FEMA Coordination with State and Local Governments

Last updated 13 hours ago ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.

When a hurricane makes landfall, a wildfire rages through a community, or an earthquake shatters a city, the immediate response comes from local firefighters, police officers, and emergency medical teams. These are the true first responders.

The role of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) is often misunderstood. It is not a national first responder agency but rather the primary federal coordinator that steps in when a disaster’s scale and complexity overwhelm the capabilities of state and local authorities.

The American emergency management system is built on a foundational principle known as “tiered response”: all disasters are managed at the lowest possible jurisdictional level. The response begins with individuals and local governments, escalates to the state level when local resources are exhausted, and only then, upon a governor’s formal request, does the federal government, coordinated by FEMA, bring its immense resources to bear.

This structure ensures a scalable, flexible response, but it also defines the complex intergovernmental partnership that is activated during a nation’s worst moments.

The Stafford Act: Legal Framework

The relationship between FEMA and state and local governments is not improvised. It is governed by a framework of laws and formal procedures designed to control the flow of federal aid and ensure a structured response. At the heart of this framework is the Stafford Act, the single most important piece of legislation defining federal disaster assistance.

Understanding the Stafford Act

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 is the principal federal law that authorizes the President to provide disaster assistance to states, tribes, and local communities. It creates the legal architecture for the federal government to deliver a wide range of support, including technical expertise, financial grants, and logistical resources, through FEMA.

The Stafford Act is not a static document. It has been repeatedly amended, with each change reflecting hard-won lessons from the catastrophic failures and successes of past disasters. This legislative evolution shows a system in a constant state of learning and reform.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000: Following a growing recognition of the need for proactive measures, this act amended the Stafford Act to require states to develop and maintain hazard mitigation plans as a prerequisite for receiving certain types of non-emergency disaster funds. This marked a significant policy shift away from a purely reactive posture toward one that incentivizes pre-disaster risk reduction.

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) of 2006: The systemic failures of the response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 prompted this sweeping legislation. PKEMRA significantly reorganized FEMA, elevating its status within the Department of Homeland Security and providing it with new authority to remedy the profound coordination gaps exposed by the storm.

Sandy Recovery Improvement Act (SRIA) of 2013: In the wake of Hurricane Sandy, SRIA was passed to authorize changes that would streamline the delivery of federal assistance, making the process faster and more flexible for state and local partners.

Disaster Recovery Reform Act (DRRA) of 2018: After a devastating hurricane and wildfire season in 2017, Congress passed the DRRA. This act acknowledged the shared responsibility for disaster recovery among all levels of government, sought to reduce the complexity of FEMA’s programs, and created new authorities and funding streams for pre-disaster mitigation projects, further cementing the shift toward proactive investment in resilience.

Presidential Disaster Declaration Process

The vast majority of federal assistance under the Stafford Act cannot be deployed until the President makes an official declaration. This formal process, while essential for fiscal control, creates a necessary but often frustrating time lag between the moment a disaster strikes and the arrival of major federal aid.

The Incident and Local Response: A disaster occurs, and local emergency services are the first to respond. They are on the scene, saving lives and protecting property, using their own resources and personnel.

The Governor’s Role and State Response: The governor of the affected state activates the state’s emergency plan, mobilizing state agencies and resources, such as the National Guard, to support the local response. If the governor determines that the event’s magnitude has overwhelmed the combined capabilities of the state and its local governments, the process of requesting federal help begins.

The Formal Request: The governor submits a formal request for a presidential declaration to the President through the appropriate regional FEMA office. This request, which must be submitted within 30 days of the incident, must include a written certification that the disaster is beyond the state’s capacity to handle and a commitment of state and local resources to the response effort. The request is supported by Joint Preliminary Damage Assessments (PDAs), which are conducted by local, state, and federal officials to quantify the extent of the damage.

FEMA’s Review and Recommendation: The regional FEMA office, followed by FEMA headquarters, conducts a thorough programmatic and legal review of the governor’s request. FEMA assesses a variety of factors, including the estimated cost of assistance, the severity of the damage, and the impact on critical infrastructure, before making a formal recommendation to the President.

The Presidential Decision: The President reviews the governor’s request and FEMA’s recommendation and makes the final decision. This decision unlocks the full suite of federal resources under the Stafford Act.

Types of Declarations

The President can issue two primary types of declarations:

Emergency Declaration: Typically for more limited or specific needs and authorizes federal assistance for debris removal and emergency protective measures to save lives and protect public health and safety.

