Lydia Woodley is a staff writer and first-year MPA student.

Part one of this series addressed budgetary changes states can make as FEMA faces defunding, and Emergency Management departments nationwide feel the strain. This article turns to the administrative side, the structural changes states can implement to better meet the unpredictable demands of disaster response.

More funding alone won’t solve the problem. State budgets are already stretched thin, state budgets can be very strict and limited, and increased funds may be a waste if the department is not set up for success administratively. For many states, the more attainable path may be fixing the programmatic foundation first, so that when budget changes do come, they actually stick.

From Federal Cuts to Local Consequences

In practice, FEMA already appears less prepared to respond to disasters: staffing levels fell nearly 9.5% in early 2025 due to workforce reductions, at least a dozen state aid requests have been denied, billions in recovery funds have been delayed, and $11 billion in disaster reimbursements for states were withheld without explanation. Maria Bernadzikowski, Director at Howard County Office of Emergency Management (State of Maryland), in a discussion with the author via phone interview conducted in March 2026, spoke about how, since 9/11, emergency management departments have become accustomed to receiving a steady stream of grants, often adding up to millions of dollars. The funding covers a range of essential functions, from staffing and training to community outreach, emergency shelters, policy development, and disaster planning.

At the state and local level, the effects of federal funding cuts are already being felt. In the interview, Bernadzikowski discussed how, as grant-funded positions are eliminated, agencies are trying to absorb those roles into existing budgets with varying success, but the shift has placed an increasing burden on staff that is already stretched thin. Bernadzikowski also emphasized that emergency management is a uniquely expansive field, intertwined with public health, transportation, housing, and beyond, meaning that every staff loss translates into a loss of institutional knowledge and operational bandwidth. 

While federal agencies have served as the primary source of funding, it is local emergency managers who are on the ground organizing direct aid when disaster strikes, making their capacity critical. In response, agencies are being urged not simply to redistribute tasks among remaining staff, but to fundamentally reorganize how they operate. 

There are, however, a number of strategies agencies can adopt to navigate this shift.

Administrative Solutions

Redefine what success looks like: States should clearly define what “success” means across response, recovery, and resilience. Moreover, that definition should reflect community outcomes, not just federal compliance. Success should not mean recreating every federal role or restoring infrastructure exactly as it was. Instead, states should prioritize capabilities that directly improve long-term outcomes. Examples include faster housing stabilization, reduced displacement time, and infrastructure built to withstand future events. 

 In addition, states need to set clear, measurable metrics for what success will look like in recovery. Metrics can include the time it takes to restore utilities, how long it takes for families to return to permanent housing, and what percentage of the infrastructure rebuilt is updated to safety standards. States should assess options for administering future recovery and mitigation programs, especially if federal roles shrink. Mapping responsibilities across emergency management, housing, community development, transportation, and finance departments helps states identify gaps and anticipate where their authority and capacity may need to grow.

Collect Comprehensive Disaster Spending Data: Disaster management is a critical and growing public expense, yet most states do not have comprehensive data on total disaster-related spending across government. States may track emergency management agency budgets on a year-to-year basis, and they may know the cost of individual disaster responses. But they often lack a full accounting of disaster-related spending across preparedness, mitigation, recovery, housing, infrastructure, and finance agencies. There are realistic ways to improve how they track spending. They can create a cross-agency disaster spending inventory by requiring agencies to tag disaster-related expenditures in budgeting systems. Additionally, it would be helpful to conduct periodic cost-of-disaster assessments even outside of disaster season. Understanding total spending allows states to evaluate whether investments are reactive or preventative. Finally, states could tie spending to outcomes. Without clarity on how much is being spent and where, states cannot assess whether investments are adequate or strategically allocated.

Build a Cross-Functional Responsibility Framework: The National Emergency Management Association (NEMA) reports that insufficient staffing remains one of the most significant challenges facing emergency management agencies. While it may be unrealistic for some localities to simply hire more people, this can be alleviated by building a formal cross-functional responsibility framework that maps roles across emergency management, housing, community development, finance, public works, and transportation agencies. Creating a permanent interagency resilience structure ensures that budgeting, procurement, infrastructure planning, and housing policy are aligned with disaster risk reduction goals. Regular statewide exercises, centralized resource inventories, and clearly defined ownership of preparedness and mitigation responsibilities can institutionalize coordination. 

The Bottom Line

The scaling back of FEMA is not a distant policy debate anymore, it is already reshaping how states and localities prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters. But while the federal pullback creates real strain, it also creates an opening. States that take this moment to grow and become more independent. Administrative reform is not a workaround, it is the foundation. Emergency management has always depended on the people closest to the ground, and investing in their capacity, clarity, and coordination is what will determine whether communities survive the next disaster intact.

Photo by Kelly Sikkema on Unsplash

The views expressed in Policy Perspectives and Brief Policy Perspectives are those of the authors and do not represent the approval or endorsement of the Trachtenberg School of Public Policy and Public Administration, the George Washington University, or any employee of either institution.