Return to Hazards Center Home Page
The "Managing Grantee" approach to expediting mitigation and building state capability deals with devolving the administration of the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) post-disaster funding from the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) from FEMA to the states. This is a pilot process and may provide the framework for devolving other programs within FEMA.
Three issues were raised regarding the formulation of the "Managing Grantee" approach. 1) As FEMA is a relatively small agency (3,000 people), their technical assistance capability may often be exceeded (with $2 billion allocated to disasters, it is difficult to follow through with projects). Therefore, FEMA would like to promote more partnerships with locals. 2) There is a lack of continuity in programs with states and locals. 3) Land-use codes and laws from each community and state may vary. With the National Performance Review, FEMA has been challenged to conduct business and customer satisfaction in a better, faster way with less red tape.
Devolving the administration of HMGP from FEMA to the states may result in more effective management and allow FEMA to provide the states with more meaningful technical assistance. While building state capability and fostering cooperative relationships between partners, it may be possible to facilitate HMGP fund obligations within a new 24 month time frame. Currently, three pilot programs exist: Florida (east), Ohio (central/midwest), and North Dakota (west). These areas were chosen because they were interested, capable, and had open disaster programs. What a state can do by themselves and with what they need help will be determined within a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between FEMA and the state and will fall within their Performance Partnership Agreement (PPA). This process allows for flexibility in working together to determine the responsibility of each partner, thereby speeding up funding, creating mitigation accountability, and developing a risk analysis mitigation plan in each state that identifies priorities for hazard mitigation grant funding (whether a disaster has occurred in the state or not). One problem may be the continuity of a new governor and his/her views on mitigation. In summary, FEMA is trying to expand the states' responsibility (with FEMA as technical assistant) and link mitigation to planning in an organized structure that is formula-based depending on the cost of a disaster.
The State of Missouri supports the FEMA concept of delivering money to a community as soon as possible, and delegating the "nitty-gritty" process to the state. Missouri has nine area coordinators to assist with all hazard plans. There have been 59 HMGP projects since the 1993 floods and all are completed, with 56 of 59 close-out reports done. The cost-benefit of mitigation was proven in the 1995 flood. The Missouri Emergency Management Agency (EMA) has set up a pre-disaster MOU, is drafting MOUs with other state agencies, has time lines within their MOUs to approve/disapprove the HMGP, and has a mitigation team of state agencies approved by the governor. Missouri feels that it may be able to hasten the HMGP process with FEMA's assistance and associated costs may be less by using state contractors rather than FEMA supplied contractors, thereby making the state stronger in mitigation as funds may be used state-wide rather than only in counties affected by the disaster. The Missouri EMA staff numbers 67 (larger after the flood) and is well supported by the governor.
State roles have increased (i.e., welfare, environmental policy devolution, etc.) and implications of devolution of authority to the states as "laboratories of democracy" are dependent on factors of state capabilities. These factors include institutional capacity (size/knowledge of staff), fiscal capacity (HMGP money goes away), and the commitment level of state elected officials. The turnover rate in state agencies and associated costs of training as well as transaction costs and levels of hierarchy will certainly play a role in a "Managing Grantee" process. Variations exist within the states with regard to devolution including political culture, administration, knowledge of programs, consistency of information, requirements for technical assistance, and existing policy and communications networks. Because of differential devolution and state variations, there can be no blanket transfer of policy; a whole scale transfer may or may not be successful in all states. Because executive decisions could be reversed with the next governor, the capability to manage the program must be demonstrated by a shift in public policy that is supported by state legislatures, planning departments, and special interest groups. FEMA should look at commitment levels and the overall setting of goals and outcomes within individual MOUs, hopefully resulting in a better hazard analysis and risk assessment in the as-built and to-be-built community.
Return to Hazards Center Home Page
Return
to Index of 1998 Session Summaries