Two Possible Models for Disaster Casework Surge Capacity
BY ANNE MEEKER
As Hurricanes Helene and Milton approached the US in late September, the Department of Homeland Security activated its Surge Capacity Force of federal volunteers, urging federal employees registered for the force to “serve your fellow Americans in moments of extraordinary need.”
Congressional district and state staff already answer that call of duty every day, in the more than 100 active “major disasters” around the country right now. But there is no equivalent surge capacity to support these staff.
Congressional district and state staff play a crucial role in disaster relief efforts, working alongside federal agencies to support constituents during crises. These staff members communicate vital information like relief program application deadlines and shelter locations, prioritize urgent cases through direct Congressional liaisons, and help constituents navigate bureaucratic snafus like inconsistent documentation requirements to access essential benefits and services. Their on-the-ground experience also provides valuable insights for future disaster response oversight.
However, the experience of handling these disasters can be a major challenge. Due to caps on the number of staff each office can have, caseworkers often are faced with disaster-related cases on top of their already heavy caseloads. This cycle of recurring disasters contributes to burnout and the loss of experienced staff, ultimately impacting constituent services.
In 2022, the House Select Committee on the Modernization of Congress recommended providing resources and staffing flexibility to district offices during federally declared disasters. However, implementation has stalled due to concerns about funding, training, and duration of additional staff.
Ongoing discussions around potential ways to square these circles and provide surge capacity have focused on temporarily raising the staff cap for offices facing local emergencies. However, this solution would still require offices to recruit, hire, and train brand-new staff while in the midst of a disaster — further increasing the capacity demands on offices in moments of crises.
We suggest that there are other models that would provide more immediate and flexible support to offices in disasters, while ensuring that offices can maintain a high standard of constituent services. Two potential solutions draw on existing formal or ad-hoc programs.
One option is to leverage the Green and Gold Fellowship, which places military veterans and Gold Star families in temporary Congressional roles. These Fellows are hired directly by individual Members, but are technically employed by the CAO (with a separate Legislative Branch Appropriations line item), and do not count toward an office’s staff cap. Allowing offices to rehire their Green and Gold alumni during disasters could provide experienced support while addressing concerns about lifting staff caps — and further leverage the Green and Gold program to provide opportunities for continued service.
Another possibility is to modify House Ethics rules to allow regional delegation members to sign agreements for their staff to volunteer for temporary details in hard-hit colleagues' offices. Informally, some offices already lend their staffs’ time and expertise to support colleagues handling disasters, providing expert casework staff who already understand the relevant programs and best practices for constituent service. This change to Ethics rules would further facilitate this collegial exchange of capacity without requiring additional funding. This approach may also have a hidden upside: relying on colleagues’ generosity could also foster civil relationships among Members who may need to rely on each other's support.
The dedication of Congressional staff in disaster zones, handling thousands of cases and working long hours, reflects their commitment to public service. This localized support likely contributes to the higher approval ratings that individual Members often receive from their constituents compared to Congress as a whole.
As Congress evaluates President Biden's request for emergency supplemental disaster response funding, it should also consider its own capacity to serve constituents effectively. Developing a constituent service surge capacity should be a priority to ensure that Congressional offices can provide timely and efficient support during crises.
Implementing such a program would not only enhance disaster response but also address staff burnout, retain institutional knowledge, and ultimately improve the quality of constituent services. By drawing on existing models and considering flexible staffing options, Congress can create a more robust system to support both its dedicated staff and the constituents they serve during times of extraordinary need.
