Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Waivers And Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
ACF officials outline waiver flexibilities and warn that multiple funding streams complicate disaster response
Summary
ACF leaders said program waivers and flexibilities were critical during recent disasters but that piecemeal funding streams and differing authorities create administrative burden; LIHEAP staff described program scale and disaster flexibilities that states can invoke without a federal declaration.
Administration for Children and Families officials told convening attendees that waivers and program-specific flexibilities have been essential to delivering human services in disasters, but said overlapping authorities and reporting requirements can slow relief and increase grantee burden.
"When funding is appropriated through several different ACF program streams ... this can create challenges in the context of supporting response and recovery," Amanda Barlo, director of legislative affairs and budget in ACF, said. Barlo said ACF has proposed a legislative Disaster Human Services Emergency Fund in recent presidential budget submissions to help coordinate national-level response funding.
Millie Patel (OER) explained the technical distinctions: waivers are explicit exemptions usually noted in legislation; flexibilities are program authorities that can be applied by grant recipients under existing law. She said flexibilities used during COVID have been routinized for some programs and that tactical guidance and case studies exist, but officials have not yet widely publicized disaster-specific guidance for every program.
Janelle George (Office of Community Services) and Achim Ramen (LIHEAP program operations lead) emphasized that block grants and LIHEAP provide flexible tools at the state and local level. Ramen said LIHEAP serves about 5.9 million households and in 2023 helped prevent roughly 1.7 million utility disconnections; he noted LIHEAP recipients can use certain disaster flexibilities without a federal disaster declaration and can waive some timeframes locally then notify HHS after the fact.
Why it matters: Multiple funding streams (regular program funds, supplemental appropriations) each carry different obligations, allowable activities and reporting; that fragmentation can impede rapid, coordinated assistance. Panelists encouraged states to prepare umbrella data-sharing agreements and to adopt pre-vetted disaster policies that can be activated quickly.
What they asked for: ACF urged more pilot projects, clearer published case studies on flexibilities, and federal support for state-level infrastructure. Several speakers also urged blending and braiding of funding sources as a practical approach to pay for data infrastructure and other cross-program capabilities.
Closing note: Panelists said many effective disaster policies developed during the COVID response have become permanent improvements to steady-state administration, but additional work is needed to scale best practices and reduce administrative friction.
