Wis. Emergency Management Issues Public Comment on FEMA Notice

WASHINGTON, Aug. 1 -- Wisconsin Emergency Management, Madison, 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 posted on July 22, 2021:

* * *

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?

Response: There is a general mistrust of government in communities of color. It takes time to get buy-in just to do a preliminary damage assessment in certain areas. Any regulation or policy that makes accessing assistance slower or more complicated or that requires a certain amount of enfranchisement (e.g., having a bank account) to participate, will impact underserved communities far more negatively that it will impact any other communities.

2. Public Assistance: Are there measures FEMA could take to more effectively bolster or incentivize resilience to the impacts of climate change?

Response: Encourage mitigation in areas that have repeated disasters at the time immediately after the disaster - not through additional mitigation funds a year or two later. Let them upsize culverts, replaced damaged dams/bridges - let them do it right without waiting multiple years. Public Assistance Program Delivery Managers must be trained to request that mitigation measures be included in these projects instead of being unaware of the possibilities or discouraging communities from them.

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?

Response: This is something that FEMA should work on with the banks. Since flood insurance only seems to insure the bank's investment, this should be worked on with the lending authorities. If flood insurance is not required, people of modest means are not going to be able to free up money to spend on it. If the question is putting food on the table or buying flood insurance, the answer is clear.

The Community Rating System (CRS) is a great opportunity for communities to lower flood insurance premiums for their residents. However, the difficulty community officials face in obtaining flood insurance data through FEMA's PIVOT system acts as a disincentive for participation.

4. Hazard Mitigation Programs: Are there measures FEMA could take to prioritize funding to mitigate the disproportionate impact climate change has on the most vulnerable in society, particularly lower-income communities, communities of color, and Tribal communities?

Response: FEMA's benefit-cost analysis needs to be reconceptualized to monetize the value of facilities or services, not the replacement cost. Using the replacement cost will always give higher benefit-cost ratios in wealthier communities who need the assistance less. Last year's BRIC program selections are a classic example of FEMA saying they want to help small, impoverished communities and then giving a vast majority of funding to wealthy communities.

Additionally, the mitigation programs are so complicated and require so much up-front work prior to grant award that underserved communities and populations simply do not have the capacity or resources to take advantage of these opportunities no matter how much money FEMA gives them in management costs after the grant is awarded. Even the planning and project scoping grant applications require substantial effort.

The application and approval process is so slow that assistance does not reach communities in need until long after it's needed. Budgeting for the match in small communities is nearly impossible when they don't even know what year the project may be funded in.

State-level partners are often happy to help communities develop applications, but they also do not have the capacity to undertake more work. Management costs are helpful, but most states cannot hire the type of permanent staff that is needed to develop real subject matter expertise based on grants with specific timelines. A consistent source of management costs available annually and before an application period would be much more helpful and could be modeled after the CAP-SSSE grants.

5. Preparedness Grant Programs: Are there measures FEMA could take to improve our Preparedness Grant Programs to ensure the funding provided to our State and local partners and other stakeholders addresses the domestic terrorism threats currently faced, particularly when those threats impact or target groups that have been historically underserved or subjected to discrimination? What should FEMA address beyond the types of activities these grants support the priority areas on which we ask our State, local, and Tribal partners and other stakeholders to should focus; and the risk methodologies to use in determining how to allocate funding?

Response: Additional guidance and resources are needed to better educate potential local sub-grantees, including specific training on grants and project management, as well as how to develop comprehensive and strong grant applications.

The current threat matrix and review at the state level could be enhanced to factor in local cultural challenges and language barriers. Also, FEMA funding and direction could address the five challenges listed below that each local emergency management's jurisdiction will likely face over the next few years:

* Equipment and training to support ongoing vaccine distribution & logistics

* Training to direct resources to support post pandemic mental health programs

* Training to support successful implementation of post pandemic community & economic recovery programs

* Conducting a needs assessment and providing local training to combat COVID-19 disinformation that presents barriers to recovery

* Undertaking cybersecurity training and education at the local level to enhance protection and prevention measures

General Questions

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?

Response: The confusion and unlimited processes that change every year are a huge barrier to participation for both individuals and communities. The processes are not simple - the idea that everyone even has access and ability to scan documents and upload them (COVID Funeral Assistance, for example) is a misconception that impacts most significantly those most in need.

There is the need for a method/tool to identify and measure the systemic barriers to opportunities which would help guide and prioritize planning and training projects for the communities and to help guide requests for funding.

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?

Response: There are many programs intended to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change, but all the programs under FEMA need a coordinated delivery of sustainable services at the community level to bolster resilience to the impacts of climate change for those disproportionately affected.

3. Are there FEMA programs, regulations, and/or policies that do not promote environmental justice? How can those programs, regulations, and/or policies be modified, expanded, streamlined, or repealed to promote environmental justice?

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?

Response: Write all documents at the 5th grade reading level. We have many educators that can easily understand policy/procedures, but the public will struggle. Have an 800 number that will assist 24/7; have an alternative to "scan and upload" that is equally easy.

The Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs have some of the highest potential to make a difference in underserved communities but are so extremely complicated that most communities cannot take advantage of them. Turn these programs into block grants. Simplify the benefit-cost analysis - the pre-calculated benefits for acquisition and elevation projects was the best thing FEMA ever did for the HMA programs. Continue to work on programmatic agreements for environmental/historic preservation reviews where possible to streamline that process as well.

