GUEST COLUMN.

States are critical to the U.S. intergovernmental emergency management (EM) system, providing crucial communication, coordination, and resources that flow to and from the federal government, adjacent to neighbors and partners, and down to localities.  However, no two states operate the same way.  

In addition, modern challenges for state EM agencies are sizable and growing.  According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), by October 2023, “there have been 24 confirmed weather/climate disaster events with losses exceeding $1 billion each.” This compares to an annual average of 18 of these disasters over the last five years.  Budgets of state EM agencies are certainly troubled.  The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA), in a 2023 white paper, warned that state EM agencies are underfunded and understaffed and lack capacity to respond as disaster threats grow.

Given the vital role of states in our intergovernmental EM system, we wondered how state EM agencies are performing in an age of pervasive disasters of all sorts.  Is the performance of these agencies even examined?  Are there common problems these agencies face in managing disaster relief and recovery?  To answer these questions, we hunted down state EM agency annual reports, performance and financial audits from the last decade.  Once we uncovered these documents, we built a customized artificial intelligence (AI) tool to summarize and code the issues noted by these reports. Our results indicate real need for the Disaster Management Act. 

We found relevant documents dated 2014 or after in 35 states.  In 15 states, we were unable to locate or access such documents, or if we did, the report was dated pre-2014. Our AI-aided research exposed many problems experienced by these agencies that we consolidated into six problem types, including compliance, internal control, performance, auditing and monitoring, reporting and records management, and resource gap.  Of the 35 states with intel, we found four to six problems in 11 states, three problems in 14, and one to two problems in ten. 

Most states (77%) have problems with compliance.  These include noncompliance with federal and/or state regulations, problems with procurement and financial management, or fraud, waste and abuse.  An audit of one EM agency recognized persistent noncompliance that required FEMA to consider imposing award conditions to limit inaccurate drawdowns and funding errors.  The common theme of noncompliance among these agencies regards sticking to federal or state guidelines for use of disaster recovery funds.

Almost two thirds (63%) of EM agencies have problems with internal controls that include inconsistent payments or overpayments to noncertified entities and individuals.  One state had problems with managing contracts with nonprofits and another had issues with managing its’ disaster preparedness fund.  An audit of another EM agency found that draws from the federal government were not approved appropriately, a payment was made after the draw date, and close to $2 million in administrative costs were not reimbursed or accrued in a timely manner.

Over half (54%) of agencies had performance problems.  Performance gaps included things like inadequate emergency preparedness planning, insufficient staff training, and poor communication during emergencies.  Performance problems like faulty cybersecurity and property protections hampered one agency’s disaster management capability and preparedness.  An audit of another agency found it had problems determining how effectively it accomplishes mission because of weak performance tracking and evaluation. 

Almost half of agencies had audit and monitoring problems (49%) and/or reporting and records management problems (46%).  Issues with auditing and monitoring include inadequate or nonexistent tracking of corrective actions taken to address emergency response problems, inadequate review and approval of grant applications, lack of onsite monitoring of grant recipients, poor oversight of grants, contracts, deposits and payroll, missing risk assessments, external assessments, and/or evaluations of ethics-related objectives.  Problems with reporting and records management included those related to meeting federal and state grant reporting requirements as well as failures to maintain up-to-date inventories of equipment, late filings of property reports, and inadequacies in classifying assets. 

Close to a third of agencies (29%) indicated resource gaps of some sort.  One agency claimed resource constraints as a reason for not completing after-action reports. Several agencies had problems with staff turnover, with one state’s EM agency found to be “severely understaffed” and so risked potential loss of millions of dollars in federal grant funding for future disasters.  An audit of another agency found potential budget reductions risked reducing that state’s matching funds to federal grants below required thresholds to receive such funding.  Another agency review found that legal and funding obstacles hampered its credentialing of emergency management personnel, compromising the state’s ability to access qualified personnel during emergencies.  Finally, one agency audit found that “complex disasters might exceed the state’s resource capabilities.”

Our initial dive into state emergency management performance and problems provides several insights.  We find most states review or audit their EM agencies and make the information easily accessible online, though reporting on agency management and performance is infrequent.  It was rare we found reports for two or three consecutive years, much less for each of the last ten years, for any one state EM agency.  Our findings show that states grapple with several common problems, mostly compliance, internal controls, reporting and record keeping, and auditing and monitoring.  Finally, even though we did not instruct AI to look for resource gaps explicitly, almost a third of states reveal budgetary, human, and technological resource gaps that compromise performance.

Despite some of these bleak findings, there’s hope on the horizon.  

In an update to members earlier this month, the National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) discussed advancing the Disaster Management Costs Modernization Act (H.R. 7671) through Congress.  The bill promotes stronger accountability in the nation’s intergovernmental system of disaster management by centralizing grant management across multiple disasters.  Also, the Act could reduce disaster costs by promoting quicker grant closure. 

The Disaster Act could help states address some, if not all, of the problems we’ve uncovered. Good luck to the NEMA!

The contents of this Guest Column are those of the author, and not necessarily Barrett and Greene, Inc.

#StateandLocalEmergencyManagement #StateandLocalPerformanceAudit #StateandLocalEmergencyManagemengPerformance #StateandLocalEmergencyManagementPerformanceAudit  #StateandLocalGovernmentManagement #StateandLocalGovernmentManagementPerformance #StateEmergencyManagementInternalControl #StateEmergencyManagementResources #EmergencyManagementBudgeting #EmergencyManagementPerformanceAudit #EmergencyManagementReporting #EmergencyManagementUnderstaffing #EmergencyManagement #EmergencyManagementHumanResources #EmergencyManagementTurnover #IntergovernmentalIssuesForEmergencyManagement #DisasterManagementCostsModernizationAct #NationalEmergencyManagementAssociation #NEMA #EmergencyManagementBudgetReduction  #EmergencyManagementResourceGap #EmergencyManagementCommunication #EmergencyManagementPreparednessPlanning #EmergencyManagementStaffTraining