Guide to 

Expanding Mitigation

MAKING THE CONNECTION TO EQUITY 
Cover Photo: Volunteers and goat farm owners meeting about farm organizing

Photo: Daughter out for walk through neighborhood with father in wheelchair 

When we create projects, programs and policies in partnership with populations 

that have historically been underserved, the entire community benefits. If you have 

ever walked along a sidewalk and used a pedestrian ramp — a small slope that 

allows for a smooth transition between sidewalk and street — you have benefited 

from this approach. Originally designed to provide greater access for people who 

use wheelchairs, pedestrian ramps make navigating the built environment easier 

for all. Having an extended crossing time and a median for pedestrians in the 

middle of a busy multilane street makes crossing safer. Drivers benefit, but so do 

pedestrians, from senior citizens to delivery people with packages to parents with 

small children in tow. We offer here an opening conversation on the subject of 

equity, recognizing that even an imperfect dialogue can advance the connections 

between equity and hazard mitigation. 

WHAT IS EQUITY

How do we realize similar benefits in hazard mitigation? By placing equity at the 

center of all that we do. Although there is no one-size-fits-all definition, equity can 

generally be understood as policies, practices, interactions, cultures and resources 

that are responsive to all people. Equity is achieved not only when everyone is 

provided full access to information and assistance, but when we intervene to ensure 

that all are provided with the resources necessary to meaningfully participate, 

make progress and benefit from hazard mitigation. The illustration included 

within this guide highlights how, without equity interventions, equal access is 

inherently impossible. As human beings, we each have unique needs that must be 

met to allow our meaningful participation. To realize this vision, we must work in 

partnership with the “Whole Community.”

This Guide to Expanding Mitigation shows how community 

officials can partner with the Whole Community to strive 

for equity in hazard mitigation, including the planning and 

project development process. This guide is a starting place 

for community officials to initiate a conversation about 

mitigation investments that make communities both more 

equitable and more resilient, while avoiding situations in 

which risk reduction measures displace the very people 

they are intended to protect.

This Guide to Expanding 

Mitigation is part of a series

highlighting innovative 

and emerging partnerships 

for mitigation.

Cover Photo: Volunteers and goat farm owners meeting about farm organizing

Photo: Daughter out for walk through neighborhood with father in wheelchair 
Photo: Flooded houses in central Texas Photo: Young father and infant riding city bus Photo: An elder Yurok couple stands on the steps of their front porch

UNDERSTANDING MORE DEEPLY 

The most at-risk members in our community often experience the greatest losses 

from disasters. These community members may lack trusted relationships with 

government officials. As such, they can be routinely left out of planning and 

preparedness activities. In an emergency, they may have little access to information 

about what to do or lack the ability to act. This correlation highlights the importance 

of a Whole Community approach to hazard mitigation and involving historically 

underserved populations in the planning and decision-making processes.

Social vulnerability, understood as an individual’s or social group’s potential for loss, 

recognizes that certain characteristics influence an individual’s or group’s ability to 

prepare, respond, cope or recover from an event. These characteristics often overlap 

within populations to create heightened vulnerability which may be compounded 

by deficiencies in a community’s infrastructure. Understanding where populations 

have an increased vulnerability and exposure to natural hazards, while not predictive, 

can help emergency managers take actions to reduce the impacts to these 

communities before an event or distribute needed recovery dollars after an event. 

Indices such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention’s (CDC) Social 

Vulnerability Index tool can help emergency managers identify the geographic 

areas of heightened social vulnerability. For engagement purposes and to identify 

local partner organizations, it may also be useful to understand the characteristics 

of populations that may be disproportionately affected by disasters, including: 

• Underserved communities with a low 

socioeconomic status.

• People of color.

• Tribal and First Nation communities. 

• Women. 

• Members of the LGBTQ+ community. 

• Individuals experiencing homelessness 

or displacement. 

• Rural communities. 

• Elderly and youth populations. 

