Greater Houston Community Foundation Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 -- Diana Zarzuelo, vice president of community philanthropy at the Greater Houston Community Foundation, Houston, Texas, has issued a public comment on the Federal Emergency Management Agency notice entitled "Request for Information on FEMA Programs, Regulations, and Policies". The comment was written on July 21, 2021, and posted on July 22, 2021:

* * *

Greater Houston Community Foundation appreciates the opportunity to comment regarding the Request for Information on specific FEMA programs, regulations, collections of information, and policies for the agency to consider modifying, streamlining, expanding, or repealing in an effort to further the goals of advancing equity for all, bolstering resilience from the impacts of climate change and environmental justice. Our County has experienced eight federally declared disasters since 2015. We are now accustomed to natural disasters such as hurricanes, flooding and the occasional spin-off tornado. We have also endured industrial related emergencies, the economic and health crisis of COVID-19, and our communities experience high environmental risks due to decades of discriminatory practices.

We have seen how the current disaster recovery framework does not provide equitable recovery outcomes. Many survivors experience disproportionate impacts from disasters while they struggle to access the resources they need to rebuild. This pattern continues to worsen pre-existing disparities, vulnerability to risks and unmet needs in our region.

The responses to the questions below highlight specific areas where FEMA should focus its efforts when evaluating current agency programs, regulations, and/or policies.

Sincerely,

Greater Houston Community Foundation

Diana Zarzuelo

Vice President, Community Philanthropy

[email protected]

(713) 333-4614

* * *

FEMA RFI Questions and Responses:

# 1

Are there FEMA programs, regulations, and/or policies that perpetuate systemic barriers to opportunities and benefits for people of color and/or other underserved groups as defined in Executive Order 13985 and, if so, what are they? How can those programs, regulations, and/or policies be modified, expanded, streamlined, or repealed to deliver resources and benefits more equitably?

FEMA disaster assistance navigation is extremely complicated for both individuals and local agencies working to assist survivors. The current disaster assistance sequence of delivery requires extensive time and effort to go from the initial application(s) to receiving assistance. The most vulnerable and impacted do not have the time and energy to navigate the complexities of the current system. FEMA should explore interagency agreements and develop a single intake and application process for all forms of Federal Disaster Assistance in order to deliver resources and benefits more efficiently and equitably.

FEMA's desire to be overly deliberate and discerning with how funds are used, how or if homeowners have utilized other resources first, leads to long wait times for FEMA assistance and communicates distrust between government and its residents. For example, a homeowner will be denied assistance from FEMA if they have insurance, then they will have to wait for their insurance provider to make a determination or deny them, to finally have to go back to FEMA to appeal their initial denial in order to receive assistance. This process is complicated and results in long wait times for people to rebuild their lives after crisis.

Unintended consequences of this cycle include:

* Survivors living in substandard/damaged dwellings as they wait for assistance to reach them. As they wait for assistance, their homes may acquire more damage from mold and other issues that are not treated as they must wait for help.

* Survivors give up before receiving the assistance they desperately need. The amount of time it takes for people to complete forms, contact insurance, wait for insurance, and be in touch with FEMA is not always feasible for lower income and underserved groups as many of them work hourly jobs and are unable to take the time to sort through complicated processes and procedures.

Especially in disaster prone areas, FEMA should provide more transparency and clarity regarding eligibility for funds and their use for homeowners who, while in the process of repairing their home from one disaster event, may then be impacted by another.

Based on recent data, reports and survivors' direct input, FEMA's Individual Assistance determinations and amount of assistance have demonstrated bias against people of color and disproportionately benefit white survivors over black survivors after disasters. People of color are more likely to be denied, face issues getting their application approved, and receive lower amounts of assistance.

Joint research between Rice University and the University of Pittsburgh found that whites accumulated more wealth after natural disasters between 1999 and 2013 while residents of color accumulated less, even after controlling for a variety of demographic and household factors./2

In Harris County, the disaster-related increase in the Black-white wealth gap averaged $87,000.

