The SMART Act requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency to carry out a comprehensive evaluation of FEMA-funded hazard mitigation activities nationwide, and to translate that evaluation into actionable recommendations for program design and oversight. The law ties the study to public disclosure requirements so that findings, datasets, and visualizations are available to stakeholders.
This bill matters for agencies that fund or implement mitigation, insurers and actuaries who price risk, and state and local officials who apply for mitigation grants. By standardizing how mitigation benefits and avoided losses are measured, the study aims to improve targeting and accountability for federal mitigation dollars and to provide data that private and public actors can use when making resilience investments.
At a Glance
What It Does
Directs FEMA to evaluate how its mitigation programs perform—measuring effectiveness, long-term savings, and strategic impacts—and to produce findings and recommendations for Congress and the public.
Who It Affects
Impacts FEMA program offices, state/local/Tribal mitigation partners, insurers and risk-modelers, and Congressarians responsible for disaster spending oversight.
Why It Matters
Creates a recurring, standardized evidence stream about mitigation returns on investment, which can change how mitigation funds are prioritized, monitored, and justified to taxpayers and regulators.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
The bill mandates that FEMA run an ongoing, structured study of mitigation activity outcomes rather than leaving assessments to ad hoc program reports. The study must look beyond immediate outputs (grants awarded, projects completed) to outcomes such as avoided damages, changes in community preparedness, and effects on insurance markets.
FEMA is expected to combine quantitative analyses (for example, modeled avoided losses) with qualitative case studies that capture regional variation in hazard type and community capacity.
To produce usable results, FEMA will need to assemble and normalize data from multiple jurisdictions, reconcile different risk-rating frameworks, and document its assumptions and limitations. The Act asks for clear methodological explanations and visual, geospatial presentations so recipients, local governments, and private-sector users can interpret results without specialized access to raw modeling code.The study is intended to inform both administrative improvements (better program targeting and oversight) and legislative choices (where Congress should adjust eligibility, cost-share rules, or funding levels).
The statute also signals an expectation of iterative refinement: FEMA should update methods and incorporate stakeholder feedback so the analysis becomes more robust over time. That creates operational demands on FEMA to build internal analytic capacity, establish data-sharing arrangements, and adopt consistent metrics across programs.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The Administrator must submit an initial report to specified congressional committees no later than 18 months after enactment and then submit reports annually thereafter.
The statute requires the study to assess five discrete objectives: reductions in federal and non-federal disaster spending; community preparedness improvements; effects on availability and affordability of hazard-related insurance; support for continuity of critical services and infrastructure; and generation of long-term cost savings and measurable ROI.
The mandated methodology explicitly includes quantitative and qualitative analyses of avoided losses, evaluation of mitigation effects on community risk ratings and actuarial measures, region- and hazard-specific case studies, and examinations of mitigation’s role in lowering federal response and recovery costs.
The bill directs FEMA to use data from Federal, State, local, and Tribal agencies, independent third-party and academic studies, and internal program evaluations and disaster recovery records when conducting the study.
The law requires FEMA to make the initial study results available on FEMA’s website in a searchable, user-friendly format (with visualizations and geographic maps), to exclude information that could compromise national security or privacy, and to post each annual report publicly within 60 days of submitting it to Congress.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title — 'SMART Act'
This brief provision names the statute the Studying Mitigation And Reporting Transparently Act. That is purely formal but signals the bill’s dual emphasis on analysis and transparency.
Requirement for a comprehensive FEMA study
Section 2(a) imposes an affirmative duty on the FEMA Administrator to conduct a comprehensive study evaluating the effectiveness, long-term cost savings, and strategic impact of FEMA-funded mitigation nationwide. Practically, this converts what may have been program-by-program evaluations into a centralized, cross-program review that must be sustained over time.
Statutory objectives the study must cover
Subsection (b) lists five substantive goals the study must address: whether mitigation reduces federal and non-federal response/recovery costs; whether it enhances local preparedness; how it affects insurance availability and affordability; whether it supports continuity of critical services and infrastructure; and whether it generates measurable long-term cost savings. These objectives set the evaluative frame FEMA must use when selecting metrics and benchmarks.
