A United States General Accounting Office (GAO) study on Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) multihazard mitigation programs requested by U.S. Senator Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii) describes widespread satisfaction among the states with FEMA's two multihazard mitigation programs and concern over the Bush Administration's proposal to eliminate pre-disaster mitigation funding. The report, "Hazard Mitigation: Proposed Changes to FEMA's Multihazard Mitigation Programs Present Challenge," will be released by the GAO on Wednesday, October 16, 2002.
Since March of 2001, the Administration has proposed drastic changes to FEMA's hazard mitigation policies and the elimination of "ineffective" programs. After learning that there had been no formal review of the effectiveness of multihazard mitigation programs, Senator Akaka requested that GAO review FEMA's disaster mitigation efforts. After the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the United States, the Senator asked GAO to expand the study to include an assessment of how the increased emphasis on preventing and preparing for terrorism events is affecting natural hazard mitigation. The report analyzes the characteristics of FEMA's current multihazard mitigation programs, the states' view of these programs, the Administration's proposed changes to FEMA's current approach to hazard mitigation, and the impact of the increased federal focus on homeland security on hazard mitigation.
FEMA's two multihazard mitigation programs, the post-disaster Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP) and the pre-disaster Project Impact program, help states and communities identify and address natural hazard risks identified as most significant. GAO interviewed hazard mitigation officials from 24 states to get their perspectives on current FEMA programs and the Administration's proposals. GAO purposely selected both small and large states, containing urban and rural communities, that have received both small and large amounts of mitigation funding. Despite geographic differences, emergency management officials view FEMA's mitigation programs as successful and effective.
Emergency management officials described how, in addition to traditional "brick and mortar" programs, such as retrofitting buildings and relocating properties, mitigation effects can be intangible. Mitigation includes outreach activities, such as increasing public awareness and support for mitigation, building public-private partnerships to pool mitigation resources, and planning and risk assessment. FEMA's current multihazard mitigation programs are viewed positively by the emergency management community. The focus of the proposed new program on obtaining the most cost-effective program, in light of current budget concerns, is well-intended. However, GAO doubts consolidating the HMGP and Project Impact into one program will make it more effective in achieving disaster mitigation objectives.
"We must listen to these officials, the end-users of mitigation programs, when determining program success or failure," Akaka noted. "These dedicated men and women have many concerns over the Administration's proposal. They worry that FEMA will lose the window of opportunity that exists after a disaster strikes if HMGP funds are not included in federal assistance. This is when public and community interest in mitigating against future disasters is highest. They worry that a competitive grant system might exclude some states entirely from mitigation funding."
GAO reported that FEMA is working to ensure and strengthen natural hazard mitigation, response, and recovery efforts while attending to homeland security needs. FEMA officials are identifying and correcting redundancies in reporting, planning, training, and other activities across mitigation and preparedness programs. FEMA mitigation experts are working to identify terrorism mitigation activities that are also "all hazard" and address natural hazard mitigation priorities.
"While a focus on obtaining the most cost-effective program is well-intended, I share the concerns of the emergency management community and FEMA personnel that assigning a dollar amount to the benefit of doing mitigation, or the cost of not doing it, is a difficult and ill-defined task," said Akaka. I share their doubts that consolidating the HMGP and Project Impact programs will make disaster mitigation more effective or successful."
After reviewing the GAO report, FEMA Director Joseph Allbaugh wrote to GAO, "I appreciate your support of my strongly held belief that funding and support of both pre-and post-disaster mitigation programs are critical to FEMA's success in leading the nation to reduce disaster losses." "I agree with Director Allbaugh. We must continue to to support pre-disaster mitigation as an investment for the future," Akaka concluded.
