[House Hearing, 117 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]


                 ENSURING EQUITY IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, 
                          RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

=======================================================================


                                HEARING

                               BEFORE THE

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY
                        HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

                    ONE HUNDRED SEVENTEENTH CONGRESS

                             FIRST SESSION

                               __________

                            OCTOBER 27, 2021

                               __________

                           Serial No. 117-35

                               __________

       Printed for the use of the Committee on Homeland Security
                                     


[GRAPHIC NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]                                     

        Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.govinfo.gov

                               __________
                               
                 U.S. GOVERNMENT PUBLISHING OFFICE                    
46-870 PDF                 WASHINGTON : 2022                     
          
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------                                 
                               
                               

                     COMMITTEE ON HOMELAND SECURITY

               Bennie G. Thompson, Mississippi, Chairman
Sheila Jackson Lee, Texas            John Katko, New York
James R. Langevin, Rhode Island      Michael T. McCaul, Texas
Donald M. Payne, Jr., New Jersey     Clay Higgins, Louisiana
J. Luis Correa, California           Michael Guest, Mississippi
Elissa Slotkin, Michigan             Dan Bishop, North Carolina
Emanuel Cleaver, Missouri            Jefferson Van Drew, New Jersey
Al Green, Texas                      Ralph Norman, South Carolina
Yvette D. Clarke, New York           Mariannette Miller-Meeks, Iowa
Eric Swalwell, California            Diana Harshbarger, Tennessee
Dina Titus, Nevada                   Andrew S. Clyde, Georgia
Bonnie Watson Coleman, New Jersey    Carlos A. Gimenez, Florida
Kathleen M. Rice, New York           Jake LaTurner, Kansas
Val Butler Demings, Florida          Peter Meijer, Michigan
Nanette Diaz Barragan, California    Kat Cammack, Florida
Josh Gottheimer, New Jersey          August Pfluger, Texas
Elaine G. Luria, Virginia            Andrew R. Garbarino, New York
Tom Malinowski, New Jersey
Ritchie Torres, New York
                       Hope Goins, Staff Director
                 Daniel Kroese, Minority Staff Director
                          Natalie Nixon, Clerk
                            
                            C O N T E N T S

                              ----------                              
                                                                   Page

                               Statements

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     1
  Prepared Statement.............................................     2
The Honorable John Katko, a Representative in Congress From the 
  State of New York, and Ranking Member, Committee on Homeland 
  Security:
  Oral Statement.................................................     4
  Prepared Statement.............................................     6

                               Witnesses

Dr. Lori Peek, PhD, Director, Natural Hazards Center and 
  Professor, Department of Sociology, University of Colorado:
  Oral Statement.................................................     8
  Prepared Statement.............................................     9
Ms. Chauncia Willis, Co-Founder and Chief Executive Officer, 
  Institute for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Management:
  Oral Statement.................................................    15
  Prepared Statement.............................................    16
Mr. Christopher P. Currie, Director, Homeland Security and 
  Justice Team, GAO:
  Oral Statement.................................................    21
  Prepared Statement.............................................    23
Mr. James K. Joseph, Vice President for Response, Tidal Basin:
  Oral Statement.................................................    30
  Prepared Statement.............................................    32

                             For the Record

The Honorable Bennie G. Thompson, a Representative in Congress 
  From the State of Mississippi, and Chairman, Committee on 
  Homeland Security:
  Graphic........................................................     3
  Letter From the Board of Supervisors, Leflore County, MS.......    69
  Statement of the National Low Income Housing Coalition.........    69

 
    ENSURING EQUITY IN DISASTER PREPAREDNESS, RESPONSE, AND RECOVERY

                              ----------                              


                      Wednesday, October 27, 2021

                     U.S. House of Representatives,
                            Committee on Homeland Security,
                                                    Washington, DC.
    The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 10:02 a.m., via 
Webex, Hon. Bennie G. Thompson [Chairman of the committee] 
presiding.
    Present: Representatives Thompson, Jackson Lee, Langevin, 
Payne, Slotkin, Green, Clarke, Swalwell, Watson Coleman, Rice, 
Demings, Barragan, Gottheimer, Malinowski, Torres, Katko, 
Higgins, Guest, Bishop, Van Drew, Norman, Miller-Meeks, 
Harshbarger, Clyde, Gimenez, LaTurner, Pfluger, and Garbarino.
    Chairman Thompson. The Committee on Homeland Security will 
come to order. Without objection, the Chair is authorized to 
declare the committee in recess at any point.
    Good morning. Today the committee is meeting to examine how 
the Federal Government can ensure equity in disaster 
preparedness, response, and recovery.
    Last summer almost 1 in 3 Americans experienced a disaster. 
Disasters are increasing, and as they do, the number of people 
in need of assistance will always increase. However, not 
everyone who needs assistance will get in. In fact, those who 
need it the most are often the least likely to get help. Some 
believe that ``disasters are great equalizers''. To the 
contrary, disasters expose and worsen inequities, in part 
because disaster assistance programs favor some groups over 
others. For example, internal FEMA analyses reported by NPR 
showed that low-income applicants were twice as likely to be 
denied FEMA housing assistance due to ``insufficient'' damage. 
These outcomes lead to long-term impacts that are detrimental 
to already marginalized groups.
    Put simply, a growing body of evidence shows that in the 
wake of a disaster, the rich get richer and the poor get 
poorer. Race always appears to play a role in outcomes. 
According to a 2018 study, White Americans living in counties 
that received disaster aid gained over $100,000 in wealth 
compared to White Americans living in counties that did not 
experience a disaster. In contrast, Black and Latino Americans 
in areas that received disaster assistance lost thousands 
compared to their peers that had not experienced a disaster. A 
person's zip code or skin color should not affect how he or she 
fares in a disaster, but this is exactly what happens. Low-
income and rural communities are especially at risk. The 
Federal Emergency Management Agency is aware of these 
inequities.
    In November 2020, FEMA's own National Advisory Council 
delivered a stunning rebuke of the status quo, stating ``FEMA 
does not meet the equity requirements of the Stafford Act''. 
The Advisory Council defined equity as ``to provide the 
greatest support to those with greatest need to achieve a 
certain minimum outcome''. Equity is recognizing and responding 
to different needs to ensure everyone can recover with dignity.
    That means making sure that we do not leave rural 
communities behind, supporting community members with differing 
abilities, as well as protecting everyone's right to a safe 
recovery, regardless of their race or ethnicity or their 
income.
    I commend the Biden administration for working to ensure 
equity in FEMA programs, including expanding allowable 
ownership documentation to help families with heirs' properties 
keep land that has been in their family for generations. These 
are important steps in the right direction, and we must press 
on.
    Now is the time for bold action. It is time to rethink a 
system that too often fails those who are already marginalized. 
I have seen the effect of the status quo on the communities 
with my own eyes. In June, floods devastated the Mississippi 
Delta. Over 700 homes were impacted, yet residents did not 
receive assistance. These families had inches of water in their 
homes and after 30 days were informed by the State that the 
Governor would not even pursue Federal assistance. The Stafford 
Act relies on Governors and local leaders to act in good faith, 
but this may not always be the case when it comes to certain 
communities.
    I am currently working on legislation to help address this 
problem and looking forward to introducing it in the near 
future. I also encourage DHS to continue making progress toward 
equity where it has discretion to do so. It is time to change 
inequitable policies throughout our disaster response system.
    Today, we will hear from our witnesses why these inequities 
exist and what we can do about them. I look forward to your 
testimony.
    [The statement of Chairman Thompson follows:]
                Statement of Chairman Bennie G. Thompson
                            October 27, 2021
    Today, the committee is meeting to examine how the Federal 
Government can ensure equity in disaster preparedness, response, and 
recovery. Last summer, almost 1 in 3 Americans experienced a disaster. 
Disasters are increasing, and as they do, the number of people in need 
of assistance will also increase. However, not everyone who needs 
assistance will get it. In fact, those who need it the most are often 
the least likely to get help. Some believe that ``disasters are great 
equalizers.''
    To the contrary, disasters expose and worsen inequities, in part 
because disaster assistance programs favor some groups over others. For 
example, internal FEMA analyses reported by NPR showed that low-income 
applicants were twice as likely to be denied FEMA housing assistance 
due to ``insufficient'' damage. These outcomes lead to long-term 
impacts that are detrimental to already marginalized groups. Put 
simply, a growing body of evidence shows that in the wake of a 
disaster, the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Race also 
appears to play a role in outcomes.
    According to a 2018 study, White Americans living in counties that 
received disaster aid gained over $100,000 in wealth compared to White 
Americans living in counties that did not experience a disaster. In 
contrast, Black and Latino Americans in areas that received disaster 
assistance lost thousands compared to their peers that had not 
experienced a disaster. A person's ZIP code or skin color should not 
affect how he or she fares in a disaster, but this is exactly what 
happens. Low-income and rural communities are especially at risk. The 
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is aware of these 
inequities.
    In November 2020, FEMA's own National Advisory Council delivered a 
stunning rebuke of the status quo, stating ``FEMA does not meet the 
equity requirements of the Stafford Act.'' The Advisory Council defined 
equity as ``to provide the greatest support to those with greatest need 
to achieve a certain minimum outcome.'' Equity is recognizing and 
responding to different needs to ensure everyone can recover with 
dignity.
    That means:
   Making sure we do not leave rural counties behind
   Supporting community members with differing abilities, and
   Protecting everyone's right to a safe recovery, regardless 
        of their race or ethnicity or their income.
    I commend the Biden administration for working to ensure equity in 
FEMA programs, including expanding allowable ownership documentation to 
help families with heirs' property keep land that has been in their 
family for generations. These are important steps in the right 
direction, and we must press on.
    Now is the time for bold action. It is time to rethink a system 
that too often fails those who are already marginalized. I have seen 
the effect of the status quo on these communities with my own eyes. In 
June, floods devastated the Mississippi Delta--over 700 homes were 
impacted--yet residents did not receive assistance. These families had 
inches of water in their homes and after 30 days were informed by the 
State that the Governor would not even pursue Federal assistance.
    The Stafford Act relies on Governors and local leaders to act in 
good faith, but this may not always be the case when it comes to 
certain communities. I am currently working on legislation to help 
address this problem and look forward to introducing it in the near 
future. I also encourage DHS to continue making progress toward equity 
where it has discretion to do so. It is time to change inequitable 
policies throughout our disaster response system. Today, we will hear 
from our witnesses why these inequities exist and what we can do about 
them.



    Chairman Thompson. I now recognize the Ranking Member, the 
gentleman from New York, Mr. Katko, for an opening statement.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    I want to echo your sentiments that with respect to FEMA 
disasters, I think your quote was something along the lines of 
those who need it the most are often least likely to receive 
the aid. I couldn't agree more. Sometimes I think it is a 
formulaic thing. In upstate New York we have had multiple 
disasters and none of them have qualified for FEMA assistance. 
I am going to talk more about that during the hearing today. 
But I do think the formulas are something that we need to look 
at as well because that seems to reinforce some of the concerns 
that you have.
    So I do want to thank you for holding this very important 
hearing today on equity in emergency management. I am thankful 
for the opportunity to discuss this topic and look forward to 
hearing from our witnesses.
    Unfortunately, disasters around the globe have historically 
had greater negative impacts on lower-income and minority 
populations. The reasons for this are complex and numerous. 
Some of these reasons include minimal investment in 
infrastructure before a disaster, lack of insurance or under-
insurance, inability for those in disaster-prone areas to flee 
when or before disaster strikes, and the philanthropic gap 
after an event. All these factors, and more, contribute to 
added negative impacts on the front end of a disaster, as well 
as slower and less effective response and recoveries after 
disaster strikes.
    These factors also, unfortunately, contribute to pushing 
more individuals and communities that are already on the brink 
into further poverty and despair.
    According to a 2017 article in Scientific America, in the 
United States ``each big catastrophe, like a hurricane, 
increases a U.S. county's poverty by 1 percent 90 years of data 
show''. In the United States we have seen this phenomenon of 
greater short- and long-term damage to lower-income and 
minority areas play out through some of the country's worst 
disasters. These impacts can sometimes be extremely long-
lasting and permanent.
    Ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, 96,000 
fewer African Americans were living in New Orleans than prior 
to Hurricane Katrina. Nearly 1 in 3 black residents had not 
returned to the city after the storm. The median black 
household in New Orleans in 2013 was $30,000, which is $5,000 
less than it was in 2000, adjusted for inflation.
    We see the impacts of disasters on these individuals and 
communities not only in the United States but across the world 
where those already in poverty are disproportionately impacted 
by disasters.
    According to a 2016 World Bank report, some 26 million 
people are forced into poverty every year as a result of 
natural disasters. A 2008 report from the United Nations stated 
that of the 262 million individuals affected in 2007 and 2008 
by natural disasters, 98 percent of those people resided in 
developing nations. That is the poorest of the poor.
    Mr. Chairman, like you, my district in central New York 
also includes low-income and rural areas that may be 
disproportionately impacted by disasters. I know that both of 
us, if and when disaster strikes back home, would want 
assurances that all of our constituents are being treated in an 
equitable manner.
    These statistics from the United States and around the 
world are very eye-opening and unfortunately, as I stated 
before, this phenomenon is not limited to one type of disaster 
or even only to natural disasters.
    Disadvantaged and minority communities were also, and 
continue to be, hit particularly hard by COVID. According to a 
recent article on Healthline Media, ``Researchers report that 
the death rate from COVID-19 is significantly higher in black, 
Native American, and Latino communities than any other groups. 
They say some factors are underlying medical conditions, 
unequal access to health care services, and jobs that require 
employees to work closely with the public.''
    Additionally, in an article published by NBC News a few 
weeks ago, ``Since the pandemic began, about 1 in 434 rural 
Americans have died from COVID compared with roughly 1 in 513 
urban Americans. And though vaccines have reduced overall COVID 
death rates since the winter peak, rural mortality rates are 
now more than double that of urban ones and accelerating 
quickly.''
    This death rate is also directly correlated to counties 
with a high rate of poverty, according to NIH.
    Mr. Chairman, again, I appreciate you having this hearing 
and shedding some light on this issue. I will say that I think 
we can do better, not only in the Government, but in other 
organizations, such as nonprofits and community-based 
organizations that work on these issues.
    Since our focus today is on emergency management, I would 
like to simply challenge emergency managers, as I have in the 
past at all levels, to keep these anecdotes and statistics in 
mind as they work with communities on a full range of 
assistance, from pre-disaster mitigation to flood insurance to 
post-disaster insurance.
    We need to level the playing field and ensure that we are 
not only offering the same type and amount of assistance to 
everyone, but that emergency managers are considering the 
unique needs that certain communities and individuals have so 
that we can improve outcomes for all disaster survivors.
    I know that FEMA has recently taken steps to help ensure 
equity in disaster assistance, including the formation of an 
equity enterprise steering group and the establishment of a 
robust stakeholder engagement process to develop FEMA's 2022 to 
2026 strategic plan.
    The equity enterprise steering group focuses on assessing 
issues such as access and delivery of FEMA programs, 
activities, and services. I hope these initiatives and others 
allow for greater access and inclusion in FEMA programs.
    We should consider ourselves very fortunate to live in a 
country that has the resources and programs to help our 
communities and individual citizens before, during, and after 
disasters. That is certainly not the case in all countries 
around the world. We also have tens of thousands of 
professionals dedicated to fields of emergency management and 
related fields, including our witnesses today.
    I look forward to hearing from them on how to better 
achieve equity in emergency management to ensure that all 
Americans and the communities they live in are able to 
mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from any and all 
disasters.
    I will say before closing that I am sick and tired of 
seeing people building multi-million-dollar mansions on the 
beach and then getting FEMA assistance while people in rural 
areas don't get squat. We have got to change that. That is what 
I am interested in talking about today.
    With that, Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    [The statement of Ranking Member Katko follows:]
                 Statement of Ranking Member John Katko
    Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this very important hearing on 
equity in emergency management. I am thankful for the opportunity to 
discuss this topic and look forward to hearing from our witnesses.
    Unfortunately, disasters around the globe have historically had 
greater negative impacts on lower-income and minority populations. The 
reasons for this are complex and numerous. Some of these reasons 
include:
   Minimal investment in infrastructure before a disaster;
   Lack of insurance or under-insurance;
   Inability for those in disaster-prone areas to flee when/
        before disaster strikes; and
   A philanthropic gap after an event.
    All these factors, and more, contribute to added negative impacts 
on the front end of a disaster, as well as slower and less effective 
response and recoveries after disaster strikes. These factors also, 
unfortunately, contribute to pushing more individuals and communities 
that are already on the brink into further poverty and despair.
    According to a 2017 article in Scientific America, in the United 
States . . . ``each big catastrophe like a hurricane increases a U.S. 
county's poverty by 1 percent, 90 years of data show.''
    In the United States, we have seen this phenomenon of greater 
short- and long-term damage to lower-income and minority areas play out 
through some of the country's worst disasters. And these impacts can 
sometimes be extremely long lasting/permanent.
    Ten years after Hurricane Katrina hit New Orleans, 96,000 fewer 
African-Americans were living in New Orleans, than prior to Hurricane 
Katrina. Nearly 1 in 3 Black residents had not returned to the city 
after the storm. And, the median Black household in New Orleans in 2013 
was $30,000, which is $5,000 less than it was in 2000, adjusted for 
inflation.
    We see the impacts of disasters on these individuals and 
communities not only in the United States but across the world, where 
those already in poverty are disproportionally impacted by disasters. 
According to a 2016 World Bank report, some 26 million people are 
forced into poverty every year as a result of natural disasters.
    A 2008 report from the United Nations stated that of the 262 
million individuals affected in 2007 and 2008 by natural disasters, 98 
percent of those people resided in developing nations--the poorest of 
the poor.
    Mr. Chairman, like you, my District in Central New York also 
includes low-income and rural areas that may be disproportionately 
impacted by disasters. I know that both of us, if and when disaster 
strikes back home, would want assurances that all of our constituents 
are being treated in an equitable manner.
    Mr. Chairman, these statistics from the United States and around 
the world are very eye-opening, and unfortunately, as I stated before, 
this phenomenon is not limited to one type of disaster, or even only to 
natural disasters.
    Disadvantaged and minority communities were also--and continue to 
be--hit particularly hard by COVID. According to a recent article in 
Health Line Media, ``Researchers report that the death rate from COVID-
19 is significantly higher in Black, Native American, and Latino 
communities than other groups. They say some factors are underlying 
medical conditions, unequal access to health care services, and jobs 
that require employees to work closely with the public.'' Additionally, 
in an article published by NBC News a few weeks ago, ``Since the 
pandemic began, about 1 in 434 rural Americans have died from COVID, 
compared with roughly 1 in 513 urban Americans . . . And though 
vaccines have reduced overall COVID death rates since the winter peak, 
rural mortality rates are now more than double that of urban ones--and 
accelerating quickly.'' This death rate is also directly correlated to 
counties with a high rate of poverty according to NIH.
    Mr. Chairman, I again appreciate you having this hearing and 
shedding some light on this issue. I will say that I think we can do 
better, not only in the Government, but in other organizations, such as 
non-profits and community-based organizations that work on these 
issues.
    Since our focus today is on emergency management, I would like to 
simply challenge emergency managers, at all levels, to keep these 
anecdotes and statistics in mind as they work with communities on the 
full range of assistance, from pre-disaster mitigation, to flood 
insurance, to post-disaster assistance. We need to level the playing 
field and ensure that we are not only offering the same type and amount 
of assistance to everyone, but that emergency managers are considering 
the unique needs that certain communities and individuals have so that 
we can improve outcomes for all disaster survivors.
    I know that FEMA has recently taken steps to help ensure equity in 
disaster assistance, including the formation of an Equity Enterprise 
Steering Group and the establishment of a robust stakeholder engagement 
process to develop FEMA's 2022-2026 Strategic Plan. The Equity 
Enterprise Steering Group focuses on assessing issues such as access 
and delivery of FEMA programs, activities, and services. I hope these 
initiatives and others allow for greater access and inclusion in FEMA 
programs.
    We should consider ourselves very fortunate to live in a country 
that has the resources and programs to help our communities and 
individual citizens before, during, and after disasters. That is 
certainly not the case in all countries around the world. We also have 
tens of thousands of professionals dedicated to the field of emergency 
management, and related fields, including our witnesses here today.
    I look forward to hearing from them on how to better achieve equity 
in emergency management to ensure that all Americans and the 
communities they live in are able to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, 
and recover from any and all disasters.
    Again, Mr. Chairman, thank you for holding this hearing. I yield 
back.

    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. I couldn't have 
made a better example than the million-dollar mansion on the 
beach.
    Mr. Katko. Absolutely.
    Chairman Thompson. Absolutely.
    Other Members of the committee are reminded that under the 
committee rules opening statements may be submitted for the 
record. Members are also reminded that the committee will 
operate according to the guidelines laid out by the Chairman 
and Ranking Member in our February 3 colloquy regarding remote 
procedures.
    I now welcome our panel of witnesses.
    Our first witness is Dr. Lori Peek. Dr. Peek is director of 
the Natural Hazard Center and professor of sociology at the 
University of Colorado, Boulder. She is an author and expert on 
vulnerable populations in disasters and has conducted field 
investigations on the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, 
Hurricane Katrina, the Joplin tornado, Superstorm Sandy, and 
Hurricane Matthew.
    Our second witness is Chauncia Willis. Ms. Willis is co-
founder and CEO of the Institute for Diversity and Inclusion in 
Emergency Management. She is a certified emergency manager, a 
master exercise practitioner and author, and served as 
emergency manager in Tampa, Florida for over 14 years where she 
established programs for marginalized communities.
    Our third witness is Christopher Currie. Mr. Currie serves 
as the director of Homeland and Justice Division with the U.S. 
Government Accountability Office. In his role, Mr. Currie leads 
GAO's investigative work on emergency management, disaster 
response and recovery, and management of the Department of 
Homeland Security. Mr. Currie began his tenure with GAO in 
2002.
    Our fourth and final witness is Mr. James Joseph. Mr. 
Joseph is the vice president of response at Tidal Basin. From 
June 2020 to January 2021 he served as the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency director of External Affairs. Previously Mr. 
Joseph served as FEMA's region 5 administrator.
    Thank you for your participation here today. I look forward 
to all of your testimony.
    Without objection, the witnesses' full statements will be 
inserted in the record.
    I now ask each witness to summarize their statement for 5 
minutes, beginning with Dr. Peek.

STATEMENT OF LORI PEEK, PH D, DIRECTOR, NATURAL HAZARDS CENTER 
 AND PROFESSOR, DEPARTMENT OF SOCIOLOGY, UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO

    Ms. Peek. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member 
Katko, for the invitation to testify.
    Disasters now directly affect tens of millions of Americans 
annually. Between 1960 and 2019 in the United States natural 
hazards contributed to an estimated 35,000 deaths and more than 
$1.1 trillion in property and crop damage. During the same 
period, every single U.S. county has experienced some loss due 
to natural hazards. We are all living with risk, but these 
risks are not felt equally.
    Decades of social science research has shown that disasters 
disproportionately affect the most marginalized among us--
people living in poverty, people of color, women, children, 
older adults, and people with disabilities. Entire books are 
filled with examples of the unequal impacts of disaster.
    At present, however, many Government programs do not 
consider equity in providing aid and therefore can actually 
deepen and create sustained inequalities. This leaves already 
vulnerable people even more at risk. For example, a recent 
study by Drakes and colleagues revealed low levels of post-
disaster aid disbursement in places where households have high 
levels of social vulnerability--specifically those in rural 
areas, renters, the unmarried, black and Asian Americans, and 
those with low incomes received less aid.
    In their examination of more than 41,000 residential 
properties in 500 municipalities across the United States, 
Elliott and colleagues found that flood damage is not the only 
predictor of where buyouts occur. Racial composition matters 
too, with whiter counties and neighborhoods being more likely 
to gain access to buyout assistance even though those in 
neighborhoods of color are more likely to accept the 
assistance. This ends in communities of color being more likely 
to experience demolition and relocation.
    A 2016 study by Carter discovered that only 117 of 566 
Federally-recognized Tribes had FEMA-approved disaster 
mitigation plans. This means that more than three-quarters of 
all Tribes will be ineligible to apply for FEMA grants and 
therefore could not receive Federal funding for disaster 
projects.
    We know that Federal aid doesn't always reach those most in 
need. What is less clear at present is what mechanisms are 
driving the observed inequities across programs. Some 
explanations include that low-income enrolled communities, 
communities of color, and indigenous communities have a harder 
time competing for funding because of Federal cost-share 
requirements, lack of access to technical assistance, limited 
data availability, and cumbersome application requirements.
    FEMA has supported the mitigation match concept in an 
effort to overcome these long-standing challenges. But 
historical injustices and contemporary inequities play a large 
role in shaping the receipt of individual and public 
assistance.
    Low-income Americans, for example, are less likely to have 
clear title to their property, which can lead to the outright 
denial of aid. About half of low-income and minority households 
are renters, but our current disaster policy prioritizes 
private homeowners.
    Right now the dedicated staff at our Federal agencies are 
confronting on onslaught of ever more damaging disasters. In 
addition, they are busy auditing their programs and policies to 
advance racial equity and support for under-served communities. 
This vital process could lead to a fundamental re-imagining of 
disaster aid whereby the vulnerable people who are hit first 
and worst in disasters are prioritized.
    In closing, it is clear that inequitable policies and 
practices, even when designed in good faith and meant to 
provide much-needed relief and assistance, can become a second 
disaster that further upends people's lives and leads to a 
deepening of disadvantage. If we truly want to reduce natural 
hazards losses, we must work fervently to reduce economic and 
social inequality. This will take sound science, political 
leadership, a larger and more diverse disaster work force, and 
adequate financial support for Government agencies and their 
community partners. It will also require serious investment in 
equitable hazard mitigation and climate adaptation programs 
that reduce exposure to disaster harm in the first place.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify today.
    The prepared statement of Ms. Peek follows:]
                    Prepared Statement of Lori Peek
                      Wednesday, October 27, 2021
                               gratitude
    Thank you Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of 
the Committee on Homeland Security for inviting me to testify before 
you about equity in disaster preparedness, response, and recovery. This 
is a topic that I care deeply about, and I am so grateful that you have 
chosen to elevate the conversation in this way and at this crucial 
moment in our National history. As disaster losses mount and more 
Americans suffer the consequences of extreme events, the focus of this 
hearing is ever more urgent.
                              introduction
    I am a professor in the Department of Sociology and the director of 
the Natural Hazards Center at the University of Colorado Boulder. The 
Natural Hazards Center has long served as the Nation's National Science 
Foundation-designated information clearinghouse for the societal 
dimensions of hazards and disasters. Our mission is to reduce disaster 
harm by:
   Translating and sharing hazards and disaster research and 
        information;
   Building connections between researchers, non-profit, and 
        private-sector professionals, the media, policy makers, and 
        local, State, and Federal officials;
   Advancing social science and interdisciplinary knowledge, 
        with a special emphasis on the most vulnerable populations and 
        places; and
   Training and mentoring a diverse next generation of hazards 
        and disaster professionals.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Natural Hazards Center. 2021. ``Our Vision and Mission.'' 
Available at: https://hazards.colorado.edu/about/history-and-mission. 
Accessed on October 20, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    I have studied the root causes and human consequences of disasters 
for more than 20 years now. During this time, I have conducted field 
research in the aftermath of several major events such as the 9/11 
terrorist attacks, Hurricane Katrina, the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill, 
the Joplin tornado, Superstorm Sandy, Hurricane Matthew, the Anchorage 
earthquake, and the Ridgecrest earthquake sequence. Much of my time in 
these places has been spent surveying and interviewing children, 
members of low-income families, women, people of color, the elderly, 
and other people from socially disadvantaged communities. I have 
written extensively about the social and economic barriers that members 
of these groups face in preparing for, responding to, and recovering 
from disaster, while also acknowledging that all people have capacities 
and strengths that could contribute to reducing disaster risk.
                     disasters as shared experience
    According to SHELDUS--a spatial disaster loss database maintained 
by Arizona State University--the cumulative U.S. burden from natural 
hazards between 1960 and 2019 stands at more than $1.1 trillion in 
direct property and crop damage, 252,361 injuries, and 34,933 
fatalities.\2\ Most of the costliest disasters have occurred in the 
first two decades of this century, where ``milestone events of 
catastrophic proportion'' in terms of magnitude and/or impacts have set 
new damage records in rapid succession.\3\ For example, in 2017, 
Hurricanes Harvey, Irma, and Maria and the California wildfires cost 
more than $300 billion, far surpassing the previous record of nearly 
$220 billion in losses set in 2005.\4\ Moreover, the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA) estimates that 25 million people were directly 
affected in these four major disasters in 2017--representing almost 8 
percent of the United States population.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ SHELDUS. 2019. ``U.S. Hazard Losses: SHELDUS v19 Summary of 
Losses, 1960-2019.'' Available at: https://cemhs.asu.edu/sheldus/
reports#Losses. Accessed on October 21, 2021.
    \3\ Gall, Melanie. 2019. ``Loss Reduction and Sustainability.'' Pp. 
209-232 in From Disaster to Catastrophe: U.S. Emergency Management in 
the 21st Century, edited by C. Rubin and S.L. Cutter. New York, NY: 
Routledge, p. 219.
    \4\ Ibid., p. 209.
    \5\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2018. FEMA 
Strategic Plan, 2018-2022. Washington, DC: FEMA, p. 18.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Numbers related to escalating disaster impacts could stretch on for 
pages. But they can also be hard to take in because such news has a way 
of receding into a gray statistical blur. In addition, as disturbing as 
the trend lines are, most experts agree that the available data 
actually underestimate direct losses associated with natural hazards 
and largely overlook indirect losses due to a lack of documentation or 
quantification.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \6\ Gall, Melanie, Kevin A. Borden, and Susan L. Cutter. 2009. 
``When Do Losses Count? Six Fallacies of Natural Hazards Loss Data.'' 
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society 90(6): 799-809.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    What is important for our discussion today is to emphasize that 
every county (or county equivalent) in the United States has 
experienced some loss due to natural hazards during the time period 
from 1960 to 2019. While the damage varies widely across counties, 
ranging from $119 in recorded property damage in Mineral County, 
Colorado to $34.7 billion in Harris County, Texas, there is no county 
in the Nation that has gone untouched by natural hazards since 1960.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ SHELDUS. 2020. SHELDUS Version 19.0. Available at: https://
cemhs.asu.edu/sheldus. Accessed on October 22, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In addition, every State has been affected by at least one disaster 
with costs equaling or exceeding $1 billion in damages (adjusting for 
inflation) since 1980 (see Figure 1).\8\ The record number of disasters 
that we are experiencing is creating more of what the National Oceanic 
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has referred to as compound 
extremes, where multiple billion-dollar disaster events occur at the 
same time or in sequence.\9\ This is further complicating already 
difficult response and recovery efforts and increasing levels of 
cumulative disaster exposure--defined here as multiple, acute on-set, 
large-scale collective events that cause disruption for individuals, 
families, and entire communities.\10\ Available research suggests that 
children and adults who experience greater numbers of these potentially 
traumatic community-level events are at risk of a variety of negative 
outcomes and on-going stressors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. ``Seven Things to 
Know about NCEI's U.S. Billion-Dollar Disasters Data.'' Available at: 
https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/news/calculating-cost-weather-and-climate-
disasters. Accessed on October 22, 2021.
    \9\ National Centers for Environmental Information (NCEI), National 
Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). 2021. ``Billion-Dollar 
Weather and Climate Disasters: Overview.'' Available at: https://
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/billions/. Accessed on October 24, 2021.
    \10\ Mohammad, Lubna and Lori Peek. 2019. ``Exposure Outliers: 
Children, Mothers, and Cumulative Disaster Exposure in Louisiana.'' 
Journal of Family Strengths 19(1): Article 4, https://
digitalcommons.library.tmc.edu/jfs/vol19/iss1/4.


