Since the founding of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on April 1, 1979, the federal government has viewed its role in disaster response and recovery efforts as supplemental. In other words, FEMA would not function as the first-line provider of emergency assistance and disaster response and recovery. Instead, it will support state and local governments —not supplant them. To further underline this philosophy, FEMA assistance is supplied when, and only when, the state has shown that the disaster event exceeds their capabilities to respond and recover fromwithout federal support. Echoing this same sentiment in 2018, FEMA’s current Strategic Plan states, “The optimal framework for response and recovery is one that is federally supported, state managed State-Managed Disasters: An Interview with Arizona’s Director of Emergency Management Disaster Recovery Consulting E-Edition and locally executed.”1 Current FEMA Administrator Brock Long further expanded upon this concept during the recent Governor’s Hurricane Conference by detailing the fact that disasters costing $41 million or less constitute 80 percent of declared disasters. He posed the question of how state and local capacities can be built to manage these types of disasters. The concept of state-managed disasters is not new. Originally introduced as a pilot program nearly 20 years ago, it allows a capable state or tribal government (or Alaska native village) to manage the Public Assistance (PA) field operation by entering into an operational agreement with FEMA, which entrusts many aspects of program management to the state. FEMA retains obligation authority, ensures compliance with environmental and historic laws, participates in quality control reviews, and provides technical assistance as requested. Candidate disasters are those that warrant a major disaster declaration by the president, but are limited in scope and size. Currently, only five states are actively participating in the state-managed disaster initiative: North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Arizona. With the current push to have states take a more active role in managing disaster response and recovery efforts, Tidal Basin saw value in interviewing the Director of Arizona’s Emergency Management Division, Wendy Smith-Reeve. Her knowledge and experience with one of the first states to participate and remain active under the state-managed disaster initiative over the past 18 years provides insight into the program and highlights both the benefits and risks involved. Our interview was conducted by Dan Craig, Tidal Basin’s Senior Vice President, and begins on page 3. IN THIS ISSUE Shultz Fire photo courtesy of Conconino National Forest
2 D I SAS T E R R ECOVE RY TODAY.COM Wendy Smith-Reeve Arizona Department of Emergency & Military Affairs (DEMA) Director, DEMA Division of Emergency Management Wendy Smith-Reeve joined the agency in September 1996, hired to oversee finance and administration for the recovery office, primarily remedying all the payments processed and the administrative actions associated with the 1993 flood. That flood had an impact of $150 million dollars in eligible infrastructure damage in Arizona and at the same time the state had several other state-only declared disasters with which they were dealing. Reeve was progressively promoted to Deputy of Public Assistance, then oversight for the Public Assistance Program. She was subsequently promoted to Assistant Director for Arizona’s Recovery Division, and in 2013 was elevated into the position of Director for the Division of Emergency Management at the Department of Emergency & Military Affairs. Dan Craig Tidal Basin’s Senior Vice President Daniel Craig has extensive experience in the disaster consulting and postdisaster recovery industries. He is the founder and currently serves as the Senior Vice President of Tidal Basin. He has worked tirelessly with state and local governments and not-for-profits, helping themmeet their recovery needs by providing experienced disaster recovery staff and proven grant management processes. Dan also served as Director of the Recovery Division for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, part of the United States Department of Homeland Security. He was appointed by President Bush in 2003 and was responsible for overseeing the federal government’s recovery efforts on all presidentially declared events including the Space Shuttle Columbia crash, the wildfires of 2003 and the hurricanes of 2004 and 2005. Before becoming the Director of the Recovery Division at FEMA, Dan was the Regional Director for the New England area (Region I), where he was responsible for all FEMA mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery, and training activities in the six New England states region.