This has been a challenge recently with the Nonprofit Security Grant Program (NSGP) growing much larger. This program provides opportunity to serve the needs of people of color and others who have been historically underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality. FEMA failed to provide an opportunity for the SAA to receive funding to support state administration and staffing for the NSGP program; expecting the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) funds to support the administration of NSGP is not acceptable. If NSGP is allowed more funding for broader community initiatives in addition to target hardening, it will continue to grow and has potential to help many in the community, not just individual organizations.

5. Are there any FEMA regulations and/or policies that create duplication, overlap, complexity, or inconsistent requirements within FEMA programs, other DHS components, or any other Federal Government agency that impact equity, resilience to the effects of climate change, and/or environmental justice? If so, what are they and how can they be improved or updated to meet the required objectives of equity, resiliency, and environmental justice?

Response: There could be additional coordination between FEMA and US EPA because both agencies have programs, regulations, and policies to guide environmental justice and resilience to the effects of climate change.

The requirements for applying for recipient management costs for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program are overly burdensome. Working through the complex web of requirements to receive the money to fund staff to implement the grants is a great waste of time. These funds should be given to recipients to implement the programs and reconciled at the end of the grant. Recipients know what are and are not eligible costs. They are also clearly laid out in the HMA Guidance documents. Attempting to predict how the grants will play out and the exact costs needed for every minute detail of implementing them and is an exercise in futility. The time wasted on this could be better spent assisting communities in developing and applying for grants that will meet the objectives of equity, resilience, and environmental justice.

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?

Response: It should be a priority to specifically design a method/tool for the SAA that would help identify areas of inefficiency in grants management and administration, as well as identify tasks that are repeatedly causing confusion that could be revisited and revised. More recently there has been increased equity in access to FEMA programs and a greater awareness by potential subapplicants on what funding is available or may become available.

Again, if the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs were administered as block grants, they would be available much sooner and with much less complicated up-front paperwork while achieving the same or better results.

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?

Response: FEMA needs to replace NEMIS for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and ND-Grants and the Grants Reporting Tool for preparedness grants. Additionally, for the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, FEMA should stop requiring quarterly reports to be submitted in the archaic NEMIS system. It takes a very long time to enter all the data in separately. FEMA reviewers should instead accept spreadsheets showing expenditures and narratives for each subaward.

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?

Response: It is more common now that some of the grant administration and reporting tasks are for the same information. That duplication requires considerable time to enter the same data again and again.

In the Hazard Mitigation Assistance programs, it is advantageous to utilize other state programs or Community Development Block Grants as match. However differing timelines and requirements make it difficult and even impossible to implement at times. Regulations and forms among programs with the same ultimate goals should be deconflicted and also streamlined to make the process easier for applicants and subapplicants.

9. Are there existing sources of data that FEMA can use to evaluate the post-promulgation effects of regulations over time? Or, are there sources of data that FEMA can use to evaluate the effects of FEMA policies or regulations on equity for all, including individuals who belong to underserved communities?

Response: To the first question, there were successful programs that were discontinued when a new administration came to Washington. Project Impact for mitigation comes to mind as it was very successful in the 1990s, and it would beneficial to look at the data to see if fewer community based mitigation projects were completed in the years after it was discontinued; and has the outcome of ending other community based programs been examined? Another possible source of information would be loss avoidance studies for mitigation projects. For example, before FEMA allowed pre-calculated benefits to be used for acquisition projects, how many communities were getting repeated damages to the same structures? After the pre-calculated benefits were allowed, how did that impact mitigation in those same communities?

On the second question, the data from declared disasters and their recovery outcomes would be good data to examine to determine if the underserved communities in declared disasters have had positive outcomes from the assistance that was provided; or did it just get the community back to the same place of being underserved, marginalized, and adversely affected by poverty and inequality. Some longitudinal studies of this sort have already been undertaken regarding buyout projects.

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?

Response: This area has emerging outcomes that are more recent and merit study. Again, this is another area where it should be a priority to specifically design a method/tool for the SAA to help identify successful approaches to implementation, and identify barriers to opportunities to advance equity and climate resilience; which again, would help guide and prioritize planning and training projects for the communities and to help guide requests for funding.

11. Are there FEMA regulations, programs, or processes that create barriers to mitigation, response, recovery, or resilience for a specific industry or sector of the economy, geographic location within the United States, or government type (e.g. a specific tribal or territorial government or a specific local government)?

Response: There was consideration for FFY21 to expand the Urban Area Security Initiative (UASI) funding to the top 100 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs), but this ultimately did not occur. Whether it requires additional appropriations or a restructuring of current UASI funding opportunities, the top 100 should be funded. The UASI programs for the last 15 years, including those no longer funded due to changes in funding opportunities, have demonstrated great success with productive regional collaboration for planning and enhancing capabilities.

Additionally, the Emergency Management Performance Grant, which funds emergency management programs at the state/territory and community level, does not have a tribal allocation. States may choose to pass funding through to the tribes in their state, but it is not required. Tribal communities are some of the most underserved in our country.

* * *

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