• Populations with limited 

English proficiency. 

• Service workers and migrant laborers. 

• Populations with limited cognitive 

or physical abilities. 

• Institutionalized populations, such as 

those in prisons and nursing homes. 

• Renters. 

Some members of these populations may have strong social bonds that enable 

them to withstand disasters. However, many may find it difficult to stockpile 

resources to prepare for an event, recover quickly, or take action to reduce the risk 

posed by natural hazards, while also meeting everyday needs.

The negative impacts of historic government policies continue to compound recovery 

challenges in communities of color and low-income populations. For example, redlining 

limited access to federally backed mortgages based on race until the passage of the 

Fair Housing Act of 1968. Research has shown that formerly redlined areas are, on 

average, 5 degrees Fahrenheit warmer than non-redlined areas, and summer surface 

temperatures in some areas can vary by as much as 20 degrees. Recent studies have 

also shown that within some urban areas, flooding losses have been concentrated in 

Black and low-income communities. Obtaining flood insurance to offset this risk is out 

of reach for our most underserved households.

WHOLE COMMUNITY

While each individual defines “community” differently, the “Whole Community” refers 

to all individuals and families (including those with access and functional needs), 

businesses, faith-based and community organizations, nonprofit groups, schools and 

academia, media outlets, and levels of government, (including state, local, tribal, 

territorial, and federal partners). The Whole Community has a shared responsibility for 

emergency preparedness and mitigation. 

Equality provides the same opportunity to all. Equity provides to each according to need.

Photo: Flooded houses in central Texas Photo: Young father and infant riding city bus Photo: An elder Yurok couple stands on the steps of their front porch
Photo: Suburbs of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

A CALL TO ACTION 

All populations have value and should have the 

option to contribute to emergency management 

and hazard mitigation. When emergency 

managers engage the Whole Community early 

and often, residents can grow into partners in 

response, and emergency managers can grow 

into community allies. Because community 

members are local experts about their 

neighborhoods and hazards, they can help 

emergency managers manage risk. Community 

partners, including informal leaders with leverage 

outside of traditional community organizational 

structures, can serve as trusted voices that 

champion mitigation initiatives. At every stage of 

the disaster cycle, partnerships with those most 

affected by disasters allow our communities to 

thrive and become more resilient. 

LEVEL UP

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 

Region IX, in partnership 

with Georgetown Climate 

Center, produced the Level 

Up Audio Project to share 

stories, case studies, and 

best practices to inspire 

hazard mitigation action and 

strengthen our community of 

hazard mitigation and climate 

adaptation professionals. 

Listen to episodes here.

Understanding community needs and knowing where to target assistance in advance 

of an event will help emergency managers: 

• Deploy the right resources to offset deficiencies in the physical or social infrastructure. 

• Support communities in becoming more self-sufficient and reducing loss 

of life and property. 

• Funnel scarce recovery funding to those most in need. 

• Prioritize mitigation funding for the communities most affected by disasters. 

Considering equity is not just an important opportunity to make our profession 

more effective. As emergency managers and civil servants, we have a duty to see 

that our actions and programs do not have an adverse impact on the civil rights of 

those we serve. In addition to ensuring the equitability of specific hazard mitigation 

actions, we must see that the processes for realizing these actions are conducted 

equitably. To avoid implicit assumptions when making decisions about the nature 

of social well-being, people, and communities, we need to engage the members 

and representatives of the community as key contributors, early and throughout 

the mitigation lifecycle. 

ASSESSING 

SOCIAL 

VULNERABILITY 

Quantifying data that 

includes all vulnerable 

conditions can be 

challenging. Start by 

identifying the regions 

that experience social 

vulnerability through 

key demographic and 

socio-economic metrics, 

determined at the census 

tract level. This can help build a deeper understanding of groups’ susceptibility to 

natural hazards. The CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index pairs a mapping tool with 15 

different variables and is one tool that can direct attention to vulnerable populations. 