T IDALBAS INGROUP.COM 3 of money on your budgets and let us do what is needed to be done to prepare for the next storm or planning for the next event. Is it having enough staff? What is really the toughest part of the job between you and your counterparts? Smith-Reeve: One of the primary difficulties is when we talk about funding, we’re talking about a couple of different things. You’re talking about dedicated and segregated funding, specifically the state cost share for disasters whether it is only a state declaration or if it is a federal declaration— then funding for that event. Here in Arizona, we have a specific fund that is available to Emergency Management and we convene the State Emergency Council to address obligations that fall above what the governor’s authority is to allocate for a specific event. Having that set aside means that we don’t have to go to the legislature every time we have an event that is declared at the state level and/ or if we have a federal declaration; it comes as a result of the magnitude of the event. That is a shortcoming in states because not everybody has that set aside, so they’re always having to vie for state dollars. I would say, to your point with regard to number of personnel, not having enough staff is always a challenge and especially if you have repetitive large-scale events that impact your state—whichmakes sustaining and maintaining personnel difficult. Craig: Your response is a perfect segue into the main topic we want to talk about today, which is state-managed disasters. As you know, FEMA Administrator Brock Long and FEMA officials are talking about moving toward more capabilities in states managing disasters. Can you provide me Craig: Was the $150 million in the 1993 flood one of the largest in Arizona? Smith-Reeve: Yes, it was actually. Craig: Okay, not a great way to start, depending on how you look at it. Smith-Reeve: Yes. It was a daunting start, but I just jumped right into the deep end of the pool and kept on swimming. Craig: As many people who will be reading this know, you’re the past president of NEMA, the National Emergency Management Association. Do you believe your tenure at NEMA as the president, overseeing or working with your state counterparts, gave you a better understanding of the risks and capabilities of your counterparts and their states’ agencies? Smith-Reeve: I think it gave me a better appreciation for some of the challenges that they all experience and where the pinch points were collectively across the nation. It was also a year of transition with the FEMA Administration; therefore it was a bit unique in that there were additional opportunities to provide input and feedback for the incoming administration to help them understand and appreciate how State Emergency Management Programs interact and interface with the administration. Craig: What do you think are some of the tougher things at the state level that folks like yourself and your counterparts run into? Is it budget issues when not in time of a disaster? As you know, lawmakers and legislatures don’t let us spend a lot
4 D I SAS T E R R ECOVE RY TODAY.COM an overview of the state-managed disaster initiative? Smith-Reeve: The initiative at the federal level began back in 2000 and at that time it was a pilot program. Arizona was one of the first three states to pilot that initiative and we were the only state to continue to repeat and ensure that we were managing on behalf of FEMA, the Public Assistance Program for all subsequent major disaster declarations. In these subsequent (~18) years, other states have come on to adopt that process; however, Arizona has been the only state that has maintained it from that pilot initiative forward. Essentially what we’re doing is we are accepting the responsibility for the administration of the Public Assistance Program on behalf of FEMA and of course, always representing the state’s interest and the sub-grantee’s interest in restoring infrastructure damaged — and then also mitigating against any future similar events. Craig: So, it’s very similar to a lot of other federal programs which are managed at the state level. Funding and policies come from the federal level, but many other programs are managed at the state level — EPA programs along with so many others. Is it similar to that concept? Smith-Reeve: Yes. I’m not as familiar with those programs, but the unique difference, from my understanding, is the management and administrative responsibilities with the Public Assistance program. The state is basically replicating FEMA’s model in that we’re working handson with the sub-grantees and not just handing it to the sub-grantees saying this is what you need to provide if you want to take advantage of this opportunity in front of you, (i.e., a minimum of 75 cents on every dollar the jurisdiction spends to restore eligible infrastructure). Instead, it’s a customer service-based program in that we’re offering assistance and it’s a joint partnership effort with the sub-grantees throughout the entire process. In my opinion, that’s the unique difference with this program. Craig: You guys have been doing this since 2000, from my knowledge you are one of the only states, if not the only state that has continuously done statemanaged disasters since you’ve started this process. From your perspective, what are the key benefits to not just you the state, to FEMA, but also to your subgrantees? Smith-Reeve: I think the greatest benefit is customer service. I fully embrace quality customer service and that is an expectation that we continue to manage Hopi-Navajo Emergency, January 2010Winter Storms