    uneven landscapes of risk and disproportionate disaster impacts
    Recent major disasters sharply underscore that while we are all 
living at risk, these risks are not borne equally. Indeed, disaster 
risk is patterned in ways that reflect pre-existing social and economic 
inequalities. Groups that are marginalized have less power and fewer 
resources, and in turn, they often have the hardest time preparing for, 
responding to, and recovering from disaster. This means that disaster 
impacts tend to be distributed along the familiar and intersecting 
social fault lines of race, ethnicity, gender, social class, and 
age.\11\ Indeed, decades of social science research has documented 
disaster-related disparities among women and men, the poor, people of 
color, the elderly, children, and persons with disabilities.\12\ 
Research in this vein has repeatedly shown that those at the margins of 
society bear the heaviest environmental burdens,\13\ are more likely to 
suffer severe physical and mental health outcomes after disaster,\14\ 
more likely to be displaced,\15\ and more likely to experience 
protracted and uneven recovery processes.\16\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ Peek, Lori, Tricia Wachtendorf, and Michelle Annette Meyer. 
2021. ``Sociology of Disasters.'' Chapter 11 in the Handbook of 
Environmental Sociology, edited by B.S. Caniglia, A. Jorgenson, S.A. 
Malin, L. Peek, D.N. Pellow, and X. Huang. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
    \12\ Bullard, Robert. 2008. ``Differential Vulnerabilities: 
Environmental and Economic Inequality and Government Response to 
Unnatural Disasters.'' Social Research 75(3): 753-784, p. 757.
    \13\ Peek, Lori. 2019. ``The Vulnerability Bearers.'' Director's 
Corner, December 12. Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Center, University of 
Colorado Boulder. https://hazards.colorado.edu/news/director/the-
vulnerability-bearers.
    \14\ Thomas, Deborah S.K., Brenda D. Phillips, William E. Lovekamp, 
and Alice Fothergill, eds. 2013. Social Vulnerability to Disasters, 2d 
Edition. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
    \15\ Weber, Lynn and Lori Peek, eds. 2012. Displaced: Life in the 
Katrina Diaspora. Austin: University of Texas Press.
    \16\ Cutter, Susan L., Ronald L. Schumann III, and Christopher T. 
Emrich. 2014. ``Exposure, Social Vulnerability, and Recovery 
Disparities in New Jersey after Hurricane Sandy.'' Journal of Extreme 
Events 1(1): 1450002; Finch, Christina, Christopher T. Emrich, and 
Susan L. Cutter. 2010. ``Disaster Disparities and Differential Recovery 
in New Orleans.'' Population and Environment 31: 179-202.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The social patterns that disasters both reveal and reinforce are 
apparent in who lives and who dies in disaster events. For example, old 
age was the single most important factor in determining who died in 
Hurricane Katrina. Among the over 1,300 persons who perished in New 
Orleans, 67 percent were at least 65 years old, although this group 
represented only about 12 percent of the pre-storm population.\17\ The 
1995 Chicago heat wave claimed more than 700 lives, and 73 percent of 
the heat-related deaths were among persons over 65 years of age.\18\ At 
the National level, our recent research drawing on the Centers for 
Disease Control and Prevention's WONDER database found that older 
adults have a 3.84-fold increase in mortality caused by all natural 
hazards compared to those under age 60. Among older adults, males have 
higher mortality rates than females. American Indians/Alaska Natives 
have the highest mortality rate of any racial/ethnic group and are 
particularly impacted by excessive cold. Mortality is also high among 
older Black males, especially in the context of cataclysmic storms.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \17\ Sharkey, Patrick. 2007. ``Survival and Death in New Orleans: 
An Empirical Look at the Human Impact of Katrina.'' Journal of Black 
Studies 37(4): 482-501.
    \18\ Klinenberg, Eric. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of 
Disaster in Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
    \19\ Adams, Rachel M., Candace M. Evans, Mason Mathews, Amy Wolkin, 
and Lori Peek. 2020. ``Mortality by Forces of Nature Among Older Adults 
by Race/Ethnicity and Gender.'' Journal of Applied Gerontology, 
10.1177/0733464820954676.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    At the other end of the age spectrum, it is worth acknowledging 
that while children make up only a fraction of those who have died in 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 
has identified gaping racial and ethnic disparities in terms of 
mortality \20\ and morbidity rates \21\ among child and youth 
populations. Black and Latino children are especially at risk for 
illness and death because they are more likely to live in households 
with adults who have been deemed essential workers--and are therefore 
more likely to be exposed by the virus being brought home from the 
workplace. These children are also more apt to reside in crowded living 
conditions, to experience food insecurity, to have limited or no access 
to computers or the internet, to miss or drop out of school, and to 
lack contact with supportive adults and peers outside the home.\22\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \20\ Danae Bixler et al. 2020. ``SARS-CoV-Associated Deaths Among 
Persons Aged <21 Years--United States, February 12-July 31, 2020.'' 
Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 69(37): 1324-1329.
    \21\ Leeb, Rebecca T., Sandy Price, Sarah Sliwa, Anne Kimball, 
Leigh Szucs, Elise Caruso, Shana Godfred-Cato, and Matthew Lozier. 
2020. ``COVID-19 Trends Among School-Aged Children--United States, 
March 1-September 19, 2020.'' Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report 
69(39): 1410-1415.
    \22\ Peek, Lori and Alice Fothergill. 2021. ``What Kids Can Do: 
Paying Attention to Children's Capacities in the Pandemic.'' New York: 
Social Science Research Council Items Series. Available at: https://
items.ssrc.org/covid-19-and-the-social-sciences/disaster-studies/what-
kids-can-do-paying-attention-to-childrens-capacities-in-the-pandemic/. 
Accessed on October 24, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Additional examples of the unequal impacts of disasters could 
splash across page after page. The point here is to emphasize that it 
is social forces that turn natural hazards into human tragedies. When 
viewed through that lens, it is clear that the severity of a disaster 
is not simply determined by wind speeds, rainfall amounts, ground 
motions, or temperature extremes. It is the interaction between the 
natural hazard, the condition of the built environment, the history and 
status of the social structure, and the policy context that shapes the 
landscape of risk and determines whether a disaster will follow.
   (in)equity in disaster mitigation, response, and recovery programs
    In the hazards and disaster field, research has revealed that many 
Government programs not only do not consider the principle of equity in 
providing aid, but these same programs may actually deepen pre-existing 
inequities in society and render already vulnerable people more at 
risk.\23\ Below, I include a few examples from recent social science 
studies to illustrate this point.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ National Advisory Council. 2020. ``Report to the FEMA 
Administrator.'' Washington, DC: FEMA. Available at: https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nac-report_11-2020.pdf. 
Accessed on October 24, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Research by Drakes and colleagues, which examined data from 
        the contiguous 48 States from 2006 to 2018, found that FEMA's 
        Individuals and Households Program (IHP) may not always be 
        reaching those who need Federal aid to manage the impacts of 
        disasters. Specifically, their study revealed that there were 
        low levels of IHP disbursement in places where households have 
        high levels of social vulnerability related to race (Black, 
        Asian), income (low income), homeownership status (renters), or 
        marital status (unmarried). This means IHP may not adequately 
        extend to the people in the areas with the most need. The 
        authors' geographic analyses found that such places were mostly 
        rural and clustered in Appalachia, the Mississippi Valley 
        region, and the Southeastern United States. Conversely, places 
        where socially vulnerable households received high levels of 
        IHP disbursements--indicating overperformance--were usually 
        urban and clustered in the Midwest and Northeast.\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \24\ Findings quoted in: Drakes, Oronde, Eric Tate, Jayton Rainey, 
and Sam Brody. 2021. ``Beyond Damages: Social Equity in Allocating 
Disaster Assistance.'' Research Counts, Special Collection on Mass 
Sheltering and Disasters. 3(14). Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Center, 
University of Colorado Boulder. Available at: https://
hazards.colorado.edu/news/research-counts/beyond-damages-social-equity-
in-allocating-disaster-assistance. Accessed on October 23, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Domingue and Emrich analyzed FEMA's Public Assistance 
        distribution at the county level following major disaster 
        declarations involving 1,621 U.S. counties between 2012 and 
        2015, while controlling for damages sustained, population, 
        household counts, and FEMA region. Their results indicate that 
        FEMA's Public Assistance program generally operates as 
        designed, whereas places with the highest losses receive the 
        most funding. However, their research also underscored that 
        that county social conditions related to socioeconomic 
        characteristics and social vulnerability influenced funding 
        receipt. The authors conclude that to determine Public 
        Assistance ``FEMA should consider a robust characterization of 
        communities utilizing a suite of socioeconomic characteristics 
        rather than depending only on one variable (losses).''\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \25\ Simone J. Domingue and Christopher Emrich. 2019. ``Social 
Vulnerability and Procedural Equity: Exploring the Distribution of 
Disaster Aid Across Counties in the United States.'' The American 
Review of Public Administration 49(8): 897-913, p. 909.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   In their examination of 500 municipalities across the United 
        States between 1990 and 2015, Elliott, Brown, and Loughran 
        observed that flood damage is not the only predictor of where 
        Federal buyouts occur. As they write, racial composition 
        matters too, with buyout programs targeting Whiter counties and 
        neighborhoods in more urbanized areas. Although people of color 
        are more likely to take advantage of such programs, they 
        receive disproportionately lower disbursements when compared to 
        their White counterparts.\26\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Elliott, James R., Phylicia Lee Brown, and Kevin Loughran. 
2020. ``Racial Inequities in the Federal Buyout of Flood-Prone Homes: A 
Nation-wide Assessment of Environmental Adaptation.'' Socius, https://
doi.org/10.1177/2378023120905439.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   Drawing on a Nationally-representative sample from the Panel 
        Study on Income Dynamics, Howell and Elliott discovered that as 
        local hazard damages increase, so does wealth inequality, 
        especially along the lines of race, education, and 
        homeownership.\27\ Specifically, their findings indicated that 
        ``holding disaster costs constant, the more Federal Emergency 
        Management Agency money a county receives, the more Whites' 
        wealth tends to grow, and the more Blacks' wealth tends to 
        decline, all else equal. In other words, how Federal assistance 
        is currently administered seems to be exacerbating rather than 
        ameliorating wealth inequalities that unfold after costly 
        natural hazards'' (see Figure 2).\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Howell, Junia and James R. Elliott. 2019. ``Damages Done: The 
Longitudinal Impacts of Natural Hazards on Wealth Inequality in the 
United States.'' Social Problems 66: 448-467.
    \28\ Howell, Junia and James R. Elliott. 2018. ``As Disaster Costs 
Rise, So Does Inequality.'' Socius 4: 1-3, p. 1.


   In her thesis research, Carter reported that as of September 
        30, 2015, only 117 of the 566 Federally-recognized Tribes in 
        the FEMA database used for analysis had FEMA-approved disaster 
        mitigation plans.\29\ This means that at the time this research 
        was conducted, more than three-quarters of all Tribes would 
        have been ineligible to apply for FEMA grants and therefore 
        could not receive Federal funding for disaster mitigation 
        projects. In addition, the number of approved plans varied 
        widely across FEMA regions, with FEMA Region I--which includes 
        Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, and Rhode Island--having the 
        highest proportion (66.7 percent, or 6 of 9 Tribes) of approved 
        mitigation plans. Conversely, in Region X--which spans Alaska, 
        Idaho, Oregon, and Washington--only 24 of the 270 Tribes (8.9 
        percent) had disaster mitigation plans in effect. In Alaska, 
        the State with the largest number of Tribes, FEMA reported that 
        just 3 of the 228 Tribes (1.31 percent) had approved disaster 
        plans. With the rising number of climate-related disasters and 
        the alarming toll of these events in vulnerable Tribal areas, 
        the need to tackle this escalating issue is more salient than 
        ever. Yet, cost barriers, a lack of technical expertise, 
        limited data availability, physical isolation, mistrust of 
        Government authorities, and culturally-based communication 
        challenges all serve as barriers to participation in FEMA 
        mitigation programs.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ Carter, Lucy. 2016. ``An Investigation of United States 
Federal Policy Attempts to Reduce American Indian and Alaska Native 
Disaster Vulnerability'' Master's Thesis, Department of Sociology, 
Colorado State University.
    \30\ Carter, Lucy and Lori Peek. 2016. ``Participation Please: 
Barriers to Tribal Disaster Mitigation Planning.'' Natural Hazards 
Observer 40(4). Boulder, CO: Natural Hazards Center, University of 
Colorado Boulder. Available at: https://hazards.colorado.edu/article/
participation-please-barriers-to-tribal-mitigation-planning. Accessed 
on October 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Many other case studies as well as National-level analyses 
conducted by hazards and disaster researchers have consistently shown 
that inequitable policies and practices--even when designed to provide 
needed relief and assistance--can become ``a source of profound 
disorder and confusion, a kind of second disaster'' that follows the 
first.\31\ The research evidence is clear in this regard. What is less 
clear is how to develop policies and programs that can simultaneously 
address the grand environmental and social challenges that we currently 
face.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ Kroll-Smith, Steve, Vern Baxter, and Pam Jenkins. 2015. Left 
to Chance: Hurricane Katrina and the Story of Two New Orleans 
Neighborhoods. Austin: University of Texas Press, p. 82.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Figuring out a path forward will require leadership, bold new 
strategies, major investments of time and resources, and science-
informed action. Right now, Federal agencies are putting their programs 
and policies through an audit to advance racial equity and support for 
under-served communities. This is not happening by chance. It is 
happening by design,\32\ and these audits are being influenced by 
research from the hazards and disaster community that has--for 
decades--pointed to inequitable, unjust, and unacceptable post-disaster 
outcomes that leave the most vulnerable even further behind. In 
response, FEMA has posed several crucial questions \33\ and begun to 
advance new initiatives \34\ related to how the agency can better 
structure its programs to meet the needs of the most vulnerable 
populations and to carefully consider what actions it can take to 
reduce barriers to assistance among the Nation's most marginalized 
communities. Other scientific and hazards mission agencies are 
similarly moving forward in attempts to address rapidly-rising hazards 
losses and ever-widening social disparities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ The White House. 2021. ``Executive Order on Advancing Racial 
Equity and Support for Under-served Communities Through the Federal 
Government.'' Available at: https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/
presidential-actions/2021/01/20/executive-order-advancing-racial-
equity-and-support-for-underserved-communities-through-the-federal-
government/. Accessed on October 25, 2021.
    \33\ National Advisory Council. 2020. ``Report to the FEMA 
Administrator.'' Washington, DC: FEMA. Available at: https://
www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/documents/fema_nac-report_11-2020.pdf. 
Accessed on October 24, 2021.
    \34\ Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). 2021. ``Equity.'' 
Available at: https://www.fema.gov/emergency-managers/national-
preparedness/equity. Accessed on October 25, 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               in closing
    The idea that natural hazards losses are inextricably linked to 
social and economic inequality is now widely accepted. This growing 
body of work acknowledges that our environmental suffering is connected 
to and worsened by our social suffering. The logical extension of this 
insight is that if we want to reduce natural hazards losses we must 
work just as fervently to reduce economic and social inequality in all 
of its forms. To make these changes will take sound science and a 
strong moral imagination. This is our opportunity to envision new 
possibilities that can come from investing in equitable solutions to 
mitigating hazards loss.
    Thank you again for the opportunity to testify. I look forward to 
hearing from the other witnesses and to your questions and the 
discussion to follow.

    Chairman Thompson. I thank the witness for her testimony.
    We now ask Ms. Willis to summarize her testimony for 5 
minutes.

 STATEMENT OF CHAUNCIA WILLIS, CO-FOUNDER AND CHIEF EXECUTIVE 
  OFFICER, INSTITUTE FOR DIVERSITY AND INCLUSION IN EMERGENCY 
                           MANAGEMENT

    Ms. Willis. Thank you. Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member 
Katko and distinguished Members of the House Committee on 
Homeland Security, thank you for the opportunity to share 
information with you today concerning equity in disaster 
preparedness and response and recovery.
    Our organization, the Institute for Diversity and Inclusion 
in Emergency Management, comes to you to suggest that anti-
poverty bias and discrimination against marginalized groups is 
as pervasive and deeply rooted in emergency management as the 
water is wet in the ocean.
    As we meet today to discuss disaster equity, there is one 
thing that we must keep in the forefront of our minds, and that 
is the plight of the disaster survivors. We must address the 
basic tenets of inequitable policies, like the Stafford Act and 
understand and empathize with the suffering of the people and 
their perspective. Black, white, rich, poor, Democrat, or 
Republican, we can all get behind humanity and the human 
perspective.
    Equity is about the people, not the numbers. We are dealing 
with two major issues. First we are dealing with biased 
policies, like the Stafford Act, that don't benefit 
historically marginalized groups, and in many cases harms them. 
Second, we are dealing with a work force that has become 
accustomed to discriminatory behavior. Biased behavior becomes 
normal and seems acceptable when you have done it for so long, 
and in some cases you have been rewarded for it.
    Now, my mother graduated from Tougaloo College and my 
father from Jackson State University in Mississippi. So my 
family and I are very familiar with the daily behavior and 
disregard of a Government that diminishes the plight of people 
of color. In times of disaster, when the policies are not 
equitable and fail to value all people equally, and when the 
work force and volunteers bring their own implicit bias to the 
job, the outcome is disproportionate negative impact on the 
most vulnerable.
    Now, many States have historical disaster bias to contend 
with, where the very bodies of African American and Indigenous 
People were sacrificed and in some cases used as sandbags while 
they were still alive to prevent flooding of White homes and 
businesses. In States like Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia, the 
Carolinas, and all over the country, the very soil still cries 
out from the blood and sweat of the enslaved and the 
indigenous. The soil now cries from the tears of those who are 
still being mistreated and marginalized.
    Not only must they endure mother nature, but they must also 
endure the response of a country that is comfortable operating 
in a construct where two emergency management systems prevail, 
one that embraces the educated, affluent, and/or middle class 
homeowners and one that everyone else must endure and that 
actively works against them.
    The policies must change and the work force must be 
retrained. You cannot ask an entire work force, a staff, 
contractors, and volunteers to produce equity without first 
training them to understand and value equity. The outcome is 
performative equity and this is neither impactful nor 
sustainable. It is easy to change a policy that is clearly 
inequitable, but it is much harder to change the mindset and 
behavior of the people that created and enforced that 
inequitable policy. Equity is not easy and it is not fast, and 
it requires a true meaningful commitment to change.
    My goal here today is to save lives and end suffering of 
our most vulnerable people. We can save more lives through 
allocation of more preparedness and mitigation funding in 
vulnerable communities. We can end the suffering by ensuring 
equitable response and recovery that is prioritized in policy 
and practice.
    Thank you for your time.
    [The prepared statement of Ms. Willis follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of Chauncia Willis
                            October 27, 2021
    Chairman Thompson, Vice Chairman Torres, Ranking Member Katko, and 
Members of the House Committee on Homeland Security, thank you for the 
opportunity to testify today concerning ``Equity in Disaster 
Preparedness, Response, and Recovery.'' My name is Chauncia Willis, co-
founder and chief executive officer (CEO) of the Institute for 
Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Management (I-DIEM). I-DIEM has 
been a leader in disaster equity championing diversity, equity, and 
inclusion initiatives across the emergency management enterprise which 
has been recognized Nationally and globally including National Public 
Radio, The New York Times, and two Congressional testimonies before the 
116th Congress on ``Pandemic Response: Confronting the Unequal Impacts 
of COVID-19'' and ``Experiences of Vulnerable Populations During 
Disasters.'' With this testimony, I continue a conversation that is 
built on previous testimonies and the historic inequities that continue 
to negatively impact vulnerable, under-served, and marginalized 
communities in present contexts.
    FEMA defines equity as ``the consistent and systematic fair, just 
and impartial treatment of all individuals.''\1\ However, this 
definition outlines a concept of equity without a defined understanding 
of how to achieve equity within context. I-DIEM recognizes equity as 
the ``efforts that guarantee fair treatment, advancement, equal 
opportunity, and access for all individuals while striving to identify 
and eliminate barriers that have prevented full participation and 
beneficence of specific groups.'' This defined approach looks beyond 
broadly stating what equity is and outlines intentional strategies and 
outcomes that promote equitable advancement. By our definition, 
ensuring equity seeks parity in treatment, parity in access, and a 
community-based understanding of barriers that combat inequitable 
systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ FEMA Defines Equity in its Mission of Making Programs More 
Accessible/FEMA.gov.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These systems are a result of policy, programs, and practices that 
have been designed to marginalize individuals, families, and 
communities. For example, the declaration process under the Stafford 
Act limits the assistance to individuals, families, and communities in 
need with major disaster declarations lying in the hands of partisan 
politics and State-administered funding support. Following Hurricane 
Ida in August, counties in Mississippi are just now receiving Federal 
disaster assistance,\2\ in October, based on the declaration process 
due to politics and the policy structure of Federal assistance under 
the Stafford Act.\3\ Counties such as Wilkinson, Pike, and Amite, which 
are comprised of 70.6%, 54.1%, and 40% of Black/African American 
residents, respectively, are among those that have suffered 
significantly due to the declaration process. While advancements toward 
equity have been a priority of the Biden administration, this 
spotlights how previous policies can combat equitable priorities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ President Joseph R. Biden, Jr. Approves Major Disaster 
Declaration for Mississippi/FEMA.gov.
    \3\ Stafford_Act_pdf.pdf (doi.gov).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Environmental justice, redlining, and housing congruently highlight 
inequitable impacts of policy, practice, and programs. Research has 
shown that racial- and income-based divisions in zoning and city 
infrastructure contribute to negative outcomes.\4\ \5\ Communities of 
color are more likely to live near landfills and industrial plants that 
pollute water and air and erode quality of life.\6\ More than 9 million 
people living near hazard waste sites are people of color, and Black 
Americans are 3 times more likely to die from exposure to air 
pollutants than White counterparts. This same subjugation to risk 
applies in emergency management.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Residential segregation rewards whites while punishing people 
of color/The Kinder Institute for Urban Research (rice.edu).
    \5\ Hurricane Harvey hit low-income communities hardest--
ThinkProgress.
    \6\ Environmental racism: Black Americans are three times more 
likely to die from pollution--Quartz (qz.com).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In Houston, residential patterns in Texas based on infrastructures 
that are often associated with race and class lines due to 
discriminatory housing policies confined low-income people and people 
of color to fewer desirable areas that are at increased risk of 
flooding, which was evident in Hurricane Harvey. Federal assistance 
caused greater harm than help, as 45 percent of households with annual 
incomes less than $15,000 were denied FEMA individual assistance after 
Hurricane Harvey while 14 percent of household with annual incomes more 
than $45,000 were denied.\7\ Among low-income residents who were able 
to navigate the complex administrative and bureaucratic application 
processes, the average payout from FEMA was $4,300 which was far less 
than minimal repairs.\8\ In Hurricane Laura, Blacks and Hispanics were 
only approved for Federal assistance at rates of 13 percent and 28 
percent respectively, compared to Whites (45 percent) and low-income 
survivors were about twice as likely to be denied assistance deeming 
their damages as ``insurance'' or faulting homeowners from assistance 
due to the inability to maintain flood insurance based on their forced 
flood risks.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Recent disasters reveal racial discrimination in FEMA aid 
process/Facing South.
    \8\ ``People just give up'': Low-income hurricane victims slam 
Federal relief programs--POLITICO.
    \9\ FEMA Assistance Is Unfair To Poorer Disaster Survivors: NPR.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Although recently updated by FEMA,\10\ issues such as heirs' 
property contributed to the denial of assistance previously while on-
going concerns will likely arise based on retroactive pay with the 
implementation of the new policy. Moreover, loss of property, one of 
the single most effective pathways to wealth,\11\ creates generational 
financial instability and eliminates the history of communities forced 
to relocate. Consequently, we see the loss of social and cultural 
identity among low-income and communities of color as the demographics 
of predominantly Black cities shift to predominantly White populations 
following disaster recovery which is evident in New Orleans following 
Hurricane Katrina.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ Verifying Home Ownership or Occupancy/FEMA.gov.
    \11\ Homeownership as a Key Driver of Wealth/HuffPostnull[sic].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    In our most recent work deploying Equity Response Teams to New 
Orleans and Southeast Louisiana, we engaged with Tribal nations to 
identify and understand inequities within disaster response and 
recovery following Hurricane Ida. On-going issues such as denial of 
mitigation assistance funding, lack of access to resources and support 
for Tribes that are not Federally-recognized, difficulty acquiring 
State funding, and the process for Federal recognition of Tribes 
requiring documented historical proof for decades that may be lost due 
to on-going disasters contribute to oppressive systems that amplify 
risk for marginalized groups without the structure to properly mitigate 
or overcome major disasters. As disasters are increasing in severity, 
intensity, and frequency, this will create on-going problems that 
continue to contribute to an increase in disaster-related costs if not 
addressed through equity.
    Ensuring equity requires addressing the root causes of 
vulnerability. We must understand both social determinants of health 
\12\ and disaster while understanding our role in contributing to 
factors that create disparities. Ensuring equity requires that 
emergency managers are trained in cultural competence and that we 
bridge the gap between the community and Federal Government, especially 
considering the community holds the Federal Government responsible for 
recovery. Ensuring equity requires improving access and understanding 
the process that is required to achieve equal status among vulnerable, 
under-served, and marginalized communities. Most importantly, ensuring 
equity requires us to hold ourselves accountable for the policies, 
practices, and programs that we design, develop, and implement to guide 
our work. Despite the tenured implementation of policies, such as the 
Stafford Act, most policies were created with inequity and without 
equitable review and assessment, and so they fail to meet the needs of 
the ever-changing demographics of American society. Ensuring equity 
should start with the policies that have created inequity as these 
policies guide our approaches. In alignment with my final statement, I 
would like to offer policy recommendations for the Stafford Act which 
are geared toward ensuring a more equitable future for current and 
future generations [See Addendum].
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ Social Determinants of Health/CDC.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 ADDENDUM: STAFFORD ACT RECOMMENDATIONS
Concern 1
    Section 203(a): Modify the definition of a small, impoverished 
community. The limited definition does not take information into 
account that impacts rural communities such as population growth, 
economic indicators, financial conditions, employer departures, wage 
stagnation, climate impacts based on community type, legal status of 
the community, resident demographics, housing/rental vacancies.
Recommendation 1
    We recommend that the population limit be raised from 3,000 to 
25,000 or 50,000. Additionally, we would recommend that more 
demographic data be added to this definition to clearly define what 
community indicators demonstrate economic distress prior to, during, 
and after disasters. Additionally, we recommend removing the language 
that a Governor must select the local government to qualify as 
impoverished. This requirement leads many impoverished communities at 
the mercy of a State Governor whereby partisan politics may be a factor 
in decision making versus collecting data to assess the critical needs 
of the community. This creates further inequities for many rural, and 
minority communities.
Concern 2
    Sec 322. Mitigation Planning (42 U.S.C. 5165) contributes to the 
inequities levied against many communities that bear the brunt of the 
climate change crises. The requirement to have a mitigation plan to 
receive any assistance for hazard mitigation does not equitably provide 
any relief for unincorporated jurisdictions/communities, non-Federally 
recognized Tribal communities, and many rural communities. These 
communities may have fiscal constraints prohibiting them from creating 
the plans, or they have been denied access from counties, parishes, and 
State governments from submitting plans due to non-incorporation status 
as a recognized Government entity.
Recommendation 2
    It is recommended that FEMA set up a program to deploy the 
Community Planning and Capacity Building cadres, National partners, and 
university partners supported by technical staff (i.e. engineers), to 
assist small and communities of color with the development of these 
plans so that they may have an equal opportunity to seek disaster 
funding. Additionally, one alternative is to allow for these same 
communities to bypass local and State government barriers by creating 
an expedited process that allows for the submission of individual 
community hazard plans to be reviewed directly by FEMA for approval of 
Federal funding. The program can be set up as a pilot, technical 
assistance and capacity building can be provided to small communities, 
and FEMA can establish population size definitions and allow for the 
inclusion of written justifications to be provided demonstrating 
hardship, denial of access to prior local and State programs, or other 
documentation submissions that will help a community justify the need 
to participate in the pilot program to improve their communities.
Concern 3
    Sec. 326. Designation of Small State and Rural Advocate (42 U.S.C. 
5165d) FEMA can designate a Small State and Rural Advocate during 
disasters, but this advocacy position is not consistently deployed 
across all disasters.
Recommendation 3
    Set clear perimeters behind when Small State and Rural Advocates 
and Tribal Liaisons should be deployed and make more of a concerted 
effort to higher more liaisons with work and cultural experience 
working with these types of communities. The liaisons should reach out.
Concern 4
    Sec 406. Repair Restoration and Replacement. Private nonprofits 
that have sustained damages to critical facilities serving the under-
served may be excluded from submitting applications to local, county, 
and State governments implicitly and explicitly. One strategy to 
exclude non-Governmental applicants is to ensure that projects, 
buildings, and equipment maintained by those agencies are excluded from 
mitigation project lists that are drafted for local mitigation strategy 
plans or mentioning them in State hazard mitigation plans. As a result, 
the entities cannot submit applications for recovery grant funding and/
or public assistance in many communities.
Recommendation 4
    In as much as State decentralization of the disaster process is 
needed, it causes greater harm to communities of color as they have no 
mechanism to work with the ``system'' that has been designed to access 
funding to combat the current climate crises. Separate direct Federal 
application systems must be set up for small, impoverished communities, 
rural, and communities of color to have a chance at equity related to 
rebuilding their communities. This effort would be similar to what has 
been set up for Federally-recognized Tribal governments.
Concern 5
    Sec 415 Legal Services, Sec 416 Crises Counseling Assistance and 
Training, Sec 419 Public Transportation, Sec 425 Transportation 
Assistance to Individuals and Households, Sec 426 Case Management 
Services. In these sections ``The President'' can authorize these 
services and financial assistance to States, local governments, and 
private organizations to assist communities. However, there are 
disparities between addressing the unmet needs in rural, minority, and 
distressed communities.
Recommendation 5
    We recommend that this language be changed to allow for maximum 
availability of resources upon written, Congressional, or expressed 
communications directly from these communities to personnel within FEMA 
or the White House. For example, Tribal communities have written joint 
letters to FEMA, Congress, and the President's Office seeking direct 
assistance during times of disaster (i.e. COVID pandemic). These 
communities do this because their needs are not being addressed at the 
local, State, or FEMA regional offices. This should be rectified, and 
access to liaisons in Washington should be assigned to allocate 
resources directly to the hardest-hit areas.
Concern 6
    Many indigenous, communities of color, and rural communities are 
located in coastal locations, or in repetitive distressed areas of 
impact from climatic and public health disasters. As such, due to 
economic conditions many homeowners are underinsured, or uninsured as 
it relates to flood insurance and homeowner's insurance.
    ``If you have a Federally-backed mortgage and live in an area 
identified as a Special Flood Hazard Area (SFHA) within a participating 
NFIP community, you are required to have flood insurance, according to 
the Flood Disaster Protection Act of 1973.
    ``Additionally, if you live in a high-risk flood area and have 
received Federal disaster assistance, such as grants from FEMA or funds 
from the Disaster Loan Plan of the U.S. Small Business Administration, 
you are required to maintain flood insurance in order to be considered 
for any future Federal disaster aid.''--Jason Metz, Forbes.
    Many families cannot afford to rebuild, nor afford to relocate 
because FEMA's programs for Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and Repetitive 
Loss (RL) grants require buyouts from homeowners who are insured 
through private sources or the National Flood Insurance Program. The 
Flood Insurance Reform disproportionately impacts homeowners, or 
multiple property/inherited homeowners in a way that prevents access to 
these grant programs. Thus, resulting in homes that cannot be repaired, 
homeowners that cannot be relocated, and contributing to blight in 
areas that have repetitive flooding.
Recommendation 6
    On August 3, 2021, FEMA announced a new policy to allow inherited 
homeowners to self-certify homeownership for FEMA's Individual 
Assistance (IA) program, which will impact Hurricane Ida applicants in 
Louisiana. A policy analysis must be conducted to determine how to 
support the numerous homeowners and Government/nonprofit entities in 
SRL and RL areas so that they have access to disaster funding in the 
same way that wealthier homeowners have access to Federal funding.
Concern 7
    Listed below is the current language used as part of the Stafford 
Act for the use of local businesses. In many GAO audits, and per policy 
directives issued by FEMA, local communities are prohibited from 
implementing goals or set-asides on contracts thus limiting the 
capacity of established local small business programs; which are 
designed to help decrease disparities in equity, be more inclusive, and 
build the capacity of small businesses. The Stafford Act along with 
conflicting OMB Uniform Grant Guidance and other policies eliminates 
the opportunity for small businesses to provide services during a 
disaster.
    `` 5150. Use of local firms and individuals
    ``(a) Contracts or agreements with private entities
    ``(1) In general
    ``In the expenditure of Federal funds for debris clearance, 
distribution of supplies, reconstruction, and other major disaster or 
emergency assistance activities which may be carried out by contract or 
agreement with private organizations, firms, or individuals, preference 
shall be given, to the extent feasible and practicable, to those 
organizations, firms, and individuals residing or doing business 
primarily in the area affected by such major disaster or emergency.
    ``(2) Construction
    ``This subsection shall not be considered to restrict the use of 
Department of Defense resources under this chapter in the provision of 
assistance in a major disaster.
    ``(3) Specific geographic area
    ``In carrying out this section, a contract or agreement may be set 
aside for award based on a specific geographic area.''
    The Federal Government by definition typically defines small 
businesses as organizations with up 500 employees, which is not a small 
firm. However small business defined locally may be a business with 10 
to 50 employees, which is best defined as a `Micro-Business'.
    Local government procurement programs are not allowed to provide 
those smaller individual businesses with the opportunity to scale their 
business through the procurement process because local small business 
programs, as defined by the Stafford Act and OMB Uniform Grant Guidance 
policies, as ``geographical preference'', thus taking away the 
opportunity for maximum support in the event of a natural disaster.
Recommendation 7
    Changes to the Stafford Act, OMB Uniform Grant Guidance, and FEMA 
policy directives allowing local small (or micro) businesses to be 
selected in the bidding process as, participation and or set-asides 
(smaller parts of the contract) ensures local participation as well as 
efficient and effective responses to the disasters. Additionally, it 
will ensure that the local economy is strengthened, firms who are 
familiar with the disaster area may be selected, and it decreases 
disparities by size or ethnic background in the disaster contracting 
process.
                       additional recommendations
Recommendation 8
    Stafford Action Section Discussing Equity: https://www.fema.gov/
sites/default/files/2020-03/stafford-act_2019.pdf
``Sec. 308. Nondiscrimination in Disaster Assistance (42 U.S.C. 5151)
    ``(a) Regulations For Equitable and Impartial Relief Operations--
The President shall issue, and may alter and amend, such regulations as 
may be necessary for the guidance of personnel carrying out Federal 
assistance functions at the site of a major disaster or emergency. Such 
regulations shall include provisions for ensuring that the distribution 
of supplies, the processing of applications, and other relief and 
assistance activities shall be accomplished in an equitable and 
impartial manner, without discrimination on the grounds of race, color, 
religion, nationality, sex, age, disability, English proficiency, or 
economic status.
    ``(b) Compliance with Regulations As Prerequisite to Participation 
by Other Bodies in Relief Operations--As a condition of participation 
in the distribution of assistance or supplies under this Act or of 
receiving assistance under this Act, governmental bodies and other 
organizations shall be required to comply with regulations relating to 
nondiscrimination promulgated by the President, and such other 
regulations applicable to activities within an area affected by a major 
disaster or emergency as he deems necessary for the effective 
coordination of relief efforts.''
Recommendation 9
    Change cost-benefit analysis for mitigation projects.
    Analysis should value low-income community members and renters. The 
current BCA is inherently inequitable and biased toward homeowners.
Recommendation 10
    Eliminate the 75/25 percent cost-share requirement.
Recommendation 11
    Provide ``place-based'' additional funding and support for limited 
resource communities whose vulnerability is heightened due to past 
Government discriminatory practices.
Recommendation 12
    Redefine and enhance technical assistance to support marginalized 
communities and limited-resource local governments.
Recommendation 13
    Change/update FEMA's definition of ``disadvantaged communities'' to 
include more local governments with limited resources.
Recommendation 14
    Expedite process for allocating funds to marginalized and limited-
resource communities, including hazard mitigation grants.

