Now the International Association of Emergency Managers (IAEM) has provided a report to Congress on how the federal funding provided by the Emergency Management Performance Grants (EMPG) have made a difference. The EMPG is only one of the many grant streams that state and local emergency management organizations can tap into. It is, however, the one with the most flexibility for the use of the funds. You can use the monies for staffing, planning, training, exercises, etc.
One of the points they are trying to make in the report is that beyond the funding provided by Congress, they are doing great work. One of the areas they emphasize is that there are many local responses that states, counties and cities respond to that are not major declarations. Then they look to quantify the plans produced, citizens provided presentations on disaster preparedness, etc. It is the typical "performance measurement" idea that people use to quantify the continued investment in an organization or activity.
If Congress is only interested in reducing the cost of disasters, what if they took that same pot of money and required that it only be spent on mitigation? From a structural and cost-benefit perspective, that would in the end drive down the cost of major disaster declarations. Don't start whining, it won't happen ...
However, we emergency managers have become addicted to grants. See this Disaster Zone Column that appeared in Emergency Management magazine back in 2011, A Homeland Security Grant Addiction. I really don't think much has changed except for the decrease in overall funds. Less "white powder" grants to go around and more competition for fewer resources.
