Resources for the Future Inc.
09/24/2024 | Press release | Archived content
Good Data Underpins Federal Decisions on Disaster Resilience Funding for Vulnerable Communities
Good Data Underpins Federal Decisions on Disaster Resilience Funding for Vulnerable Communities
Date
Sept. 24, 2024
News Type
Press Release
What's the story?
After Congress passed the Community Disaster Resilience Zones Act in 2022, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) began designating certain census tracts as Community Disaster Resilience Zones (CDRZs)-a designation which gives these areas priority for federal climate and disaster resilience funding.
A new report by scholars at Resources for the Future (RFF) analyzes the risk and demographic characteristics of CDRZs, which FEMA chose using two national mapping tools: one that ranks communities based on their risks of fire, flood, and other natural hazards, and one that identifies whether they are disadvantaged based on socioeconomic conditions and exposure to pollution.
The authors found that CDRZs indeed rank significantly higher in risks and vulnerability than other census tracts. However, their analysis of alternative selection processes and interviews with stakeholders in North Carolina show areas of potential growth and modifications for the program, which requires a review every five years.
ď¸ How do CDRZs fare?
There are 483 CDRZs in the United States, representing approximately one percent of US census tracts. FEMA chose these tracts by combining factors from two national tools-the National Risk Index and the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool. These tools helped FEMA find the 50 most at-risk, disadvantaged tracts in the country and the top 1 percent in each state.
The authors' independent analysis found that the tracts identified by this approach had significantly higher risks, higher poverty rates, lower incomes, and were more socially vulnerable than the average census tract in the United States. This suggests that this system did effectively identify communities that would benefit from the CDRZ program.
As an exercise, the authors analyzed what census tracts FEMA would have chosen if it had used two different sets of criteria:
- Census tracts selected based only on risk scores and not disadvantaged communities
-
Census tracts selected based on top national risk scores and disadvantaged status but without the requirement that the top one percent from each state be included.
The authors found the first alternative would generate a list of census tracts that are similar to CDRZs along measures of risk but have significantly higher incomes, lower poverty rates, and lower social vulnerability. This shows that the use of both screening tools was valuable in identifying communities with the greatest needs.
For the second alternative, a lack of state-specific criteria meant that only 22 states would have had CDRZs. Although FEMA's inclusion of the one-percent criteria ensured geographic diversity for CDRZs, as required by the CDRZ Act, it led to the exclusion of some highly vulnerable, at-risk communities in some parts of the country.
What do stakeholders say?
Conversations with stakeholders in North Carolina found further areas for improvement and highlighted the potential disconnect between federal CDRZ designations and local realities. Limited knowledge of CDRZ designations; challenges in coordinating funding and support across local, state, and federal governments; and capacity and resource constraints in using CDRZ designations to secure federal funding all hinder the effectiveness of the program.
The availability and accuracy of data remains a point of tension: while some states like North Carolina have useful tools that may be able to more accurately pinpoint vulnerable communities than the FEMA tools, the same cannot be said for all states and localities. Finding a balance between local knowledge of risks and the breadth of federal data warrants more exploration.
Author Perspective
"While we should do what we can to reduce the risks of future climate change, many of the troubles associated with it are already here. The question, then, is how do we confront and reduce risks associated with more frequent and fiercer floods and fires? How can we prevent these problems from disproportionately affecting the most vulnerable people and communities? While it's not a silver bullet, good data-and good use of data-to inform policies can be an important step."
-Margaret Walls, RFF Senior Fellow
What's next?
The authors identify a set of potential "second round" CDRZ designations for the program's required review and update in 2028. By doubling the number of eligible tracts nationally and in each state, the program could bring in less risk-exposed, but more socially disadvantaged, communities.
However, there's only so much that the CDRZ program can do. The program supports resilience in the most vulnerable census tracts, but there are many communities-especially communities of color and low-income communities-that do not qualify for this specific program but face disproportionate harm from heat waves, floods, fires, and other natural hazards. The authors point to the need for more investment in climate resilience at all levels of government to make sure communities are safe from the impacts of climate change.
Where can I learn more?
For more, read the report, Building Climate Resilience in Vulnerable Communities: Analyzing Designation and Use of Community Disaster Resilience Zones, by former RFF intern Sofia Hines and RFF Senior Fellow Margaret Walls.
Resources for the Future (RFF) is an independent, nonprofit research institution in Washington, DC. Its mission is to improve environmental, energy, and natural resource decisions through impartial economic research and policy engagement. RFF is committed to being the most widely trusted source of research insights and policy solutions leading to a healthy environment and a thriving economy.
Unless otherwise stated, the views expressed here are those of the individual authors and may differ from those of other RFF experts, its officers, or its directors. RFF does not take positions on specific legislative proposals.
For more information, please see our media resources page or contact Media Relations and Communications Specialist Annie McDarris.