by Benj Korson, Manager, Recovery Strategic Programs
Addressing real-world transition questions regarding active projects, timelines, and positioning for the new R3P framework.
The FEMA Review Council proposed a Rapid Response Resilience Program (R3P) mitigation framework to replace HMGP with a faster, state-led, two-phase funding model. This represents a broader shift toward simplified delivery, reduced federal involvement, and locally driven prioritization. However, because these changes would require congressional action and regulatory updates, the timeline for adoption remains uncertain and could take several years.
The R3P Structure: Faster, State-Driven Mitigation
R3P introduces a two-phase funding structure that provides early, rapid funding for immediate post-disaster risk-reduction, followed by additional funding for larger, priority projects aligned with state and national objectives.
While HMGP is already administered at the state/tribal/territorial level, this proposed approach would further shift responsibility for project selection, funding decisions, and oversight to states, tribes, and territories. The federal role would shrink to providing funding, reducing FEMA’s involvement in eligibility, environmental compliance, and technical reviews. The model builds on existing mechanisms like Advance Assistance to accelerate funding, but places greater emphasis on speed, simplified delivery, and pre-identified, ready-to-implement projects.
Pipeline Disruption and the Dual-System Environment
If implemented, open HMGP projects would most likely be “grandfathered” under existing FEMA rules, but no new HMGP awards would be issued once the R3P is in place. The greatest disruption would occur in the pre-award pipeline, where projects may need to be restructured to compete under new state-led models.
During the transition, local emergency management programs would have to operate in a dual-system environment, managing legacy HMGP projects alongside new R3P initiatives. While reduced federal review may streamline timelines, longstanding challenges related to the local capacity to plan and develop projects would remain. Effective project scoping and documentation would be critical than ever; without strict federal oversight, local programs bear the responsibility of ensuring projects are technically sound and cost-effective.
Navigating the Bridge Approach
A “bridge approach” between HMGP and the proposed R3P framework may be necessary to move projects already in development into the new system. This could allow states to re-prioritize and convert existing HMGP pipelines, advance shovel-ready projects into early funding phases, and re-scope or defer projects that do not align with updated priorities. While this preserves prior investments, it could also introduce short-term complexity related to hybrid requirements and shifting oversight.
As implementation details evolve, local programs must actively manage risk and opportunity. Agencies should continue executing existing HMGP projects while preparing for a state-driven environment by strengthening alignment with state priorities and prioritizing clearly scoped, cost-developed projects.
Your R3P Readiness Checklist
1) Build a Ready-to-Implement Project Pipeline
- Identify and prioritize shovel-ready mitigation projects
- Advance scope, cost estimates, and feasibility
- Focus on projects with clear risk-reduction outcomes (e.g., repetitive loss, critical infrastructure)
2) Align with State Priorities and Processes
- Coordinate closely with the State Hazard Mitigation Officer
- Understand state prioritization, scoring, and sequencing
- Position projects to align with state and national mitigation objectives
3) Strengthen Mitigation Planning and Data
- Maintain an updated, actionable mitigation plan
- Expand project detail within the plan (location, scope, cost)
- Improve risk data, asset inventories, and vulnerability analysis
4) Prepare for Faster Funding and Delivery
- Develop internal processes to accept and deploy funding quickly
- Pre-coordinate procurement, environmental, and administrative requirements
- Establish “ready-to-launch” project packages
5) Manage the Transition and Build Capacity
- Plan to operate in a dual system (HMGP + R3P)
- Allocate staff and resources across legacy and new programs
- Reassess pipeline projects for R3P conversion, HMGP acceleration or deferral