INSIGHTi
FEMA Pre-Disaster Mitigation: The Building
Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
(BRIC) Program
Updated September 17, 2021
Changes to Pre-Disaster Mitigation Funding
The federal government has historical y provided resources to assist in post-disaster recovery and to
reduce future risk. Funding for pre-disaster mitigation changed significantly with the passage of the
Disaster Recovery Reform Act of 2018; for each major disaster declaration, the President may set aside
from the Disaster Relief Fund (DRF) an amount equal to 6% of the estimated aggregate amount of
funding awarded under seven sections of the Stafford Act. The large amount of disaster assistance
associated with the COVID-19 major disaster declarations has resulted in additional funding for pre-
disaster mitigation. As of August 31, 2021, there was $1.637 bil ion set aside in the DRF for pre-disaster
mitigation.
Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
FEMA introduced a new program in FY2020, the Building Resilient Infrastructure and Communities
Grant Program (BRIC). In FY2021, a total of $1 bil ion is available in three categories:
1. State/territory al ocation: $56 mil ion
2. Tribal set-aside: $25 mil ion
3. National competition: $919 mil ion
Each state and tribe can apply for up to $1 mil ion in categories (1) and (2) and may submit an unlimited
number of applications in category (3), each valued up to $50 mil ion. The $50 mil ion cap for an
individual mitigation project represents a significant increase; the largest amount available previously was
$10 mil ion.
The priorities for BRIC in FY2021 are to incentivize
Congressional Research Service
https://crsreports.congress.gov
IN11515
CRS INSIGHT
Prepared for Members and
Committees of Congress

---

Congressional Research Service
2
 natural hazard risk reduction activities that mitigate risk to public infrastructure and
disadvantaged communities;
 projects that mitigate risk to one or more community lifelines;
 projects that incorporate nature-based solutions;
 projects that enhance climate resilience; and
 adoption and enforcement of the latest published editions of building codes.
Considerations for Congress
The majority of funding for hazard mitigation comes from FEMA, which administers three Hazard
Mitigation Assistance (HMA) programs and also funds Public Assistance mitigation measures funded
under Section 406 of the Stafford Act. The 6% BRIC set-aside has increased pre-disaster mitigation
funding significantly; however, post-disaster mitigation stil receives far more resources. Because the
Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and PA mitigation funds are only available to states following a major
disaster declaration, they cannot be targeted at areas with greater risk of future losses. As a result,
disasters determine to a great extent where the federal government invests in disaster resilience, and this
may not correlate with the greatest risks.
Any state that has had a major disaster declaration in the seven years prior to the application start date is
eligible to apply for BRIC funding. Although al jurisdictions are currently eligible for BRIC due to the
COVID-19 major disaster declarations, this may not be the case in future. Restricting pre-disaster
mitigation funding to communities that have experienced a recent disaster could preclude communities
with a clear risk under a changing climate from receiving funding when that risk has not yet eventuated,
which may make it more difficult for locations facing major impacts of climate change to plan ahead. For
this reason, Congress may wish to consider whether these requirements should be relaxed.
The increase in funding for pre-disaster mitigation may also lead to chal enges in meeting the nonfederal
cost share. General y, BRIC’s cost share is 75% federal and 25% nonfederal, but smal , impoverished
communities (SIC) are eligible for an increase in cost share up to 90% federal and 10% nonfederal. Many
communities may find it difficult to meet cost share requirements, particularly if their resources have been
reduced during the COVID-19 pandemic.
In FY2020, $500 mil ion was available for BRIC. The program was oversubscribed, with 53 states and
territories requesting over $3.6 bil ion. FEMA has selected 406 subapplications for further review. BRIC
received subapplications from 98 SICs (about 9.89% of the total) in FY2020. FEMA selected projects
submitted by 46 SICs for further review ($39.2 mil ion in total project costs, about 7.84% of the overal
funding available). However, 36 of these projects were selected from the tribal set-aside and 8 from the
state al ocations, with only 2 projects submitted to the national competition by SICs selected. This
suggests that SICs were less successful than their number would suggest, particularly in the national
competition.
FEMA intends to promote equity in BRIC FY2021 by prioritizing 40% of funding for disadvantaged
communities, in accordance with E.O. 14008 and the Justice40 Initiative. Four of the six BRIC qualitative
evaluation criteria require an explanation of how the project would benefit disadvantaged communities.
BRIC also is to reduce the nonfederal cost share from 25% to 10% for Economical y Disadvantaged Rural
Communities (EDRC); however, this criterion excludes any community larger than 3,000 people and may
not support many underserved communities. In contrast, FEMA’s FY2021 Flood Mitigation Assistance
(FMA) program is to identify disadvantaged communities using the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) Social Vulnerability Index (SVI) at a threshold of 0.7501 or greater as a priority
scoring criterion. The Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), as passed by the Senate, would
provide a 90% FMA federal cost share for a property that is located in a census tract with a CDC SVI

---

Congressional Research Service
3
score of not less than 0.5001 or that serves as a primary residence for individuals with a household
income of not more than 100% of the applicable area median income.
Some stakeholders have expressed concern that smal er projects may be less likely to obtain support in
BRIC, and disadvantaged communities may not have the capacity to apply for and administer large grants
under BRIC. A related area of concern is that states and territories such as Mississippi, Puerto Rico, and
the U.S. Virgin Islands did not apply for BRIC funding in FY2020, while 57% of the selected
competitively awarded projects were from three states (California, Washington, and New Jersey). The
smal est federal share of the selected competitively awarded projects was $1.05 mil ion, with five projects
with federal shares over $30 mil ion selected.
Al of the selected competitively awarded projects are from states with statewide building codes. The
most heavily weighted technical criteria for FY2021 relate to building code activities, and applications
from states without statewide codes may be at a disadvantage.

Author Information

Diane P. Horn

Analyst in Flood Insurance and Emergency Management




Disclaimer
This document was prepared by the Congressional Research Service (CRS). CRS serves as nonpartisan shared staff
to congressional committees and Members of Congress. It operates solely at the behest of and under the direction of
Congress. Information in a CRS Report should not be relied upon for purposes other than public understanding of
information that has been provided by CRS to Members of Congress in connection with CRS’s institutional role.
CRS Reports, as a work of the United States Government, are not subject to copyright protection in the United
States. Any CRS Report may be reproduced and distributed in its entirety without permission from CRS. However,
as a CRS Report may include copyrighted images or material from a third party, you may need to obtain the
permission of the copyright holder if you wish to copy or otherwise use copyrighted material.

IN11515 · VERSION 8 · UPDATED

---