Institute for Crisis, Disaster, and Risk Management

Crisis and Emergency Management

Newsletter Website
return to mainpage

April 2004                                                                            Volume 6 - Number 3

Related Sites:

Perspectives...

Report on FEMA/DHS EMPG funding for FY 2005

By Marc Bergman

The Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) program is said to be the backbone of the nation’s emergency management system and constitutes the single source of direct federal funding (50% / 50% share between state and federal) for state and local governments to provide all-hazards emergency coordination and planning capabilities.

The program establishes minimum requirements that the state and local governments must meet to have qualified emergency management programs. It supports state and local initiatives for planning, training, command and control and funding for salaries for emergency management personnel. In the same way that the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is indispensable in relation to coordinating the federal government’s emergency coordination efforts, EMPG provides the funding at the state and local level. The FEMA Civil Preparedness Guide (CPG) 3-1 states that the EMPG be a program established in law or by ordinance, have an approved staffing pattern, have an approved Emergency Operations Plan (EOP), a budget equal to 50% of the requested funding, and that the EOP must be exercised and updated every four (4) years

Historically, funding for EMPG has been low, nonetheless the release of the President’s FY 2005 Budget Request to Congress, which proposes a 25% cap on EMPG funding that supports personnel, a reduction of $9 million in funding nationwide, and a shift away from an all-hazards approach to a program that is single-mindedly focused on preventing terrorism, is a further cause for concern.

According to many, this would devastate state and local emergency management programs, and consequently the country’s emergency response capabilities. The EMPG program was designed to be a 50/50 split, however, states have increasingly been contributing more than their share. The National Emergency Management Association (NIMA) conducted a survey in relation to the FY 2003 budget that revealed a $245 million federal shortfall in the EMPG program. DHS Undersecretary Mike Brown has called for robust emergency management programs and for states to step up to the plate and contribute more. In response to protests, he has also stated that EMPG funding can be used for training and exercises, however, Senators Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Patty Murray (D-WA), who strongly oppose these changes argue that without personnel funding, which would be caped at 25% of funding resulting in many states having to cut their staff by half, such funds would be useless.

These reductions and the limiting of the use of funds for personnel will result in a weakening of the national preparedness capability. Many of the same personnel that would respond to a terrorist event would also respond to other natural and man-made disasters. The federal government will effectively be forced to respond to disasters such as floods, earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados and terrorist attacks more frequently and at a higher cost in contrast to having strong state and local emergency management systems, which is what the Constitution calls for. In conclusion, DHS was intended by Congress to be an agency with an all-hazards approach, yet the President’s budget proposal with its focus on terrorism signals another unfortunate and dangerous departure from this stance.