    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    For the record, I graduated from Tougaloo and Jackson 
State, so you have excellent parents.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Currie for 5 minutes.

STATEMENT OF CHRISTOPHER P. CURRIE, DIRECTOR, HOMELAND SECURITY 
                     AND JUSTICE TEAM, GAO

    Mr. Currie. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking Member 
Katko, for the opportunity to be here to discuss GAO's work on 
equity and disaster programs.
    In recent years there has been a huge increase in disaster 
spending at the Federal level to confront more extreme weather 
throughout the entire country. Since 2005, for example, the 
Federal Government has spent over half a trillion dollars on 
disaster aid to citizens and communities. These are huge 
numbers, but they don't tell the whole story about who gets 
disaster aid and the effect it has.
    As FEMA even notes, low-income and rural areas, communities 
of color, people with disabilities, Tribes, and other groups 
face barriers to accessing aid. These groups also do not 
recover as quickly, if they recover at all. While there is not 
a lot of research out there that is definitive, we identified 
many studies that show how disaster aid can help these 
communities. Other studies show how groups may not benefit as 
much as others. For example, one study reported that the more 
FEMA aid an area received, the more wealth inequality grew 
along the lines of race, education, and home ownership.
    Another study found that U.S. counties with greater 
participation in the National Flood Insurance Program 
experienced fewer fatalities from flood events.
    Our work has also found a number of challenges across 
Federal programs that can impact our most vulnerable 
populations. We recently looked at the largest Federal recovery 
programs within FEMA, HUD, and SBA. We found that they all have 
begun some work to identify and address these barriers and 
disparities, however, our concern right now is that agencies 
lack good information to identify when access barriers or the 
disparities exist.
    Specifically, they lack data needed to analyze and identify 
these areas. For example, none of the Federal agencies 
collected and analyzed demographic data from applicants for the 
purpose of identifying disparate outcomes. Further, we also 
found there is no systematic process across these agencies to 
determine if these barriers and recovery outcomes exist across 
programs and how they affect various groups of vulnerable 
populations.
    You can't fix what you can't identify or measure. Getting 
the right information and using it effectively will be a 
critical first step in this to ensuring more equitable outcomes 
for all disaster survivors.
    Our prior work has also identified areas where Federal 
programs can be improved in order to help disaster survivors 
more easily navigate them. For example, we found that FEMA 
could improve its individuals and households program by helping 
survivors better understand their eligibility and award status. 
We also found that confusion often prevented survivors from 
continuing the enrollment process or mistakenly assuming they 
were denied when they may not have been. We made a number of 
recommendations to FEMA to help survivors better understand how 
to get assistance, including improving their award letters, and 
communicating more information to survivors on their 
eligibility status as well.
    We have also found that elderly individuals and those with 
disabilities face challenges in obtaining assistance. 
Specifically, at the time of our report FEMA didn't provide 
individuals with clear opportunities to disclose disability-
related needs when they register for individual assistance. We 
recommended that they do a better job of this and they have 
since taken some action to do this. However, this is just a 
drop in the bucket compared to everything else that needs to be 
done.
    Now, to its credit, FEMA and some other agencies have 
acknowledged that this is a challenge that has to be fixed and 
they are taking some action. However, I want to stress that 
these efforts are really in their infancy. In January the 
President issued the Executive Order on advancing racial equity 
and support for under-served communities. Since then Federal 
agencies have rushed to look at their programs and identify 
what to do. Since this is a brand-new lens, it is fair to say 
that there is confusion across the Federal agencies on how best 
to do this and what standards to set across Government.
    It is not going to be easy and everyone won't agree, but 
based on our work, I think it boils down to several key steps 
that we can take right away. First, I think we need to define 
equity, determine what data we need to identify disparities, 
and we need to use it to change programs. Second, I think we 
need to integrate equity into key policies and doctrine. This 
is somewhat started, but I think this needs to trickle into 
strategic plans for agencies. I think it also needs to make its 
way into key frameworks, such as the National Response and 
National Disaster Recovery framework. Then we need to move to 
each program to identify potential barriers to the process and 
disincentives that prevent those most in need of getting aid.
    I thank you for the chance to be here and I look forward to 
talking about these issues in more detail.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Currie follows:]
              Prepared Statement of Christopher P. Currie
                      Wednesday, October 27, 2021
                             gao highlights
    Highlights of GAO-22-105488, a testimony before the Committee on 
Homeland Security, House of Representatives.
Why GAO Did This Study
    Each year, disasters affect hundreds of American communities and 
cause billions of dollars of damage. Disaster recovery is a complex 
process with many factors that affect individual and community 
outcomes, including in various socioeconomic and demographic groups. 
Recently, Federal actions have focused on equitable administration of 
Federal recovery assistance.
    This statement is based on preliminary observations from GAO's 
forthcoming report on Federal actions to identify and address potential 
access barriers and disparate outcomes, which is currently at FEMA for 
comment. It also discusses prior GAO work and recommendations issued 
from 2019 through 2021 related to various Federal recovery programs and 
vulnerable populations.
    To develop the preliminary observations, GAO conducted a literature 
review and interviewed officials at the three Federal agencies with the 
largest disaster recovery programs and reviewed relevant documents. GAO 
also interviewed recovery stakeholders representing State, local, 
Tribal, and nonprofit interests.
What GAO Recommends
    GAO made recommendations to FEMA in prior reports designed to 
address the challenges in this statement. For example, GAO has made 
recommendations to FEMA to help disaster survivors navigate the 
application process and to revise processes to better serve survivors 
with disabilities. FEMA has taken actions to address many of these 
recommendations.
    disaster recovery.--efforts to identify and address barriers to 
                 receiving federal recovery assistance
What GAO Found
    GAO's past work has shown areas where improvements can be made to 
Federal disaster recovery programs to help disaster survivors and 
State, local, territorial, and Tribal governments. While these programs 
are not typically targeted toward only to low-income or vulnerable 
populations, GAO's prior work and recommendations identified areas that 
could help these populations. Specifically,
   GAO reported in October 2021 that the Federal Emergency 
        Management Agency's (FEMA) flood mapping investments for fiscal 
        years 2012 through 2020 were lower for communities with higher 
        levels of social vulnerability and under-served populations 
        than communities with lower levels of social vulnerability and 
        under-served populations, other factors being equal. GAO 
        recommended that FEMA better use flood risk data to prioritize 
        flood mapping for vulnerable communities;
   in September 2020, GAO found that disaster survivors, 
        including low-income individuals, faced numerous challenges 
        obtaining aid and understanding the Individuals and Households 
        Program, a FEMA program that provides housing assistance and 
        other needs assistance to individuals affected by a major 
        disaster or emergency. GAO recommended, among other things, 
        that FEMA simplify and streamline the disaster assistance 
        process for survivors;
   in 2019, GAO found that officials from entities that partner 
        with FEMA reported challenges following the 2017 hurricanes 
        providing assistance to individuals who are older or who have 
        disabilities. GAO recommended that FEMA revise its application 
        process to better serve survivors with disabilities.
    FEMA is taking actions to address many of these recommendations.
    GAO conducted a literature review as part of its preliminary work 
and found limited research to describe recovery outcomes and specific 
characteristics related to participation in the six recovery programs 
in its review. However, some studies and stakeholder perspectives 
provided insight. For example, a study of counties in one State found 
greater levels of flood mitigation in communities with larger tax 
revenues and greater budgets for emergency management. In addition, 
officials representing States said small towns and rural areas may lack 
resources to contract for disaster recovery services. Similarly, 
representatives from voluntary organizations said that conditions of 
socioeconomic vulnerability--such as lower-income households or 
homelessness--may present barriers to participating in Federal recovery 
programs.
    GAO's preliminary work found that the six Federal recovery programs 
in GAO's review have taken some actions that could help officials 
identify and address potential access barriers and disparate outcomes. 
However, programs lack key information--data and analysis--that would 
allow them to determine if access barriers and disparate recovery 
outcomes exist. Moreover, the programs have not taken action to 
determine: (1) What data they need to support this kind of analysis and 
(2) sources and methods to obtain those data when the programs do not 
already collect them, including overcoming key challenges. GAO will 
complete its evaluation of the areas above and issue a final report in 
the coming months.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of the 
committee: Thank you for the opportunity to discuss our past work on 
Federal efforts to ensure equity in various disaster recovery programs. 
Each year, disasters affect hundreds of American communities and cause 
billions of dollars of damage. According to the Federal Emergency 
Management Agency (FEMA)--the agency that facilitates the coordination 
of recovery support at the National level--too many disaster survivors 
face barriers in accessing disaster assistance programs and resources 
to support their recovery. Specifically, according to FEMA, those 
living in low-income neighborhoods, communities of color, people with 
disabilities, older adults, those with language barriers, and those 
living in rural and isolated areas face such barriers. Disaster 
recovery, as described in the National Disaster Recovery Framework, is 
a complex process for individuals and communities.\1\ According to the 
framework, one critical aspect of Federal assistance contributing to 
successful individual and community outcomes is the extent to which 
individuals and communities can access the assistance they most need.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ The National Disaster Recovery Framework outlines the strategy 
and doctrine for how the whole community--including individuals and 
communities, the private and non-profit sectors, and all levels of 
government--builds, sustains, and coordinates delivery of recovery 
capabilities. Department of Homeland Security. National Disaster 
Recovery Framework, 2d ed. (Washington, DC: June 2016).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    My testimony today is based on preliminary observations from a 
forthcoming report on Federal efforts to identify and address potential 
access barriers and disparate outcomes, which is currently at the 
agencies for comment. It also discusses prior GAO work issued from May 
2019 through October 2021 and recommendations related to various 
Federal recovery programs and vulnerable populations.\2\ Specially, 
this statement discusses: (1) Preliminary observations on available 
research on recovery outcomes and participation in select Federal 
recovery programs; (2) preliminary observations on Federal recovery 
program actions to identify and address potential access barriers and 
potential disparate outcomes; and (3) our prior work related to select 
Federal recovery programs and vulnerable populations and 
recommendations to strengthen these areas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ GAO, Disaster Assistance: FEMA Action Needed to Better Support 
Individuals Who Are Older or Have Disabilities, GAO-19-318 (Washington, 
DC: May 14, 2019); Disaster Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to 
Strengthen FEMA's Individuals and Households Program, GAO-20-503 
(Washington, DC: Sept. 30, 2020); and FEMA Flood Maps: Better Planning 
and Analysis Needed to Address Current and Future Flood Hazards, GAO-
22-104079 (Washington, DC: Oct. 25, 2021). We currently have a review 
under way looking at Federal actions to identify and address potential 
access barriers and disparate outcomes. We plan to issue a report on 
our findings in December 2021.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    For the forthcoming report on access barriers and disparate 
outcomes, we examined six Federal programs: FEMA's Individual 
Assistance and Public Assistance programs, National Flood Insurance 
Program, and Hazard Mitigation Grant Program; the Small Business 
Administration's (SBA) Disaster Loan Program; and Housing and Urban 
Development's (HUD) Community Development Block Grant Disaster 
Recovery. We conducted a literature review of research that examined 
participation in or recovery outcomes related to these six programs.
    To obtain perspectives on recovery challenges for vulnerable 
socioeconomic or demographic populations, we also interviewed disaster 
recovery stakeholders from voluntary organizations; State emergency 
managers; organizations that represent local governments; and 
organizations representing Tribes and Tribal emergency management 
groups. We also interviewed program officials to understand the actions 
they took to identify and address access barriers and disparate 
outcomes and to obtain their perspectives on related challenges.
    For our previously-issued reports and recommendations on which my 
comments are based, we reviewed FEMA and SBA documents, including 
policies, procedures, and guidance for disaster assistance programs and 
flood mapping efforts; analyzed FEMA data on disaster assistance and 
flood mapping efforts; and interviewed officials from FEMA, States, 
territories, and representatives of nonprofit disability organizations 
to understand challenges in providing assistance to individuals who are 
older or have disabilities. More detailed information on the scope and 
methodology for our past work can be found in each of the issued 
reports listed in enclosure 1.
    We conducted the work on which this statement is based in 
accordance with generally accepted Government auditing standards. Those 
standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our 
findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that 
the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and 
conclusions based on our audit objectives.
                               background
    Our review included six Federal recovery programs with historically 
large amounts of disaster-specific obligations:
    1. FEMA's Public Assistance.--This program reimburses State, local, 
        Tribal, and territorial governments and certain types of 
        nonprofit organizations for the cost of disaster-related debris 
        removal, emergency protective measures to protect life and 
        property, and permanent repair work to damaged or destroyed 
        infrastructure.
    2. FEMA's Individual Assistance.--This program provides financial 
        assistance and, if necessary, direct assistance to eligible 
        individuals and households who, as a direct result of a major 
        disaster or emergency, have uninsured, or under-insured, 
        necessary expenses and serious needs and are unable to meet 
        such expenses or needs through other means.
    3. FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program.--This program is 
        designed to help communities reduce the risk of property and 
        infrastructure damage as well as injury and loss of life to 
        populations impacted by disaster events. The program funds a 
        wide range of hazard mitigation projects, generally executed by 
        State, local, Tribal, or territorial governments.
    4. FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program.--The purpose of this 
        program is to protect homeowners from flood losses, minimize 
        the exposure of properties to flood damage, and alleviate 
        taxpayers' exposure to flood loss.
    5. HUD's Community Development Block Grant Disaster Recovery (CDGB-
        DR).--Grant recipients use this flexible funding for a range of 
        efforts to help rebuild their communities and mitigate future 
        disaster risk.
    6. SBA's Disaster Loan Program.--SBA makes direct, low-interest 
        loans to help businesses, nonprofit organizations, homeowners, 
        and renters repair or replace property damaged or destroyed in 
        a Federally-declared disaster.
    The National Disaster Recovery Framework outlines the strategy and 
doctrine for how the whole community--including individuals and 
communities, the private and nonprofit sectors, and all levels of 
government--builds, sustains, and coordinates delivery of recovery 
capabilities. The framework advises and specifically charges Federal 
recovery partners to identify and remove social and institutional 
barriers to program participation, whether intentional or 
unintentional. It calls on the Federal Government to understand how its 
actions affect the overall progress of recovery efforts and to measure 
progress toward recovery holistically.
    The Federal Government has acknowledged a need for a focus on 
equity. For example, in January 2021, the President issued an Executive 
Order that calls for the Federal Government to pursue a comprehensive 
approach to advancing equity for all, including people of color and 
others who have been historically under-served, marginalized, and 
adversely affected by persistent poverty and inequality.\3\ Further, 
the Executive Order directs Federal agencies to assess whether under-
served groups face systemic barriers in accessing opportunities and 
benefits available pursuant to certain programs and to produce a plan 
for addressing any identified barriers to full and equal participation 
in the programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \3\ Exec. Order No. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for 
Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, 86 Fed. Reg. 
7009 (Jan. 25, 2021).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
  research on recovery outcomes and participation in federal disaster 
                           recovery programs
    The body of literature we reviewed, as part of our preliminary work 
for our forthcoming report, discussed socioeconomic and community 
resilience outcomes related to the six Federal recovery programs in our 
review. It also described individual, community, and program 
characteristics with potential relationships to participation in the 
programs. However, limitations--such as the challenge of isolating the 
effects of a single program and the limited number of findings that 
cross different disasters and programs--prevented us from drawing 
definitive conclusions about these relationships. Disaster recovery 
stakeholders also described some challenges associated with 
participation in the programs.
    Our preliminary analysis of the research suggested that 
socioeconomic outcomes of disaster assistance for individual programs 
may be uneven across communities. For example, a descriptive study of 
communities in Louisiana and Mississippi 5 years after Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita found that low-income neighborhoods were more likely 
to receive CDBG-DR assistance and to still have damaged structures even 
after receiving the assistance.\4\ Our preliminary analysis of the 
research also suggested that select Federal programs may enhance 
community resilience, prevent flood-related fatalities for vulnerable 
residents, and contribute to the survival of small business 
establishments. For example, one study found that counties with higher 
rates of participation in the National Flood Insurance Program 
experienced fewer fatalities from flood events.\5\ Another study found 
that for every additional dollar spent on disaster loans per 
establishment in a county, 4 small businesses survived in the wake of 
extreme events.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ Jonathan Spader and Jennifer Turnham, ``CDBG Disaster Recovery 
Assistance and Homeowners' Rebuilding Outcomes Following Hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita,'' Housing Policy Debate, vol. 24 no 1 (2014): 213-
237.
    \5\ Jungmin Lim and Mark Skidmore, ``Flood Fatalities in the United 
States: The Roles of Socioeconomic Factors and the National Flood 
Insurance Program,'' Southern Economic Journal, vol. 85, no. 4 (2019): 
1032-1057. Administered by FEMA, the National Flood Insurance Program 
makes insurance available to residents of approximately 23,000 
participating communities, who pay premiums, to help with recovery 
after a flood-related loss.
    \6\ Meri Davlasheridze and Pinar C. Geylani, ``Small Business 
vulnerability to floods and the effects of disaster loans,'' Small 
Business Economics, vol. 49 (2017): 865-888.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Our preliminary analysis of the research and recovery stakeholder 
interviews identified potential socioeconomic, demographic, community, 
and programmatic characteristics that may be related to participation 
in at least one Federal recovery program. For example, our preliminary 
analysis of the research suggested that better-resourced communities--
that is, communities with more staff, funding, time, Government 
revenue, capital outlay, or budgets for emergency management--
participated more actively in select Federal programs. One study of 
counties in North Carolina that illustrated this condition found that 
higher levels of local government tax revenue, greater budgets for 
emergency management, and population density all had a positive 
relationship with flood mitigation activities.\7\ Similarly, officials 
representing States said larger cities can hire a third party to manage 
disaster recovery, but small towns and rural areas may lack resources 
to contract for disaster recovery services. In addition, an official 
representing Tribal nations told us that not all Tribal nations have 
sufficient funding to develop emergency management departments, which 
can be a barrier to accessing Federal resources. Moreover, 
representatives from voluntary organizations said that conditions of 
socioeconomic vulnerability--such as lower-income households or 
homelessness--may present barriers to participating in Federal recovery 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \7\ Jingyuan Li and Craig E. Landry, ``Flood Risk, Local Hazard 
Mitigation, and the Community Rating System of the National Flood 
Insurance Program,'' Land Economics, vol. 94, no. 2 (2018): 175-198.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These findings align with and highlight concerns expressed by the 
National Advisory Council. This council, which advises the FEMA 
administrator on all aspects of emergency management, reported in 
November 2020 that there is a potential for a compound effect on low-
resource communities if they face barriers to accessing funding for 
preparedness and disaster resilience.\8\ Specifically, this report 
stated that by perpetually assisting larger communities that already 
have considerable resources, the smaller, less resource-rich, less-
affluent communities cannot access funding to appropriately prepare for 
a disaster, leading to inadequate response and recovery, and little 
opportunity for mitigation. We will complete our review of the areas 
above and issue a final report in the coming months.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \8\ Department of Homeland Security, National Advisory Council 
Report to the FEMA Administrator (November 2020).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
 federal actions to identify and address access barriers and disparate 
                                outcomes
    Preliminary findings from our forthcoming report indicate that 
within and across Federal programs, there are no systematic actions to: 
(1) Ensure the availability and use of quality information to identify 
potential access barriers or disparate outcomes or (2) establish 
routine processes to address any identified access barriers and 
disparate outcomes.
    Recovery program officials from each of the three Federal agencies 
that are responsible for the six recovery programs in our review--FEMA, 
SBA, and HUD--described various ad hoc actions and early stage 
initiatives that may help with identifying and addressing social and 
institutional barriers. Removing such barriers is something the 
National Disaster Recovery Framework calls for all Federal and non-
Federal recovery partners to do. However, our preliminary findings show 
that the six large Federal recovery programs in our review lack data 
and analysis that would allow them to identify potential access 
barriers and disparate outcomes.
    Further, the programs have not taken action to determine: (1) What 
data they need to support this kind of analysis; and (2) sources and 
methods to obtain those data when the programs do not already collect 
them, including overcoming key challenges. For example, none of the six 
recovery programs in our review collected and analyzed demographic data 
from applicants specifically for this purpose. When officials described 
collecting data in the application process, they did not do so with the 
aim of identifying and addressing potential access barriers and 
disparate outcomes; rather, they collected only data that directly 
supported the implementation of their programs. At the same time, 
although officials responsible for some of the FEMA programs described 
having an idea of the data that are needed and taking some steps to 
obtain it, they have not established a means to work systematically 
through data needs either within their own programs or across the 
programs.
    Moreover, program officials described challenges to obtaining data 
that would support high-quality analysis of potential access barriers 
and disparate outcome, particularly for analyses that cross agency 
boundaries. For example, FEMA and HUD officials who manage grants for 
activities carried out primarily at the State and local level described 
some challenges developing and using this kind of information, because 
the relationships and decisions take place more at the State than at 
the Federal level. Similarly, FEMA officials described challenges 
navigating complex Government-wide privacy policies, which were 
compounded for interagency data needs. These officials also discussed 
challenges collecting data over time, because of difficulties with 
long-term follow-up, particularly when they were not able to offer 
incentives to stay engaged. Although some of the challenges are 
daunting, until the agencies work together on strategies to address 
them, they are unlikely to be resolved, leaving recovery programs 
without key information to help identify potential access barriers.
    While obtaining information through the collection and analysis of 
data is necessary, it is only one step in identifying and addressing 
potential access barriers and disparities in recovery outcomes. Our 
preliminary findings also show that FEMA, SBA, and HUD have not 
established processes to systematically and routinely identify: (1) The 
characteristics of different groups who do and do not participate in 
their recovery programs or (2) the relationship between their recovery 
programs and recovery outcomes. Officials from all three agencies 
explained that this is due, in part, to challenges associated with 
collecting program participation data. Additionally, FEMA officials 
said they faced challenges because the goal of ensuring equity in 
administration of Federal programs has only recently received new focus 
and attention. However, the lack of routine and interagency processes 
leaves programs without assurance that they will address potential 
access barriers, understand the relationship between program assistance 
and outcomes, or help achieve equity goals.
    We will complete our review on these issues and make 
recommendations, as appropriate, in our final report, which will be 
published in the coming months.
additional actions that could address the needs of vulnerable disaster 
                               survivors
    GAO has conducted prior assessments of Federal disaster assistance 
programs that provide aid to individual disaster survivors and State, 
local, territorial, and Tribal governments. While these programs are 
not typically targeted toward only low-income or vulnerable 
populations, our work has shown areas where improvements can be made to 
help these populations.
    We reported earlier this week that FEMA's flood mapping investments 
for fiscal years 2012 to 2020 were lower for communities with higher 
levels of social vulnerability and under-served populations than 
communities with lower levels of social vulnerability and under-served 
populations, other factors being equal.\9\ Specifically, we reported 
that
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ GAO-22-104079. (Washington, DC: Oct. 25, 2021). We measured 
``social vulnerability and under-served populations'' by using the 
Social Vulnerability Index, developed by the Centers for Disease 
Control and Prevention to help public health officials and local 
planners better prepare for and respond to emergencies and disasters. 
Social vulnerability is broadly defined as the susceptibility of social 
groups to the adverse impacts of natural hazards, including 
disproportionate death, injury, loss, or disruption of livelihood. 
Social vulnerability considers the social, economic, demographic, and 
housing characteristics of a community that influence its ability to 
prepare for, respond to, cope with, recover from, and adapt to 
environmental hazards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   communities with higher levels of social vulnerability and 
        under-served populations had more unmapped miles or paper maps 
        in fiscal year 2012 than communities with lower levels of 
        social vulnerability and under-served populations;
   communities with higher levels of social vulnerability and 
        under-served populations had a smaller increase in the 
        percentage of mapped miles that met FEMA's quality standard 
        metric than communities with lower levels of social 
        vulnerability and under-served populations;\10\ and
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \10\ FEMA's quality standard metric identifies the miles of map 
studies that adequately identify the level of flood risk backed by 
technical credibility and that do not warrant updating.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     communities with higher levels of social vulnerability and 
        under-served populations had longer cycle times between the 
        stages of FEMA's mapping process than communities with lower 
        levels of social vulnerability and under-served populations.
    We recommended that FEMA consider ways to better use flood risk 
data for prioritizing flood mapping investments toward priority areas, 
such as vulnerable communities. FEMA agreed with our recommendation and 
is planning actions to address it.
    In September 2020, we reported that survivors of major disasters 
faced numerous challenges obtaining aid and understanding the 
Individuals and Households Program (IHP), a FEMA program that provides 
housing assistance and other needs assistance to individuals affected 
by a major disaster.\11\ We made 14 recommendations on additional steps 
FEMA could take, some of which are designed to help disaster survivors 
obtain assistance. Our findings and recommendations included the 
following:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \11\ GAO-20-503.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
     We found that FEMA requires that certain survivors first 
        be denied an SBA disaster loan before receiving certain types 
        of IHP assistance. FEMA, State, territory, and local officials 
        said that survivors did not understand and were frustrated by 
        this requirement. We found that FEMA did not fully explain the 
        requirement to survivors and that its process for the 
        requirement may have prevented many survivors from being 
        considered for certain types of assistance, including low-
        income applicants who are less likely to qualify for an SBA 
        loan.
    We recommended that FEMA assess the extent to which its process for 
        determining applicants' eligibility for some types of IHP 
        assistance limits or prevents survivors' access to assistance 
        and that FEMA work with SBA to identify options to simplify and 
        streamline the disaster assistance application process for 
        survivors. FEMA agreed with this recommendation and officials 
        told us that a joint FEMA-SBA working group developed and 
        shared with agency leadership a draft options paper to address 
        the challenges we identified. In August 2021, FEMA officials 
        told us that FEMA leadership approved the option paper and 
        planned to implement it. We will continue to monitor full 
        implementation of this action.
   We also found that opportunities exist to improve survivors' 
        understanding of FEMA's eligibility and award determinations 
        for the IHP; for example, clarifying that an ineligible 
        determination is not always final but may mean FEMA needs more 
        information to decide the award. We recommended that FEMA 
        identify and implement strategies to provide additional 
        information to applicants about how the agency determined 
        applicants' eligibility for assistance and the amount of 
        assistance to award. FEMA agreed with this recommendation and, 
        in August 2021, officials told us that due to software 
        limitations, FEMA is unable to include information about 
        verified damages in the agency's notification letters; however, 
        FEMA officials stated that the agency will continue a review of 
        the letters sent to applicants and plans to implement any 
        revisions by April 2022. We will continue to monitor FEMA's 
        actions in addressing this recommendation.
    In May 2019, we reported that a range of officials from entities 
that partner with FEMA reported challenges providing assistance to 
individuals who are older or who have disabilities following the 2017 
hurricanes.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ GAO-19-318.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
   For example, officials said that many of these individuals 
        required specialized assistance obtaining food, water, 
        medicine, and oxygen, but aid was sometimes difficult to 
        provide. We also reported that aspects of the process to apply 
        for assistance from FEMA were challenging for older individuals 
        and those with disabilities and that FEMA did not provide 
        individuals clear opportunities to disclose disability-related 
        needs.
    We recommended, among other things, that FEMA implement new 
        application questions to improve FEMA's ability to identify and 
        address survivors' disability-related needs. FEMA agreed with 
        this recommendation and implemented it in May 2019 by using a 
        revised application that asked directly if survivors had a 
        disability.
    We also found that FEMA had taken limited steps to communicate the 
        agency's new disability integration staffing approach in the 
        regions to Regional Administrators and Regional Disability 
        Integration Specialists, who are critical to implementing these 
        changes. We recommended that FEMA improve communication of 
        applicants' disability-related information across FEMA 
        programs. FEMA did not concur with our recommendation. The 
        agency stated that it began a long-term initiative in April 
        2017 to improve data management--including a data analytics 
        platform--that will allow analysts, decision makers and 
        stakeholders more ready access to FEMA data. After completing 
        this initiative, FEMA expects that efforts to share specific 
        disability-related data will be much easier. Our 
        recommendation, however, was not solely focused on data system 
        changes, but also on needed communication improvements. 
        Therefore, we continue to believe that FEMA can improve this 
        communication through cost-effective ways, such as revising 
        guidance to remind program officials to review survivor case 
        files for disability-related needs.
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of the 
committee, this completes my prepared statement. I would be pleased to 
respond to any questions that you may have at this time.
          Enclosure I: Related GAO Products Previously Issued
    GAO, Disaster Assistance: FEMA Action Needed to Better Support 
Individuals Who Are Older or Have Disabilities. GAO-19-318. Washington, 
DC: May 14, 2019.
    GAO, Disaster Assistance: Additional Actions Needed to Strengthen 
FEMA's Individuals and Households Program. GAO-20-503. Washington, DC: 
September 30, 2020.
    FEMA Flood Maps: Better Planning and Analysis Needed to Address 
Current and Future Flood Hazards. GAO-22-104079. Washington, DC: 
October 25, 2021.

