While all states have homeland security functions, most are tasking significant homeland security responsibilities to their state emergency management agencies. Three national priorities identified by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security -- the National Response Plan, the National Incident Management System and the National Preparedness Goal -- are assigned most frequently to emergency management for implementation. The same is true for risk and vulnerability assessments, where emergency management takes the lead in 18 states. Unfortunately, these growing responsibilities that are mandated by the federal government are not supported by adequate funding.
The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) is the only federal funding available to state and local governments for all-hazards planning, training and exercises as well as some personnel costs. The report says that now there is an estimated $287 million shortfall in the program. This is up from an earlier estimated shortfall of $260 million. The fear is that as the gap grows, the nation's ability to respond to disasters of all types is seriously compromised.
The report also reveals some worrisome trends. Beginning in FY 2003, Congress reduced the funding formula for state hazard mitigation -- activities that help reduce the devastation caused by future disasters -- from 15 percent to 7.5 percent of disaster costs. While recent reform legislation eliminated the 7.5 percent restriction, the cap forced states to either reduce the amount they spent on critically needed mitigation programs; suspend buy-out assistance programs for flooded communities; or eliminate projects all together.
According to the report, as mitigation spending went down, response and recovery expenditures went up. In 1999 for example, when mitigation spending totaled $498 million, response and recovery was at $672 million. Four years later, mitigation spending fell to $310 million, but response and recovery spending had increased to $746 million. The cycle continued in 2005 when mitigation spending decreased again, this time to $122 million. Response and recovery spending went up to $794 million.
Positive Findings
This trend of using standards could have far-reaching implications. Regardless of their size or scope, all disasters start as local events. Standards would result in a more comprehensive emergency management program at the local level, which would mean greater capability when a disaster occurs.
The Biennial Report shows that the mutual aid system in the U.S. continues to strengthen. The Emergency Management Assistance Compact (EMAC) -- a national mutual-aid agreement that allows support across state lines when a disaster occurs -- played a key role in the Hurricanes Katrina and Rita response. By spring 2006, the compact had deployed nearly 66,000 people from 48 states, at a cost of more than $830 million. Thirty-five states now have established similar structures within their own borders. These intrastate agreements allow jurisdictions to help one another while having provisions in place to address reimbursement, liability and workers compensation issues.
Thirty-six states also have a regional mutual aid mechanism in place. This bodes well for faster, stronger and more efficient disaster response and recovery.