Major Disaster Declaration: For more severe events and can activate a wider range of federal programs, including long-term assistance for rebuilding public infrastructure (Public Assistance) and direct aid to individuals and households (Individual Assistance).

National Coordination Frameworks

To prevent the jurisdictional confusion and communication breakdowns that plagued early disaster responses, the United States has developed a nested hierarchy of strategic and tactical frameworks. These systems are designed to ensure that thousands of responders from different agencies and levels of government can work together toward a common goal.

This architecture is the government’s systemic solution to the systemic coordination failures laid bare by Hurricane Katrina, which revealed unclear roles, overlapping responsibilities, and competing command structures in the field.

National Response Framework

The National Response Framework (NRF) is the nation’s strategic guide for how to respond to all types of disasters and emergencies, from terrorist attacks to catastrophic earthquakes. It is not a rigid, step-by-step plan but a flexible doctrine that establishes core principles, roles, and coordinating structures for a unified national response.

The NRF is built upon five key principles:

Engaged Partnership: Collaboration among leaders at all levels—federal, state, local, tribal, private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs)—to develop shared goals.

Tiered Response: Incidents are managed at the lowest possible jurisdictional level, with support from higher levels only when their capabilities are exceeded.

Scalable, Flexible, and Adaptable Operations: The response structure can expand or contract to meet the unique demands of any incident.

Unity of Effort through Unified Command: A management principle ensuring all agencies and responders work toward a common set of objectives.

Readiness to Act: A recognition of the collective duty of all partners to be prepared to respond effectively.

The NRF champions a “whole community” approach, emphasizing that effective response requires the involvement of all sectors of society, not just government agencies.

National Incident Management System

If the NRF is the strategic “what,” the National Incident Management System (NIMS) is the tactical “how.” NIMS provides the nationwide template—the shared vocabulary, standardized systems, and common processes—that allows the NRF’s strategy to be executed on the ground.

It is what enables a fire department from Ohio, a public works crew from California, and a federal medical team to arrive at a disaster scene in Florida and work together seamlessly, without confusion over terminology or command structure.

The adoption of NIMS is not voluntary. In a powerful example of “cooperative federalism,” the federal government uses its fiscal power to drive national policy. Local, state, and tribal governments are required to adopt and use NIMS to be eligible for federal preparedness grants. This financial incentive has made NIMS the de facto national standard for incident management, ensuring a baseline of interoperability across the country.

Incident Command System

At the core of NIMS is the Incident Command System (ICS), the standardized, on-scene management structure used to command, control, and coordinate the response to any incident, planned or unplanned. Originally developed in the 1970s to manage complex wildfires in California, ICS has proven so effective that it has been adopted nationwide for an all-hazards approach.

The ICS organizational structure is modular and scalable, activating only the components necessary for a given incident. It is organized into five major functional areas:

Command: Led by the Incident Commander (IC), who has overall responsibility for the incident. The IC is supported by a Command Staff: the Public Information Officer (PIO), Safety Officer, and Liaison Officer.

Operations: The tactical “doers” who carry out the response activities as outlined in the Incident Action Plan.

Planning: The “thinkers” responsible for collecting and analyzing incident information and preparing the formal Incident Action Plan (IAP) for each operational period.

Logistics: The “getters” who provide all necessary resources, services, and support, from personnel and equipment to food and medical supplies.

Finance/Administration: The “payers” who track all incident costs, handle procurement, and manage any administrative and legal issues.

How FEMA Deploys Federal Resources

When a disaster declaration is made, FEMA acts as the federal government’s general contractor, coordinating a massive and complex effort to deliver the right resources to the right place at the right time. To overcome the inherent fragmentation of the federal bureaucracy—where dozens of departments have their own missions and authorities—FEMA uses a set of sophisticated management tools to make the government act as a single, agile entity.

Emergency Support Functions

The primary mechanism for organizing federal interagency support is the system of Emergency Support Functions (ESFs). ESFs are not agencies but functional groupings of capabilities from across the federal government that FEMA can activate to support state and local needs. When a state requests a specific type of assistance, FEMA tasks the designated lead agency for that ESF to coordinate the federal response in that area.

There are 15 ESFs, including:

ESF #1 – Transportation: Coordinated by the Department of Transportation to manage federal transportation support, including road and bridge clearing.

ESF #3 – Public Works and Engineering: Coordinated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to provide engineering and construction support, including infrastructure repair and debris removal.

ESF #6 – Mass Care, Emergency Assistance, Temporary Housing, and Human Services: Coordinated by FEMA itself to manage sheltering, feeding, and direct housing assistance for survivors.