T IDALBAS INGROUP.COM 5 with our staff. Being state-managed, we have far more control as far as identifying parameters and expectations on what quality customer service looks like. Therefore, our interface with the subgrantee is always with the intent to have a positive outcome. Our ability to assign staff that will be available from the beginning of the event through closeout ensures consistency, and allows a single contact to help resolve any conflicts or issues. Craig: I don’t want to put words in your mouth. Would you say customer service gets better the more local it gets? Smith-Reeve: Yes, because we have the ability to hold our staff accountable for quality customer service. If you have a transient workforce that’s coming in and out of the state, then there’s less accountability and the state is left holding the bag at the end of the day. Instead we want to be the ones to take the initiative. We want to be there from beginning to end to ensure that the sub-grantee is served appropriately and that the state is also receiving all benefits that we should be in receipt of. Craig: What is FEMA’s role in this process and what do you think the benefits are to them? Smith-Reeve: The direct benefit, not only to FEMA but also to the taxpayer, is the cost difference. The cost for the state to administer the program versus the costs associated with FEMA bringing in a large footprint with the Joint Field Office (JFO) and staff, the savings is considerable. Also, the fact that FEMA has a smaller footprint here during this process means that they have the ability to use their staff in other locations that have a greater need for those staffing resources. Craig: Does FEMA have a specific role when you’re managing the disasters on your own? Is it possibly oversight? Smith-Reeve: There is oversight, so we always have somebody here who is in charge of the PA program from FEMA’s perspective who has the final approval for any of the projects moving through the system because state employees cannot approve and commit federal dollars. The environmental and historic review requirement is a federal requirement, so we always ensure that we have FEMA personnel here and available to do that as well. If there are other special considerations that come into play where we need additional assistance, such as “The concept of state-managed disasters is not new. Originally introduced as a pilot program nearly 20 years ago, it allows a capable state or tribal government (or Alaska native village) to manage the Public Assistance (PA) field operation by entering into an operational agreement with FEMA, which entrusts many aspects of programmanagement to the state.”
6 D I SAS T E R R ECOVE RY TODAY.COM reviewing insurance, then we make that known as early as possible in the process; preferably following the preliminary damage assessment (PDA). Once the PDA is complete, you have a feel for unique aspects associated with the event and what that could mean as far as additional technical assistance or other support that would be required by FEMA. Craig: So, what are the negatives for the state? What are your downfalls? Are there additional burdens put upon you? There are always those unintended consequences to anything we do. Smith-Reeve: I think at this point the burden that the state of Arizona has borne, and I would argue that it’s an intangible benefit, are the additional costs associated with administering this program given the insufficient return with the limited management funds outlined right now in regulation. The 3.34 percent just doesn’t get anywhere close to what it costs the state. If you compare and contrast that with what it actually costs for FEMA to administer the program (upwards of 30 percent), the state is getting shortchanged and the same taxpayer is burdened again from the state/local level. Craig: So, you’re not currently given more money to manage it yourself — you’re given the normal state-management amount? Smith-Reeve: We receive the same amount as everyone else. As I mentioned before, there is great benefit on the back end with a higher quality of customer service and ensuring that both the subgrantees and the state are receiving everything that they are qualified to receive. That to me is an intangible benefit, as it’s something you really can’t quantify in dollars, but at the end of the day we have happier customers, who are the same customers that we’re serving whenever we have a statedeclared disaster. We want to make sure that our processes and programs are as seamless and integrated as possible, so the customer is always receiving the same quality customer service. I want to touch on something you had mentioned about audit and while there is a federal audit requirement, the way our state laws work, we have a state audit requirement that “Currently, only five states are actively participating in the state-managed disaster initiative: North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Iowa and Arizona.” Monsoon Microburst, July 2017; Photo courtesy of Bruce Haffner
T IDALBAS INGROUP.COM 7 is associated with the Public Assistance Program, so that really alleviates federal audit findings that some states are overly burdened by. We are required to perform an audit on any dollars that come out of this state emergency fund, so when we have any of our applicants selected to proceed through a federal audit, then our state audit staff who are already there work hand-in-glove with the OIG (Office of Inspector General) auditors. Craig: That’s really a best practice, if you will, that other states can and should look at if they’re going to do state-managed disasters or even if they don’t do statemanaged disasters, you know, the cost match and the funding that comes out in association with disaster programs. Smith-Reeve: I think the accountability to the taxpayer is huge and there are times where the sub-grantees also benefit. If they’re not using or utilizing certain items that are available to them under the program, it’s a win for them because it’s more money back in their pocket. They might be shortchanging themselves unknowingly, and if our audit team is able to help them identify an opportunity for additional funding that they’ve missed, sometimes their total eligible reimbursement amounts increase. It’s not always a punitive action. Craig: Let me touch back on not receiving extra funds to manage the disaster yourself and the cost effectiveness and the cost efficiencies you bring to the federal government. Is there a solution you would propose, or would it be a good idea for FEMA to share a percentage of the cost savings they get or an extra percentage if you managed yourself? Especially knowing that the current Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) legislation proposals to increase state-managed costs reimbursement —would that even be enough to handle state-managed disasters? Smith-Reeve: I think it gets close and we have to ask ourselves, “Where’s the balance?”You have to look at it from a nationwide perspective. If I say that “The direct benefit, not only to FEMA but also to the taxpayer, is the cost difference. The cost for the state to administer the program versus the cost associated with FEMA bringing in a large footprint with JFO and staff, the savings is considerable.”
