Access to BRIC Funding May Depend on Where You Live

A new NRDC analysis of data relevant to the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) finds that accessing federal grants for disaster resilience could depend on local capacity. Capacity includes financial and human resources, along with the organizational potential to develop and submit grant applications and meet federal matching requirements. Low-capacity localities face disadvantages when it comes to applying for and accessing funding through federal programs. Since BRIC's inception, FEMA has taken a number of positive steps to ensure that disadvantaged communities can successfully apply for BRIC funds. Our analysis shows that lower-capacity communities still need assistance when applying for grants.

There are a number of publicly available tools that can help us understand if federal programs are meeting their environmental justice and equity goals. Using the Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool (CEJST), the National Risk Index (NRI), and the Rural Capacity Index (RCI), we assessed to what extent community characteristics (such as local capacity) are associated with the ability of a locality to apply for BRIC's competitive funds and to track which subapplicants can access the grants. We used logistic regression models (a statistical analysis method used to identify the relationships between two or more variables, for example, determining if a person likes a movie based on their age and gender) to understand the relationship between local capacity and the likelihood of a subapplicant applying for BRIC grants. We find that in FY 2020, BRIC's competitive funds were mainly accessible to higher-capacity localities, regardless of the tool we used. But in the two following years, we noticed a shift in the accessibility of BRIC grants.

This analysis expands on previous work done by my colleague, Anna Weber, on the community capacity distribution of BRIC grant applications.

We assigned each submitted BRIC subapplication/project to a county based on its title or description. Though other smaller geographical entities (such as cities or towns) are also eligible to apply for BRIC funds through the applicant, decisions about planning and funding often happen at the county level. So, we compiled a list of all counties in the United States and defined a variable indicating if there is an existing BRIC subapplication within that county for the national competition (regardless of the subapplication's selection status). Our analysis spanned BRIC's grant cycles from fiscal years 2020, 2021, and 2022, as well as aggregated data from these three years combined. We developed 12 regression models and below is a list of variables we used to build the models:

• Rural Capacity Index: Developed by Headwaters Economics based on 12 variables that serve as a proxy for local capacity, such as population change and voter turnout. This index is displayed as the national rank and higher values show higher capacity. While the Index is designed to highlight the capacity gap faced by rural communities, values are provided for the entire nation.
• Percentage disadvantaged area: The percentage of a county's area that is considered "disadvantaged" as defined by the Council on Environmental Quality in the CEJST. In this case, a higher value shows a larger area that meets the criteria to be considered disadvantaged. While this variable doesn't directly measure local capacity, it offers a broader picture of the community characteristics/disadvantages that could lead to reduced capacities in accessing federal grants.
• Social vulnerability score: The susceptibility of social groups to the impacts of hazards, shown as percentiles where higher value means higher social vulnerability. This variable is a component of FEMA's NRI and is based on the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)/ Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) Social Vulnerability Index. While this variable doesn't directly measure local capacity, it offers a broader picture of the community characteristics/vulnerabilities that could lead to reduced capacities in accessing federal grants.
• Population: The total population of a county, based on the 2020 US Census data.
• Total Expected Annual Loss (EAL) rate: The weighted average of the proportion of total economic value (including effects on people, agriculture, and buildings) expected to be lost annually for a community due to natural hazards. This value is a component of FEMA's National Risk Index.
• Number of major disaster declarations: The county's total number of major disaster declarations (excluding COVID-19) over the past 7 years preceding the grant cycle, consistent with BRIC's eligibility requirements.
• Existing BRIC state/territory allocation subapplication: A variable showing if there was at least one state/territory allocation funding subapplication within the county in the current or previous grant cycles.

The Rural Capacity Index and BRIC Grants Accessibility

When we used the Rural Capacity Index in our analysis, we noticed that across all three grant cycles, counties with higher capacities were more likely to have subapplications for BRIC competitive funds. This may indicate that lower-capacity communities still face significant barriers applying for competitive funding let alone securing grants, despite recent program improvements by FEMA. Also, we observed that counties with higher risks from natural hazards (as measured by the EAL rate) and larger populations were more likely to have at least one grant subapplication. Researchers show that the population size impacts local government resources. A smaller population leads to reduced tax revenues and financial capacities for local governments, therefore, decreasing their ability to access federal funding.