ESF #8 – Public Health and Medical Services: Coordinated by the Department of Health and Human Services to provide medical teams, supplies, and public health support.

ESF #13 – Public Safety and Security: Coordinated by the Department of Justice to support law enforcement and security operations.

ESF #14 – Cross-Sector Business and Infrastructure: A newer function coordinated by the Department of Homeland Security to improve engagement with the private sector and manage cascading infrastructure failures.

Incident Management Assistance Teams

To bridge the critical gap between the moment a disaster strikes and the establishment of a full federal response, FEMA deploys Incident Management Assistance Teams (IMATs). These are full-time, rapidly deployable teams of seasoned emergency managers who serve as a forward federal presence. IMATs can deploy within two hours of notification and arrive at an incident within 12 hours.

The creation of professional, full-time IMATs was a direct lesson from Hurricane Katrina, where the older, ad-hoc Emergency Response Teams (ERTs), staffed by personnel on a part-time basis, proved inadequate for a catastrophic event.

The mission of an IMAT is not to take command but to integrate with and support the existing state and local Incident Command structure. They help establish unified command, provide critical situational awareness back to federal decision-makers, and facilitate the rapid identification and delivery of federal assistance. When not deployed, IMAT members are responsible for building relationships with their state and local counterparts, ensuring a foundation of trust exists before a crisis occurs.

Community Lifelines

To better prioritize response efforts in a complex disaster, the latest edition of the National Response Framework introduced the concept of Community Lifelines. Lifelines represent the most fundamental services in a community that enable all other aspects of society to function. The goal is to rapidly stabilize these lifelines to restore a sense of normalcy.

The seven lifelines are:

• Safety and Security
• Food, Water, Shelter
• Health and Medical
• Energy
• Communications
• Transportation
• Hazardous Materials

This framework helps emergency managers focus on outcomes rather than just inputs. For example, a power outage (a failure in the Energy lifeline) can cause cascading failures in Communications, Water, and Health lifelines. By focusing on stabilizing the energy grid, responders can address multiple downstream problems simultaneously.

Major FEMA Assistance Programs

Once a Presidential Major Disaster Declaration is made, FEMA administers a suite of grant programs designed to help communities rebuild, individuals recover, and reduce the risk of future disasters. These programs represent a massive financial commitment, but they are also governed by strict rules to ensure accountability.

Public Assistance Program

The Public Assistance (PA) Program is FEMA’s largest grant program, providing funding to state, local, and tribal governments, as well as certain private non-profit organizations, to rebuild community infrastructure and recover from the disaster. Typically, FEMA covers at least 75% of the eligible costs, with the state or local applicant providing the remaining 25% “non-federal share.”

Eligible work under the PA program is divided into two main categories:

Emergency Work (Categories A & B): Short-term actions necessary to save lives, protect property, and maintain public health and safety. This includes debris removal (Category A) and emergency protective measures like search and rescue, sheltering, and emergency repairs (Category B).

Permanent Work (Categories C-G): Long-term work to repair, restore, or replace disaster-damaged public facilities. This includes roads and bridges (Category C), water control facilities (Category D), public buildings and equipment (Category E), utilities (Category F), and parks and recreational facilities (Category G).

Individual Assistance Program

The Individual Assistance (IA) Program provides financial help and direct services to individuals and households who have uninsured or underinsured necessary expenses and serious needs caused by the disaster. This assistance is intended to help survivors with their immediate needs and is not a substitute for insurance.

Key forms of IA include:

Housing Assistance: This can provide grants for temporary rental assistance or funds to make basic repairs to a primary residence to make it safe, sanitary, and functional.

Other Needs Assistance (ONA): This can cover the loss of essential personal property, medical and dental expenses, funeral costs, and other serious disaster-related needs.

Survivors can apply for assistance online at DisasterAssistance.gov, by phone, or in person at a Disaster Recovery Center (DRC). However, the process is often challenging. To prevent the massive fraud seen after Hurricane Katrina, FEMA has strict verification requirements for identity, occupancy, and property ownership.

This creates a deep tension between the government’s duty to be a responsible steward of taxpayer money and its mission to deliver aid quickly to people who may have lost the very documents needed for verification. For many survivors, this can result in a frustrating “labyrinth” of denials and appeals that hinders their recovery.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation and Preparedness

Recognizing that a purely reactive approach to disasters is fiscally unsustainable, there has been a significant policy shift toward pre-disaster investment. FEMA administers several grant programs aimed at hazard mitigation—sustainable actions that reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property.