Studying the impacts of FEMA's programs with a racial/equity lens would be very helpful not only to help improve programing but will also help local governments and nonprofits determine how best to spend philanthropic funds, what types of programming are required for community recovery, and how best to connect with the most vulnerable and those most often left behind in recovery.

In order to increase transparency and enable disaster survivors to understand how decisions are made, FEMA should make public their rubric and assistance determination process before individual assistance decisions are made. All survivors deserve a fair assessment when FEMA is determining the assistance and the resources they will need to address the damages and effects of the disaster event.

Additionally, the lack of diverse assistance options for renters often impacts some of the most vulnerable members of the community. FEMA should consider more assistance programs to benefit renters and effort should be made to review systemic barriers that adversely affect the renter population.

#2

Are there FEMA programs, regulations, and/or policies that do not bolster resilience to impacts of climate change, particularly for those disproportionately impacted by climate change, and, if so, what are they? How can those programs, regulations, and/or policies be modified, expanded, streamlined, or repealed to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change?

FEMA's Individual Assistance program has historically offered limited funding for minor, temporary home repairs after disasters. These funds are generally only enough to replace a fraction of what was lost and, until recently, resilience upgrades are not permissible expenses. This strategy does not bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change despite the fact that many impacted communities are at greater risk to experience additional disasters and experience greater impacts from climate change due to racist housing and community development policies that have pushed vulnerable populations into riskier areas./3

Since repairs are only temporary, they'll have to be replaced with permanent fixtures/finishes later. Paying for the same repairs twice is a waste of taxpayer dollars. We recommend that FEMA disaster assistance should allow for permanent repairs to be made to homes. Further, FEMA should set targeted resilience standards for its disaster recovery housing assistance program and allow recovery funds to be used to make resilient upgrades that offer greater protection against future disasters.

# 4

Are there FEMA programs, regulations, and/or policies that are unnecessarily complicated or could be streamlined to achieve the objectives of equity for all (including people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality), bolstering resilience to climate change, or addressing the disproportionately high and adverse climate-related impacts on disadvantaged communities in more efficient ways? If so, what are they and how can they be made less complicated and/or streamlined?

The Federal Emergency Management Agency's regulatory sequence of delivery/4 negatively impacts the survivor experience and ability to effectively navigate disaster assistance, and it results in a delayed and unequitable recovery of the communities that need it the most. The execution of this sequence is confusing for survivors and it can be difficult to coordinate and monitor by governmental and non-governmental agencies working to navigate disaster assistance. In order to apply/receive assistance under this framework, disaster survivors must exhaust each step in the way by getting partial assistance or a denial to be able to appeal or access other types of assistance in the sequence. Nationally, only around 4% of applicants appeal their initial FEMA award,/5 however, many of those who do often are approved for additional assistance. This is a burdensome process for any disaster survivor and it disproportionately impacts low income communities and communities of color that often experience historic public disinvestments and environmental racism. Furthermore, the process is inefficient and does not maximize tax-payer dollars used to administer this cumbersome process.

FEMA should establish ONE entry point/single application for ALL federal disaster assistance, including FEMA, SBA, and HUD. This will ensure a seamless application and assistance distribution centered in survivors instead of each agency bureaucratic processes. These agencies "collect roughly 70% of the same information from individuals requesting assistance after a disaster"./6

This single application should determine eligibility for all available disaster relief/recovery programs across federal agencies. Currently SBP/7 has developed a "OneApp" concept to advocate for the development of a pilot program to explore a combined application for eligibility in 2021. We support this concept.

FEMA and the Biden Administration should also advocate for Congress to authorize a permanent allocation of the CDBG-DR program to streamline disaster assistance and expedite recovery processes. CDBG-DR should be included in the Disaster Assistance sequence of delivery structure, considering duplication of benefits are still considered when determining the allocation of these dollars.

