Southwest Border and encountered by DHS."²⁰¹
• The Phase HR23 (FY2023) NOFO states that the funds made available "will provide shelter and other services to families and individuals encountered by the Department of Homeland Security."²⁰² There is no specific mention of the southwest border in the Phase HR23 NOFO. The Phase HR23 Guidance references southern states and further specifies that eligibility includes "maritime entrance," stating, "Language was updated to state Southern border instead of Southwest border throughout document [sic] to allow maritime migrants from California, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida in addition to migrants entering through the Southern land border encountered by DHS."²⁰³