Photo: The CDC’s Social Vulnerability Index

Photo: Suburbs of Rancho Cucamonga, Calif.

LEVEL UP

Federal Emergency 

Management Agency (FEMA) 

Region IX, in partnership 

with Georgetown Climate 

Center, produced the Level 

Up Audio Project to share 

stories, case studies, and 

best practices to inspire 

hazard mitigation action and 

strengthen our community of 

hazard mitigation and climate 

adaptation professionals. 

Listen to episodes here.

Learn more about the characteristics that can influence vulnerability: https://svi.cdc.

gov/Documents/Publications/SVI_Community_Materials/atriskguidance.pdf

WORKING IN COLLABORATION

Fundamentally, emergency managers must know the communities they serve and 

collaborate with residents of the frontline communities that are most vulnerable 

to the impacts of disasters. Emergency managers must partner with and empower 

community-based organizations in mitigation planning, project development, and 

related initiatives. Consider establishing a community advisory committee that has 

power in the decision-making process. When communicating about mitigation, focus 

on the community’s priorities or shared goals—such as safety, or on ways that 

mitigation can promote a vibrant, resilient community. Don’t use highly technical 

terms. Translating the benefits of mitigation initiatives into the community’s priorities 

will bring more people to the table and equip them to engage. 
Photo: Colleagues in a conference workshop Photo: Flooded car on an urban street Photo: Paramedic in front of ambulance

WHAT MORE EQUITABLE MITIGATION LOOKS LIKE 

Inclusive processes take time, but when we work collaboratively with diverse 

populations and stakeholders, we will arrive at more effective outcomes. Each 

community has its own definition of what it takes to achieve equity, and the 

definitions are often informed by local goals. One way to measure equity is 

through better outcomes, such as an easier long-term recovery or a disaster 

that does not disproportionately affect our most vulnerable residents. We can 

also measure equity successes in our mitigation initiatives by seeing that: 

• At-risk risk populations lend expertise and have agency in the hazard 

mitigation process. 

• Barriers to participating in mitigation activities are removed, and training, 

language access, transportation, meals and/or childcare are provided. 

• Investment takes place in traditionally underserved communities. 

• Race is no longer a determining factor of risk. 

• Indicators of social vulnerability and environmental burden are assessed 

alongside hazards in mitigation plans and are used to target outreach or risk 

reduction projects. 

• State and local governments include equity as a factor for prioritizing projects 

and applying their administrative and hazard mitigation plans. 

• Cost share is reduced for small or under-resourced communities. 

• Resources are provided to build local capacity and capability for grant 

application processing and administration. 

• An impact assessment is completed before a mitigation project to ensure 

that it helps and does not negatively impact at-risk populations. 

• Those engaged in mitigation activities are representative of the Whole Community.

These approaches are reflected in King County, Washington’s 2020 Regional Hazard 

Mitigation Plan. The plan includes a 2010 countywide ordinance requirement to include 

14 pre-established determinants of equity in all county work, including plans, actions, 

systems and budgets. These 14 elements, along with population vulnerability, will 

be used to prioritize mitigation investments in the communities most vulnerable to 

disasters. The ranking criteria for projects, described in the Hazard Mitigation Strategy 

section of the plan, provide the basis for project submissions to FEMA’s Building 

Resilient Infrastructure and Communities (BRIC) grant program. 

This guide and our opening dialogue end here, but the conversation of equity 

in hazard mitigation is only beginning. Please reach out to us and continue the 

conversation. If we mischaracterized any aspect of equity, social vulnerability or 

people, let us know. We strive to be active listeners, learning along the way and 

adapting as we grow in understanding. 

ENGAGE WITH US

Are you a state, local, tribal or territorial official interested in making the 

connection between equity and hazard mitigation? Are you a community leader 

or resident interested in connecting with local officials to reduce risk from 

hazards? Please contact us at FEMA-ExpandingMitigation@fema.dhs.gov.