    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Joseph for 5 minutes.

  STATEMENT OF JAMES K. JOSEPH, VICE PRESIDENT FOR RESPONSE, 
                          TIDAL BASIN

    Mr. Joseph. Good morning, Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member 
Katko, and the membership of this committee.
    My name is James Joseph and I am the vice president of 
response at Tidal Basin, a disaster management and recovery 
firm based in Alexandria, Virginia.
    I have been an emergency manager at the county, State, and 
Federal level over the past 11 years, most recently as regional 
administrator of FEMA region 5. I have had the pleasure of 
working with many of you, both in my role at FEMA, as well as 
in my current role at Tidal Basin, and it is an honor to speak 
with you all.
    I would also like to take a moment during this month of 
October to honor all those that have been victim to, but more 
importantly recovered, from breast cancer. Women and men suffer 
from this disease and I wear pink today to honor them, 
including my cousin, Sue, in North Carolina that beat breast 
cancer. She is a beautiful and wonderful human being and her 
strength is a source of courage to many.
    The topic before us, ensuring equity in FEMA's disaster 
preparedness, response, and recovery, has been spoken about for 
years now and it is my hope that we continue to act and take 
deliberate actions to help increase representation in the 
emergency management profession, but also continue to build 
equitable practices in recovering from natural or man-made 
events.
    As it relates to ensuring equity in disaster recovery, 
there are several recommendations in my written statements and 
actions we can take as a Nation to bring timely disaster 
response and recovery not only to communities that need them 
the most, but also to individuals and families that are 
struggling to make ends meet daily, let alone when a 
catastrophic disaster strikes.
    It is important for us also to realize and recognize that 
this is not just in the Federal level of disasters supported by 
FEMA, but also for localized disasters that are managed by each 
State or community. As such, there is responsibility to have 
equitable recovery from disasters that State and local 
governments have policies and programs in place that help 
financially struggling communities, individuals with 
disabilities, and those that face additional hardships during 
times of disasters.
    While State and local agencies bear the responsibility to 
provide for their communities and residents, there are still 
improvements that can be made at the Federal level as it 
relates to distribution of funds after the President declares a 
disaster.
    Some of those recommendations in my written statement are 
to streamline the application process for individual assistance 
by eliminating the requirement to apply for an SBA loan prior 
to FEMA authorizing a disaster claim, streamlining emergency 
lodging services to allow individuals without traditional 
credit or modes of transportation to relocate from homes more 
quickly and allowing them to access lodging in their own 
communities, re-instituting the Sheltering and Temporary 
Essentials Program, or the STEP program, that allowed for 
temporary emergency repairs while families remained in their 
home versus needing to find alternate lodging, including 
emergency shelters, as long as their home was safe to be 
resided in.
    Equally important is the need to build the pipeline and 
provide promotional opportunities for individuals that mirror 
our Nation's diversity. A few years ago I had the opportunity, 
the honor of addressing nearly 200 individuals that before my 
eyes raised their hands and denounced their birth citizenships 
and pledged allegiance to these United States of America. As 
one of the first people to welcome my now fellow citizens, the 
look on their faces were both inspiring with pride and rich 
with joy. In my address to them I shared how my parents, who 
were in the audience that morning, came to this country some 50 
years ago and one day sat in the same seats that they were in, 
and that by God's grace and their hard work, in one generation 
I was standing on the other side of the dais welcoming them. I 
told them that their children can be anything that they want to 
be--homemakers, business owners, doctors, lawyers, elected 
officials, or even the President, but could they be the next 
emergency manager?
    Having been an emergency manager at the local, State, and 
Federal level I was most often the only person of color in the 
room. At the local and State level, there were few or no women 
in leadership positions. Recently, there have been more 
minority and female leaders in emergency management and I 
applaud that, but we must still prioritize diversity and 
inclusion in the hiring and promotion of individuals from all 
backgrounds and all identities. If we are not deliberate about 
diversity and weave into the very fabric of our local, State, 
and Federal programs, this will never be achieved.
    I championed programs to diversity while at FEMA and found 
the red tape of the Federal hiring process to be the largest 
obstacle.
    I am also proud to work for Tidal Basin and our CEO Daniel 
Craig, who with Chauncia's organization, IDIEMM, created the 
first scholarship program for minority students wishing to 
enter emergency management.
    Solutions do not require years of additional studies or 
months of deliberation on policy, it requires advocates at the 
senior level of every agency to advise and guide leadership in 
building and promoting a diverse work force.
    As I conclude, let me say that we must do everything in our 
ability to advocate for equitable programs, agencies, and 
departments and to advocate for diversity and inclusion in 
hiring and promotion. I feel that we should do so as if the 
future of our profession depends on it, because in my opinion, 
it does.
    Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member, thank you for this 
opportunity.
    [The prepared statement of Mr. Joseph follows:]
                 Prepared Statement of James K. Joseph
    My name is James K. Joseph, and I am the vice president of response 
for Tidal Basin Government Consulting based in Alexandria, VA. I have 
held positions in emergency management, security, investigations, and 
crisis management for over 20 years--10 years for a global corporation 
and 12 at all levels of government.
    In my opinion, diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) should not 
just be a topic of discussion, it should be the very fabric by which we 
operate as a country. A few years ago, I had the honor of addressing 
nearly 200 individuals that before my eyes, raised their hands and 
denounced their birth citizenship and pledged allegiance to these 
United States of America. As one of the first people to welcome my now 
fellow citizens, the look on their faces were both inspiring and rich 
with pride. In my address to them, I shared how my parents, who were in 
the audience that morning, came to this country some 50 years ago and 
one day sat in the same seats they were in. And that by God's grace 
alone, in one generation, I was standing on the other side of the dais. 
I told them their children can be anything they want to be--homemakers, 
business owners, doctors, lawyers, elected officials, or even 
President.
    But--could they be the next Emergency Manager? Having been an 
emergency manager at the local, State and Federal level--I was most 
often the only person of color in the room and at the local and State 
level, there were few or no women. Recently, there have been more 
minority and female leaders in emergency management across the private 
sector and Government positions. However, it is still important for us 
to ensure that we are a profession that builds the pipeline to 
leadership positions that identifies with the diverse communities we 
serve.
    The following summarizes the thoughts of myself and my colleagues 
at Tidal Basin on how we cannot only increase the presence of 
minorities and all gender identities in emergency management leadership 
positions, but also ideas on more equitable disaster recovery across 
social and economically disadvantaged communities.
                         building the pipeline
    While there have been many catastrophic incidents across the 
country recently, and we know they will continue in the future--much of 
America only sees the devastation and destruction of a natural or 
human-made incident on TV or read about it in print. The first 
introduction to emergency management that most will ever have, is the 
unfortunate and stressful experience that disaster survivors face 
during or after a disaster. They will interact with their local 
emergency management team, county or State emergency management 
officials, and non-profit organizations.
    We must be deliberate about diversity. As the profession looks to 
diversify leadership roles, promoting recruitment into the emergency 
management profession not just in college programs, but in the K-12 
grades are important. Agencies should not only look at colleges and 
universities with formal emergency management programs, but other 
emergency management and vocational training programs that tie into 
programs that FEMA manages. For example, many junior and community 
colleges have a variety of programs in environmental and utility 
programs. These programs have a direct cadence to important roles 
within emergency management programs such as environmental and historic 
preservation and State or Federal public assistance damage assessment 
or inspection.
    From a Federal Government perspective, specifically my experience 
as a FEMA Regional Administrator--there are limitations that prevent 
Federal agencies from being able to provide opportunities to students 
in college programs. When attempting to create opportunities for paid 
internship programs, there are lengthy and cumbersome application 
processes and documents required. While many Federal employees 
themselves find the application process for positions and promotions 
difficult to understand and follow, a college student should not be 
expected to navigate that process. In addition, due to varying 
criteria, the ability to be presented to an agency hiring official on 
an official certification list for hiring consideration is also 
difficult. Therefore, it eliminates students from gaining Federal 
experience while in their college or university programs, but more 
importantly, it creates a barrier to entry in the Federal Government.
    If there was less ``red tape'' in the application, evaluation, 
hiring, and onboarding process for many Federal agencies, I believe 
there would be much greater success in bringing employees and interns 
into Federal agencies. Furthermore, as previous reports have indicated, 
the representation of minorities or females in leadership positions is 
lower within FEMA compared to employees in non-management positions.
    We must be deliberate about diversity. This occurs when we are 
creating ways to attract, hire, and mentor people of all backgrounds 
and identity. It doesn't require creativity to do so--it requires 
dismantling the barriers to entry that exist and clearing a more direct 
path to hiring. I am proud to work for an organization that lives and 
exemplifies diversity as part of its culture through its hiring 
practices and supporting scholarships to minority students entering the 
emergency management field with our partners from the Institute for 
Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Management (I-DIEM). I-DIEM 
recently announced the first recipients of the Julius Becton 
Scholarship, named after Lt. General Julius Becton, who was the first 
minority to head FEMA from 1985-1989. Tidal Basin sponsors this program 
annually through corporate and personal donations from its CEO.
                  equity in disaster recovery programs
    Equally important to hiring emergency managers that represent the 
diverse communities we serve, and mentoring them into senior 
leadership, is equity in disaster response and recovery programs. 
Oftentimes, communities that have low to moderate income will be 
adversely impacted by events due to their inability to not only respond 
and recover the community, but also the financial constraint to 
mitigate against natural disasters. Providing common-sense solutions 
that streamline the ability for communities to receive mitigation 
assistance, and individuals to receive disaster assistance, should be a 
focus at all levels of government.
    As mentioned above, this is not a burden that should be placed on 
the Federal Government alone. Not all natural or man-made disasters are 
significant enough to result in a Presidential Disaster Declaration 
that brings Federal aid to a community or individuals. Rather, it is 
often the municipality, county, or State that must respond to and 
recover from disasters without assistance from Federal agencies. As 
such, it is important for local and State governments to identify and 
set aside funds for mitigation and recovery. However, it would be tone-
deaf to make such a statement across the board as if the financial 
resources of the Nation are equal; we know they are not.
Cost Match Considerations
    For all communities to have access to Federal funds for mitigation 
and recovery, there must be changes made to the cost match required in 
Federal grants. These changes should be based on the applicant 
communities need as well as prioritization of areas that experienced 
repetitive loss. We know from a variety of studies that for every 
dollar spent in mitigation, there are savings that will be realized in 
future disaster response. The Building Resilient Infrastructure and 
Communities (BRIC) grant managed by FEMA is a game-changing tool in 
preparedness and mitigation. Giving local communities the ability to 
buy down the risk and prevent the repetitive cycle of damage and loss 
saves money in the long term. However, many communities that experience 
repetitive loss from disasters are unable to meet the cost match of 
grants--both mitigation and disaster recovery grants. While over a 
billion dollars were set aside for BRIC recently, more money will not 
increase equitable disbursement of the funds, because many communities 
that need to utilize those funds will not be able to meet the 25 
percent match. This is not a race, gender, or functional access issue, 
but an issue local governments face that transcend across all social 
and economic status. The FEMA administrator should have the ability to 
wave or eliminate cost match based on formula and strategy for 
adjusting cost share based on need from both a financial lens, as well 
as from the lens of mitigating repetitive loss based on where it has 
already or continue to occur. We have seen over the years that 
communities with high LMI (low to moderate income) populations will 
struggle in recovery--both community and individual recovery, so 
deliberate steps need to be taken to reduce or eliminate the cost match 
based on need.
    After a Presidential Disaster has been declared, FEMA's Public 
Assistance program provides critical funding to help Government and 
certain non-profits organizations in the form of reimbursements. As 
with other grants, there is 25 percent cost match required. While that 
match can be reduced based on the level of loss the State faces, the 
thresholds set for each State are extremely high and usually only met 
in catastrophic events. However, it does not take a catastrophic event 
to cripple communities--the impact is severe in areas that do not have 
a tax base to support strengthening infrastructure.
    As there are many Federal agencies that provide disaster recovery 
services and grants, coordination among these agencies to create a 
process for States to provide global match for grants is recommended. 
While a global match has been utilized across mitigation program such 
as FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program, which buys out homes that 
have significant repetitive loss, the review process for such projects 
by multiple agencies is lengthy. As such, applicants that have applied 
lose patience and drop out of the program or suffer other financial 
losses while waiting for Federal approval. I have seen first-hand the 
impact and heartbreak of homeowners that experienced devastating losses 
while waiting for a buy-out. It is paramount that agencies come 
together with the common goal of creating policies to streamline 
efforts and coordinate reducing the complexity of such programs for 
equitable recovery.
Individual Assistance (IA) Considerations
    FEMA's Individual Assistance program should also have policies in 
place that help streamline services to disaster survivors. Like I 
mentioned above, those that have experienced loss during natural 
disasters know first-hand the stress, emotion, and frustration that 
comes with recovery. When disasters impact a family or individual, the 
resources that provide support to kick-start recovery need to be 
quickly administered and delivered. While the employees of FEMA and 
other organizations have the disaster survivor in mind, their desire 
and calling to assist survivors is often hampered by red tape within 
the program.
    The maximum funding available to individuals in an area covered by 
a disaster declaration, if Individual Assistance (IA) has been declared 
by the President, is around $36,000 for uninsured losses. Furthermore, 
the number of individuals that receive the maximum amount is low, with 
average IA grants of around $5,000. FEMA programs are not intended to 
make an individual whole, and I do not disagree with that. How 
assistance is delivered and the steps to apply for eligibility are 
cumbersome, and often confusing to individuals who have never had to 
apply for or be familiar with the program. Even still, it can remain 
confusing for individuals that have experienced repetitive loss and 
have applied for the program more than once. While insurance is the 
best source of recovery and will provide higher cost recovery than even 
the maximum allowable amount through FEMA IA grants, we must recognize 
that due to multiple economic factors, there will always be a segment 
of our country that can't afford insurance and is a risk they are 
forced to live with.
    The application process for Individual Assistance can be confusing 
and frustrating. For anyone that has applied for disaster assistance in 
the past, there are processes that for many do not make sense and adds 
time to the determination process. For example, it has been a long-
standing policy that prior to being deemed eligible for an IA grant, 
the disaster survivor must first apply for a loan via the Small 
Business Administration (SBA). Even if the homeowner knows they are not 
eligible for a loan--which is unfortunately those that have economic 
hardships face, they are still required to apply for a loan, only to be 
rejected, before they are eligible for an IA grant from FEMA. The loan 
process requirement can easily be eliminated to expedite the delivery 
of services to the survivor.
    If an individual or family is displaced from their home, and if 
emergency lodging has been requested by a Governor and approved, the 
path to receiving the hotel assistance with limited finances can be a 
long and arduous process. In an area affected by a disaster, there will 
be survivors with insurance and/or financial means that are able to 
secure a hotel room quickly. On the contrary, those without the 
financial resources to secure a hotel room near their homes must first 
apply for the assistance, await confirmation of eligibility, and then 
find a hotel room. While this process takes time, the likelihood of an 
individual or family without the financial resources to evacuate on 
their own means that hotel rooms near their home may be unavailable. 
Hotels may already be full of other evacuees oftentimes placing those 
without means to evacuate on their own a significant distance away from 
their home. Thus, the recovery process becomes more stressful as access 
to begin recovery with clean-up and other repairs, if approved through 
the IA program, an even lengthier process. This is exacerbated further 
if the families evacuating do not have access to a vehicle or their own 
transportation and need to rely on other modes of transportation, 
including public transportation. Reform of the program to allow for 
quicker access to hotels, which will result in closer evacuation 
locations to their homes, is needed.
    In many situations, being able to remain in their home while 
repairs are being made, so long as it's safe to be in the dwelling, is 
the best option for recovery. Not only will families remain within 
their community and close to other services they may typically utilize, 
but it allows them to start the rebuilding process without the perils 
of distance and transportation access. In the past FEMA managed a 
highly successful program called the Sheltering and Temporary Essential 
Power (STEP) program. This program allowed families to live in their 
homes while repairs were being made from damage due to a natural 
disaster. This program provided emergency assistance for life-
sustaining needs such as emergency repairs to roofs, walls, and 
electric and plumbing utilities. Due to some isolated misuse of the 
program, STEP was suspended and has not been utilized in years. 
However, the benefit to families being able to remain in their 
community, where they have built-in support systems, is often the best 
solution for temporary repairs concurrent to the IA application and 
adjudication process. In addition, a secondary benefit of the STEP 
program is that it reduces, and in some cases may eliminate the need 
for local sheltering and feeding programs, thus saving on additional 
disaster response and recovery expenses.
                               conclusion
    Building a pipeline of emergency managers to lead programs, 
departments, and agencies, as well as making disaster assistance more 
equitable for our Nation will not occur overnight. However, there has 
been significant discussion about diversity, equity, and inclusion 
(DEI) for years, and it is time that we act. Local, State, and Federal 
agencies have a wealth of research and studies available to them, and 
we must be deliberate about DEI by building it into strategic planning, 
policy, and programs. DEI is not and cannot be a temporary topic of 
discussion but is something that we need to engrain in our minds and 
actions. The face of our Nation, as it always has, continues to change. 
Let us do everything in our ability--including creating DEI champions 
in every department and agency that reports to senior officials to 
continuously advocate for equitable programs, agencies, departments, 
and delivery part of the fabric by which we operate. Let us do so as if 
the future of this profession depends on it. Because in my opinion, it 
does.

