Bill Overview
Title: To require the Administrator of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to submit to Congress reports describing the average amount of individual assistance and individual and household assistance provided to certain individuals and households and the rate of denial of such assistance, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to submit to Congress reports describing the average amount of disaster assistance provided to individuals and households and the rate of denial of such assistance. Further, FEMA must explain any factors causing an increase in the rate of denial.
Sponsors: Rep. Rice, Tom [R-SC-7]
Target Audience
Population: Individuals and households affected by natural disasters seeking FEMA assistance
Estimated Size: 5000000
- The bill focuses on individuals and households affected by disasters who apply for assistance from FEMA.
- These individuals and households rely on FEMA's Individual Assistance (IA) and Individual and Household Assistance (IHA) programs for support post-disaster.
- The bill is motivated by a need to ensure FEMA's assistance programs are transparent and accountable.
- Individuals impacted are those who were or may be denied FEMA assistance, making it crucial to understand their numbers and reasons for denial.
- Disaster-affected individuals and households include those impacted by hurricanes, wildfires, floods, and other federally declared disasters.
- Annually, millions of individuals can be affected by federal disasters and apply for aid, which underscores the bill's reach and influencing power in reporting and accountability terms.
Reasoning
- The policy impacts primarily those who apply for FEMA assistance. This group includes households that suffer from natural disasters and apply for such aid, meaning those already economically disadvantaged could feel more pronounced effects by increased transparency and potential administrative changes.
- FEMA's requirement to report on assistance and denial may not directly change the amount of assistance received by individuals but could improve their understanding of the denial process, potentially leading to policy tweaks or appeals that may improve outcomes.
- The policy doesn't directly involve providing money or changing the assistance application outcomes themselves in its current state; therefore, the impact may be more on the knowledge and procedural clarity fronts.
- The budget of $1,000,000 in year 1 and $10,000,000 over 10 years is dedicated to the administrative aspects of reporting rather than direct aid improvements, though future implications may increase satisfaction or self-efficacy perceptions among applicants.
- Incorporating people not directly affected (not applying for FEMA support) can help understand general expectations or misconceptions about FEMA policies.
- A variety of perspectives, including those from different geographic areas and disaster histories, can offer insight into a wide range of outcomes under this policy shift.
- Quantifying such well-being changes in a self-reported context involves subjective measures that capture various factors of perceived control, adaptability, and resource availability which are indirectly impacted by the bill.
Simulated Interviews
Teacher (New Orleans, Louisiana)
Age: 34 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The transparency is much needed. Often we are left in the dark about why aid doesn't come through.
- I hope this pushes FEMA to be more sympathetic and understandable about their process.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Fisherman (Key West, Florida)
Age: 45 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I feel like the system is against people like me.
- If they can explain the denials properly, we could at least try to fix our applications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 5 |
Retired (Paradise, California)
Age: 58 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Getting any assistance is difficult, and I hope this bill means more people get full help.
- It might not change much for me, but future applicants could benefit a lot.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
IT Support (Oklahoma City, Oklahoma)
Age: 25 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I've never thought of applying, but knowing more about what happens could influence me to apply next time.
- Policies that increase clarity are generally beneficial for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Nurse (Houston, Texas)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Understanding denial rates doesn't affect me directly, but I care about the overall community impact.
- Protocols from FEMA can be really opaque.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Non-profit Worker (San Juan, Puerto Rico)
Age: 36 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- In my experience, clarity and transparency can drastically improve people's trust in assistance systems.
- Hopefully, with better reporting, they can reduce administrative hell.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 6 |
Retired Engineer (Fargo, North Dakota)
Age: 63 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Sometimes people get their applications rejected for what seems to be random reasons.
- United processes would benefit all, though I am not needing assistance now.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Small Business Owner (Miami, Florida)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's hard to know why we're denied when we clearly need help.
- With more clarity, at least we can fix mistakes or understand better.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Freelance Photographer (New York, New York)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I think it's more applicable to those directly affected, but knowing how aid works is universal knowledge.
- The more transparent systems are, the better for everyone.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
City Planner (Denver, Colorado)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Policy improvements in administration can aid long-term resilience and better preparation.
- Though primarily administrative, it's a step forward in disaster recovery policies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 7 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 2: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 3: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 5: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 10: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Year 100: $1000000 (Low: $750000, High: $1250000)
Key Considerations
- The primary cost driver is FEMA's need to allocate resources for data collection, analysis, and reporting.
- There might be indirect benefits such as improved program transparency and accountability that could aid in more effective allocation of assistance.
- However, the administrative cost increment does not generate direct savings or revenue.