The increasing frequency and cost of disasters have driven this strategic pivot, as the federal government seeks to “buy down” future risk rather than repeatedly pay for the full cost of recovery.

Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA) Grants: Programs like the Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM) grant program and the newer Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) program provide funding for projects like elevating homes in floodplains, retrofitting public buildings to withstand earthquakes, or creating wildfire-defensible space.

Preparedness Grants: Programs like the Emergency Management Performance Grant (EMPG) and the Homeland Security Grant Program (HSGP) provide funds to state and local agencies to build their day-to-day capabilities through planning, training, exercises, and equipment purchases.

Training and Education: FEMA also leads a world-class training enterprise for the nation’s emergency managers and first responders. Institutions like the National Disaster and Emergency Management University (NDEMU) and the Center for Domestic Preparedness (CDP) offer thousands of courses to professionalize the emergency management workforce.

Lessons from Major Disasters

The frameworks and programs for disaster response, while robust on paper, are often brittle when tested by the chaos of a real-world catastrophe. The effectiveness of the national response system is highly dependent on the type of disaster and the unique context in which it occurs. Lessons learned from major disasters have been the primary driver of reform and adaptation in the American emergency management system.

Hurricane Katrina (2005)

The response to Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophic failure of coordination at every level of government, exposing deep systemic flaws in the nation’s preparedness. The George W. Bush White House’s own after-action report identified four critical failures: a breakdown in unified management, flawed command and control structures, a lack of familiarity with national plans, and insufficient regional coordination.

Federal officials struggled to perform basic functions as state and local capabilities were completely obliterated, and the National Response Plan’s bureaucratic processes proved far too slow for a catastrophe of this scale.

The disaster also revealed a staggering vulnerability to fraud. With preventative controls largely ineffective, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) estimated that FEMA made between $600 million and $1.4 billion in improper and potentially fraudulent payments through its Individuals and Households Program. Payments were made based on bogus addresses, invalid Social Security numbers, and duplicate registrations, highlighting a system that prioritized speed over accountability.

Katrina became a “focusing event” that forced a complete overhaul of the system. The resulting Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (PKEMRA) strengthened FEMA’s authority, mandated the professionalization of its workforce, and led to the creation of more robust capabilities like the IMATs, fundamentally reshaping federal disaster response.

Hurricane Maria (2017)

The 2017 hurricane season provided a stark test of the post-Katrina system, and the response to Hurricane Maria in Puerto Rico revealed that the one-size-fits-all model struggles when faced with unique geographical and cultural contexts. The federal response was widely criticized as slower and less robust than the responses to Hurricanes Harvey in Texas and Irma in Florida, which occurred around the same time.

Data reflects federal aid delivered 9 days post-landfall.

Several factors contributed to these disparities. As an island, Puerto Rico presented immense logistical challenges, which were compounded when Maria destroyed the entire electrical grid, triggering the longest blackout in U.S. history and crippling all other critical infrastructure.

The response was further hampered by what a Department of Homeland Security Office of Inspector General (DHS OIG) report described as a lack of familiarity with local laws, cultural norms, and a shortage of Spanish-speaking personnel. The DHS OIG also found that FEMA “mismanaged the commodity distribution process,” losing visibility of an estimated $257 million in supplies, which took an average of 69 days to reach their destinations.

Years later, long-term recovery remains slow, with only a fraction of the billions of dollars obligated by FEMA having been spent, due to limited local capacity, inflation, and procurement challenges.

Wildfires: Evolving Threat

The increasing size, frequency, and severity of wildfires, particularly in the western United States, present another evolving challenge for the national response system. Wildfires differ from hurricanes in their duration, scale, and the unique secondary risks they create, such as post-fire flooding and erosion.

Survivors of catastrophic wildfires often face the same frustrating, bureaucratic hurdles with FEMA assistance as other disaster victims, with one analysis of Los Angeles-area fires showing a significant gap between the damage assessed by FEMA and the aid actually provided to survivors.

However, recent responses also show a system that is learning and adapting. The response to the 2023 Maui wildfires has been highlighted as a model of “community-led, government-supported” coordination. Federal officials have emphasized proactive efforts to build trust with the local community by establishing a cultural protocol task force, holding regular community meetings, and incorporating local practices into the delivery of aid.

This represents a significant evolution in doctrine, moving away from a top-down approach and recognizing that effective coordination is built not just on logistics and frameworks, but on social trust, cultural competence, and genuine partnership. This shift shows that FEMA is learning that it cannot simply impose recovery on a community; it must facilitate it in a way that respects local leadership and culture.

Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.