    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    I thank the witnesses for their testimony.
    As usual, we will have questions. I will start the process 
of questioning.
    All of us who are Members of Congress have had or will have 
some disaster in their respective community. For the most part 
the majority of us will have areas of high-income, moderate-, 
to low-income citizens. It appears those of us who have gone 
through a disaster, that bar is somehow higher for working-
class individuals or individuals who are in rural areas than it 
is for individuals in high-income or urban areas.
    Dr. Peek, how would you suggest leveling the playing field 
so that Americans who are facing disasters can feel that their 
Government looks at them as an American, not as some member of 
a particular class?
    Ms. Peek. Thank you so much, Chairman Thompson, for that 
question. I just want to acknowledge that I know your district 
in particular has been struck low recently by hurricanes, 
flooding, and several other disaster events. So just thank you 
for holding this hearing today and, again, for that question.
    So I think one of the first things that is most important 
in terms of leveling the playing field is what is happening 
today. So the fact that we are having this conversation and 
shining light on the fact that low-income communities, people 
of color, and other marginalized community members have the 
hardest time accessing this aid and often times experience the 
most prolonged and protracted recovery processes. So I think 
that acknowledgment is first and foremost.
    But second from there, I think some of the ideas that have 
already been put forth by the other panelists are absolutely 
vital. That until we have data available that allows us to 
track and monitor the status of different communities and how 
they are faring in disaster, we are going to have a very hard 
time changing policies and programs that may be deepening these 
inequalities. I think the data availability is absolutely 
vital.
    Then also keeping this focus on equity central throughout 
all of our programs and policies.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    Mr. Currie, you talked about the data availability, I 
understand that, but generally speaking don't we already 
collect the data as an agency as we work through the disasters? 
What data are we not collecting that we ought to be collecting?
    Mr. Currie. That is a great question, sir.
    So as you know--and I am trying not to get too technical--
but there are various factors that FEMA and the jurisdiction 
consider when they are developing a damage assessment and 
preparing the information that eventually goes to the President 
to make a disaster declaration.
    So several of those factors include things that should 
account for the things we are talking about today, the income, 
the unemployment, the poverty level, elderly population, the 
disabled. The question becomes how good of a job do we do 
during that process to make that justification. I think the 
challenge right now, those factors are so--they are very vague 
and it is up to the local jurisdiction and the State to come up 
with that information. I think there are a number of options we 
can look at, some of it in legislation, but also some of this 
is in regulation and FEMA could change or other agencies could 
change. For example, we could look to further quantify or 
require more quantitative measures be included when we are 
making an assessment of whether there needs to be a 
declaration. That would factor in the poverty level, you know, 
unemployment, all the things that we are talking about. Right 
now, though, it is very vague.
    Chairman Thompson. That is very troubling, the fact that 
here we have communities that are suffering and we are caught 
in the lurch between the lack of information by which those 
individuals who are in this disaster position have really 
nothing to complement their situation but their particular 
situation.
    So, Mr. Joseph, since you have been a practitioner, what 
recommendation would say that we need to do so that vulnerable 
populations cannot miss out on the particular resources that 
are available to more affluent communities?
    Mr. Joseph. Mr. Chairman, I think one of the criteria that 
Mr. Currie spoke about is looking at the localized impact, 
looking at what the level of impact is on that community. I 
don't feel, having been a local emergency manager, a State 
emergency manager, or even a Federal emergency manager, that we 
always look at that because it is not easy to identify, it is 
not data that is always collected. But even when it is 
available, I feel far too often that we may just look at 
threshold numbers, the dollar figures that are associated with 
declaring a disaster.
    As the FEMA original administrator, I advocated for 
communities. I saw first-hand as a State and local emergency 
manager what the impacts are on those communities. So I believe 
that cued advocacy, as I mentioned for, even within the Federal 
Government to look at what the communities are facing and look 
at what the long-term impacts are, and does that community 
truly have the ability to recover. In many cases they might 
through State and local assistance, but in many cases they 
don't. I think that is where the Federal Government can assist 
further by looking at what those specific localized impacts are 
in those communities and providing assistance where it is 
needed, even if it is not through a Presidential declaration 
but by other means of Federal assistance that could be 
available from the multitude of agencies that have disaster 
service and recovery programs.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the Ranking Member.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this very 
important hearing today.
    I just want to give a couple of quick examples before I 
follow up with you, Mr. Joseph, on what you just said because I 
completely agree with you.
    There is a home in Syracuse, New York in a predominantly 
African American community, $60,000 value on it. Because they 
hadn't had a flood in over 100 years in that area, the Flood 
Insurance Program did not mandate that home must have upwards 
of a $3,000 a year in flood insurance had to pay for a premium, 
which makes a house almost non-saleable and it just puts more 
of a burden on an economically depressed area. I find it very 
hard to believe that if you do a proportional amount that a $6 
million beach house is going to be paying $300,000 a year in 
insurance, which you would have to pay if it was proportional.
    So I just think that the premiums are charging on these 
low-income areas are not proportional to what they are paying 
in the fancy areas. To me that is a form of discrimination and 
it is something that is not right and something we need to look 
at.
    Second, I will give you an example of a town in my 
district, not a high-income town, very low-income town 
generally speaking, a rural area. They had 4 inches of rain in 
about an hour and a half and it had a catastrophic flood for 
that town. Millions of dollars of damage. Didn't qualify for 
FEMA aid.
    Then last I will note Lake Ontario shoreline had a 
catastrophic flood in 2 out of 3 years--2 out of the past 4 
years. Hundreds of millions of dollars of damage along the 
shoreline to homes. A lot of these homes were blue-collar 
people who work very hard their whole lives to get a little 
piece of heaven on the lake and their homes were devastated by 
the flooding. Didn't qualify for FEMA.
    So, Mr. Joseph, to your point, I think that the formulas 
that FEMA has right now tend to favor shoreline communities and 
big-ticket disasters, what they see as big-ticket disasters. 
But proportionately the town of Moravia had millions of dollars 
of damage, which was more than their entire budget by far, 
didn't qualify.
    So I would like to speak to drill down a little bit more on 
what you said, how we can fix this anomaly with specific 
recommendations, not just discussions. What would you recommend 
that FEMA do to change your formula structure? Because right 
now it is really discriminating against lower-income 
communities.
    Mr. Joseph. Absolutely. Thank you, sir.
    I think we see that across several States that have a large 
urban area population in one portion of the State, such as New 
York, such as the State of Illinois, where I served as a local 
and State director, where the formulas that are used based on 
the large population in one portion of the State impacts the 
remainder of the State because of the threshold that needs to 
be met.
    So I don't believe that the threshold alone should be the 
determining factor when making a decision or making a 
recommendation to the president on a Presidential disaster 
declaration. I truly believe that the localized impact needs to 
have a significant weight in their process.
    For example----
    Mr. Katko. Yes, that I understand. I don't mean to cut you 
off. I understand. But what specific changes do we need to do 
in the law, us as legislators, to fix that problem? Not make so 
it is option. If they make it, say, by law you must consider 
these things. What things should we consider?
    Mr. Joseph. Well, I think there are things that we can do 
for rural communities when it comes to areas. For example, 
Southern Illinois compared to Northern Illinois, their impact 
is going to be significant. There is less tax base in those 
communities. We have to look at not just what the total taxable 
revenue of the entire State is, but we have to look at the 
revenues that are in those individual communities. The ability 
of those communities to recover is significantly lower because 
of the lower tax base, and because in many States they don't 
have State programs that can provide assistance in the absence 
of FEMA assistance.
    So looking at some of those localized areas, those 
localized events, what the total taxable revenue for those 
areas are, what the tax base is in those communities, and being 
able to provide specific guidance for FEMA to look at that 
separate from just the large urban areas that make up the 
overall population of the State. It is something that should be 
considered and that we could look at.
    Mr. Katko. Thank you. I will note that I am wearing a pink 
tie today for the very reason you are, so it is a very 
important cause.
    Mr. Currie, is there anything you want to add to that?
    Mr. Currie. I mean I agree. If we are going to change this 
problem, we are going to have to do something to the process 
that the locality goes up through the State. Because, like Mr. 
Joseph said, you know, a locality could be--I mean--your 
district completely the opposite from Manhattan and lower New 
York. So something is going to have to be done to change the 
regulation, how we look at the locality and the specific impact 
of that.
    I will say that could be done in law. You know, you could 
require FEMA to do that. A couple of years ago they did change 
the factors for the individual assistance program. But FEMA--
that is written in the regulation. I mean they could do that 
without a law as well.
    Mr. Katko. Yes, but they are clearly not doing that. So 
sometimes we need to give--mandate that they do that because 
the discrimination and the unfairness continues and it 
continues in my district. My district is very different than 
Mr. Thompson's, but we are experiencing the same problems and 
it is just not right and we have got to get it fixed.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair--Ms. Jackson Lee--the Chair recognizes the 
gentleman from Rhode Island, Mr. Langevin.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to thank you 
for holding this very important hearing. I want to thank the 
witnesses for their testimony today.
    I would like to begin just by focusing my time on the 
experiences of people with disabilities and older adults to 
overlapping populations that are among the most vulnerable in 
emergency situations, as you can well appreciate.
    Mr. Currie, if I could start with you. I would like to ask 
you about the 2019 GAO report that you reference in your 
written testimony. You note that FEMA did not concur with GAO's 
recommendations to better communicate disaster assistance 
applicants' disability-related information across FEMA 
programs. Instead FEMA argued that it was working on a long-
term project to improve data management which would help make 
disability data more readily available--accessible I should 
say.
    So on that point, has FEMA since completed this long-term 
process? If so do you believe that it has led to any 
improvement in its communication of applicants' disability-
related information?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, sir.
    One of our major findings from that report was that when we 
looked at the enrollment and registration process for 
individual assistance we didn't see any granularity in the 
questions that were asked to really obtain the type of 
information they would need on disability to help tailor the 
assistance to the individual that has the disability. So while, 
you know, they said they were very committed to helping those--
you know, the disabled and others, if they didn't have the 
information then they weren't going to be able to do anything 
different than they were just doing for everybody else.
    So since that time they have revised the intake process to 
gather more information. They have also increased the resources 
at the regional level on their disability coordinator positions 
there to try to better integrate that into the assistance.
    So they have made some strides. You know, I still think--
you know, like other populations we are talking about now, much 
more can be done to help tailor the assistance and ensure that, 
you know, people that need it the most are getting it.
    Mr. Langevin. Agreed. Thank you for that comment.
    Continuing on with you, Mr. Currie, if I could.
    In addition to collecting and communicating the disability 
status of survivors, response agencies need to be ready long 
before disasters strike to accommodate disability-related 
needs.
    In August I reintroduced what I call the Ready For Disaster 
Act, which would establish a network of centers to provide 
training in technical systems to State and local governments 
and expand the National advisory committee on individuals who 
have disabilities in disasters to better represent the 
disability community.
    So, Mr. Currie, do you believe--you think that these 
provisions would help address some of the deficiencies GAO 
identified in its 2019 report?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, sir. I think anything we can do to prepare 
communities for these types of issues before-hand would be a 
good thing. These things don't have to be a surprise when a 
disaster happens. I mean most communities understand where the 
folks are with the most disabilities reside. For instance, the 
assisted living facilities and things like that. We know this 
information. So we can use it before the disaster and plan 
accordingly, then anything like that would be very helpful.
    Mr. Langevin. Well, precisely my point and the reason for 
introducing the Act. You are spot-on. Thank you for that 
perspective and concurrence.
    If I could turn to Dr. Peek for now. I would also like to 
hear your perspective on the Ready For Disaster Act. In your 
testimony you note that it is social forces that turn natural 
hazards into human tragedies.
    So my question is, in your opinion, would better access to 
technical assistance for a disaster give agencies a more 
inclusion of people with disabilities in planning from the get-
go, help reduce the pressure of these social forces?
    Ms. Peek. Thank you for your sponsorship of the Ready Act 
and support for the disability community in our country.
    Absolutely, to the point about social forces turning 
natural hazards into disasters. I think one concrete example of 
that is that people with disabilities are not inherently 
vulnerable to disaster. Instead, things in our social structure 
and our built environment may render these populations 
vulnerable.
    So a specific example of that is curb cuts. When we put 
curb cuts on streets, everybody can have access to the cut 
sidewalks. When we don't have those curb cuts people don't have 
access. So I think any policy or program that can advance the 
kind of equitable vision for groups that are marginalized is 
absolutely crucial.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you.
    I know my time has expired. Let me just say I think your 
framework to describe the interaction between natural hazards 
and social forces really hits the nail on the head. Thank your 
work and your perspective on that.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognized the gentleman from Louisiana, Mr. 
Higgins, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Higgins. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Ranking Member, 
for holding this hearing today. I thank our witnesses for being 
here.
    Today's hearing is very important to me because inequity in 
Federal Government's disaster response is real and it has 
deeply injured my district in Southwest Louisiana.
    The impact of storms, it can be quite stunning to witness 
and yet if that impact is not communicated and does not 
resonate throughout the Federal Government and throughout the 
Nation's media--this is when inequity is really suffered. On 
August 27, 2020 Hurricane Laura made landfall in Southwest 
Louisiana. In my 60 years as a Louisiana resident I have never 
seen a storm hit that hard and that fast. Just 38 days later a 
second category 4 hurricane made landfall in almost the 
identical path.
    Inequity in disaster response, my experience certainly over 
the last year since Laura and Delta hit, is both political and 
institutional. The media is a factor here because, you know, 
most Americans never realized that Southwest Louisiana 
experienced mass destruction and homelessness and horrors 
because it was buried in other news. Louisiana's citizens are 
known for--you know, we rely on our neighbors and our community 
to recover and respond to hurricanes because quite frankly many 
of us feel that the response from the Federal Government is not 
to be trusted and cannot be relied upon.
    Over a year after Hurricane Laura hit, Southwest Louisiana, 
which to note for Americans watching and our witnesses here 
today and my colleagues, it is a rural area, you know, a lot of 
agriculture. It flies under the radar. This is where inequity 
comes in in the Federal Government's response. Over a year 
later many Louisiana citizens still displaced, businesses that 
smashed, will never reopen, destroyed infrastructure, destroyed 
homes. Many citizens have lost hope and given up. Thank god our 
churches and volunteers have performed because the Federal 
bureaucracies at the Executive level has certainly not 
performed.
    The Executive branch response to a disaster must be noted 
here as we talk about inequity today. After Hurricane Katrina 
the Governor of Louisiana requested that the President of the 
United States request of Congress a supplemental disaster 
response bill and within 5 days of Katrina President Bush 
responded. But our Governor of Louisiana submitted an official 
request to President Biden and it was waiting on his desk his 
first day in office. That was in January of this year. But you 
didn't get a response. You didn't get a request from President 
Biden's Executive branch to Congress asking for a supplemental 
disaster plan, which as my colleagues know, that is the way 
things work. That didn't happen until New Orleans got hit.
    So herein lies inequity. I am going to ask Mr. Currie to 
respond to this because you stated, sir, you said we need to 
define inequity. Well, let me just give us a nudge toward 
reality here. Housing, primary housing should be our focus as a 
Nation. Getting Americans back into some livable housing, their 
primary house. Not their second or third house on the coast, 
millionaires, et cetera. We need our rural folk, our poor that 
are the most vulnerable to loss of housing, primary housing, 
after a storm. We need those citizens back on their feet. We 
need rural areas to not be ignored by the Federal Government 
from the Executive level as opposed to urban areas and cities. 
The President of the United States' response to the Governor of 
a sovereign state's official request that that President 
request of Congress a supplemental disaster plan--this is where 
we need to focus our attention and make this thing work.
    Mr. Currie, does the GAO consider the inequity that I just 
described to be real? What would you suggest, sir, as a plan to 
address it from both legislatively and through Executive 
branch?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, sir.
    Well, believe me, those of us who work in this area, I 
understand the situation in Southern Louisiana very well. I 
know folks in your district were not just those storms, but 
still recovering from Hurricane Harvey and also the 2016 
flooding in that area too. So it is just unbelievable what they 
have had to endure during the last decade.
    But to answer your question, so, you know, this issue of 
when the President requests supplemental has been an issue. It 
was an issue after Hurricane Sandy with the delay. I know it 
has come up. Unfortunately, you know, we don't--we can't 
control--we don't have a recommended--you know, anything about 
the timing of when Congress should do that. I do know for most 
of the big hurricanes you are talking about, there were 
disasters declared, but there was some delay for some of the 
later ones, sir.
    Mr. Langevin. Disasters declare--let me just interject--
declarations, yes, sir----
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman----
    Mr. Langevin. That happens very quickly, but the request of 
Congress, could you just finish addressing that?
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman from Louisiana's----
    Mr. Langevin. I beg that----
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman's time is expired.
    Mr. Langevin. I beg the indulgence of the Chairman for the 
gentleman to answer the question.
    Chairman Thompson. Well, if you be quiet, I am sure he will 
answer the question, Mr. Langevin.
    Mr. Langevin. Yes, sir, yes, sir. I am sorry.
    Mr. Currie. Well, sir, unfortunately, you know, at the GAO, 
we, you know, we have made many recommendations about the 
declaration process as you said, and they are declared. But, 
you know, we cannot control how quickly Congress moves on a 
supplemental appropriation.
    Mr. Langevin. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey for 5 
minutes, Mr. Payne.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Dr. Peek, your research has focused on the impact of 
disasters on children. Can you discuss the unique impacts of 
disasters on children, specifically from communities of color? 
Also could you recommend to this committee the policies or 
programmatic changes that should be taken to better address 
these unique needs?
    Ms. Peek. Thank you, Representative Payne, for asking a 
question about children.
    Children make up nearly one-quarter of our population here 
in the United States, but children remain overlooked in 
emergency management, in policy and in practice. Children, they 
do not vote, they are not in the room when decisions are being 
made about their lives and their livelihood, but they are 
experiencing more and more disasters and coming of age in this 
ever more turbulent world. So this is a crucial question as to 
what are the impacts on children and especially children of 
color in a disaster.
    There is a growing body of research on this, and I am going 
to give one specific example from the COVID-19 pandemic, which 
I think really illustrates the inequalities and also those 
social forces that turn hazards into massive disasters. During 
COVID-19, according to the Centers for Disease Control and 
Prevention, we know that while children thankfully make up only 
a tiny fraction of those who have perished in the pandemic, of 
those children who have perished they are disproportionately 
black, Latino, and from indigenous communities. Again, that 
isn't about inherent vulnerabilities, it is about that these 
children are more likely to live in crowded living conditions, 
to have parents who are deemed essential workers who are 
outside the home, and so forth.
    So to your question of what are the specific policy actions 
that we could take around children, Katrina there was actually 
a Presidential commission that issued a report on children's 
needs in disasters. There were over 80 recommendations in that 
report. More than a decade later most of those policy 
recommendations have remained unfulfilled.
    So I think, Representative Payne, one of the most important 
things we can do is return to those recommendations that have 
already been made and to bring them to life, because there is 
no time to waste. Children of today, again, are experiencing 
more and more disasters and they have a role to play in 
reducing that risk. We have a role to play in ensuring that 
their needs are met.
    Thank you so much.
    Mr. Payne. Thank you for that answer.
    As you can see, this issue has taken up most of my time, 
but, you know, thank you.
    It is for those reasons that I introduced the Homeland 
Security For Children Act, which passed the House unanimously 
in July. I hope the Senate quickly passes the bill and we can 
send it to the President's desk.
    But I want to thank the Chairman for his support throughout 
my time on Homeland Security and my work around children and 
disasters and the support of the Chair has been instrumental in 
this work moving forward.
    With that, I will yield back the balance of my time.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Tennessee, Ms. 
Harshbarger.
    Ms. Harshbarger. Thank you, Chairman Thompson and Ranking 
Member Katko. I thank the witnesses for being here today.
    I do have a couple of questions. The first is for Mr. 
Currie. You know, I am looking over some of the stats here and 
FEMA obligated $23.8 billion in public assistance funds to 
Puerto Rico to help with the damages due to hurricanes in 2017 
and earthquakes in 2019 and 2020. According to the GAO report 
they have only spent $4.7 billion of this money. Evidently the 
reason was that at Puerto Rican agencies staff were not 
equipped to develop those projects that they needed to help 
them recover.
    I guess, first of all, why is the staff not equipped to 
develop those plans? If this is what is happening in Puerto 
Rico, where else is it happening basically?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, ma'am, for the question.
    The situation in Puerto Rico is an unfortunate case study 
about a jurisdiction--it could be any jurisdiction throughout 
the country that has low-income population, more than 50 
percent of the population is at or below the poverty level. 
What we see in those kind of places is in general they lack the 
staff capacity, resources, and experience that other places 
around the country that don't have that problem. So think about 
places like Houston or Florida or California that have the 
resources and the experience.
    Part of this is the way these programs work at the Federal 
level, ma'am. So the way the FEMA public assistance process 
works is it is a reimbursement program, which means it is meant 
to reimburse the jurisdiction or the State for the cost of the 
disaster. That works if a jurisdiction has the resources or the 
ability to obtain capital up front. Puerto Rico doesn't. They 
are in bankruptcy, they can't get loans, they can't take out 
bonds, and they have very little wiggle room in their budget. 
So to provide that up-front funding to start these projects and 
then get reimbursed is very difficult. Because that is not the 
way the process has worked typically, that is why.
    In fact, ma'am, for permanent work, actually the amount 
spent on real brick-and-mortar projects is way less than that. 
Out of the $23 billion back in June we found that only I think 
under $200 million had actually been spent. So if you go to 
Puerto Rico and you are looking for shovels in the ground, you 
are probably not going to find it.
    Ms. Harshbarger. Well, then if that money has been 
allocated is there a sunset for that money to be used or is 
that just--they use it when they need it or they can find 
people to do that?
    Mr. Currie. So, yes, there is no sunset on that money once 
it is obligated. I mean eventually--disasters can remain open 
for a long time. Hurricane Katrina is still open. There are 
still monies being, you know, being spent and finalized. So 
they can stay open for 15 or more years. I mean you would 
expect, though, in most disasters to see that drawdown happen a 
lot faster.
    For example, take another catastrophic disaster like Harvey 
or Irma, or--you are going to see permanent work projects much 
further along at this point than you would see in Puerto Rico. 
The main reason for that is State and local resources.
    Ms. Harshbarger. Yes. Well, that explains that then. They 
need to--they need a program I guess to fix that to get some 
things implemented to train these people in one way.
    I have one other question for Mr. Joseph.
    FEMA has tried to improve diversity in the work force 
through many different mechanisms, but they still continue to 
struggle to recruit women and minorities in the work force. I 
guess I want you to talk a little bit about what steps FEMA is 
taking to recruit these people. The reason I ask is even in my 
district in East Tennessee, there was a fire station that 
needed to hire 10 people and they recruited from all over the 
country and they recruited Hispanics and women. Some of the 
best workers they ever had, but they would never had done that 
unless they went outside to recruit those and said no 
experience necessary, we will do the training.
    So if you could expand a little bit about that issue.
    Mr. Joseph. Sure. Thank you, ma'am.
    I cannot speak to what FEMA is doing currently today as I 
left several months ago. But I can speak to programs that I 
attempted to start.
    No. 1--I know that time is running short--but we looked to 
colleges, community colleges and city colleges when I was at 
FEMA that were in minority neighborhoods, that had a large 
census of black and Hispanic students. I worked with the 
president of that college to create programs. They didn't have 
a formal emergency management program, but to look at the 
vocational programs they had that tied into the things that we 
do on the public assistance side or the mission support and the 
human resources side of the house, as well as environmental 
historic preservation, the areas we need to focus on, 
especially after a disaster. I tried to bring them in as 
interns, but the red tape of the Federal hiring process stopped 
me. I was unable to give those students opportunities in paid 
internships because of the requirements that were set forth 
already by OPM on how I can hire interns.
    So though I identified a college, a president of a college 
that wanted to sign an agreement with us and wanted to bring 
their students to me, and I wanted their students to come to 
me, I need to bring them into the pipeline before I can make 
them the next director or administrator of an organization. 
That is what I wanted to do. So that red tape was difficult, 
but I think if we can find vocational programs that we can 
build that pipeline of students from and then find promotional 
opportunities.
    We also created an executive leadership program in the 
region made up of diverse employees of the Region 5 office and 
we took them through all sorts of things that they wouldn't 
have learned in their traditional job. We took them out of 
their comfort zone and creative programs. It was even 
recognized by the FEMA administrator at the time who came to 
Chicago for their final cohort presentation.
    So there is a number of things that we can do to build a 
pipeline within the agency, but we need the help in the hiring 
process to be able to get them in the door.
    Ms. Harshbarger. Well, sounds like we need to cut some red 
tape.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady's time has expired.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Texas, Ms. Jackson 
Lee.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Michigan, Ms. 
Slotkin.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    So I am from Michigan. The issue that we have been 
grappling with, particularly this summer, is being hit by 
severe and repetitive flooding. In June in Southeast Michigan 
it overwhelmed--the rains overwhelmed our infrastructure, 
flooding basements, leaving cars submerged on highways across 
vulnerable communities. We had our second 500-year flood in 2 
years. In August the Huron River reached its fourth-highest 
recorded level, flooding some of the smallest communities I 
represent, lake communities and rural areas, Livingston County, 
for instance, Lake Orion. Then we had another burst of rainfall 
in Orion Township in Oakland County, what we consider a 1,000-
year flood, in just in the past month-and-a-half. So this is 
far from normal for us.
    I went in September and visited Ore Lake in Livingston 
County and heard directly from the residents there. I think 
this is a question for Mr. Currie. You know, they described how 
they did not have accurate information on the potential for 
flood, on previous claims that were filed on flooding when they 
were buying the home. That, in fact, under the National Flood 
Insurance Program FEMA only shares information about claims on 
that property when you are the owner of the home and only when 
you request it. Buyers can ask sellers to verify claim if they 
think about it, but there is no requirement for disclosure.
    Can you talk to me about--you know, we have Carfax for cars 
so that you know what kind of used car you are buying and the 
history it has, can you talk to me about why it is that a buyer 
of a home would not be able to understand the history of 
flooding on a home?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, ma'am.
    So on that specific question and what FEMA shares and what 
the flood insurance companies, the contracts share, I can get a 
detailed answer back to you on that process. I don't have that 
on the tip of my tongue.
    But what I can also tell you about this issue is a major 
problem with the Flood Insurance Program is that many of those 
properties that you are talking about were not in the special 
hazard flood zone. This is a problem we are seeing around the 
country. Places are flooding that never flooded.
    Ms. Slotkin. I know.
    Mr. Currie. Rain events are causing flooding in places 
where there has never been flooding. So they are not seen as 
high-risk areas, so they are not ``in the system.'' I think 
that is one big problem. We just issued a report on Monday 
basically talking about the flood mapping process that FEMA 
doesn't take into account future conditions as much as it 
should. Because calling these 500- or 1,000-year floods frankly 
is just--it is just not helpful anymore, because these are 
every year floods, not 500-year floods.
    Ms. Slotkin. Yes. So thank you. I think certainly with the 
increased number of storms and increased veracity of those 
storm--or ferocity of those storms, we should certainly take up 
a deep dive look on this here in the committee.
    We also talked about how disadvantaged many of our rural 
communities are when they apply. The overlapping disadvantage 
that I saw was it seemed like you had to have internet in order 
to property engage with FEMA, even if you were in a flood zone. 
You know, a lot of our rural communities just do not have 
access to broadband internet. One out of 10 families in one of 
my counties has no access.
    So can you talk about how one is supposed to engage with 
FEMA if they don't have the internet?
    Mr. Currie. Very difficult because most FEMA enrollments at 
this point for individuals go through their app or the 
internetdisasterassistance.gov. The second-most cases are 
through the phone. But as we all know, that is not a fun 
process. I think the average wait time for the phone is well 
over an hour.
    Then the third option is to visit disaster centers in 
person, which may not be close to somebody's house. In the 
COVID environment I think has become even more difficult.
    So there is absolutely no question if you don't have good 
internet access, applying for disaster assistance would be very 
painful.
    Ms. Slotkin. So in my remaining time, if you had just one 
thing you could do that would have the most outsized impact on 
helping in particularly rural communities get better treatment 
and consideration from FEMA? What would it be?
    Mr. Currie. I think at this point much more tailored 
assessment of the localized need, which is what we talked about 
earlier in this hearing. You know, like for instance, in your 
State, assessing a very rural community much differently than 
you are going to assess a suburb in Detroit. It is necessary if 
we are ever going to be able to tailor the assistance to these 
areas any better. Because the way it is done is it is pretty 
much lumped all within a State into one package. As we know, 
and we have talked about, you know, all areas are not the same.
    Ms. Slotkin. Thank you.
    I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes Mr. Clyde from Georgia for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you, Chairman Thompson.
    We all saw the devastation that Hurricane Katrina had on 
New Orleans in 2005. It took years for that area to recover.
    Chairman Thompson. Excuse me. Yes, the clock is. Go ahead. 
Thank you.
    Mr. Clyde. OK. All right. It took years for that area to 
recover and we all learned many valuable lessons in mitigating 
the effects that disasters can have on communities, especially 
with issues pertaining to infrastructure resiliency.
    After Hurricane Katrina New Orleans made it a priority to 
work with the Army Corps of Engineers to address issues in 
their levy systems. The steps taken by the City and the Army 
Corps of Engineers helped mitigate the damage of Hurricane Ida 
when it made landfall at the end of August of this year. I am 
pleased to have 3 companies in my district that helped to 
strengthen the levy system of New Orleans, TenCate 
GeoSynthetics located in Pendergrass, Georgia produced several 
high-strength polyester products to reinforce the levy. 
Patterson Pumps, located in Stephens County, Georgia, 
manufactured the pumps for the levies. ABB Motors, located in 
South Hall County, Georgia, produced the motors that powered 
the Patterson pumps, electric motors that are designed to work 
when completely submerged under water. I am proud of the work 
of these companies, what they did to help preserve New Orleans 
after Hurricane Ida.
    I hope that we can continue to learn from these disasters 
and strengthen our capability to eliminate the vulnerabilities 
in our Nation's infrastructure. I am sure that TenCate, ABB, 
and Patterson will continue to play a valuable role in that 
mission.
    Now I have a question for Director Chris Currie.
    Sir, I know first-hand the many risks that come with owning 
a small business. As a small business owner for over 30 years, 
I have had to plan for every possible scenario in order to just 
keep my doors open. I also understand the great value small 
businesses provide in helping a community recover from a 
disaster.
    Director Currie, in your testimony you highlight that for 
every additional dollar spent on disaster loans per 
establishment in a county, 4 small businesses survived in the 
wake of extreme events. Can you talk a little bit more about 
GAO's preliminary finding that select Federal programs may 
contribute to the survival of small business establishments, 
sir?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, sir.
    I mean you hit the nail on the head. I mean the whole 
purpose of these programs. Particularly I think you are 
referring to the Small Business Administration Disaster Loan 
Program, is to ensure that no business goes under water because 
of a disaster or because of the loss of revenue of a disaster. 
So it is a cascading domino effect. If businesses go under 
water then individuals lose employment, and it is just dominoes 
from there in a community. So, absolutely, they have a huge 
benefit.
    Now, the concerns that we have had recently in our work is, 
No. 1, you know, is everybody getting access to these and is 
everybody applying that could get access to them. One of the 
things we see in these programs is that they are very, very 
complicated and there could be built in disincentives to 
applying for these programs. For example, some people that want 
assistance may not want to get a loan, they don't want to apply 
for a loan. They just want grant assistance, and so they may 
not apply. So I think these are some of the complexities that 
we have to look at.
    Mr. Clyde. Well, thank you. Because we know that small 
businesses are definitely the backbone of America. When small 
businesses have problems, then America has problems.
    Now, as follow-up question to that, does your report 
examine how the survival of those small businesses impact the 
community's efforts in rebuilding?
    Mr. Currie. Sir, it doesn't dive into that or quantify 
that, but it is well-accepted that, you know, the businesses of 
the community are critical, not just for employment but for the 
tax revenue of a community. If businesses go under then they 
lose tax revenue and they lose the locality and the 
jurisdiction's ability to be resilient and prepare and respond 
to events. So it is really a domino effect.
    Mr. Clyde. Thank you very much. I appreciate that 
information.
    With that, I yield back, Chairman Thompson.
    Chairman Thompson. The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from 
Texas for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much for 
your kindness and of course for the timeliness of this 
important hearing. To the Ranking Member, I have enjoyed my 
time on this committee, not because we have faced disasters and 
terroristic acts, but because we have the greatest opportunity 
to help people in their desperate time of need.
    Let me thank all the witnesses. I think I have been, since 
coming to the U.S. Congress, in every storm on the Gulf Coast 
and beyond. Been to Puerto Rico, the U.S. Virgin Islands, was 
on the ground at Hurricane Katrina, stayed in the Astrodome--
not the Astrodome, the Superdome--different locations. But I 
have been in the Astrodome when the Hurricane Katrina survivors 
came from that storm-ridden city and helped them be comforted 
and to do what we could as Houstonians. Thank everyone for all 
of their support for us during Hurricane Ike and Rita and 
Hurricane Harvey, which devastated my Congressional district.
    So this issue of equity is crucial. I still meet 
constituents with blue tarps on their roofs and the devastation 
of Hurricane Ida is still painful.
    Let me quickly ask the question about the reform of FEMA, 
which I think is one of the greatest agencies. But I have 
introduced in the past Congress H.R. 3060, which I intend to 
work with the Chairman and the Chairman of the subcommittee on 
this issue again. Let me share with you some of the aspects of 
it and have your comments.
    It makes permanent the FEMA Office of Disaster Response and 
the FEMA Office of Disaster Recovery, creates an ombudsman for 
each office to assist survivors and victims which feel left 
behind, even with the great work of those FEMA persons on the 
ground, establishes a new National disaster medical triage 
capacity, an incident medical recovery and management team to 
determine best practices for implementing advanced trauma life 
support capabilities affecting medical evaluations, establishes 
a program to provide education and job training, focuses on the 
CERT teams, establishes and creates an office of ombudsman to 
work within the agency to create equity and access--what we are 
taking abut here--provides for accurate reporting on deaths and 
missing persons,--which we fought for during Hurricane Katrina, 
to get the number of deaths and initially we couldn't get 
anything--collect data and reports on effective casework 
management so that people are followed all the way through, 
help homeowners who in the past were left out of the full 
benefit of Federal Government disaster partly because of the 
home ownership connection that they would ask for.
    So helping FEMA get its hands around how to deal with 
disasters I think is crucial in the equity question. So I would 
appreciate, Dr. Peek, Ms. Willis, and our GAO commenting--
anyone else can as well--but, Dr. Peek, can you comment on the 
framework of helping to reform FEMA?
    Thank you. My time is short. Dr. Peek.
    Ms. Peek. Thank you. Can you hear me, Representative 
Jackson Lee?
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Yes. Yes.
    Ms. Peek. OK, thank you.
    So first just acknowledging the number of disasters that 
have hit the people in your district and your leadership to 
bring survivors to the table is absolutely critical. We know 
that often times even when our aid providers have the best of 
intent, if we don't have the voices of survivors at the table 
this is when things can go badly awry. So I think your idea to 
integrate survivors into the work that is happening and to 
ensure that they have a voice in all that is happening is 
absolutely vital.
    In the interest of time I am going to turn this over to Ms. 
Willis right now.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you very much.
    Ms. Willis.
    Ms. Willis. Yes, thank you so much.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Then Mr. Currie. Yes, thank you, Ms. 
Willis.
    Ms. Willis. Thank you.
    I think that is a great point. I think anyone could support 
the reform of FEMA based on the tenets that you have provided. 
I think it is very important, as Dr. Peek said, that we 
acknowledge the voices of the people that have been ignored for 
so long. Right now there is a disconnect. Our organization 
deploys equity response teams to disaster locations so that we 
can ground troop and hear from disaster survivors. That is 
something that I believe would be very beneficial for FEMA to 
also employ.
    Also I think it is important that we understand that many 
of the policies that FEMA operates with are inequitable and 
must be revised. They are not--they were not created with 
equity and so the outcome is inequitable. It is just that easy 
to really re-frame and understand. Once we change the policies 
we will see better outcomes. Right now the policies have to be 
changed.
    I yield back.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you.
    Ms. Willis. Thank you.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. GAO? Sir.
    Mr. Currie. Yes, ma'am.
    I think all of those ideas sound like good things to do. I 
agree with Ms. Willis. I think, you know, this lens of equity 
is new in terms of--not the problem, but this lens of looking 
at all the programs through equity is new. So it is going to 
take a top-down approach by FEMA in all of their programs, not 
just little things here and there. They are going to have to 
look from top to bottom at these programs and find every place, 
you know, from their policies, their strategies, all the way 
down to mechanical issues like how are questions asked in the 
enrollment, to address some of these issues.
    I know that they get that and taking some time, but it is 
not going to be easy and it is going take them a while to 
figure this out. So they need to do that and then we need to 
come up with a way to measure that we did what we wanted to do. 
That is the other difficult piece.
    Ms. Jackson Lee. Thank you so very much, Mr. Chairman, for 
the time. Thank the witnesses for their very astute testimony 
today. Thank you again to my colleagues.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Mississippi, Mr. 
Guest, for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    Ms. Willis, in your written testimony on page 1 there at 
the bottom you say the declaration process under the Stafford 
Act limits the assistance to individuals, families, and 
communities in need with major disaster declarations lying in 
the hands of partisan politics and State-administered funding 
support. Then you list our home State of Mississippi as an 
example.
    I just ask, if you would, could you please expand upon when 
you are talking about the fact that the role that partisan 
politics plays in disaster relief and the interplay that you 
see between those two.
    Ms. Willis. Absolutely. I think that is a fantastic 
question. I think that we must understand and address the 
politics that comes into play after a disaster.
    Disasters are about people and should not be about 
politics. When people are suffering and going through the worst 
times of their lives, it is not the time to decide whether or 
not you are going to help them based on their political 
affiliation. Unfortunately that is what we have seen and what 
we continue to see in disasters. Many today have already 
described that their location, their jurisdictions were denied 
assistance for Presidential declarations and they felt that it 
was probably partisan. This is something that occurs and we 
must address the humanity of disaster. We must address the fact 
that in places like Riverdale, Mississippi where the Government 
decided to not pursue disaster funding for those who were most 
impacted by flooding events. We must address that and 
understand that there are impoverished communities that do not 
have a voice. When the local emergency managers and the 
Governors or government of the State do not acknowledge the 
needs of those who are most vulnerable and do not have a 
platform to receive and request assistance, there is a larger 
divide and gap in equity that is created. Also their needs and 
ability to recover in a timely manner is impeded.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Guest. Let me ask you specifically, because you cited 
here in your written testimony that following Hurricane Ida 
that counties--and you include Wilkinson County, Pike County, 
and Amite County--that they suffered significantly. Again you 
seem to cite that there were partisan politics that played into 
either the delay or the lack of disaster relief for those 3 
counties. Particularly could you share with me whether that was 
partisan politics on a State level, was that local level? Where 
was the disconnect, where was the partisan politics as it 
relates specifically to the 3 counties that you list there in 
your example so that we can help address that in our home State 
of Mississippi?
    Ms. Willis. Yes. You know, that is an excellent question.
    As I mentioned before, our family is from Mississippi, and 
so we have a very personal connection to the people and their 
experience. One thing that we need to be clear on is that many 
times vulnerable communities are not receiving the amount of 
preparedness or mitigation funding that they are due. Post-
disaster, the resources that come into those communities can be 
impeded by the decisions of local Government agencies. That is 
something that has been proven and that is something that must 
be addressed. I believe that by modifying the Stafford Act and 
the process for making declarations and the process for 
requiring those very distressed residents to take pictures, to 
fill out complex applications is at the heart inequitable. That 
must be something that we consider as we make modifications to 
these policies to make them more equitable. Without that 
equity, we will continue to see disproportionate impact and 
delayed recovery.
    So those areas that we mentioned definitely must receive 
more outreach and equitable assistance.
    Mr. Guest. Well, specifically as it relates to those 3 
counties, because those are 3 counties that I serve in the 
Third Congressional District, is it the partisan politics? Is 
that local? Is that something that I need to address with local 
leaders? Is that partisan politics on the State level? Is that 
something I need to be addressing with MEMA? So I am just 
trying to get specifically as it relates to those 3 counties 
that you listed in your example where that partisan politics 
lies so that I can have the opportunity to try to address that.
    So, again, as it relates to those counties, what level do 
you see where the partisan politics is affecting disaster 
relief to those citizens?
    Ms. Willis. I would suggest that we look at all levels. I 
think on-going issues such as denial of funding, denial of 
recovery assistance, and the fact that many of those counties 
were not able to receive assistance, even post-Ida and during 
the storm in June. We need to look at why they have been denied 
funding. Those are on-going issues that must be addressed at 
every level. It is not just the county, it is not just the 
State, we need to look at how the counties, the local level is 
coordinating with the State and the Federal Government as well. 
All levels, sir.
    Mr. Guest. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, my time is up. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas, Mr. Greene, 
for 5 minutes.
    Mr. Greene. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I greatly 
appreciate the opportunity to pose a few questions.
    I also would like to thank the staff for the excellent 
intelligence provided so that I may be able to pose the 
question.
    Mr. Chairman, I have spent most of my adult life fighting 
invidious discrimination, not because I wanted to or chosen 