Another trend we observed was an increased likelihood of applying for competitive funds among subapplicants that applied for BRIC state/territory allocation funds in FY 2020 and 2021. As these funds are mainly used for capacity building activities (among other actions), this trend could imply that the agency's investment in enhancing local capacities increased the accessibility of competitive grants.

The Climate and Economic Justice Screening Tool and BRIC Grants Accessibility

Interestingly, we observed different results when we replaced the Rural Capacity Index with CEJST's percentage disadvantaged county area. For BRIC grant cycle 2020, we noticed that counties with a higher percentage of their area considered disadvantaged were less likely to have a subapplication for that year's competitive grants. But for FY 2021 and 2022 there was no apparent relationship between the likelihood of applying for BRIC's competitive grants and the percentage of disadvantaged county area. This could suggest a shift in the accessibility of BRIC's grants in FYs 2021 and 2022. Following its initial implementation year, potential subapplicants may have gained a clearer understanding of the program's objectives and eligibility criteria, which could explain our finding. Another plausible explanation could be the jump in funding availability (about $378 million in FY 2021 and $796 million in FY 2022) that may have incentivized more subapplicants to compete for grants. Moreover, FEMA mainly uses CEJST to identify priority communities, and evaluate its progress towards a more equitable distribution of resources. So, this could also mean that the technical assistance provided to communities is effective and localities with more disadvantaged areas (as defined by this tool) were able to submit a funding subapplication. In any event, it may suggest an improvement in access.

The National Risk Index and BRIC Grants Accessibility

Lastly, we used NRI to assess the association between social vulnerability and the ability to apply for BRIC's competitive funds. Similar to the results we observed using CEJST, counties with higher social vulnerabilities were less likely to have subapplications for competitive funding in FY 2020. But in the next two grant cycles, we observed no relationship between the likelihood of applying for BRIC's competitive grants and counties' social vulnerability scores.

Other trends we noticed: Across all three years, counties with higher population and hazard risks were more likely to have competitive grants subapplications. Also, having at least one allocation funding subapplication increased the likelihood of applying for competitive subapplications.

Implications

Our goal was to understand the relationship between community characteristics (such as local capacity) and the ability to apply for BRIC's competitive grants using publicly available data from CEJST, NRI, and RCI. The models showed that in FY 2020, BRIC's competitive funds were only accessible to higher capacity localities, regardless of the tool we used. But, in the two following years, we noticed an improvement in the accessibility of BRIC's grant using CEJST and NRI. In FYs 2021 and 2022 there was no longer a significant association between relative levels of disadvantage/vulnerability and the likelihood of submitting a subapplication for funding.

This shift could indicate a better understanding of the program's objectives and eligibility criteria after its initial year. Or possibly, the increase in BRIC's available funds encouraged more subapplicants to apply in the following years. This also might imply that FEMA's technical assistance was effective in enabling lower-capacity localities to submit subapplications in the national competition.

Yet, the Headwaters Economics' Rural Capacity Index consistently revealed that counties with higher capacities were more likely to have subapplications for BRIC competitive funds. This implies that despite BRIC's improvements over the years, there is more to be done.

FEMA may need to increase its focus on capacity building and continue to increase the amount of direct technical assistance to lower-income, lower-capacity localities. Given the varying outcomes of the models, it is also important to emphasize the need to avoid relying on any single metric but to use a variety of tools for tracking and evaluating equity in funding distribution. Lastly, we must note that these tools offer broader trends within a locality and may not capture the community's multifaceted needs. Active community engagement can complement data-driven tools by ensuring that interventions are tailored to the unique contexts of communities. This way, agencies like FEMA can better address the existing disparities in funding accessibility and promote an equitable distribution of resources.

Notes:

In this analysis, significance levels are based on standard notations: *p≤.001, **p≤.01, *p≤.05, and +p≤.10. Additionally, not all existing statistically and marginally significant associations between variables have been elucidated in the findings sections. For more information on the analysis, feel free to contact us.

Additional resources:

1. The BRIC Wall: Capacity Gaps Put FEMA Grants out of Reach
2. Building Resilience, BRIC by BRIC
3. Building Resilience, BRIC by BRIC: Summer 2022 Update
4. Building Resilience, BRIC by BRIC: Fall 2022 Update
5. Building Resilience, BRIC by BRIC: BRIC's Fourth Year

Related Blogs