Additionally, FEMA should communicate, educate and train local governments and the public about the disaster assistance sequence of delivery before a disaster and incentivize the development of pre-disaster action plans that considers multi-sector collaborations to address current response and recovery gaps. We advise FEMA to partner with local organizations & groups to strengthen FEMA's public outreach strategies and value the expertise these groups bring to this process.

# 6

Does FEMA currently collect information, use forms, or require documentation that impede access to FEMA programs and/or are not effective to achieve statutory, regulatory, and/or program objectives? If so, what are they and how can FEMA revise them to reduce burden, save time or costs, increase simplification and navigability, reduce confusion or frustration, and increase equity in access to FEMA programs and achieving statutory and/or regulatory objectives?

FEMA's damage assessment process for individual assistance relies upon slow, costly, inconsistent, on-site inspection conducted by contract inspectors who are not from the impacted community. Furthermore, the individual assistance award determinations are closely linked to losses verified by inspectors and calculated using the consumer pricing index. This comes at great expense as FEMA's contract inspectors are activated and deployed to devastated communities, put in hotel rooms (pricing out local survivors who need them), paid per diem, and slowly assess homes by driving around site to site.

The information FEMA needs to verify certain types or amounts of loss can be more quickly and easily obtained from a variety of sources that take less time, cost taxpayers less money and reduce the impact of deployed FEMA personnel on precious and limited local resources (like hotel rooms). The insurance industry has mastered the use of drones, aerial and satellite imagery, predictive analytics, remote estimation, and more. Insurers use this technology to pay claims more quickly than ever before.

FEMA has access to much of the same technology but is not currently using this technology to assess and calculate damage to homes. FEMA leadership must develop and expand the capability to use the latest technology and methods in order to reduce the amount of error and human bias in the inspection process and compensate survivors more quickly. FEMA should also develop this technological capability to restore some human resource capacity to agency staff who have been stretched far too thin for far too long. FEMA must become nimbler in its ability to predict, sense, assess, and compensate for damage if it is to keep pace with the increasing frequency and severity of natural disasters.

# 7

Are there FEMA regulations and/or policies that have been overtaken by technological developments? Can FEMA leverage new technologies to modify, streamline, or do away with existing regulatory and/or policy requirements? If so, what are they and how can FEMA use new technologies to achieve its statutory and regulatory objectives in light of the Executive orders cited?

FEMA should use modern technology to assess damage and award assistance more quickly, accurately, consistently, and objectively, as outlined above.

# 8

Are there any FEMA regulations and/or policies that are duplicative, overlapping, or contain inconsistent requirements generally? Are there areas where FEMA's regulations create duplicative, overlapping, or difficult to navigate situations for individuals also navigating regulatory requirements of another Federal Government agency?

As outlined above, the current sequence of delivery for federal disaster assistance is overly complex and duplicative. The application for assistance process required by FEMA, the SBA, Disaster Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and later HUD funding are nearly identical, however, disaster impacted and oftentimes displaced residents are required to submit separate applications for each of these programs. This is overly burdensome and leads to additional, unnecessary distress for impacted individuals and families.

# 10

What successful approaches to advance equity and climate resilience have been taken by State, local, Tribal, and territorial governments, and in what ways do FEMA's programs present barriers or opportunities to successful implementation of these approaches?

System Response

Incubated and funded as Harvey Home Connect during privately-funded Hurricane Harvey relief efforts, Houston is now home to a nonprofit called Connective that has had a transformative impact on disaster recovery efforts. Connective is a disaster recovery and preparedness system for the Texas Gulf Coast Region that supports effective, efficient, and equitable distribution of private and public funds in partnership with dozens of nonprofit partners. Through the use of human-centered design processes, technology, and an agile approach to solving problems with community and partner feedback, Connective has become a critical piece of Houston's disaster recovery system. Since its inception in 2018, it has supported 12 of recovery initiatives that have effectively dispersed over $250 million and impacted over 150,000 of families/people throughout the Gulf Coast Region.