8 D I SAS T E R R ECOVE RY TODAY.COM 12 percent to 15 percent is what Arizona needs — is that going to be sufficient for other states? Or are they going to require more or less? Part of the challenge is retention and ensuring you have staff with appropriate levels of program knowledge. We utilize a reservist cadre that support our state-managed disasters and who also support our sub-grantees during stateonly disasters. Retaining and keeping those individuals actively engaged can sometimes be difficult in a light disaster year. One of the things that we’ve done to try and overcome that and ensure that we are retaining these reservists for extended periods of time is to identify what are other areas of expertise that they possess based on their past work experience that we could be utilizing in other areas of the mission. Can we use them in exercises? Can they support our operations group? Can we train them to be field liaisons? What other training can we provide to them and how else can we integrate them into our workforce to plus-up in areas where we might have a shortfall? Craig: That’s a great idea. Okay, I’m trying to think of any policy changes that can be made at FEMA while Administrator Long is thinking about this and while the FAA legislation is working through Congress, how do we figure out what the right dollar amount is? And it’s kind of a difficult question for anybody, but it’s more of a statement than a question to you, Wendy Smith-Reeve. Smith-Reeve: Right. It is a difficult thing to quantify. Part of the challenge is you don’t want to just pick a number out of the air — so how do we back into what that number is made up of? I think the first place to start is, what does it cost for FEMA to administer an event for this program? So if we’re talking about just the singular program, what are the costs associated from an administrative level within FEMA? Certainly, the math has already been done, so how do we mine the data to quantify that and then overlay that onto state programs to do the math and say, well then this is what it would cost for the state of Arizona, the state of Wyoming, the state of Texas. You know, Oklahoma, pick a state, it’s going to look a little different in each — but where is the median? Craig: Yes, there’s got to be a floor and then what is the percentage above that floor? What is the cost above that floor? Everybody will have basic floor costs. I mean, there is a fixed fee, if you will, versus a variable fee that every disaster is going to have. There’s a minimum cost. Smith-Reeve: Yes. Craig: Given all this and knowing your counterparts, and the budget and operational situation you are all in, are there times that you think it’s not appropriate for a state to manage a disaster? Smith-Reeve: I think there’s a point where a state will not be able to take on state-managed, and each state would have to identify what that pinch point is. For example, the state of Vermont; I don’t know that Erica Bornemann would say: “Yes, we can manage a $40 million to $50 million disaster.” But could Florida? Could Texas? Could California? What does right look like for each state? So again, it goes back to doing the math, finding the median, and then making sure that it’s structured and appropriately based on the
T IDALBAS INGROUP.COM 9 size of the state. It’s no different than the impact model that we have right now. We have to scale it appropriately. Craig: Would you and your colleagues be advocates for FEMA throwing a number out there? Administrator Long has thrown out $40 million to $50 million in disaster size that states should be able to handle. Should FEMA say within three years you will be able to handle that size disaster? That they will help you with the tools to get you there, but you must be able to do it? If you can’t, you must specifically ask for a waiver with an explanation as to why you can’t do it at that point? Smith-Reeve: I think that’s certainly reasonable in my opinion, but some of my counterparts might disagree. I think the approach for this needs to be both top down and bottom up. If we’re taking on a greater capability here at the state level and not just capacity, but we’re increasing our ability to shoulder the additional responsibility, there needs to be a top-down messaging approach possibly through the NGA (National Governor’s Association) that speaks to leadership for the states. The messaging needs to inform the states that they need to be ready to accept responsibility for these program(s) and let us help you build that capability. What is it that you need? Having only the bottomup messaging doesn’t always result in the financial support required to elevate our baseline capability. Understanding that state leaders are receiving the message and understand that they are going to be accountable for taking an