this as my mission in life, it is because I have found myself 
in positions where I have had an opportunity to make a 
difference and I have tried to do so. Today is a continuation 
of this effort.
    I want to talk about racial disparities. In zip codes with 
more Black Americans compared to predominantly White areas, 
Black neighborhoods had a lower rate of securing an inspection, 
prior likelihood of best assistance being denied without an 
explanation, and less assistance when awarded. A 2019 study 
found that FEMA grants were less likely to be awarded to 
survivors who lived in communities with more racial minorities, 
contributing to almost a 40 percent increase in bankruptcy 
rates in these areas.
    So, Director Currie, has FEMA studied the disparate impacts 
of race on its programming?
    Mr. Currie. No, sir, not comprehensively. This is one of 
the problems we have identified in our work. FEMA has not 
traditionally captured demographic information across all of 
its programs. Their position in the past was that they were not 
able to do that because of certain statutes. However, they--I 
think that that approach and that view is changing under this 
lens of looking at programs under equity and needing that data 
and that information to better assess the impact of its 
programs and where they are going.
    So one of our findings is that, you know, we just need 
better data and quality information first to better assess 
these types of things and figure out what the challenges are.
    Mr. Greene. Well, one of the challenges is always 
acknowledging what the problem is. Have you found an 
acknowledgment of structural racism in programming?
    Mr. Currie. I think that FEMA and other agencies 
acknowledge and--you know, we still saw this in the President's 
Executive Order he issued in January that these programs have 
not benefited under-served communities as much as others and 
under-served communities have faced obstacles in getting the 
assistance as well.
    Mr. Greene. Dr. Peek, what does the research say about why 
these impacts exist?
    Ms. Peek. Yes, Representative Greene, thank you for this 
leadership in this area.
    I just wanted, to your prior question, to say some of the 
various staffers and leaders at FEMA who I have worked with and 
fellow social scientists have worked with, they are very aware 
of these recent National-level analyses that have revealed 
these racial inequities and I think are taking this very 
seriously. But as Mr. Currie has emphasized time and time 
again, this is going to be a long and challenging process that 
is really going to take more data, more research partnerships 
and so forth to further uncover those mechanisms that are 
driving these inequalities that you are rightfully bringing to 
light.
    So what is driving this? The first thing I would say, there 
is no single answer. As with any--as you well know--as with any 
complex social problem that is rooted in our history and our 
social structures, we can't just point to one thing and wave a 
magic wand and fix these deeply-rooted issues. So that is why I 
think FEMA putting forward the definition of equity, forming 
the equity councils, working together with researchers and 
community-based groups who this is their expertise, and 
bringing that into the agency with the experts in the agency, I 
think these are all crucial first steps. But they are just 
first steps that are so important that we take, but we have a 
long road to travel if we are really going to get to this 
equitable outcome where the people who need the aid the most 
receive the aid.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Greene. Well, I thank you. I have less than 20 seconds 
left, so I won't follow up with another question.
    I will simply say this, it really is time for all 
Government agencies to take a hard look at what is happening 
because these issues hurt people, many of whom don't have 
lobbyists to help them. They need the assistance that is being 
provided. My hope is that all of these agencies, especially 
FEMA now will take a hard look at what is happening. I thank 
you for being here today.
    Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentleman yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Iowa, Ms. Miller-
Meeks, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    This is for Mr. Currie. Mr. Currie, as you know, Iowa is in 
flood plains both between the Mississippi and the Missouri 
River, the Des Moines River, and the National Flood Insurance 
Program, which is administered by FEMA, offers insurance 
policies for homeowners in areas that are prone to flooding. 
The NFIP has been largely criticized because of communities of 
color and lower-income areas are disproportionately less likely 
to be covered.
    Earlier this week the GAO published a report on the NFIP. 
Based on the report, how can NFIP be improved?
    Mr. Currie. Well, thank you, ma'am.
    The issue with the National Flood Insurance Program--there 
are so many issues to discuss. It is one of the reasons that 
NFIP has been on GAO's high-risk list. It is a Federal program 
since 2006. So, you know, I won't get into the issues with the 
sustainability and the solvency of the program, but as you 
probably know better than anyone in Iowa, the program is not 
fiscally solvent. It doesn't take in enough revenue to cover 
its costs. The premiums and the costs do not reflect actual 
risk. So there are a number of structural challenges with the 
program that Congress has worked over the years to try to 
address.
    But let me talk about the most recent report we did 
specifically. Because what we looked at is the flood maps. 
Those are extremely critical to this whole process because what 
those do is they set up the special hazard flood areas by which 
FEMA uses to determine who is in those and out and who has to 
pay for flood insurance and who doesn't and then what their 
premiums are.
    One challenge that has happened is that the special hazard 
flood area over the years is not reflective of actual risk. 
Many areas outside of the special flood hazard area now 
throughout this country flood and cause tremendous amounts of 
damage. So the perfect example of that is what happened in West 
Virginia few years ago. That was not a special hazard flood 
area, those were not on any FEMA flood maps. So people are 
flooded and often times they don't have insurance that will 
cover flood.
    So, you know, one of the things that we have found is FEMA 
needs to do a way better job of encountering, you know, future 
conditions into these flood maps if we are going to have an 
actual picture of risk to decide where to help people for 
flooding and what to do in that regard. We also found that FEMA 
does not target flood mapping resources toward the most 
vulnerable areas, which has been a problem over the years as 
well. So, you know, we don't have good information about flood 
risk in the most vulnerable areas of the country.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you. Do you think that FEMA's risk 
rating 2.0 better enables lower-income communities to 
participate in the program or is it a hurdle?
    Mr. Currie. So I think risk rating 2.0 does a better job 
because it is trying to get more granular data so they actually 
have a good picture of flood risk for that property, a specific 
property. But, you know, this gets into this bigger challenge 
we have been talking about today. These programs are incredibly 
complicated and very technical. So what does that require? That 
requires State and local governments to have the resources, the 
local capacity, and the resources to bring on technical experts 
and consultants. So who is going to have those resources? It is 
going to be higher-income areas and higher-income jurisdictions 
and counties.
    So this is just another example of where extremely 
complicated processes and programs fall harder on more 
vulnerable jurisdictions because they just don't--they don't 
have the same level of capacity and resources.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. In the report it also examined equity 
challenges at FEMA, HUD, and SBA. The GAO studied these 
specific agencies because they all manage Federal recovery 
programs with historically large amounts of disaster-specific 
obligations. Why is it so important for the--to disaster 
recovery that these agencies work together?
    Mr. Currie. Thank you for asking that question, because I 
know some of those agencies fall out of the committee's 
jurisdiction. But for a State or local government agency, it is 
all Federal funding. Even though it is coming from different 
Federal departments, it is just billions of Federal dollars 
coming into play. They all have different rules, requirements, 
time frames. So what we don't want to see is we don't want to 
see problems fixed in this area and one program and then the 
other 8 programs to not be fixed. Because that is not going to 
help people at the local level. It is just going to be more 
complicated.
    So if we are going to do this we need to do it right and we 
need to look from the top down at all the major disaster 
recovery programs. Those agencies manage--it is hundreds of 
billions of dollars over the last few years in recovery 
funding.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. So it sounds like the intelligence silos 
that we had to break down after 9/11, we need to break down 
some of those silos that are existing in our Federal disaster 
recovery programs.
    Mr. Currie. It is very true. It is very true. It is very 
difficult because it crosses departments. They don't--you know, 
they don't have to work together, they don't have to share 
data. It crosses committees of jurisdiction in Congress as 
well.
    Ms. Miller-Meeks. Thank you so much for that.
    Thank you, Chairman Thompson. I appreciate the ability to 
question the witnesses and for their testimony.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 
Clarke, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Clarke. I thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I thank our 
Ranking Member Katko for holding this important hearing on our 
Nation's disaster response framework.
    Let me also thank our witnesses for your testimony here 
today.
    When disaster strikes the most vulnerable and under-served 
communities among us bear the greatest impact. We have been 
hearing that all morning. Once recovery efforts begin, the very 
same communities who were most impacted also receive the least 
amount of assistance. We saw this with Hurricane Katrina in 
2005, we saw it in my home city of Brooklyn, New York 9 years 
ago with Superstorm Sandy, and we continue to see it right now 
with the remnants of Hurricane Ida that cause wide-spread 
flooding and devastation across New York, New Jersey, 
Pennsylvania, and Connecticut.
    Equity needs to be front and center in how we approach this 
issue and plan for the future. So I am very glad that we are 
having this conversation today. But let us be very clear, 
equity does not mean treating everybody the same. To the 
contrary, it means targeting resources and outreach to 
prioritize those with the greatest needs and vulnerabilities. 
We need to do this before disaster strikes, when disaster 
strikes, and after disaster strikes. Only then will our 
emergency management system be truly equitable and just.
    In FEMA's National Advisory Council's 2020 report, the 
Council notes that ``First responders do not rescue people who 
can evacuate themselves. They only rescue people who need help. 
Recovery programs, however, seem to do just that. They provide 
an additional boost to wealthy homeowners and others with less 
need while lower-income individuals sink further into poverty 
after disasters.''
    FEMA's assistance programs inherently favor wealthier White 
communities. This is true of both homeowners and renters alike. 
We saw this play out in Brooklyn after Superstorm Sandy where 
low-income families and people of color were disproportionately 
dislocated from their homes and communities, many permanently.
    So, Mr. Currie, to what extent does FEMA take into 
consideration the needs of low-income renters in disaster 
recovery?
    Mr. Currie. Ma'am, thank you for the question.
    So the income level of a jurisdiction is supposed to be 
part of and one of the factors that is considered when FEMA is 
working with the jurisdiction and the State to decide whether 
it reaches the level of needing Federal assistance. So it is 
built into the process and it is mentioned.
    I think the question is how much information, how much 
distinction is being made between vulnerable populations in 
low-income districts versus others. It is--as I mentioned 
earlier, I think there is not really any strict criteria for 
doing that and it is somewhat vague, which I think makes it 
difficult to really target the assistance in a way that is 
probably necessary.
    Because you made a great point about equality versus 
equity. I mean I think the posture in the past has been that we 
are going to implement these programs the very same for 
everybody in every jurisdiction. Over time what that has 
created is--you know, as we know, not everyone has the same 
level of capacity and resources, so it is going to affect 
people differently. That is what has happened over time.
    Ms. Clarke. So as we look to create an equitable recovery 
system, how can we ensure that assistance programs are better 
targeted toward and designed to support under-served 
communities? Particularly in areas with large numbers of 
renters and where folks live predominantly in multi-unit 
dwellings?
    Mr. Currie. Well, I think the first thing we need to do is 
figure out where those areas are. We already know. It wouldn't 
take that much for work for a State or a jurisdiction to 
identify their most vulnerable communities and come up with a 
criteria for why they are vulnerable. Then we need to look at 
these programs and figure out how they need to be tailored to 
better address those communities.
    Ms. Clarke. So my--let me shift gears very quickly here. My 
FEMA Climate Change Preparedness Act would create a 
subcommittee within FEMA's National Advisory Committee 
dedicated to helping the agency incorporate the risk and 
impacts of human-caused climate change.
    As I was reviewing the National Advisory Council's 2020 
report, I noticed that they had a similar recommendation around 
equity. The report recommends the establishment of a Federal 
advisory committee focused specifically on how to best measure 
equity and incorporate an equity standard into the agency's 
preparedness, mitigation, and recovery efforts.
    So my question is, do you agree with the report's 
recommendation that an advisory committee would be a useful 
tool in helping FEMA incorporate an equity-based approach into 
the agency's programs and policies? If yes or no, could you 
tell us why?
    Mr. Currie. Yes, ma'am.
    I think an advisory committee would be a great idea to 
ensure they are consulting with the right people when they do 
this. But I also think--and one of our findings is that the key 
recovery agencies, FEMA, HUD, SBA, and others, they need to 
directly work together to take this issue on too.
    Ms. Clarke. Very well.
    Dr. Peek or Ms. Willis, your comments on an advisory 
committee?
    Ms. Willis. Mm-hmm. Yes, I would agree that that is 
critical. I think that trained equity strategists could really 
benefit FEMA in developing policies and also understanding how 
to properly communicate with those that are disadvantaged and 
that have been historically excluded and marginalized by their 
policies. Many of their policies are complex and complexity is 
in itself inequitable.
    Ms. Clarke. Mr. Joseph.
    Mr. Joseph. Thank you, ma'am.
    I would agree that advisory committees are important, but 
as Mr. Currie mentioned, it takes the agencies to come together 
to actually put that into action. The advisory committee will 
make recommendations, but unless there is a requirement or a 
deadline to take action by a certain time or a certain date, it 
is not going to happen.
    My kids have meetings all the time about what to have for 
dinner, but it is mom and I that do the cooking. So it is 
important that while there is recommendations, there still has 
to be action taken at the agencies responsible for carrying 
that out.
    Ms. Clarke. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back. Didn't realize I was over time.
    Thank you for very much for your testimony here today.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New Jersey, Ms. 
Watson Coleman.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for 
this hearing.
    Mr. Joseph, I want to ask you a question. Could you tell me 
specifically what are some of the requirements in the red tape 
that exist that interferes with getting minority students on as 
interns and hiring from the colleges into the Federal 
Government? Could you speak to them?
    Mr. Joseph. Yes, ma'am. Yes, ma'am. Thank you.
    I don't want to say that there is red tape that prevents a 
minority from being hired in Federal Government. I want to 
speak to----
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Well, just tell me what makes it so 
confusing.
    Mr. Joseph. Absolutely.
    What was very difficult, No. 1, the process by which 
someone has to apply for an internship or apply for a job is 
confusing and difficult to many that have never----
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Like what?
    Mr. Joseph. I am sorry?
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Like what? Like what? I am trying to 
get some specifics here. Like what?
    Mr. Joseph. There is very specific requirements on how 
resumes are--the types of documents they may need to submit, 
the types of forms that may need to completed. They are not 
always the same in every job posting or job hiring. There is 
most often even for internship programs an absolute veteran's 
preference. So if you are an individual that was not a 
veteran--I am not saying that we should remove any veteran's 
preference, but those are hindrances. There is a competitive 
process that need to apply to different positions that has been 
part of the red tape.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Joseph, through the Chairman, may I ask that you kind-
of send me a list of those things that we need to look at?
    Mr. Joseph. I will. Absolutely. I will----
    Ms. Watson Coleman [continuing]. That you feel represent 
some impediment. I would like to look at that. Thank you.
    Mr. Joseph. Yes, ma'am.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. For Mr. Currie and Ms. Peek, could you 
tell me what flexibility FEMA has and what could FEMA do in 
Puerto Rico since only a third of the money allocated for its 
disaster recovery has actually been spent and because Puerto 
Rico is in the financial straits that it is in? (A) Does FEMA 
have flexibility in being able to help Puerto Rico on these 
situations and (B) what would that be? Could I have that kind-
of quickly because I have got one more other question I really 
want to sneak in here.
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, ma'am. I will try to answer it 
quick.
    So my understanding is that FEMA does not have a lot of 
flexibility with the funding the way the program is structured. 
Because public assistance is a reimbursement program which 
requires the money to come later after it's started. What we 
have told FEMA to do is work with Puerto Rico hand-in-hand, 
which they have done since the beginning, since Hurricane 
Maria, on a strategy to help them identify priorities for 
funding within their own budget and how to secure additional 
funding to start some of these projects so that reimbursement 
process can start. That is what we have recommended that FEMA 
do.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Yes, well, if you don't have any money 
and you can't get any loans, so how is FEMA addressing that? 
That sounds like a Catch-22 situation there.
    Mr. Currie. Yes, absolutely. Well, there is some 
flexibility in how much funding Puerto Rico can provide to 
start the projects and then FEMA can start reimbursing them 
right away. I mean traditionally they would wait until the 
project was done or big pieces of it were done. There is 
flexibility and they are looking at that too, because they 
realize Puerto Rico is in a special financial situation. So----
    Ms. Watson Coleman. But beyond looking at it, are they 
doing anything to improve the situation?
    Mr. Currie. Well----
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Is it moving any faster?
    Mr. Currie. They are trying to move faster and dedicate a 
lot of resources toward reimbursing Puerto Rico to do that. So, 
you know, we are going to continue to look at that and stay on 
them about the process and how quickly they are actually 
spending this money in the years to come.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. So a question for each of you really 
quickly, and it is yes and no. Is FEMA currently configured, 
organized, prioritized in a way that is responsive to the 
objectives of this discussion that we are having today? Or is 
there a need for a massive reorganization?
    We will start with Mr. Currie, then Mr. Joseph and Ms. 
Peek, and then Ms. Willis.
    Mr. Currie. Well, you know, what we have seen is that--I 
know reorganization is often something that people turn to as a 
quick action because it is very tangible and specific. I don't 
know that it is so much a reorganization or moving the deck 
chairs in FEMA, but I think it is kind-of a top-to-bottom 
cultural change. I think as the new administrator, you know, 
Deanne Criswell, has come in, I think she has set that tone. 
But you have to start at the top and move your way through the 
programs culturally.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you. I appreciate that. I think 
that is where I am trying to end here. Yes.
    Mr. Joseph and Ms. Willis and Ms. Peek, do you agree with 
that?
    Mr. Joseph. Ma'am, I would agree with Mr. Currie that it 
does need an overall reorganization or a reorganization of 
thought and greater advocacy. That has already occurred through 
the Office of Equal Rights in FEMA as well as Administrator 
Criswell. I am not speaking for FEMA now, but appointing senior 
advisor of the senior executive service to be her advisor on 
equity and inclusion, so----
    Ms. Watson Coleman. OK.
    Mr. Joseph. There are things that are happening which are 
great.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. May I hear from you, Ms. Willis?
    Ms. Willis. Yes. I would agree that FEMA needs to be 
reorganized to prioritize equity and to prepare for the on-
going and upcoming climate change crisis, which will impact 
more people, particularly those who are disadvantaged. It is 
not structured right now to address equity in all areas, 
regardless of advisement to the administrator.
    Ms. Watson Coleman. Thank you.
    Mr. Chairman, I have heard a lot of things that I think 
need some legislative response, particularly as it relates to 
sharing information, collecting information, and doing the kind 
of valued calculus to get to people with the greatest need. I 
look forward to working with you on that and with our Ranking 
Member.
    Thank you so much. I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from New York, Ms. 
Rice.
    Ms. Rice. Thank you so much, Mr. Chairman.
    In 2018, years after Hurricane Sandy devastated Long Island 
and the Northeast, my constituents learned that local officials 
conducting property damage assessments failed to notify many 
homeowners that their homes had experienced substantial long-
term damage during the storm. May of those homeowners only 
learned the true extent of the storm's devastation when they 
tried to sell their homes and at that time discovered mold, 
foundation damage, or other issues that made their homes 
unsellable.
    Now, I know that these experiences are not unique and 
individuals all over the United States can speak to the uneven 
administration of Federal relief following natural disasters. 
Whether due to poor State, local, and Federal coordination, 
understaffing, or even a lack of political will, the elderly 
and people of color do not benefit from Federal disaster relief 
compared to other Americans.
    Now, the Stafford Act assumes that the Federal Government, 
States, and localities will work seamlessly together to deliver 
the right amount of relief to the right people after a natural 
disaster, but we know this does not happen in practice. So this 
has been a common theme throughout this hearing.
    I would just ask Dr. Peek and Ms. Willis, where does the 
system most often fall short? Is it at the local, State, or 
Federal level? How can we create or encourage a more holistic 
approach to disaster relief that improves intergovernmental 
coordination? I don't know, can the Federal Government support 
workforce development and build capacity and expertise at the 
State and local levels? Because when these disasters happen 
people turn most immediately to their local authorities, but 
then FEMA comes in and it is just a mishmosh of applications 
they have to fill and duplication of benefits. It is just such 
a mess and it is impossible for people to actually navigate 
these very treacherous waters.
    So just, you know, to you, what--how can we make this 
system more responsive so that we don't have local officials 
pointing to FEMA and FEMA pointing to local officials? The big 
loser is the homeowner in the middle.
    Ms. Peek. Chauncia, would you like to lead off? Or would 
you like me to?
    OK. So first, thank you, Representative Rice, for the 
question. I really want to acknowledge colleagues at New York 
University, Columbia University, and Rutgers University who 
have been leading a Sandy child and family health study that 
has been looking at the mental health impacts on people in your 
district and beyond in terms of these protracted recovery 
processes. These are some serious, serious findings about how 
that second disaster that follows the first can have such a 
profound impact on people's lives and ultimately their 
livelihoods. So I really want to acknowledge that first.
    Then I would like to pick up on your second point about 
this opportunity for work force development. There is a team of 
sociologists who have been conducting long-term studies in 
Alaska following the Exxon Valdez oil spill. One of the most 
innovative things that they did, I believe in addition to their 
extraordinary research, is that as they recognized the long-
term mental health and physical health impacts of that disaster 
they started to establish a series of survivor councils. They 
said who is better positioned to not just counsel and advocate 
for fellow survivors, but also to help articulate the needs at 
the local, State, and Federal level. Those survivor councils 
have made such a profound difference in empowering those who 
have lived through the trauma of disaster and helping to move 
the needle on this issue that we are talking about today.
    So I really hope that you will follow up on that.
    I will turn this over to Ms. Willis now. Thank you.
    Ms. Rice. Thank you for that. I think--is Ms. Willis 
unmuted?
    Chairman Thompson. Ms. Willis, unmute yourself.
    Ms. Willis. Yes, I am here now. It was having some 
difficulty unmuting.
    But thank you so much for that question.
    I really think answer to establishing better coordination 
and collaboration at the local and State level really rely on 
understanding the communities. I have been an emergency manager 
for over 20 years and I can tell you that many emergency 
managers do not do community assessments or really understand 
all aspects and all communities located within their 
jurisdiction. In addition, there is a disconnect with 
understanding the under resourced and why those who are more 
vulnerable are under-resourced. So there is a disconnect there.
    I also want to mention that I recently returned from 
Louisiana and working with the Pawnushan, you know, Tribal 
nations and other groups that have been disenfranchised and 
have experienced many disasters where they have not received 
consideration by the local jurisdiction nor the State. So as we 
discussed earlier, this exclusion is something that must be 
accounted for by FEMA and the other Federal organizations when 
considering who received mitigation funding and infrastructure 
support.
    Many communities are just not provided with a platform for 
recovery and now a significant amount of funding is going to 
more established communities and not into those vulnerable 
communities that really need assistance prior to a disaster.
    Ms. Rice. Thank you to the witnesses and thank you, Mr. 
Chairman.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from California, Ms. 
Barragan, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Barragan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    FEMA regulations state unhoused individuals may access very 
specific forms of support. Advocates have voiced concerns that 
FEMA does to provide sufficient assistance for unhoused 
individuals.
    Ms. Willis, could you describe the extent to which FEMA 
takes into account the needs of individuals experiencing 
homelessness before a disaster?
    Ms. Willis. That is an excellent question, Representative.
    I am not sure if I am the one that really needs to answer 
that because I have never worked directly with FEMA. However, I 
can tell you the perspective of the communities and those that 
have experienced working with FEMA would say that they have not 
been provided with a full recognition. In some cases working 
with Hurricane Harvey survivors, our team partners, West Coast 
Recovery, has actually seen survivors report that they felt 
like they were expendable. They felt like their skin and their 
lack of education and their income level make them less of a 
priority to the Federal Government. In fact, housing inspectors 
in some cases did not even cross the threshold into some 
houses. Those that were, you know, impacted by disaster and had 
housing damage, the inspectors never even came in in certain 
communities. They just assumed that because they were 
impoverished or African American communities that the damage 
was preexisting.
    So when you are dealing with inspectors that haven't been 
trained to be culturally respectful or practice and prioritize 
equity, we see these outcomes where entire groups, entire 
neighborhoods, entire communities are disenfranchised and their 
recovery is delayed and impeded and other communities are 
prioritized and allowed to rebuild in a timely fashion.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Ms. Willis. It is very 
disturbing to hear, but this is why we are doing this hearing, 
to get to testimony and hear what is happening, how we can fix 
it.
    Mr. Currie, what actions could FEMA take to improve 
programming for unhoused individuals?
    Mr. Currie. So in regard to the homeless, I think one 
challenge here that has been talked about already today is that 
a lot of these programs are designed around property owners or 
people that can prove their link to property. So they have a 
deed to the property, they can establish home ownership, they 
own a car. You know, owning a property is a big indicator of 
who is likely to get assistance.
    So obviously for the homeless that is going to be a huge 
challenge. So a lot of these programs are not directed toward 
the needs of people that don't own property.
    Ms. Barragan. Got it. Thank you.
    Mr. Currie, this next question is for you as well. FEMA's 
regulations and guidance for individual assistance did not 
include specific monetary thresholds nor specific damage 
requirements, but instead there are a number of different 
considerations that FEMA is supposed to take into account when 
recommending the authorization of individual assistance. 
However, anecdotal evidence points to the contrary.
    Mr. Currie, from your perspective, does the present system 
result in fewer individual assistance awards to low-income and 
rural communities with lower property values?
    Mr. Currie. So two things on this, ma'am. Great question.
    First of all, I think one of the things we have found is 
that FEMA doesn't have the data to really be able to say 
whether that is the case or not, and that is a problem. They 
need to go back and they need to look at this information, 
looking at the factor versus areas that were declared, the 
assistance that was provided, and make an assessment of what 
the case has been across the country historically over the last 
few years.
    But I will say this, that while these factors, like such as 
vulnerable populations, low-income communities, unemployment--
lack of insurance is another huge thing--those are supposed to 
be factored in when the declaration recommendation is made to 
the President. These factors are very, very vague and it is not 
quantitative. So, you know, what could happen in rural 
Mississippi could be completely different than what happens in 
another part of the country. I think this has been a major 
source of frustration by local officials over the years. They 
might even see a neighboring county in another State be 
declared for the same disaster and they weren't. They don't 
know why and they weren't given any rationale.
    Ms. Barragan. Well, thank you, Mr. Currie.
    I don't have a lot of time left but I would be interested 
in following up with each of you afterward about my next issue, 
and that is, you know, the Biden administration launched its 
Justice40 initiative, which will prioritize his work on climate 
change and directs 40 percent of Federal climate benefits to go 
to the disadvantaged communities, and that following the 
announcement of this we have seen FEMA award grants to its 
programs, like Building Resilient Infrastructure in 
Communities, the Hazard Mitigation Grant program, and the Flood 
Mitigation Assistance. Maybe in a follow-up in writing you all 
can let me know, but what more FEMA can do to help 
disadvantaged communities win climate grants. Climate is 
definitely a big topic. You know, we have Glasgow coming up 
next week.
    We will look forward to seeing your responses in writing.
    Mr. Chairman, I am out of time. I yield back. Thank you.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much. The gentlelady 
yields back.
    We have gone through all our Members, but I have a question 
I would like to frame for all the witnesses. It talks about the 
Red Cross' role in mass care responsibilities.
    In the State of Mississippi there are 32 full-time Red 
Cross employees. I represent the capital city, I have the 
largest land area in the State, but there is not one full-time 
Red Cross employee in my entire district. So inequities start 
off physically with just nobody there.
    So the Red Cross, often staff and volunteers, are not 
representative of the communities they serve. How important is 
cultural competency in disaster response? How does it affect 
disaster response when emergency personnel don't reflect the 
communities they are serving?
    Some of us have talked about Katrina. I remember the 
Katrina experience because the Red Cross at that point even 
refused to go into certain low-income communities. It became 
quite an issue. But here we are. The Red Cross of today is not 
representative of the constituencies that are adversely 
impacted the most in disasters.
    So just as your own opinion. We will start with Dr. Peek, 
Ms. Willis, Mr. Currie, and Mr. Joseph.
    Ms. Peek. Thank you for bringing this issue of cultural 
competence into the conversation, Chairman. It is absolutely 
critical--absolutely critical. My understanding is that FEMA 
has actually made a commitment to engage in cultural competence 
training for all of their employees. Again, this is an 
important first step. But then it is crucial that we measure 
what a difference a training like that might make.
    We actually have developed a training module for disaster 
researchers and practitioners that focuses specifically on 
cultural competence.
    A final point that I want to make about this is actually 
related to an extraordinary organization called the Bill 
Anderson Fund, which is dedicated to ensuring that the disaster 
professionals and researchers of the next generation are 
reflective of the communities that we are studying and serving. 
So they are training, mentoring, empowering, and bringing to 
the table black and LatinX and Indigenous students as a next 
generation work force and leadership in the space. So I think 
this is a really important forward step in our community.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Thompson. Ms. Willis.
    Ms. Willis. Thank you.
    Cultural competence is important. As you have mentioned, 
Chairman, that is disturbing that so many from the Red Cross 
have not been providing, you know--there hasn't been any 
representation within your district from the Red Cross.
    When I think about the historic bias that is interwoven 
within volunteer agencies that also provides a disconnect with 
the community. Any time there is a disconnect there is a 
failure to provide adequate resources and a failure to restore 
and recover. I can tell you that I was just on the phone with a 
friend prior to my deployment for Hurricane Ida and she 
mentioned that 8 men showed up at her door, which is located--
her home was in an African American community outside of New 
Orleans--8 White men showed up, 2 with guns, and she hung up 
with the phone and I called her back and I asked her, who was 
that on the phone and she mentioned that it was a search-and-
rescue team. Now, in a location like Louisiana, where there 
have been significant problems with law enforcement and the 
mistreatment of African Americans, it would seem to me--and 
probably anyone else--that it is not a good idea to show up at 
the door, 8 White men, 2 with guns. That is cultural 
competence, a failure to provide that cultural competence and 
respect. That is disturbing. We can't just stay that it is a 
disaster response, anything goes. That is not the case. 
Cultural competency and cultural sensitivity is required even 
in times of disaster, even more so where people are 
experiencing mental trauma and distress. When we are dealing 
with disadvantaged communities and under-represented 
communities, that consideration is not provided.
    So, yes, cultural competency is needed and it must be 
present within disaster response and recovery.
    Thank you.
    Chairman Thompson. Mr. Currie.
    Mr. Currie. Thank you, sir.
    I agree with what has been said. Cultural competence is 
huge. I mean we have seen this play out in other areas. I will 
give you an example. For example, Tribes. Over the last few 
years we have made a number of recommendations to FEMA both 
during prior disasters and COVID that they do a better job of 
outreaching with Tribal nations on disaster assistance because 
they have unique needs. The truth is that all vulnerable 
communities have extremely unique needs, as Ms. Willis just 
said, that you have to factor in if you want response and 
recovery to be effective and you want to be able to use the 
programs we have.
    So I completely agree that that is important.
    One thing I will say on the Red Cross issue is that often 
times challenges come up during a response phase and we learn 
that maybe, you know, we don't have the right resources we need 
in a community. In my opinion, there really is no excuse for 
that. We have time and there are so many efforts between the 
Federal, State, and local level on the preparedness side before 
a disaster happens that we can work these issue out before-
hand. We don't have to be surprised when they happen in a 
response. I think that is something that should be looked at 
during blue sky days so they don't pop up when there is a 
disaster.
    Chairman Thompson. Mr. Joseph.
    Mr. Joseph. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
    In short I would say yes, it is important that we have more 
cultural competency training and education. I am proud of the 
work that while at FEMA we were able to deal with the Emergency 
Management Institute to provide and integrate into all training 
classes the types of training that you are talking about. We 
did that under the leadership of our former administrators and 
our then-chief of staff, Eric Heighberger, to bring that 
importance, to highlight in all the training that is delivered 
to State and local emergency management agencies. But I also 
think there needs to be more. We can continue to do more. Not 
just with State and local agencies, but within the systems 
within the Federal Government that exist as it is.
    Thank you, sir.
    Chairman Thompson. Thank you very much.
    The Chair recognizes the gentlelady from Florida, Ms. 
Demings, for 5 minutes.
    Ms. Demings. Mr. Chairman, thank you so very much and thank 
you to the witnesses for joining us today.
    On September 10, 2017 Hurricane Irma made landfall in the 
Florida Keys and left a path of damage across Florida. In 
Florida we certainly understand the life-threatening conditions 
of major hurricanes. The National Hurricane Center estimates 
that 6 million residents evacuated from coastal areas ahead of 
Irma's landfall. Still, too many Floridians needlessly lost 
their lives. We are told that over 400 nursing home residents 
died from heat-related conditions after their facilities lost 
power and did not have generators to power air conditioning 
units against the early September tropical heat.
    This question is for all witnesses or any or all who want 
to answer. I understand that the Department of Health and Human 
Services and State health care agencies play a significant role 
in regulating health and safety standards for nursing homes and 
other facilities. Has FEMA provided adequate guidance, or any 
guidance, to States and local governments to prepare for 
disasters impacting such facilities? Where can they improve?
    That is for any witness who would like to answer.
    Mr. Joseph. Madam Congresswoman, I will go first.
    Having been a local, State, and Federal emergency manager, 
yes, there is guidance. Most of it comes from Health and Human 
Services. I think what needs to be improved upon more--because 
as FEMA works with the States on what the gaps may be in their 
plans in advance of a disaster, there needs to be more 
integration of the emergency management and the health care 
emergency management structures. I think we saw that play out 
over the last several years in the pandemic response. There are 
areas of great success across every level of Government where 
emergency management and health care worked well together. 
There are also opportunities for improvement, several of them 
that we have seen over the last several years.
    So I would say, yes, there are efforts of planning that are 
there. There could be more exercising, there could be more 
coordination. There is always the question that comes up, well, 
who is in charge? Ultimately it doesn't matter who is in 
charge. As an emergency manager I was never the director of 
anything. I was the coordinator of things. That is what we need 
to focus on in emergency management, coordinating all those 
efforts together for the greater good of the people we serve.
    Ms. Demings. I really appreciate that answer and I thank 
you for understanding that you are right, it is about 
protecting people during tough times. Certainly in Florida we 
are still in the middle of hurricane season. So are we better 
prepared now than we were in 2017?
    Anyone else who would like to answer this question? Because 
it is about being prepared. Anyone else?
    Ms. Peek. I just wanted to thank the representative for 
this question and bringing this issue to light and--sincere 
condolences for the loss of life in 2017 and critical to 
recognize that also in 2005 in Hurricane Katrina that we also 
saw the exact same thing play out with some of the most frail 
and vulnerable older persons in our society perishing in 
nursing homes and other assisted care facilities. So this is a 
crucial, crucial issue and I think FEMA adding the disability 
coordinators, for example, in the different regions--again it 
is one step forward to draw attention to the issue of persons 
with disabilities, the elderly, people in institutionalized 
settings. But the fact that people in your State died in 2017 
in the same way we saw in 2005 and that we may see again in 
future disasters, this is unacceptable and this is where 
breaking down those barriers across agencies, putting resources 
toward those who get hurt first and worst in disasters. This is 
where the reality really comes to light.
    Thank you.
    Ms. Demings. No, thank you as well. And how can we--as 
Members of Congress, how can we help or assist to make sure 
that we are better prepared now than we were in 2017 and 2005? 
That question goes to anyone who needs to answer the question 
because we can't get behind this, we have got to stay in front 
of this and learn from the tragedies that we have seen.
    Anyone else can answer that question for me?
    Ms. Willis. Yes, ma'am. I will. Chauncia Willis here.
    I would say that one of the key points to mention is more 
diversity in representation is needed within the field of 
emergency management. I too experienced Hurricane Irma where I 
lived the recovery for our city, Tampa, for that terrible 
hurricane. You are right, health and human services, public 
health, the health and medical system, there is a disconnect 
with emergency management. Unfortunately, there is a 
disproportionate impact amongst the lower-income and the those 
who are minorities who are living within those facilities. It 
is unfortunate. A lot of our emergency managers are not from 
diverse backgrounds and do not identify with the levels of 
diversity seen within their communities.
    So we have been advocating from our organization the use of 
social determinants of health paired with emergency management 
vulnerability assessments. The way that we do emergency 
management, the way that we integrate the other critical 
functions must be reviewed and in some cases modified.
    Ms. Demings. Thank you.
    Finally, Mr. Currie, anything to add?
    Mr. Currie. In terms of being better prepared from fiscal 
year 2017, I think one thing that we often find in our work is 
that after a disaster all sorts of after-action reviews are 
done at the local, State, or Federal level and they typically 
identify a lot of gaps. Not just the thing we saw go bad, but 
the things that could have gone bad. But you know what, we 
don't follow up on those gaps later because the disaster is 
past and we just want to forget it. It is hard because 
resources to follow up on gaps.
    So I think it is--to answer your question, as a Member of 
Congress I think you can push folks in your State and your 
district to really follow up on those gaps so we don't have the 
problems that we know we are going to happen in the next 
disaster happen.
    Ms. Demings. To all of you, thank you so very much.
    Mr. Chairman, I yield back.
    Chairman Thompson. The gentlelady yields back.
    The Chair recognizes the Vice Chair of the full committee, 
the gentleman from from New York, Mr. Torres.
    Mr. Torres. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    The National Low Income Housing Coalition has reported that 
FEMA interprets the nondiscrimination clause in the Stafford 
Act and civil rights law to mean that the agency cannot provide 
tailored assistance for disadvantaged communities.
    I find FEMA's interpretation to be an anomaly because there 
is ample precedent for the Federal Government providing 
tailored assistance to disadvantaged communities and doing so 
within the boundaries of civil rights law. FEMA's 
misinterpretation has arguably led to racial inequities in the 
disbursement of housing assistance.
    Research has shown that the lowest-income homeowners 
receive half as much assistance as higher-income homeowners to 
rebuild and lower-income applicants were twice as likely to be 
denied FEMA housing assistance due to ``insufficient damage''.
    So my first question is for Ms. Willis. What actions should 
FEMA take to radically reduce the racial inequities that have 
arisen in the disbursement of FEMA funding?
    Ms. Willis. Thank you for that question, Representative 
Torres.
    I would like to state that FEMA has created some policies 
that are inherently inequitable. As we have discussed today, a 
lot of those policies are impacting the most vulnerable, 
historically marginalized communities the most.
    Within our written testimony and here today within our 
verbal testimony we have been outlining different 
recommendations that we feel would be critical. One of the 
recommendations would be to re-frame and consider new 
definitions for impoverished communities. We need to understand 
that that definition does not take into account the impact on 
communities, such as population growth, economic indicators, 
financial conditions, and wage stagnation, also climate impacts 
to the community. All of these things, including resident 
demographics, must be considered. In addition, we would 
recommend that population limit be adjusted from 3,000 to 
25,000 or 50,000. We would recommend that more demographic data 
be added to the definition to clearly define what community 
indicators demonstrate economic distress prior to and during 
and after disasters.
    Thank you.
    Mr. Torres. Thank you, Ms. Willis.
    I have a second question, and I will start by way of 
analogy. A 2018 report by the Brookings Institute found that 
implicit biases in appraisals led to a systematic 
undervaluation of Black homes compared to similarly-situated 
White homes. It found that the typical Black home is worth 
$150,000 compared to $230,000 for the typical White home. It 
found that Black homes amid Black majority neighborhoods are 
appraised at a level 23 percent lower than White homes in White 
majority neighborhoods. It found that Black homes on average 
are undervalued by $48,000, which translates into a cumulative 
loss of $156 billion.
    Are you concerned that the implicit biases that distort 
home valuations could be the same kinds of biases that could 
potentially distort FEMA home inspections?
    Ms. Willis. I am. I am. That is an excellent point to make. 
The people that are appraising these properties are the same 
people that we see and that we live with day-to-day. Many of 
them bring their bias to the table, they bring it to the job, 
they bring it to their volunteer response. So when they are 
evaluating properties, when they are determining value for 
properties using in some cases a cost-benefit analysis, they 
always undervalue the homes that are located in lower-income 
neighborhoods or that are housing African Americans, Latinos, 
or even our Tribal nations. It is unfortunate because their 
internal inherent bias impacts their ability to provide an 
unbiased objective response. In many cases they are outright 
denying assistance to many homeowners.
    So that is unfortunate and, yes, that is something that 
must be examined very closely. I believe the data has already 
shown that this is the case.
    Mr. Torres. I share the concern. Just like an appraisal 
with an implicit bias can lead to under evaluation, a home 
inspection with implicit bias can lead to under funding by 
FEMA. It is an area that we should explore in greater detail.
    Mr. Currie, do you have any thoughts on the persistence of 
racial inequities in the disbursement of FEMA funding and how 
to best address them?
    Mr. Currie. Well, I think Ms. Willis talked about a lot of 
these, but on the home inspection issue, so we know from the 
data that the primary reason for denials for individual 
assistance from FEMA is what is called insufficient damage. 
That is a very, very broad term that is completely reliant on 
the inspector's decision based on the inspection itself.
    So what you said is right, it is up to the inspector. But 
also the other thing to factor in there is that, you know, the 
inspections are done consistently for everybody. So, you know, 
a hole in somebody's roof that has 0 savings and no insurance 
is a lot different from a hole in somebody's roof that has 
savings and has insurance. The second person can fix that hole 
easily, the first person may never be able to fix the hole. The 
hole in the roof leads to secondary-level damage and problems 
down the road and mold and things like that. It is a domino 
effect.
    So while I think FEMA has tried--and this gets to the first 
part of your question, they have tried to be consistent for 
every single person, do things in the same way, that doesn't 
mean that that doesn't lead to disparate outcomes for different 
people.
    Mr. Torres. My time has long expired. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
    Chairman Thompson. Well, you are very kind. You're the only 
somebody to recognize their time. Thank you very much.
    I ask unanimous consent to submit for the record a letter 
from the Board of Supervisors of Leflore County, Mississippi on 
the devastation from the delta flooding, a statement by the 
National Low Income Housing Coalition, and a 2019 NPR article 
entitled How Federal Disaster Money Favors the Rich*.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    * The information has been retained in committee files and can be 
found at: https://www.npr.org/2019/03/05/688786177/how-federal-
disaster-money-favors-the-rich.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    [The information follows:]
        Letter From the Board of Supervisors, Leflore County, MS
                                  October 22, 2021.
TO: Lauren McClain, Subcommittee Director/Emergency Preparedness, 
Response, and Recovery, Committee on Homeland Security

