Communities already burdened by economic hardship face compounding disasters
More than half of U.S. counties experienced a climate or weather-related disaster in recent years. Many counties facing frequent, compounding disasters also experience more challenging economic conditions than the rest of the country, making federal support essential for recovery.
A Federal Disaster Declaration is how the federal government supports response and recovery after a major disaster. A Federal Disaster Declaration is a formal recognition by the president and the governor or tribal leader that a weather or climate-related disaster exceeds local and state capacity. These declarations provide access to federal resources, including Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) aid to individuals or public entities. Most U.S. counties have received a Federal Disaster Declaration in recent years. Federal disaster response may potentially heal – or deepen– economic and health inequities in already burdened communities.
Counties that have experienced one or more climate or weather-related Federal Disaster Declarations between (2019-2023) and the distribution of community conditions.
The 2025 University of Wisconsin Population Health Institute (UWPHI) Model of Health illustrates how multiple factors intersect and shape the conditions for health, including access to health care and public health services, a healthy physical environment, and a strong social and economic foundation. Repeated disasters can severely weaken any of these conditions, subjecting a community to ongoing physical, mental, emotional and financial strain without the time and resources needed to recover.
These compounding effects are often greater than the sum of their parts. Disasters impact physical health and safety, cause lasting harm to mental health and well-being and disrupt communities and their health systems. They can also prevent communities from achieving the security and safety needed to build generational wealth and health. In contrast, places with multiple layers of security — like physical safety, reliable health care, well-resourced schools, and economic vitality — often experience steady progress passed down through generations.
Community conditions play a significant role in how long and how well people live. Yet, policymakers and elected officials have not distributed health-supporting resources and opportunities evenly across the country, leading to concentrations of disinvestment in some communities. Strong and equitable community conditions increase a community’s resilience and reduce the amount of time needed to recover from a disaster.
Explore the frequency of recent disasters in a county and the economic burden experienced by the people living there
Communities experience climate and weather-related disasters differently, reflecting differences in their histories, local resources and conditions for health. The same disaster, and the same policy response, can have different consequences depending on the place.
Click on "Filter by Disaster Declarations" in the left tab bar below to see how frequently counties have experienced recent disasters. Click on a county to display data describing the economic conditions experienced by the people living there.
Power and societal rules impact disaster recovery
People with power wield written and unwritten rules to shape community conditions and determine who has the resources needed to meet basic needs and to recover from disasters. Together, power and rules are the structural determinants of health.
Research has shown that under-resourced communities and households with lower incomes suffer disproportionately from disasters. This results, in part, from how the federal government structures disaster declarations. The severity of the disaster, and the amount of resources allocated by the federal government to respond, are primarily informed by the assessed damage to local infrastructure and property. This reflects a priority of protecting property and property values over people and the conditions that create vulnerability in a disaster scenario. Imagine a response that prioritizes funding to communities that elected officials have consistently ignored, and what it could look like to prioritize everyone in a community, from resilience planning to response and recovery. When current economic conditions determine response resources, we create additional layers of disinvestment for under-resourced places, especially those more geographically vulnerable to certain types of disaster. A study in Virginia found that FEMA’s Emergency Management Performance Grant was disproportionately allocated to wealthier jurisdictions, despite their lower disaster losses. As a result, communities with greater resources and higher resilience ratings received more funding, while those made vulnerable by persistent disinvestment were left with less support. This illustrates how socioeconomic security can amplify access to public resources. This is an example of how socioeconomic security can amplify access to public resources.
In 2025, President Trump signed an executive order calling for states and local governments, and their residents, to take more responsibility for disaster preparedness and proposed ending FEMA support for emergency response or closing the agency entirely. As shown above, 72% of U.S. counties experienced one or more federally declared disasters between 2019-2023, with 13% experiencing five or more such disasters in this period. Consider the effect of limiting the financial responsibility for disaster recovery to local economies that have been repeatedly impacted. Household, local, and state capacities vary. Some states have robust emergency management agencies to support preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. At the county level, especially in rural or under-resourced areas, there may be a single person leading emergency management, or no capacity at all.
Positive change is possible. In 2024, FEMA’s Individual Assistance program incorporated poverty data as a consideration in federal declarations. FEMA has also recently allowed use of funds to address pre-existing housing conditions and make investments in any part of a home that would improve resilience in future disasters.
We don’t have to rebuild in ways that repeat past shortcomings. Understanding community conditions and histories can inform tailored interventions and addressing inequities can lessen the impacts of climate-related events. We all belong in national conversations about disaster response. Together we can change the rules and reimagine policies that serve everyone.