action as a result, that’s the critical point here; it can’t just be bottom up, it has to be both. I think together we need to say, “What does right look like and how do we accomplish this goal?” How do we demonstrate capability and capacity to do state-managed in other areas of the nation? Craig: We can talk about Vermont, North Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming. There are a lot of states that rarely have disasters. Currently, doing a $40 million to $50 million disaster would be very difficult for them to manage themselves, just given the resources they have, the risks that they see on a day-to-day basis and the needs they have. If FEMA threw it out there and provided technical assistance, maybe the money to back it, which alternately, you know, if FEMA gave them money for every state to be able to handle disasters, the cost savings would be enormous on their behalf in the long term. Do you think states like Vermont, North Dakota andWyoming — pick a state that doesn’t have a lot of disasters — could manage it given all the right resources, all the right Firefighter cooling down a structure with water adjacent to the fire edge. Williams district. 6-18-17. Photo by Brandon Oberhardt. U.S. Forest Service, Southwestern Region, Kaibab National Forest.
10 D I SAS T E R R ECOVE RY TODAY.COM technical assistance, within three to four years? Smith-Reeve: I honestly don’t even know how to answer that, because I don’t know what others would say would be an appropriate structure for their state. We’ve identified what the appropriate structure is here in Arizona, but it took us awhile to get there. You have to be able to scale up or down based on the size of events that impact your state. These events determine what your structure needs to be. So, do you build a cadre capability internal to your agency, or do you look at the authorities within your state statutes? For example, Arizona’s state statute says that when the governor declares a disaster, the Director of Emergency Management is given the authority to utilize all resources available within the state enterprise. I then have the ability to outreach to any of the other departments and divisions within the state enterprise and garner those personnel resources by reallocating subject matter experts to support this program. One of the things that we need to look at as an industry is where do we have the capability within our enterprise systems? It doesn’t have to be individuals who are employed specifically by your agency, but does the state emergency manager have the flexibility and capability of accessing those resources from those other areas of subject matter expertise that you need in order to accomplish the task. For example, if I have a lot of Category C road work, why can I not just tap into the engineers at the Department of Transportation (DOT) to support outlining the damage description, scope of work and the costs associated with restoration of the road?We could have DOT engineers working directly with the public works department for that jurisdiction to create a quality project worksheet. I shouldn’t have to have those resources specifically here within Emergency Management. I just have to have the ability to access those personnel resources within the enterprise. I think there are ways to be creative in how we get to the solution that have yet to be considered. Craig: If FEMA or if Administrator Long wanted to put this mandate on the states to handle $40 million to $50 million disasters, would it be reasonable to say that his regional office really needs to take an inventory of everyone’s capabilities, including legislative authorities and states that have disaster funding streams they currently use? Say you use a state disaster fund, other states have that, but not nearly all of them. Would that be a good first step to get IAEM (International Association of Beaver Dam Flood, 2010; Photo courtesy of David Bly, Desert Valley Times
T IDALBAS INGROUP.COM 11 Emergency Managers), NEMA, FEMA and the regional offices together to really figure out what is out there, what the capabilities are and then roll out any mandate or rule for state-managed disaster initiatives, knowing what they have in front of him? Smith-Reeve: I think that would be a great first start. With that approach, we are looking at it like a strategic plan. What is the strategic plan to get us there and what does that three-year, five-year model look like? But working together to quantify it and put some benchmarks out there, that would be the ideal way to handle it. That is really the only way you’re going to make it a reality. Otherwise we’re still going to be talking about it as an initiative three years from now. Craig: As we roll into this and they do start moving along, would you think that an EMAC (Emergency Management