Required methods and data inputs
The statute specifies both methodological elements and the universe of data to be used. Methodologically, FEMA must combine quantitative and qualitative approaches, analyze avoided losses, assess impacts on risk ratings and actuarial measures, and include geographically and hazard-diverse case studies. For inputs, FEMA is directed to draw on Federal, State, local, and Tribal datasets, independent academic and third-party assessments, and FEMA’s internal program and disaster recovery records — meaning the study’s credibility depends on FEMA’s ability to access, integrate, and audit heterogeneous datasets.
Consultation and reporting obligations to Congress
FEMA may consult with the GAO, NIST, state/local/Tribal governments, and academic institutions. The Administrator must report findings and recommendations to four congressional committees, placing the study squarely within both Transportation & Infrastructure and Homeland Security oversight lanes as well as appropriations scrutiny. The reporting framework requires findings plus actionable recommendations for both administrative and legislative changes.
Public release requirements and ongoing updates
Section 3 mandates public availability of the study’s results in a searchable, user-friendly format on FEMA’s website, with visualizations and mappings and clear methodological disclosures, while excluding material that would compromise security or privacy. It also establishes an ongoing cadence by directing annual updates that incorporate new data, methodological refinements, and stakeholder feedback, and it requires FEMA to post each annual report shortly after sending it to Congress.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Infrastructure across all five countries.
Explore Infrastructure in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and local mitigation planners — The study will supply standardized, comparable evidence on the effectiveness and ROI of mitigation projects, improving their capacity to justify grant applications and prioritize projects.
- Insurers and risk-modelers — Publicly available datasets and visualizations will help actuaries refine premiums and coverage decisions by integrating federal mitigation outcomes into risk assessments.
- Congressional appropriations and oversight staff — A recurring, centralized evidence base will make it easier to evaluate program performance, set funding levels, and craft legislative reforms with empirical support.
- Community resilience advocates and NGOs — Transparent data and case studies will enable advocacy groups to identify successful interventions and press for replication where outcomes are positive.
Who Bears the Cost
- FEMA program offices — They'll need to allocate staff and analytics budget to run the study, standardize reporting across grants, and manage data-sharing agreements with external partners.
- State, local, and Tribal partners — These jurisdictions may face increased data requests and reporting burdens to supply the inputs FEMA needs, which can strain small jurisdictions with limited analytic capacity.
- Private-sector contractors and third-party researchers — Expect higher demand for modeling, data integration, and visualization work; costs may shift toward firms that can supply standardized analyses.
- Privacy and security officers across agencies — They must review datasets for sensitive information before public release, adding review overhead and potential delays to publication timelines.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between producing rigorous, granular evidence that is useful for targeting mitigation dollars and protecting privacy/security while maintaining methodological neutrality; stronger, more prescriptive measurement rules would improve comparability but could lock in contested assumptions, whereas leaving methods open preserves flexibility but risks inconsistent, politically-influenced outcomes.
The statute sets an ambitious agenda but leaves key design choices to FEMA. Measuring 'avoided losses' and attributing them to specific mitigation activities is complex: it requires counterfactual modeling (what would have happened without the mitigation), consistent baseline assumptions across regions and hazards, and decisions about discount rates and time horizons.
Those modeling choices materially affect reported ROI and therefore how funds are allocated, yet the bill does not prescribe standardized metrics or modeling protocols beyond requiring methodological transparency.
Data quality and access present another constraint. FEMA will rely on disparate data systems maintained by states, localities, and utilities, and on internal program records that vary in completeness.
Integrating these sources will demand investment in data governance and possibly new legal agreements for data sharing. The public-release mandate raises privacy and security trade-offs: useful granularity (parcel-level maps, facility-specific mitigation outcomes) can be highly informative for planners and insurers but also risks exposing vulnerabilities or private information, forcing FEMA to sanitize datasets in ways that reduce analytic value.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.