Americans have long viewed the federal government—and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) specifically—as a frustrating-but-central pillar supporting individuals and households after disasters. What few people understand (until too late) is that assistance from the federal government is not going to replace everything lost in a disaster. By design, it never has. And for multiple reasons, it never will.
This reality has implications for Americans as the financial cost of disasters continues to rise.
After only the most severe disasters, and only if governors request it, presidents may choose to make certain assistance available. The most notable form of aid is the FEMA-run Individuals and Household Program (IHP). IHP funds may be used to pay for repairs, temporary or permanent new housing, or moving costs. They can also be used to fix or replace vehicles and personal property, as well as and medical, dental, childcare, funeral, and other assorted costs. Between 2008 and 2023, presidents approved roughly 60 percent of governors’ requests for IHP after disasters.
Designed as a Last Resort
IHP is, by law, a program of last resort. IHP assistance is intended to supplement, not supplant, other sources of assistance such as insurance, volunteer organizations, the private sector, and state and local governments. This design produces four crucial implications.
First, IHP is hard to get. It is legally and operationally structured to deliver aid only after other resources have been exhausted.
Individuals must prove their eligibility to apply, which can require valid identification, citizenship verification, documentation of losses, and proof of occupancy/ownership. Such paperwork may not be easy to collect in the wake of a disaster. Applicants must also show that they have utilized available community resources and filed any insurance claims. These measures are in place so that IHP remains truly a last resort for those in need.
Even after jumping through all these hoops, many requests are denied, and aid is often slow to arrive.
IHP assistance is also limited and its use restricted. The most anyone can receive is $87,200—but that assumes they lost a home they owned. Most people never approach that maximum; between 2002 and 2024, IHP recipients received, on average, $3,446.
Funds can be used only for the specific purpose they were allocated for. For instance, funds for mental health and dental care expenses cannot be spent on food, clothing, or other necessities. Recipients must retain receipts and may be audited.
In short, IHP is rarely sufficient, especially when losses are significant. Those with independent resources—such as insurance, savings and investments, or friends and family to lean on—may recover more quickly and fully. But research has shown that many Americans lack these resources.
Implications in an Era of Increasing Disasters
As disasters become more severe and frequent, more Americans will confront the fact that FEMA aid for individuals is very limited and tough to get.
Congress has reduced a few longstanding barriers for IHP applicants in recent years. Still, the potential for fraud and accountability to American taxpayers mean that Congress is likely to do only so much in terms of increasing access.
Congress could raise the financial caps on IHP assistance, but in an environment of ballooning disaster costs and squeezed government budgets, this, too, seems unlikely. As it is now, Congress has had to supplement its allocations to IHP and other disaster assistance funds every single year since 2002.
Americans should recognize and accept that federal disaster assistance is a last resort and plan accordingly. Most recovery funding and other resources will be mostly their own or what they get from insurance, friends, family, and to some extent, nonprofit and faith-based agencies. With that in mind, it would be pragmatic for everyone to:
- Assess the adequacy of insurance coverage (e.g., car, home, business).
- Size up the resources you’d have available after a disaster (e.g., savings, disaster kit) and think about how to enhance them.
- Consider who in your personal network might be relied upon for post-disaster assistance (e.g., funds, a place to stay) and who might rely upon you. Have conversations with them about what you may be able to do for one another.
- Explore if any disaster aid is available from your state or if that is something the legislature is considering. As of last year, only 16 states (PDF) had an individual assistance program.
- Investigate the local government emergency management response and recovery plans where you live to develop a sense of what one might expect after disaster.
- Look into voluntary agencies to become familiar with what local disaster relief resources will be available from which organizations.
- Think about what hazards, like wildfire or flood risks, can be reduced or eliminated in your community with targeted local or state investments and see if mitigation projects are in the works.
These steps reflect acceptance of the fact that Americans have a collective responsibility to prepare for disasters. While the federal government, especially FEMA, plays a vital role after disasters, the most critical resources are those that individuals and communities possess and share.
– Jessica Jensen is a senior policy researcher with expertise in disasters and emergency management at RAND, a nonprofit, nonpartisan research institute. Aaron Clark-Ginsberg is behavioral/social scientist at RAND studying risk and disaster. Published courtesy of RAND.