Rep. Bennie G. Thompson (D-MS),
Chairman, H2-176 Ford House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515.

RE: Disaster Preparedness, Response and Recovery in the MS Delta

    The purpose of this letter is to give an account of the tragic 
flooding event that occurred June 8-12, 2021.
    As a life-long resident of Leflore County, MS, never have I seen 
the amount of flood water cover mailboxes and submerge cars and SUVs 
such as we experienced in the June flooding. Over 150 homes were 
damaged and people had to be rescued from their homes. Many of our 
residents that live in the flooded areas are elderly, disabled, and 
live on fixed incomes. The response by emergency management entities 
left people in a hopeless state. FEMA guidelines state that if 18 
inches of water could not be measured inside the dwelling, then no 
disaster declaration could be put in place. Low-income people without 
flood insurance needed immediate assistance. Many residents were forced 
to abandon their homes for weeks. People were forced to stay with 
relatives, at hotels, and wherever they could find a dry bed and food. 
Entergy disconnected power to these homes and all lost whatever food 
they had in freezers and refrigerators. The process to attain 
assistance is too exhaustive. Many residents don't have access to the 
internet to submit pictures, upload documents, and fill out 
applications. After the local governmental body makes an emergency 
declaration and submits it to MEMA (Executive Director--Administrative 
Order) and the Governor's office, there is still a 30-day period for 
review. A month is too long when people have been displaced from their 
homes, which in most cases are the largest investments that people 
make. There is a disconnect between Federal assistance/State assistance 
and getting people the assistance needed. There are Long-Term Recovery 
Committees that are helping put people's homes and lives back together 
but again the process is too exhaustive and time-consuming. Several 
weeks, and months pass before the necessary visits and assessments 
could be conducted. There is a need for a Rapid Response and Recovery 
entity. Counties in the MS Delta need FEMA/MEMA to restructure the 
process of evaluating disasters and the response to assist citizens in 
need. Income level should not dictate who gets assistance. There has to 
be a better way to get assistance and recover from a natural disaster 
for the very least of us.
            Sincerely,
                                            Reginald Moore,
                    President, Leflore County Board of Supervisors.
                                 ______
                                 
         Statement of the National Low Income Housing Coalition
                            October 27, 2021
    Chairman Thompson, Ranking Member Katko, and Members of the 
committee, thank you for the opportunity to submit this statement on 
ways to ensure that our Nation's disaster housing recovery and response 
efforts address the unique and often overlooked needs of the lowest-
income and most marginalized survivors, including people of color, 
people with disabilities, people experiencing homelessness and others.
    The National Low Income Housing Coalition (NLIHC) is dedicated 
solely to achieving socially just public policy that ensures people 
with the lowest incomes in the United States have affordable and decent 
homes. NLIHC leads the Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition of more than 
850 National, State, and local organizations, including many working 
directly with disaster-impacted communities and with first-hand 
experience recovering after disasters. We work to ensure that Federal 
disaster recovery efforts prioritize the housing needs of the lowest-
income and most marginalized people in impacted areas.
    NLIHC has worked on disaster housing recovery since Hurricane 
Katrina, and from this experience, we have come to a simple conclusion: 
America's disaster housing recovery system is fundamentally broken and 
in need of major repair and reform. It is a system that was designed 
for middle-class people and communities--a system that never 
contemplated, and so does not address, the unique needs of the lowest-
income and most marginalized people. Because of this fundamental design 
flaw, these families are consistently left behind in recovery and 
rebuilding in disaster after disaster. The disaster recovery system not 
only ignores the needs of the lowest-income people, but it exacerbates 
many of the challenges they faced prior to the storm: Disaster response 
and recovery often worsens the housing crisis, solidifies segregation, 
and deepens inequality.
    When disasters strike, the lowest-income and most marginalized 
survivors are often hardest-hit. They have the fewest resources and 
face the longest, steepest path to recovery. Despite the clear need, 
Federal efforts frequently leave these survivors without the assistance 
needed to recover and leave their communities less resilient to future 
disasters. Without this critical assistance, many of the lowest-income 
and most marginalized survivors return to uninhabitable homes, sleep in 
cars or at shelters, double- or triple-up with other low-income 
families, or pay more than half of their limited incomes on rent, 
putting them at increased risk of displacement, eviction, and, in worst 
cases, homelessness.
    These barriers and opportunities are reflected in ``Fixing 
America's Broken Disaster Housing Recovery System,'' a two-part report 
published by NLIHC and Fair Share Housing Center of New Jersey.
    Our policy recommendations reflect 9 core principles that should 
guide our country's disaster housing response and recovery:
    1. Recovery must be centered on survivors with the greatest needs 
        and ensure equity among survivors, especially for people of 
        color, low-income people, people with disabilities, immigrants, 
        LGBTQ people, and other marginalized people and communities;
    2. Everyone should be fairly assisted to fully and promptly recover 
        through transparent and accountable programs and strict 
        compliance with civil rights laws, with survivors directing the 
        way assistance is provided;
    3. Securing help from Government must be accessible, 
        understandable, and timely;
    4. Everyone in need should receive safe, accessible shelter and 
        temporary housing where they can reconnect with family and 
        community;
    5. Displaced people should have access to all the resources they 
        need for as long as they need to safely and quickly recover 
        housing, personal property, and transportation;
    6. Renters and anyone experiencing homelessness before the disaster 
        must quickly get access to quality, affordable, accessible 
        rental homes in safe, quality neighborhoods of their choice;
    7. All homeowners should be able to quickly rebuild in safe, 
        quality neighborhoods of their choice;
    8. All neighborhoods should be free from environmental hazards, 
        have equal quality and accessible public infrastructure, and be 
        safe and resilient; and
    9. Disaster rebuilding should result in local jobs and contracts 
        for local businesses and workers.
    These core principles and the following policy recommendations 
should serve as a guidepost for this committee and other Federal policy 
makers as you work to reform our Nation's disaster housing recovery 
framework.
               barriers to an equitable housing recovery
    After a disaster, displaced families must have a safe, accessible, 
and affordable place to live while they recover. FEMA programs can 
provide crucial assistance to help survivors recover from a disaster by 
providing temporary shelter and financial assistance and making basic 
structural repairs to homes. However, FEMA created unnecessary and 
often insurmountable barriers to accessing these programs, leaving many 
low-income survivors at increased risk of displacement, eviction, and, 
in worst cases, homelessness.
    FEMA programs are not designed to serve lower-income people with 
the greatest needs; these households are consistently denied 
assistance. Applicants for assistance with the lowest incomes were 
denied FEMA Individual Assistance (IA) at very high rates after 
Hurricane Harvey. The vast majority of higher-income households were 
approved \1\ (see Figure 1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \1\ Adams, A. 2018. Low-income Households Disproprtionately Denied 
by FEMA Is a Sign of a System that is Failing the Most Vulnerable. 
Retrieved from https://texashousers.org/2018/11/30/low-income-
households-disproportionately-denied-by-fema-is-a-sign-of-a-system-
that-is-failing-the-most-vulnerable/.


