perhaps worth noting i don't think we see the actual post-florence applications etc. because most of these hadn't closed by the time they gave us the data, which was in ~2020. So Florence did occur but I don't think we see post-Florence mitigations.

I think we can delete this?

unobserved, rather than unobservable

i think we can say for sure that lots of applications are solicited from lower-value, less-white communities because the application stage is where you see the really big median change. Applied -> funded still a decline in median, but not as big. So I'd characterize it more as a function of who is applying, rather than what's being chosen within the applicant pool

this one also could definitely be a NC-specific thing, so i think we should call that out

", especially given that we observe many lower-value properties applying"

i think these papers were saying it's whiter/wealthier counties, but then poorer/less white neighborhoods within them, right? so it's aligning with the neighborhood-scale evidence since we don't do an analogous county-level comparison

perhaps add something like ", indicating that the selection process is not necessarily driving inequitable funding outcomes" or something like that?

funding too, not just applicants

Maybe another sentence before this, along the line sof "Many of these properties have flooded multiple times, suggesting they would likely meet cost-effectiveness requirements for federal funding"

Cool to see this folded in! Pretty interesting.

Ah - this one has the axis adjustments I mentioned for the one above! would be good to get the font sizes closer to what the main text font looks like - right now it seems like it'll be tiny

consider font size adjustments here too... you coudl also just do one set of x-axis labels for the whole plot since those are duplicated, and one y-axis on the right.

It might be totally fine when on a normal paper layout, but it'd be nice to bump up font size for the stages on the left and the num of parcels on the bottom. You could do community applied on two lines

"concentrated in" might be a tad too strong ? more likely to be in?

"the median value for properties that apply for funding drops..." and "the median for those that are funded is..."

missing something about stages... "distribution of property values for parcels making it to each stage of the flooded-to-funded pipeline, expressed as percentile ranks relative to the entire area sample" ? and applies same way to panle B.

Rather than "are within lower-value neighborhoods", how about "average lower property values than the broader flood-exposed population, but are typical homes for their neighborhoods" ? (more emphasis on the address-level info than neighborhood-level)

I see the website only refers to buyout projects for this but i think it is true for all projects. Our main contact there is now gone but I know one other guy there, let me send him an email and see if he can confirm either way. i'll also use it to share the draft with him which is a good idea to do before it goes out

"community and household"

replace with "local government"

I am fairly sure this is always the case for HMGP but actually not sure if it is always true e.g. for FMA, PDM, BRIC vs. it sometimes being a lower federal share. Can you double check and make sure?

add "for HMGP-funded buyouts," to the beginning of this

Here I think we should define HMA and the programs within the HMA umbrella- https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/learn

state, tribal, and local

this only applies to HMGP, so maybe just "after federal funding is released". Since even for the standing programs, they still need some trigger to be released

The application process for FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance funding presents different barriers to access at each stage. Diagram shows a simplified set of stages from flooded to funded (top), and the associated ways in which potentially inequitable outcomes could arise at each stage (bottom).

make this plural, "random forest models" since it's 78 different models

"relied on data on who receives..."

"may not be"

maybe "indicating that the application bottleneck applies even for properties for which mitigation would likely be cost-beneficial"?

perhaps "increasing application rates, and ideally funding rates, particularly among repetitively flooded households..."

maybe "expanding funding, coupled with efforts to increase application rates among repetitively flooded households, could yield significant long-term risk reduction benefits" ?

trying to get at: 1) don't think we want to imply that every flooded property should get federal funds to mitigate 2) also don't want to imply that we should just have lower funding rates 3) i think "there are opportunities to expand cost-effective mitigation investments" is a more productive framing than "how to expand access" though i agree that the subtle implication of the latter is that the selection process (e.g. cost-benefit ratio) is not actually a huge program for marginalized households, at least not in our data.

my thoughts on the outline of this section: - pinch point recap, opportunity to increase funding + meet more demand - one para on lower-value, less-white - one para on repeat vs. not; perhaps targeting could factor in a property's flood history more than just if they flooded really badly in one event (which is how most HMGP works) - what we learn about mechanisms - limitations in methods - limitations conceptually in terms of not knowing if what we see is "good for people" or not

there is no discussion in here about the repeat-flooded panel. it's notable tha the share applying is still small, but at least is double the share in the "all-flooded" group. Also notable that their success rate in applying is about the same as in the all-flooded group.

flagging since we do not currently do this

I don't know where this should go ,but i think we should acknowledge that we don't know if this distribution is equitable in that we don't know if people are better off after being mitigated than before (especially in the case of buyouts). i would want to head off people reading this and going "oh ok everything looks fine" when there could be elements of coercion into applying into buyouts + ending up worse off than before. So I think we want to frame it as "we can rule out some procedural issues, but we're not saying that just because lower-value properties are getting the money, there are no issues"

similar to my comment above, i would compress this paragraph a lot and maybe even combine it with the one above.

I think we should have a stand-alone paragraph that addresses what we DO learn about mechanisms from this analysis. we see no evidence that the CBA is skewing selection to HIGHER value properties, and in theory that should apply across states (since it's a federal rule). We also don't see evidence that a bunch of communities are just choosing to not apply - but the state match could have a lot to do with that. It doesn't look like the communities are only going to expensive properties and asking them to apply, otherwise we'd see a more expensive applicant pool.

this feels like too much text to dedicate to recapping results; let's compress

delete, duplicative of above

One aspect it'd be good to bring in here is that the mitigations have been repeatedly found to be cost-effective, so expanding the funding could likely translate to more cost-effective mitigations -- basically, there are good reasons to expand the pool, not just make the pool more competitive

need to remove language around "eligible" throughout

Insert text here about the 25% match. something like "providing the 25% non-federal share can also be a barrier. in some states, the state government covers the matching share. If not, the funding has to come from local government budgets or individual homeowners, which can significantly constrain participation"

1) i would move this paragraph down to the next section where we describe all the possible reasons why disparities might arise. we already have a line on CBA at the end, so let's just put it all in one place

2) I would call this a potential driver of the disparity -- we don't actually know for sure this is happening. projects are also cheaper when they are for lower-value homes, so the cost side goes down in addition to the benefit side. Also, there are "exemptions" to the CBA rule -- things like "if an elevation costs less than X and the property was substantially damaged, it passes". So i'd frame it more as CBA might be one driver but that's not known.

Suggest restructuring this paragraph the fed gov't is the primary source of public assistance for disaster risk mitigation and post-disaster relief and recovery. Many federal agencies are involved in these efforts, including XYZ. We focus our analysis on FEMA...

is it true that FEMA's mitigation spending > USACE? Probably depends on how you define it

suggest deleting