Connective has also been a source of learning during times of crisis. Too often during times of disaster, governments and nonprofits act immediately and then evaluate the impact and effectiveness years down the line. Employing best in class human-centered design research tools, Connective developed a program for assessing human needs and recommending immediate actions to response organizations in an agile, real-time way. The grant allowed Connective to run monthly Design Research sprints. Every month, they chose a topic, identified an audience, picked a research tool, conducted research (through in-depth interviews, focus groups, surveys, or observational analysis), distilled insights, and helped partners put them into practice immediately. For example, in the fall of 2020, Connective spoke to landlords about their experience of renting during COVID and the risk of eviction for some tenants. Connective kept diversity of experience in mind when choosing the landlords and tenants to speak to: varying portfolio size, varying geographies, different gender, and ethnicities. Connective learned that landlords trust tenants who are proactive about their issues and ask for assistance. Landlords were also willing to make a lot more concessions than they were pre-COVID. Tenants, however, were often scared of communicating their issues and operated with a pre-COVID mentality, where they did not believe their landlords were willing to make concessions. The City and nonprofit administrators immediately changed their messaging based on Connective's research in order to coach tenants on how to have effective conversations with their landlords. This research also informed effective legal assistance intake processes, building accessible technology tools for non-English speaking immigrant communities, and improving on COVID rental assistance programs.

"Connective needs to be an essential piece of a disaster recovery system." - Nonprofit Partner CEO

Innovation in Early COVID-19 Relief Fund

The Harris County COVID-19 Relief Fund successfully dispersed the majority of its $30M funding within the required timeframe (75 days from May 19, 2020), positively impacting over 21,000 County residents facing severe financial hardship to the pandemic. This achievement was the outcome of several novel strategies and data-informed approaches, tailored to ensure that relief reached the County's most economically and socially vulnerable populations quickly.

Key highlights from a third-party evaluation of the fund include:

* The Greater Houston Community Foundation (GHCF), the Fund's administrator, partnered with a wide range of community-based organizations to distribute the funds, ultimately selecting 44 distinct agencies to achieve both broad coverage and local depth. While the majority of agencies had substantive disaster relief, over 25% of the selected partners did not. However, these generally smaller organizations offered access to critical areas or demographics, increasing reach by leveraging their existing trust with clients.

* A two-phased application process proved effective in reaching the most vulnerable populations and achieving equitable distribution. Phase I, defined as "Agency Sourced," was designed to have partner agencies distribute funds to eligible recipients within their existing client base. Phase II, defined as "Public Intake," provided a public application process to expand reach and recognize the need to support those experiencing economic distress for the first time due to the pandemic. The public intake selection process eliminated "first come, first served" bias and employed Centers for Disease Control's Social Vulnerability Index to identify and prioritize the most vulnerable residents by using a weighted randomization process at the census tract level using residential addresses of applicants.

* Simpler, more flexible eligibility and documentation requirements contributed significantly to the program's success, both in terms of the rapid disbursement of funds and the ability to serve especially vulnerable populations - including the homeless and day laborers - who typically do not have documentation often required to receive assistance.

* Nearly all recipients received support in the form of direct assistance, rather than the more common indirect method of paying landlords, utilities or other creditors. By encouraging and supporting agencies to adopt this approach, GHCF accelerated fund distribution while enhancing clients' sense of control and dignity during a challenging time.

* A common database--newly designed and supported by Connective for this effort--was deployed to collect recipient information, track progress, and facilitate transparency between partner organizations. While there was some initial resistance to its required use, ultimately agencies cited the database platform as a positive contribution to the fund distribution and a significant improvement over existing alternatives commonly used in disaster recovery.

Program Specific Questions

# 1

Individual Assistance: Are there regulations and/or policies that act as a barrier to people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty, inequality, and climate change?