Photo: Colleagues in a conference workshop Photo: Flooded car on an urban street Photo: Paramedic in front of ambulance
RESOURCES

Guides to Expanding Mitigation 

https://www.fema.gov/mitigation-risk-reduction

Link to all available Guides to Expanding Mitigation.

American Planning Association Quick Notes on Inclusive Planning Processes 

http://planning-org-uploaded-media.s3.amazonaws.com/publication/

download_pdf/PAS-QuickNotes-82.pdf

Government Accountability Office Environmental Justice Guidance

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/701401.pdf

Department of Homeland Security Environmental Justice Strategy

https://www.dhs.gov/dhs-environmental-justice-strategy

FEMA Environmental Justice Guidance

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/envmemo1.pdf

FEMA Engaging Faith-based and Community Organizations, Planning 

Considerations for Emergency Managers 

https://www.fema.gov/sites/default/files/2020-07/engaging-faith-basedand-community-organizations.pdf 

FEMA Office of Equal Rights, Civil Rights Program

https://www.fema.gov/pdf/government/grant/pa/envmemo1.pdf

Addressing Social Equity through Natural Hazards Mitigation Planning

www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQZ_v9Fo1Mc

NAACP “In the Eye of the Storm” Action Toolkit

https://naacp.org/resources/eye-storm-peoples-guide-transforming-crisisadvancing-equity-disaster-continuum

Urban Sustainability Directors Network Guide to Equitable, 

Community-Driven Climate Preparedness Planning

https://www.usdn.org/uploads/cms/documents/usdn_guide_to_

equitable_community-driven_climate_preparedness-_high_res.

pdf?cn=bWVudGlvbg%3D%3D&utm_content=buffer03b62&utm_

medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer

REFERENCES

Cusick, Daniel. 2020. “Past Racist ‘Redlining’ Practices Increased Climate Burden 

on Minority Neighborhoods.” Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.

com/article/past-racist-redlining-practices-increased-climate-burden-on-minorityneighborhoods/

Emrich, Christopher T., et al. 2019. “Measuring Social Equity in Flood Recovery 

Funding.” https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17477891.2019.1675578

Frank, Thomas. 2020. “Flooding Disproportionately Harms Black Neighborhoods.” 

Scientific American. https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/floodingdisproportionately-harms-black-neighborhoods/

Jerolleman, Alessandra. 2019. “Disaster Justice for All: The Need for a More 

Equitable and Just Recovery Lens.” https://hazards.colorado.edu/news/researchcounts/disaster-justice-for-all-the-need-for-a-more-equitable-and-just-recovery-lens

Mikati, Ihab BS, et al. 2018. “Disparities in Distribution of Particulate Matter 

Emission Sources by Race and Poverty Status.” https://ajph.aphapublications.org/

doi/abs/10.2105/AJPH.2017.304297

The Heinz Center. 2002. “Human Links to Coastal Disasters.” https://research.

fit.edu/media/site-specific/researchfitedu/coast-climate-adaptation-library/unitedstates/national/us---heinz-center-amp-nwf-reports/Heinz-Ctr.-2002.-US-Human-Linksto-Coastal-Disasters.pdf

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We thank the following organizations, whose staff contributed their time toward 

advancing our understanding of mitigation and equity: City of Houston Office of 

Emergency Management; City of Newark, NJ; District of Columbia Department of 

Energy and Environment; Edward J. Bloustein School of Planning and Public Policy, 

Enterprise Community Partners; FEMA Region 2; Georgetown Climate Center; Institute 

for Diversity and Inclusion in Emergency Management; Interpro; Jacksonville State 

University; NAACP Environmental and Climate Justice Program; National Center for 

Integrated Coastal Research; New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection; 

Rutgers University; Seneca Nation of Indians Emergency Management; Texas A&M 

University; University of Central Florida, University of Delaware Bill Anderson Fund; 

University of Delaware Disaster Resource Center; and Waterfront Alliance.