Assistance Compact) would be helpful? Smith-Reeve: Yes, and actually that was proposed by another state director recently with regard to how do we get there. If we understand that this is the intent, then how do we get there and what can we (states) do to support this initiative? We have to be part of the conversation. We can’t just sit there, put our fingers in our ears and say, “I’m not listening.” It’s going to come eventually, so be part of the solution rather than part of the resistance. EMAC is certainly a resource to help us get there. Arizona has deployed the most state-trained public assistance personnel to provide support via EMAC simply because we have the state cadre trained to execute the Public Assistance Program. We also have to have flexibility within our reservists cadre. If they are not assisting our state, they can work on behalf of another state to do the same thing that they would do here. EMAC has been a true benefit to states that have made the requests and continue to make the requests disaster after disaster. Craig: That’s quite a testament to what you guys have done there, no question about it. One last question: Are there any minimum requirements for a state to participate in the program? Smith-Reeve: The way I understand it — and I have not looked at the policy in awhile as to what it defines as requirements for state-managed — but that’s pretty much a relationship that you build with your region by demonstrating along the way your capability to administer the program. The region has a strong voice in whether or not headquarters and the president acknowledge and approve the request for “If we’re taking on a greater capability here at the state level and not just capacity, but we’re increasing our ability to shoulder the additional responsibility, there needs to be a top-down messaging approach … that speaks to leadership for the states.”
CORPORATE OFFICE 126 Business Park Drive Utica, New York 13502 800.382.2468 Outside U.S. (315) 797.3035 FAX: (315) 272.2054 [email protected] Copyright © 2018 Rising Phoenix Holdings Corporation. All Rights Reserved. Tidal Basin and the Tidal Basin logo are registered trademarks of Rising Phoenix Holdings Corporation. Follow Disaster Recovery Today on Facebook & Twitter: Facebook.com/TidalBasinGroup Twitter.com/DRToday DISASTER RECOVERY TODAY® is published as a public service by Tidal Basin. It is provided for general information and is not intended to replace professional insurance, legal or financial advice for specific cases. WEB ADDRESSES TidalBasinGroup.com DisasterRecoveryToday.com PUBLISHER Ronald A. Cuccaro, SPPA EDITOR Sheila E. Salvatore DRT18 8001-E Is there a topic you would like to see covered in an upcoming edition of Disaster Recovery Today®? You can make topic suggestions, contact the editor, request free subscriptions and browse our back issues all from our website — DisasterRecoveryToday.com. We look forward to hearing from you. a state to manage the Public Assistance Program. There are a lot of unwritten elements to it rather than those that are written because if they say, “You must be able to demonstrate;”well, what do you have to demonstrate? Then you have to quantify that, so it becomes a bit subjective. Bottom line is, it’s the relationship with and demonstration to your region that your state has the capability and capacity to appropriately execute the program on behalf of FEMA. Craig: Well, first I want to thank you. Is there anything you would add to what we’ve talked about? Any questions I didn’t ask you or do you want to talk about those in a future issue? Smith-Reeve: To summarize what I said earlier, the biggest thing is that we all have to work together to spell out and plan out how this will unfold; define what steps and measures need to be taken; and what are the alternatives as far as how we get there. The bottom line for me, as far as why Arizona continues to do this and will continue toward this end, is quality customer service. Having the staff that are supporting the sub-grantee be directly accountable to the agency — that ensures that when I’m signing my name on something and handing it to the sub-grantee, it’s a commitment from this agency. My commitment to the customer is that we’re going to be there at the beginning, at the middle and at the end — and if there’s anything they need at any point in time, they know exactly who they can call and who their touch point is, right in their backyard. Craig: Thank you for the time you’ve given us. ____________________ 1FEMA’s 2018-2022 Strategic Plan https://www.fema.gov/media-library- data/1533052524696-b5137201a4614ade5e0129ef01cbf661/strat_plan.pdf ADOT crew assessing damage on Highway 89A landslide. Photo courtesy of ADOT.
www.tidalbasingroup.comRkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NjIxNjMz