The FEMA Individual Assistance application and documentation process is designed to minimize opportunities for fraud by actively seeking reasons to deny applicants instead of providing a seamless application and delivery of assistance. This process lacks empathy, furthers harm, and increases distrust in government during the very moment residents need government the most, in times of crisis and disasters. Little to no explanatory language is provided to an applicant on why they were denied and how they can successfully appeal a FEMA IA award decision hence the very low-rate of appeals. This places an undue burden on survivors, who in most cases experience trauma due to recurring disasters, to prove their need through a cumbersome appeal process that is intimidating and confusing. The low rates of approval also create a false picture of the state of unmet need in the community as many government and community leaders use FEMA IA data to make policy decisions and direct aid.

When FEMA gets initial assistance wrong, it puts more burden on the survivor to know/learn that she can appeal, then plan and execute a successful appeal. We believe it would be easier and less expensive for FEMA to simplify award calculations and use technology to assess damage more quickly and get awards right the first time instead of using a "deny, deny, deny" first approach. It would surely be more beneficial for survivors and communities since these funds go back into the local economy through home repairs and local purchasing which benefit area recovery as well. Most importantly it prevents the worst effects of post-disaster delay and confusion by providing survivors more of the assistance they need from the very beginning.

#3

National Flood Insurance Program: Are there regulations and/or policies that disincentivize purchasing flood insurance, particularly by lower-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal communities? Are there measures FEMA could take to increase nationwide the number of flood-insured homes in the general population and particularly in lower-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal communities?

While FEMA may provide grants to assist in paying for flood insurance for a period of time, Flood Insurance Premiums have to be paid for in a lump sum making flood insurance unobtainable for many Harris County homeowners especially when grant funds are no longer available.

Looking just within flood zones in Texas, the median income of families with flood insurance is $82,184, while families without insurance have a median income of just $36,056./8

Exploring monthly payments or payment plans could incentivize the purchase and maintenance of flood insurance. Flood insurance isn't eligible to be included in escrow accounts for residents with mortgages which again results in fewer residents purchasing coverage. We also recommend that new construction and home purchases not be held to the 30-day waiting period for flood insurance to take effect. This requirement has adverse effect on home builders and buyers who make their purchases in the summer months when homebuying is at its highest but when there is also a great risk for flooding due to tropical weather systems.

FEMA lacks an innovative approach to educating residents nationwide about the risk of flooding and the relative affordability of purchasing flood insurance if your home is located outside of the floodplain. FEMA should set clear goals of rate of insured for households across the U.S. and create an aggressive strategy to achieve. Outreach efforts are particularly lacking in lower income communities where coverage is needed the most. Communications should be tailored to each community and explain the benefits of flood insurance, how to get it, and send yearly reminders to renew.

Homeowners who suffer repetitive losses from natural disasters often find themselves stuck in a cycle of experiencing a disaster, filing a claim, rebuilding, and then experiencing additional losses. The lack of a streamlined process and readily available assistance for homeowners living in repetitive loss properties represents a great weight on the NFIP system and causes repeated trauma for the residents. Currently, programs that buy these properties are left to local communities to operate and can take years to navigate. FEMA should identify clear pathways for fortifying at-risk properties against future losses or giving the homeowners sufficient compensation throughout a buyout program to find suitable housing in more resilient areas.

View footnotes at: https://downloads.regulations.gov/FEMA-2021-0011-0270/attachment_1.pdf

* * *

The notice can be viewed at: https://www.regulations.gov/document/FEMA-2021-0011-0001

TARGETED NEWS SERVICE (founded 2004) features non-partisan 'edited journalism' news briefs and information for news organizations, public policy groups and individuals; as well as 'gathered' public policy information, including news releases, reports, speeches. For more information contact MYRON STRUCK, editor, [email protected], Springfield, Virginia; 703/304-1897; https://targetednews.com