    Although the early available data from FEMA's response to Hurricane 
Ida show an improvement in IA eligibility rates overall, data from 
other disasters in 2021 show similar denial rates to the past disaster 
responses. Further analysis and access to granular application 
information will be needed to determine if this trend holds for 
applications by lower-income disaster survivors.
FEMA's Failure to Address Housing Needs
    Despite the clear need, FEMA housing programs neglect the housing 
needs of America's lowest-income disaster survivors and exacerbate 
housing insecurity. Without the affordable and accessible homes 
survivors need, many return to uninhabitable homes, sleep in cars or 
tents, stay at shelters, double- or triple-up with other low-income 
families, or pay more than half of their limited incomes on rent, 
putting them at increased risk of eviction and, in worst cases, 
homelessness.
    Research from NLIHC demonstrates that disasters exacerbate the 
existing rental housing crisis for households with the lowest 
incomes.\2\ After Hurricane Sandy, households already dealing with 
housing instability were further destabilized through displacement and 
increased rents. Two years after Sandy, few new affordable homes had 
been completed yet survivors were no longer eligible for Federal rental 
assistance.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \2\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2019. Long-term Recovery 
of Rental Housing: A Case Study of Highly-Impacted Communities in New 
Jersey after Superstorm Sandy. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/
default/files/Sandy-Rental-Recovery-Report.pdf.
    \3\ Fair Share Housing Center, Latino Action Network & NAACP New 
Jersey State Conference. 2015. The State of Sandy Recovery (Second 
Annual Report). Retrieved from http://fairsharehousing.org/images/
uploads/State_of_Sandy_English_2015.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The impact of disasters on low-income people's housing needs is 
made worse by FEMA's continued refusal to activate the Disaster Housing 
Assistance Program (DHAP), rendering some survivors homeless.\4\ During 
past disasters, both Republican \5\ and Democratic \6\ \7\ 
administrations upheld DHAP as a best practice for disaster housing 
recovery. DHAP was created after hard-won lessons from Hurricane 
Katrina, and it has been used successfully in some major disasters 
since that time. Under DHAP, displaced families receive longer-term 
direct rental assistance and case management services provided by local 
housing professionals with extensive knowledge of the local housing 
market. This assistance helps families find permanent housing 
solutions, secure employment, and connect to public benefits as they 
rebuild their lives.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \4\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2018. Setting the Record 
Straight: FEMA 's Failure to Address Long-Term Housing Needs of 
Survivors. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/
FEMA_Setting-The-RecordFEMA-TSA.PDF.
    \5\ Homeland Security and Counterterrorism. 2006. The Federal 
Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned. Retrieved from https://
permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps67263/katrina-lessons-learned.pdf.
    \6\ Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2009. National Disaster 
Housing Strategy. Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/media-library-
data/20130726-1819-25045-9288/ndhs_core.pdf.
    \7\ Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2011. National Disaster 
Recovery Framework: Strengthening Disaster Recovery for the Nation. 
Retrieved from https://www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf.
    \8\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2017. Disaster Housing 
Assistance Program. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
files/DAHP-Program.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After recent disasters, FEMA instead relied on its Temporary 
Shelter Assistance (TSA) program and other programs that are 
inaccessible to many low-income survivors. TSA is intended to reduce 
the number of survivors in congregate shelters by covering the cost of 
staying in an approved hotel or motel for an initial period of up to 14 
days. Once again, this is a program better suited to middle-class 
households than to low-income people.
    Low-income families are often unable to access TSA motels due to 
financial and other barriers, including the practice of motels charging 
daily ``resort'' fees and requiring security deposits or credit cards. 
Because TSA must be renewed every 14 days, those disaster survivors who 
are able to access the program face arbitrary deadlines that cause them 
to scramble to submit required paperwork or leave the motel before 
finding a permanent housing solution. While FEMA is authorized to 
provide TSA for at least 18 months, the Trump administration abruptly 
terminated \9\ the program for nearly 2,000 Puerto Rican families 
displaced to the mainland after Hurricane Maria, forcing them to find 
alternative housing or to return to their uninhabitable homes on the 
island with just a few hours' notice. Without DHAP, States that 
received large numbers of displaced Puerto Rican survivors--including 
Massachusetts and Connecticut--saw increased homelessness by 14 percent 
and 17 percent respectively.\10\ \11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \9\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2018. NLIHC's Response 
to Court Ruling Allowing FEMA to Move Forward on Evicting Hurricane 
Maria Survivors. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/news/nlihcs-response-
court-ruling-allowing-fema-move-forward-evicting-hurricane-maria-
survivors.
    \10\ Martini T. 2019, After a Long Road, Hurricane Maria Evacuees 
Settle in Massachusetts. Retrieved from https://www.wgbh.org/news/
local-news/2019/01/23/after-a-long-road-hurricane-maria-evacuees-
settle-in-massachusetts.
    \11\ Skahill, P. 2018. Hurricane Maria Drives Up Connecticut's 
Homelessness Numbers. Retrieved from https://www.wnpr.org/post/
hurricane-maria-drives-connecticuts-homelessness-numbers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    To date, the Biden administration has failed to activate DHAP for 
survivors of Hurricane Ida and other major disasters.
    FEMA's other temporary housing assistance programs--Rental 
Assistance and Direct Temporary Housing Assistance--are also 
problematic for low-income families. Through its Rental Assistance 
program, FEMA provides financial assistance to survivors to rent 
temporary housing. The amount of assistance provided to survivors is 
based on the impacted area's Fair Market Rent (FMR), which is often 
considerably less than rental costs in the area to which survivors have 
been displaced. Moreover, FEMA rental assistance covers rent and 
utilities for only 2 months at a time, which is too short a time frame 
for many of the lowest-income survivors. Many landlords are often 
unwilling to enter into leases with survivors when only 2 months of 
rental assistance is assured.
    Under FEMA's Direct Lease program, FEMA enters into lease 
agreements with property owners to provide rent assistance for 
survivors. A similar program, the Multi-Family Lease and Repair 
program, allows FEMA to enter into lease agreements with multi-family 
housing property owners and to make repairs to provide temporary 
housing. Both programs, however, have extremely low rates of 
participation by property owners and are inadequate to meet post-
disaster rental needs.\12\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \12\ AP. 2020. FEMA Looks to Provide Hurricane Victims Temporary 
Housing. Retrieved from: https://apnews.com/article/louisiana-
9541dafbac6b890535bb21dc58844d29.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Hurricane Harvey, FEMA piloted a program where States take on 
the responsibility of implementing and managing temporary housing 
programs. These State-run disaster housing programs face significant 
delays and do not address the full scale of housing needs because FEMA 
continues to retain control over eligibility and the program-assignment 
process. According to FEMA, only a few hundred families were served 
under State-administered housing programs following Hurricanes Harvey 
and Irma, despite damage to or destruction of more than 307,000 homes 
in Texas \13\ and 65 percent of all homes in the Florida Keys.\14\ 
Other programs like Multi-family Lease and Repair were wholly 
unsuccessful because property owners declined to participate.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \13\ CBS News. 2019. We're Still Here: Volunteers Rebuilding Homes 
2 Years After Hurricane Harvey. Retrieved from https://www.cbsnews.com/
news/hurricane-harvey-houston-meet-the-volunteers-rebuilding-homes-all-
hands-hearts-2019-08-24/.
    \14\ CNN. 2017. Florida Official: Death toll rises to 12 in State, 
Retrieved from: https://www.cnn.com/2017/09/12/us/irma-damage-
aftermath/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    A similar situation is currently occurring in Louisiana during the 
aftermath of Hurricane Ida. FEMA is reimbursing State-level agencies to 
provide travel trailers to disaster survivors to utilize prior to the 
deployment of FEMA Temporary Housing Units (THUs)--which typically take 
4 months to deploy. While the State has procured hundreds of travel 
trailers, few families have received them as of this writing. In the 
mean time, disaster survivors are being encouraged to sleep in tents on 
their properties or utilize large tent encampments in several locations 
around Southeast Louisiana.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \15\ Muller, W. 2021. As trailers trickle in, push for temporary 
housing continues 6 weeks after Hurricane Ida. Retrieved from https://
www.houmatoday.com/story/news/2021/10/16/trailers-trickle-in-push-
temporary-housing-continues-6-weeks-after-hurricane-ida/8468315002/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Due to the lack of housing assistance, 1 year after Hurricane 
Harvey nearly 20 percent of individuals experiencing homelessness in 
Houston reported that they became homeless as a result of the 
disaster.\16\ Without DHAP, homelessness increased in Houston by 18 
percent.\17\ This is a colossal failure of the Federal Government's 
disaster recovery efforts.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \16\ Vigh, E. 2019. Hurricane Harvey Caused Homelessness Lingers in 
Harris County 2 Years Later. Community Impact. Retrieved from https://
bit.ly/3hEvKHW.
    \17\ Ward, A. 2018. Homeless after Harvey: For Some, the Historic 
Flooding in Houston Washed Away Shelter and Security. Retrieved from 
https://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houstonweather/hurricaneharvey/
article/Homeless-after-Harvey-For-some-the-historic-13171309.php.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the current COVID-19 pandemic, FEMA should have activated 
DHAP to provide housing and shelter for people experiencing 
homelessness. DHAP could have been used to quickly move people out of 
congregate shelters or encampments and into affordable homes, where 
they can more easily keep themselves and their neighbors healthy. 
Instead, FEMA has worked with some States and localities under its 
Public Assistance program to place a very limited number of people 
experiencing homelessness into temporary motels for self-quarantine and 
self-isolation.
    Before Public Assistance funding for these motels end, FEMA should 
activate DHAP to help transition these individuals into permanent 
housing, rather than allowing individuals to be pushed back into 
homelessness as is already beginning to happen. For example, after 
funding for a hotel voucher program in Fort Lauderdale, Florida ran out 
on July 17, over 70 people experiencing homelessness who had been 
temporarily residing at a Rodeway Inn & Suites were forced to leave, 
even if they did not have a permanent housing plan.\18\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \18\ Kelley, E. 2020. Fort Lauderdale Ending Program to House 
Homeless in Hotels This Weekend. Retrieved from https://www.sun-
sentinel.com/coronavirus/fl-ne-fort-lauderdale-evicts-homeless-
20200717-h5vjhwlndnf6batks4rgegk3va-story.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
          fema neglects the needs of marginalized populations
People Experiencing Homelessness
    People experiencing homelessness are often most at risk during a 
disaster and have the fewest resources to recover. People experiencing 
homelessness are unlikely to have the resources needed to adequately 
prepare for or evacuate prior to a disaster, and their unique needs are 
often overlooked by emergency managers when planning for disasters. 
During the recovery, homelessness resources are stretched thin to 
accommodate those households that became housing insecure as a result 
of the disaster and resources for pre-disaster homeless populations are 
deprioritized. Communities are often unable to return to the level of 
care provided to people experiencing homelessness before the disaster.
    Despite the clear need, people experiencing homelessness are often 
excluded from or face additional barriers to FEMA resources, including 
mass shelters and individual assistance. Following Hurricane Irma, 
there were reports of people experiencing homelessness being forced to 
wear armbands and be separated from other disaster survivors.\19\ Pre-
disaster homeless populations are often denied FEMA assistance, even if 
all their belongings were destroyed in the disaster.\20\ These actions 
further stigmatize people experiencing homelessness and often prevent 
them from accessing the resources they need to stay safe.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \19\ Dearen, J., & Kennedy, K. 2017. Yellow Wristbands, 
Segregation/or Florida Homeless in Irma. Retrieved from https://
www.usnews.com/news/us/articles/2017-09-29/yellow-wristbands-
segregation-for-florida-homeless-in-irma.
    \20\ Ehrlich, A. 2019. After Wildfires, Homeless People Left Out of 
Federal Disaster Aid Programs, Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved 
from https://www.opb.org/news/article/fema-disaster-aid-wildfires-
homeless-people/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During the current COVID-19 pandemic, people experiencing 
homelessness are particularly at risk of severe illness and death from 
coronavirus, yet many of these individuals have been unable to access 
the assistance they need to self-isolate and self-quarantine.
    Narrow eligibility criteria for FEMA reimbursement, however, 
created significant barriers to moving people experiencing homelessness 
to safety in hotels and motels. In San Francisco, for example, people 
experiencing homelessness must be over the age of 60 or have documented 
underlying health conditions in order to be deemed eligible. This 
narrow interpretation of eligibility criteria has limited the 
efficiency of San Francisco's hotel program.\21\ Additionally, FEMA 
reimbursement of non-congregate shelter for people experiencing 
homelessness is only made available if a Governor requests it; people 
who are homeless in States with Governors who do not prioritize their 
needs are left with no assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \21\ Karlis, N. 2020. How Bureaucracy Kept the Bay Area from 
Housing the Houseless. Retrieved from https://www.salon.com/2020/06/21/
how-bureaucracy-kept-the-bay-area-from-housing-the-houseless/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Seniors and People with Disabilities
    People with disabilities face barriers to assistance. They are 2 to 
4 times more likely to die or sustain a critical injury during a 
disaster than people without disabilities.\22\ Despite an increased 
risk of death and injury, many emergency plans do not address how local 
officials can reach those with disabilities during a disaster. People 
with disabilities are often diverted to ``special needs'' or ``medical 
shelters,'' even if they do not require the level of care provided 
there. This practice fosters forced institutionalization and places 
people with disabilities at greater risk of injury or death.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \22\ Timmons, P. ``Disaster Preparedness and Response: The Special 
Needs of Older Americans,'' Statement for the Record, Special Committee 
on Aging, U.S. Senate, September 20, 2017, available at https://
www.aging.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/SCA_Timmons_09_20_17.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    During Hurricane Harvey, elderly residents in a Galveston, Texas 
nursing home were photographed with floodwaters up to their waists,\23\ 
and 14 nursing home residents in the largely unregulated State nursing 
home industry died in 2017 from heat exhaustion when their facility 
lost power in Hurricane Irma.\24\ The COVID-19 pandemic has devastated 
people residing and working in nursing homes, psychiatric hospitals, 
and other congregate settings for people with disabilities. People 
living in these settings comprise less than 1 percent of the U.S. 
population, but nearly 50 percent of coronavirus deaths.\25\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \23\ Ferguson, J.W. 2017. Eighteen People Rescued from Flooded 
Assisted Living Facility. Retrieved from https://www.galvnews.com/news/
free/article_elffff8e-435d-5c78-ab46-57d6bc7dc6a5.html.
    \24\ CNN. 2017. Husband and Wife Among 14 Dead After Florida 
Nursing Home Lost A/C. Retrieved from https://www.cnn.com/2017/10/09/
health/florida-irma-nursing-home-deaths-wife/index.html.
    \25\ Mizner, S. 2020. COVID-19 Deaths in Nursing Homes are not 
Unavoidable--They are the Result of Deadly Discrimination. Retrieved 
from https://www.aclu.org/news/disability-rights/covid-19-deaths-in-
nursing-homes-are-not-unavoidable-they-are-the-result-of-deadly-
discrimination/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Immigrants and People with Limited English Proficiency
    Individuals with limited English proficiency often face difficulty 
in accessing FEMA resources. For example, in Puerto Rico, FEMA 
struggled to find translators or provide basic information in Spanish, 
which is the predominant language on the island.\26\ While FEMA's 
regulations require that such documents are produced, advocates 
commonly express concern that the agency and its grantees regularly 
distribute forms only in English or with limited translated versions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \26\ Davidson, J. 2020. How a lack of diversity at Federal agencies 
can have serious consequences. Retrieved from https://
www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-a-lack-of-diversity-at-federal-
agencies-can-have-serious-consequences/2020/02/29/ceec904e-5a65-11ea-
8753-73d960- 00faaestory.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                onerous title documentation requirements
    For decades, eligible applicants were wrongfully denied FEMA 
assistance due to inflexible and arbitrary requirements, rigid 
interpretations of rules, and confusing and bureaucratic processes.
    FEMA consistently requires disaster survivors to provide title 
documentation in order to prove eligibility for the agency's Individual 
Assistance (IA)\27\ program and other recovery aid, even though its own 
guidance on Individual and Household Assistance allows alternative 
documentation of ownership. Low-income homeowners, residents of 
manufactured housing, renters without written leases, and other 
individuals frequently lack such documentation or the ability to 
quickly procure proper documents. FEMA's rigid and unnecessary policy 
has harmed low-income disaster survivors since at least 1995.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \27\ Individual Assistance (IA) programs provide financial and 
program assistance directly to disaster survivors, as opposed to 
governments or eligible nonprofits. See: https://www.fema.gov/media-
library-data/l565194429982-5674cd8-399feaeb00cc72ab7fc4d84f/FACT- 
SHEETIndividualAssistanceProgram.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    After Hurricane Maria, FEMA denied assistance to at least 77,000 
survivors due to title docmnentation issues.\28\ For months, NLIHC's 
Disaster Housing Recovery Coalition pushed FEMA to remove this 
unnecessary obstacle to low-income Puerto Ricans receiving needed 
assistance. Finally, FEMA's Office of Chief Counsel engaged and worked 
with DHRC members Ayuda Legal Huracan Maria, Fundacion Fondo de Accesso 
a la Justicia, and Servicios Legales de Puerto Rico to prepare a 
``sworn statement'' that would allow Puerto Rican homeowners without 
title documents to prove ownership of their homes so that they can 
receive the assistance to which they are entitled. While FEMA allowed 
survivors to use this method to apply for assistance, FEMA refused to 
make the sworn statement available on its website or on social media.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \28\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2019. Impact of 
Hurricane Maria. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/default/files/
Hurricane-Impact-Maria.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    These same issues occurred in the continental United States. In 
North Carolina and other parts of the American South, rural, 
historically African American communities often do not use title 
systems, instead implementing informal systems like those used in 
Puerto Rico. After Hurricane Katrina, thousands of poor Alabamians were 
denied assistance due to lack of formal title on their damaged homes. 
After Hurricane Michael, FEMA denied assistance to as many as 50 
percent of applicants in certain parts of the panhandle largely due to 
elderly households and mobile homeowners lacking FEMA-required title 
documentation.\29\ After California's wildfires, FEMA denied assistance 
to 70 percent of applicants due to title issues.\30\ Those denied were 
predominantly rural mobile homeowners, many of them farmworkers or 
other low-income workers, who do not have title to their homes. In all 
cases, FEMA refused to modify its programs to accommodate the 
situation, choosing instead to deny eligible applicants needed 
assistance to which they were entitled.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \29\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2019. Impact of 
Hurricane Michael. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/default/
files/Hurricane-Impact-Michael.pdf.
    \30\ National Low Income Housing Coalition. 2019. Impact of the 
2018 California Wildfires. Retrieved from https://nlihc.org/sites/
default/files/Califonia_Wildfire-2018.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Work to reform FEMA's harmful policy began with efforts by NLIHC, 
disaster survivors, and partners in Louisiana, Alabama, and Mississippi 
after Hurricane Katrina, and they were continued by the DHRC and 
advocates in Texas and Florida after Hurricanes Harvey and Michael, in 
California after several wildfires, and in Puerto Rico in the aftermath 
of Hurricane Maria.
    After sustained advocacy, FEMA issued substantial changes in 
September 2021 to how it conducts verification for occupancy and 
ownership of disaster damaged homes.\31\ Under FEMA's new policy, these 
survivors can now self-certify ownership of their homes when they do 
not have other documentation, overcoming a major hurdle to recovery. 
FEMA will also allow all survivors to submit a broader array of 
documents to prove occupancy and ownership of their homes. These 
changes are much-needed and long overdue. In addition, attention must 
be given to the implementation of these rules, which anecdotally have 
not been applied evenly in the response to Hurricane Ida.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \31\ NLIHC. 2021. FEMA Announces Major Improvements for Low-Income 
Disaster Survivors. Retrieved from: https://nlihc.org/resource/fema-
announces-major-improvements-low-income-disaster-survivors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Disincentives to apply for assistance like title documentation 
requirements and resulting high denial rates not only limit immediate 
assistance for low-income survivors, but also distort the entire 
disaster recovery process because IA application data is used to make 
funding determinations throughout the Federal disaster recovery 
process.
                  fema's systemic lack of transparency
FEMA has consistently refused to clarify or make public important 
        information about its aid application process. By not releasing 
        this information, FEMA makes it difficult, if not impossible, 
        to determine who is eligible to receive assistance and why 
        assistance is denied. A confusing appeals process leads to 
        higher denial rates for low-income disaster survivors.
    While FEMA, SBA, and HUD offer assistance programs to disaster 
survivors, basic information on program eligibility is not made 
publicly available. Without such information, disaster survivors often 
apply to all programs with the hopes that at least some assistance will 
be provided. For low-income individuals who may lack internet or phone 
access or who may need special accommodations to allow them to apply, 
completing multiple applications can be especially problematic. As a 
result, many of the disaster survivors with the lowest incomes forgo 
applying for assistance all together, despite their need.
    FEMA has consistently refused to give survivors reasons up-front 
for denials or opportunities for applicants to correct errors or 
provide more information. Instead of receiving guidelines or 
clarification from FEMA, survivors and advocates must work through a 
lengthy administrative process in order to be given a reason for their 
denial. The lack of clarity makes it more difficult for assistance 
organizations attempting to inform and assist low-income survivors 
after a disaster. As a result, appeals take longer and are more costly.
    The FEMA appeals process is confusing and difficult. A denied 
applicant must first submit a form explaining the dispute and providing 
supporting documentation. FEMA denial letters, however, provide only 
very vague reasons for the initial denial of assistance. The denied 
applicant must refute all possible interpretations of the reason, or 
they will lose their appeal. As a result, low-income survivors with 
little access to legal representation or the money for a protracted 
legal fight simply do not appeal at all.
    It is extremely difficult to access basic data about FEMA programs 
and processes. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests to FEMA often 
go months or years without being answered. NLIHC filed a FOIA request 
in December 2018 requesting basic materials, including FEMA's 
application for assistance, procedure manuals for determining 
eligibility, and data-sharing agreements with HUD and other Federal 
agencies. To date, FEMA has not provided these materials. In other 
cases, FEMA refuses to provide basic information, claiming grounds of 
privilege. In recent years, some progress has been made with the 
release of data after major disasters through FEMA's OpenFEMA portal. 
These changes, while a welcome development, are not enough and may not 
be continued.
     fema's inflexibility and inability to adjust to new conditions
    Climate change means disasters are more destructive, more frequent, 
and impact a broader geographic scope, posing new challenges for FEMA 
and disaster recovery efforts. FEMA is not adapting its thinking or its 
programs to respond to these challenges, instead sticking to a rigid 
system of disaster aid and recovery based on responding to contained 
local disasters. FEMA has little capacity to effectively deal with both 
large, regional disasters and the unique circumstances and needs of a 
specific community impacted by a disaster.
    FEMA has a rigid allegiance to protocol over outcomes, a stubborn 
reliance on programs inaccessible to low-income survivors and 
repeatedly refuses to release important data on recovery outcomes. FEMA 
relies heavily on protocol written in Washington, DC and not on what 
the agency hears from advocates, survivors, FEMA employees in the 
field, and other stakeholders. FEMA systems are not designed to adapt 
to situations on the ground. As a result, predictable issues repeatedly 
arise after each disaster and go unaddressed by the agency, further 
harming low-income survivors.
    FEMA has consistently failed to learn larger lessons from past 
disasters and apply them to future disaster recovery efforts. FEMA's 
own internal watchdog, the Department of Homeland Security Office of 
the Inspector General, removed criticisms from reports on the agency's 
disaster response and replaced them with success stories, praising 
FEMA's work.\32\ As a result of this lack of internal critique and 
self-adjustment, FEMA repeats the same mistakes, and does similar harm, 
disaster after disaster.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \32\ U.S. Department of Homeland Security Office of Homeland 
Security. 2019. Special Report: Review Regarding DHS OIG's Retraction 
of Thirteen Reports Evaluating FEMA 's Initial Response to Disasters. 
Retrieved from https://www.oversight.gov/sites/default/files/oig-
reports/OIG-19-41-May19.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
         equitable solutions centered on the needs of survivors
    A reformed disaster housing recovery system that is centered on the 
needs of the lowest-income and most marginalized survivors and their 
communities must ensure opportunities for resident and public 
engagement, systemic transparency, full accountability and due process, 
robust equity and civil rights enforcement, fair mitigation practices, 
and a focus on increased local capacity and benefit. These priorities 
must be reflected in every stage of disaster recovery and response, 
from pre-disaster emergency planning through long-term recovery and 
post-recovery mitigation, to help address the systemic racism and 
classism that have resulted in our broken current disaster housing 
system.
Resident and Public Participation
    A reformed disaster housing recovery and response framework must 
ensure robust, on-going, and timely opportunities for public engagement 
through structured collaboration with stakeholders beginning with 
emergency planning and response and continuing through the closeout of 
recovery and mitigation programs. Residents must be empowered to make 
decisions for themselves and their communities, and their input must be 
given substantial weight.
    Current disaster housing response and recovery efforts effectively 
limit opportunities for impacted residents to meaningfully engage and 
contribute to the rebuilding of their communities after a disaster. 
State officials are under enormous pressure to respond and rebuild as 
quickly as possible, often making any public input process rushed and 
ineffective. Engagement is often limited because residents are unaware 
of emergency response, rebuilding, and mitigation plans, whether 
because State officials fail to announce public meetings or because 
materials are provided only in English or in formats that are not 
accessible, including to people with disabilities. Moreover, plans 
often do not include essential information--including information about 
how funds will be spent and who will be eligible for which funds--that 
is needed for the public to engage effectively. Opportunities for 
engagement are limited, irregular, and occur too late in the process.
Systemic Transparency
    Basic, essential information about Federal disaster response and 
recovery efforts must be made publicly available in a timely manner. 
This transparency must be systemized, so that it is not provided on an 
ad hoc basis. Data transparency is critical to ensuring informed public 
policy decisions, allowing greater public participation in disaster 
recovery efforts, and helping public and private entities better 
recognize gaps in services and identify reforms needed for future 
disaster recovery efforts.
    The current Federal disaster response and recovery, however, 
suffers from a systemic lack of data transparency. After past 
disasters, this failure to provide basic transparency--ranging from 
damage assessments, determination of unmet needs, program design and 
implementation, grantee and subgrantee performance, and how Federal 
dollars are spent--has hampered efforts to effectively target and 
distribute aid to those most in need.
Full Accountability and Due Process
    Accountability and due process must be central in any reformed 
disaster housing recovery and response framework. Federal efforts must 
ensure that all eligible survivors receive the assistance needed to get 
back on their feet.
    The daunting application process for disaster aid discourages 
survivors from applying for assistance. The application and appeals 
processes are confusing, time-consuming, and frustrating. As a result, 
low-income survivors--especially seniors, people with disabilities, and 
people with limited English proficiency, and other individuals--face 
high, unnecessary, and counterproductive barriers to receiving Federal 
disaster housing recovery assistance and many forgo applying for 
assistance altogether. By not providing full accountability, 
transparency, and due process to applicants, the Federal Government has 
made it difficult--if not impossible--to determine who is eligible to 
receive assistance and why assistance was denied, leading to higher 
denial rates for low-income disaster survivors.
Robust Equity and Civil Rights Enforcement
    Equity must be a central and explicit goal of Federal disaster 
housing response and recovery efforts, and each stage of the response 
and recovery must be examined and reformed to ensure that Federal, 
State, and local efforts actively dismantle systems of oppression. All 
emergency response, long-term recovery, and mitigation actions must be 
designed and pursued in a manner that addresses and prioritizes the 
needs of the lowest-income survivors, people of color, seniors, people 
with disabilities, immigrants, and other protected classes. All such 
actions must also be explicitly anti-racist: Analyzed to determine if 
they exacerbate, leave in place, or ameliorate existing or historic 
patterns of segregation and discrimination in housing and 
infrastructure, and remedied accordingly.
Fair Mitigation Practices
    All emergency response, long-term recovery, and mitigation efforts 
must be designed and pursued in a manner that provides survivors with 
the choice to relocate or rebuild their communities resiliently, 
minimizing displacement. As the climate changes, disasters will be both 
more frequent and more destructive. In response, local and State 
officials have begun to focus on mitigation and infrastructure 
improvement. Too often, such upgrades go to more affluent communities, 
while the needs of lower-income people and people of color are ignored. 
Moreover, Federal, State, and local recovery efforts may actively 
contribute to displacement by failing to provide survivors with 
meaningful choices to rebuild resiliently, relocate, or improve 
infrastructure (such as storm drainage, floodplain management, and 
other common mitigation measures) in their disaster-affected 
communities. This effectively leaves low-income survivors at greater 
risk for future disasters than they were prior to the disaster.
Increased Local Capacity and Benefit
    All emergency response, long-term recovery and mitigation efforts 
must maximize the engagement of local contractors and workers and build 
the capacity of local community-based organizations, putting as much 
Federal resources as possible into the impacted economy and impacted 
survivors.
    Local community-based organizations and networks are in the best 
position to engage with and have intimate awareness of the unique needs 
of the lowest-income survivors. These local organizations often do not 
receive the support needed to build capacity to scale up efforts 
quickly after a disaster. By relying on out-of-town contractors for 
everything from debris removal to repair of electrical grids, State and 
local governments miss an opportunity provide employment, job training, 
and contracting opportunities to low-income local workers and small- 
and minority-controlled businesses, who often are in severe need of 
work as a result of disasters' disruption to local business.
  first steps to fix america's broken disaster housing recovery system
    The ``Fixing America's Broken Disaster Housing Recovery System'' 
report provides specific policy recommendations to reimagine and 
redesign a new disaster housing recovery framework that is centered on 
the needs of the lowest-income and most marginalized survivors. This 
work will take many years. However, there are a number of actions 
Congress can take to immediately address some of the biggest challenges 
facing survivors.
Permanently Authorize and Automatically Activate the Disaster Housing 
        Assistance Program (DHAP)
    Congress should permanently authorize DHAP and automatically 
activate it after every major disaster to provide longer-term housing 
assistance and wrap-around services to low-income survivors. Such 
assistance should be provided to eligible survivors until the long-term 
housing recovery--including the rebuilding of affordable rental housing 
stock--is complete.
Enact the ``Housing Survivors of Major Disasters Act''
    Congress should enact the ``Housing Survivors of Major Disasters 
Act,'' (H.R. 3037)\33\ introduced by Representative Adriano Espaillat 
(D-NY) and Representative Jenniffer Gonzalez-Colon (R-PR). The bill, 
which passed unanimously out of the House Transportation and 
Infrastructure Committee in February 2020, contains critically-needed 
reforms to ensure that the lowest-income and most marginalized 
survivors can access the housing assistance they need to rebuild their 
lives. We thank the committee for its work on this bill and ask that 
you attach the legislation to any upcoming emergency disaster 
supplementals or appropriations language.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \33\ H.R. 3037, ``Housing Survivors of Major Disasters Act of 
2021.'' Retrieved from https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/
house-bill/3037/related-bills?1=38&s?1.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    The ``Housing Survivors of Major Disasters Act'' would address the 
significant title/documentation challenges that have resulted in tens 
of thousands of eligible disaster survivors being wrongfully denied 
FEMA assistance. The bill would cement and expand upon recent FEMA 
application process reforms in statute while also extending the 
benefits of the new policy to those denied assistance in the past. It 
would provide a new framework to make it easier for disaster survivors 
to prove residency in disaster-impacted areas, either by completing a 
``declarative statement'' form or by submitting a broader range of 
acceptable documents such as utility bills, credit card statements, pay 
stubs, and school registration in lieu of a formal title to property or 
leases.
Ensure Equity is an Explicit Policy Goal
    Congress must ensure that equity is a central and explicit goal of 
Federal disaster housing response and recovery efforts. Our current 
disaster housing recovery framework exacerbates and reinforces racial, 
income, and accessibility inequities at each stage of response and 
recovery. Survivors of color and communities of color are 
disproportionately harmed by the current disaster housing recovery 
system.
    Federal disaster housing response and recovery efforts must address 
and prioritize the needs of the lowest-income and most marginalized 
survivors, including people of color, people with disabilities, 
immigrants, and other protected classes. All actions must be explicitly 
anti-racist: Analyzed to determine if they exacerbate, leave in place, 
or ameliorate existing or historic patterns of segregation and 
discrimination in housing and infrastructure and remedied accordingly.
    Congress must ensure that disaster housing recovery efforts undo 
the racial, income, and accessibility inequities embedded in our 
current disaster housing recovery framework. Disaster recovery 
efforts--which often include significant, robust funds--represent a 
unique opportunity to rebuild in a way that addresses, rather than 
entrenches, these disparities.
Require Full Transparency
    Congress should require that FEMA provide basic, essential 
information about Federal disaster response and recovery efforts, 
including damage assessments, determination of unmet needs, program 
design and implementation, grantee and subgrantee performance, and how 
Federal dollars are spent. Congress should require FEMA to provide full 
transparency on program eligibility, the aid application process, and 
reasons for denials of assistance. Data collected by the Government 
must be open and accessible at the most granular and comprehensive 
level, while protecting personally identifiable information. This 
information must be made publicly available in a timely manner and this 
transparency must be systemized, so that it is not only provided on an 
ad-hoc basis.
    Data transparency allows policy makers and advocates to be informed 
about program results and make policy improvements and incorporate best 
practices into future activities. Issues of equity clearly exist in the 
disaster recovery process, and Congress must require FEMA to implement 
better transparency practices so the problems can be identified and 
rectified.
Ensure Survivor-Centered Approaches to Assistance
    Congress must ensure that every survivor receives assistance to 
which they are entitled. FEMA maintains a culture of rigid allegiance 
to narrowly-defined protocol over outcomes; as a result, many disaster 
survivors, including many of the lowest-income survivors, are 
wrongfully denied needed assistance. Congress should require FEMA to 
prioritize categorical eligibility, simplify the application and 
appeals process, and track and report on outcomes to ensure recovery 
aid reaches those in need.
    Rather than creating and implementing numerous categories of 
ineligibility, disaster assistance programs should employ broad-based 
categories of eligibility, with the aim that every survivor receives 
the recovery assistance to which they are entitled. Through the use of 
damage assessments, geographic information, and other data, a reformed 
Federal disaster housing recovery system can provide categorical 
eligibility to survivors in disaster-impacted areas. With a shift in 
emphasis to categorical eligibility, many of the convoluted rules and 
requirements employed by recovery assistance programs will no longer be 
necessary, allowing for an easier, quicker, and more flexible 
application process.
    FEMA should allow for a flexible system of documentation for 
distributing disaster recovery assistance. Applying the least 
restrictive guidance regarding alternative documentation--and doing so 
consistently across all jurisdictions--would cut down on wasted time 
and confusion on the parts of both applicants and advocates alike. In 
order to employ full categorical eligibility, there must be a system in 
place that permits alternative documentation to ensure all survivors 
can receive assistance.
    Congress should also require FEMA, HUD, and other Federal agencies 
involved in disaster recovery efforts to work together and create a 
single, universal application for aid to make the process easier, 
quicker, and more flexible, reducing the administrative burden and 
speeding the process.
Address the Unique Needs of People Experiencing Homelessness
    Congress should enact legislation to ensure equitable treatment of 
individuals experiencing homelessness through the response and recovery 
effort. Pre-disaster homeless populations are often denied FEMA 
assistance. Even if they lost all of their belongs in the disaster, 
FEMA will often deny survivors any benefits once their status as pre-
disaster homeless is established.\34\ With no resources to adequately 
prepare or recover from a disaster, people experiencing homelessness 
are among the most harmed disaster survivors.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    \34\ Ehrlich, A. 2019. After Wildfires, Homeless People Left Out of 
Federal Disaster Aid Programs, Oregon Public Broadcasting. Retrieved 
from https://www.opb.org/news/article/fema-disaster-aid-wildfires-
homeless-people/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    FEMA has interpreted current law to deny assistance to people 
experiencing homelessness prior to a disaster, despite their 
exceptional needs. Congress should enact clarifying legislation to 
ensure that people experiencing homelessness prior to the disaster have 
access to the same emergency shelter and disaster relief assistance as 
other survivors, including rental assistance.
                               conclusion
    Our country must develop a new disaster housing recovery system 
that centers the housing needs of the lowest-income survivors, 
including people of color, people with disabilities, and others. In 
addition to addressing immediate housing needs caused by the pandemic, 
Congress should address our Nation's pervasive structural and racial 
inequities and reform Federal disaster planning and response efforts to 
be inclusive and intersectional. We must reform existing programs by 
centering racial equity and equity for all historically marginalized 
people to ensure that affordable housing investments and Federal 
disaster recovery resources reach all impacted households.

    Chairman Thompson. Let me thank the witnesses personally 
for their testimony and the Members for their questions. 
Clearly some of the things outlined here today I am convinced 
that a conversation with the FEMA administrator and others we 
can resolve, but others I think, in conversation with the 
Ranking Member, we are going to have to produce some 
legislation. But your testimony has made our job much easier 
because many of the things you brought--highlight here today 
are things we have been talking about internally among staff 
and ourselves.
    So I want to thank you very much for that.
    The Chair reminds Members that the committee's record will 
remain open for 10 business days.
    Without objection, the committee stands adjourned.
    [Whereupon, at 12:32 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

                                 [all]