![[ Visit Client Website ]](images/banner.gif)
Disasters are increasing in scale, frequency, and intensity, putting increased strain on disaster assistance programs (i.e., FEMA), which act as a critical safety net for affected populations. Ongoing political discourse has brought into question what the future of such forms of assistance could look like and who could play what roles, with a focus on devolution (i.e., the decentralization and abdication of disaster assistance responsibilities from the federal level to more local levels). Given this, several crucial questions for policy and practice contexts arose: (1) what challenges and (2) opportunities might arise by increasing state responsibilities for disaster assistance and recovery, and (3) what are the key ingredients needed for effective disaster assistance regardless of who takes on this responsibility? This study addresses a critical gap by providing one of the first systematic, practitioner-informed analyses on these topics during this pivotal time of disaster reform, when democratically informed, practitioner-driven input is critical.
Methods
This study used a cross-sectional survey design with purposive sampling to capture the perspectives of disaster assistance professionals using a brief questionnaire that contained demographic and qualitative open-ended questions. The findings reflect a synthesis of 2,455 responses across three core questions, provided by 204 individuals from disaster assistance, response, and recovery practitioners who had an average of 14.2 years of experience (SD = 9.51). Data were collected between May and August of 2025 and analyzed using a rigorous descriptive thematic analysis that utilized inductive coding across three or more trained independent coders and collaborative analysis sessions.
Results
The findings revealed that participants were concerned that shifting increased responsibility for disaster assistance to the state or local level—especially without adequate investment and preparation—would risk replicating, perpetuating, and exacerbating in different and new contexts many of the very same issues these shifts were ostensibly meant to solve. While opportunities such as improved efficiency and timeliness, increased utilization of local knowledge, expanded capacity, and enhanced community development were identified, many of these were contingent upon the continuation or increased flow of federal resources to the state level. Importantly, the analysis of the third question and cross-question analysis identified several key conditions required for effective disaster assistance programs (e.g., easily navigable and accessible programs, coordination across all levels and actors, equity-centered approaches, and adequate capacity and expertise).
Conclusions and Implications
This study suggests that many experienced disaster professionals are wary of devolved federal responsibility and identified components necessary for effective disaster assistance, irrespective of governance level. The findings underscore the importance of democratically embedding practitioner-informed evidence into ongoing disaster policy reforms. Social workers can play a critical role in advocating for equitable implementation and ensuring that the needs and voices of marginalized populations remain central in the redesign of disaster assistance systems. These findings establish benchmarks for an effective “ecosocial safety net” (Brown & Chang, 2024, p. 2), which can become the foundation upon which future social work research can evaluate changes to disaster assistance.