Disaster Casework

Overall, offices expressed appreciation for the hard work of agencies including FEMA, SBA, and USDA in responding to disasters. However, staff noted that one of the greatest challenges to disaster casework was getting reliable, accurate, and timely information from federal agencies involved. Offices shared frustration with receiving out-of-date information, new or inexperienced liaison staff, and unclear guidance on whether or how agencies were required to respond to Congressional inquiries.

Recommendation: Committees with jurisdiction over federal disaster-related agencies should work to ensure that agency liaisons have the tools and resources necessary to provide accurate, timely, and reliable responses to Congressional inquiries in disasters

The most impactful reform to strengthen Congressional disaster-related casework would be to expand and adequately resource agency Congressional liaison teams to ensure that Congressional offices receive accurate and timely information on behalf of their constituents. Committees with jurisdiction over disaster-related agencies should include casework responsiveness as an element of post-disaster oversight, and explore opportunities to strengthen agency constituent service responsiveness through additional staffing and/or case management and communication tools.

Offices also suggested other ways to strengthen the partnership between agencies and Congress during disaster situations:

• Agencies would benefit from the ability to relax or change normal Congressional response standards in a crisis.
  Offices expressed that in normal circumstances, they prefer that agencies send formal inquiry responses back to the requesting Congressional office, which can then relay that information to the constituent and help them understand the agency’s decision. However, rigidly sticking to this protocol in a disaster is inefficient and makes the agency less able to effectively help constituents. One office suggested that FEMA and other agencies should be able to activate a “disaster casework protocol” to modify expectations of responsiveness in case of disaster. For example, in a disaster protocol, the agency would follow up directly with the constituent, only following up with the Congressional office if the constituent is not reachable.

• Agencies should consider establishing methods to send urgent updates to multiple Congressional offices to avoid duplicate responses.
  Offices are aware that FEMA and other agency staff spend a lot of time responding to similar questions from multiple Congressional offices. One office suggested that it would be helpful for FEMA and other agency liaisons to have a real-time updated FAQ page, only accessible to Congressional staff, where they could provide answers to common questions.

Recommendation: The directory of Congressional staff currently under development by the CAO should include caseworker issue areas where applicable, and be made available to agency liaisons.

As one office noted, FEMA has a distribution list for Congressional staff, but district staffers are not automatically added to it; instead, they have to know the distribution list exists and request to be added. Giving FEMA’s Congressional Liaison staff access even to a commercially available database like LegiStorm would help agency liaisons better communicate with staff (and avoid awkward moments where Members publicly express frustration with a lack of FEMA briefings, only to find out that they weren’t on the distribution list for information about FEMA briefings).

The House Chief Administrative Officer is already working on developing a legislative branch-wide staff directory, updated with legislative staff issue areas. The CAO should also consider including casework staff issue areas, and making the directory available to federal agency liaisons to facilitate timely information-sharing in crisis situations.

New offices and offices with infrequent major weather/fire events are at a significant disadvantage in responding to disasters

At several points in the roundtable, experienced caseworkers shared tips and best practices with less-experienced colleagues. For example, some offices were unaware that they could request a Mobile Office kit from the Chief Administrative Officer (including a computer, printer, satellite phone, hotspot, battery, solar panels, and more).

While casework teams in areas that routinely handle natural disasters have significant institutional knowledge and established processes and relationships, this can be difficult for new offices and areas that do not frequently handle natural disasters. These offices may not be familiar with available programs, or have solid working relationships with state- and federal-level disaster management agencies or staff on committees of jurisdiction who can help facilitate these relationships.

As one respondent to the disaster casework survey commented, the COVID-19 pandemic underscores the necessity for every casework team to be prepared to handle a disaster. Basic competence to operate a mobile office, contact relevant agencies, and coordinate between levels of government is vital for every office.

Recommendation: The CAO should provide an annual briefing on CAO resources available to support casework operations in a disaster.

In addition to briefing teams on available resources like Mobile Office kits, briefings should also emphasize CAO and Congressional Staff Academy resources to help teams prepare for disasters, including the following topics:

• The value of cross-training
  Ensuring that policy, communications, and administrative staff in Member offices understand the basic procedures of casework intake to support in moments of extremely high demand can help build internal resilience (this may be a particularly helpful workshop in recess periods).

• Relationship development
  Emphasizing the value of developing and maintaining relationships with agency staff and state/local governments to facilitate quick disaster response.

• Mobile office management
  Offices with robust mobile office hours programs have an advantage in responding quickly to disasters; training could further underscore the value of this type of structured outreach program in both ordinary operations and crisis situations.

• Responding to distressed constituents
  Multiple offices noted the emotional strain of responding to constituents in distress, and requested additional support on best practices for these difficult encounters.

Recommendation: Committees with jurisdiction over disaster-related agencies should provide regular casework-specific briefings on relevant disaster programs and available support from agencies.

Establishing regular briefings for all casework teams on tools and resources for handling disasters would help improve constituent service, and cultivate a strong working relationship between committee staff and caseworkers with fresh on-the-ground insight into where agency programs may need additional oversight.

Multiple viable options exist to meet disaster-related staffing needs

Participating staff were divided on the usefulness of additional surge staffing support. Offices that had already invested heavily in specific casework protocols were the most likely to be cautious about accepting outside help. Newly-elected offices, offices already struggling to recruit and hire talented caseworkers, and offices with little experience handling disasters were more likely to say that temporary support would be very helpful. The three primary models for disaster surge capacity discussed were:

• Member-to-Member staff details
  Informally over the last several years, some offices have set up “Member-to-Member” details, in which experienced caseworkers provide direct support to colleague offices who may benefit from additional trained caseworkers. These offices use their own MRA funds to send caseworkers in-person or virtually to help with the administrative side of processing constituent intake and preparing agency inquiries — and noted that this is more likely to happen in delegations with strong existing relationships.
  
  This practice is technically against House Ethics rules specifying that MRA funds are only to be used on behalf of the Member’s constituents. However, some offices suggested that changing these rules to permit this practice more widely may be a good way to utilize otherwise unspent MRA funds or let caseworkers with extra capacity continue to use their skills to support colleagues. Further, relying on Member-to-Member relationships may be an additional incentive to promote civility and cross-party working relationships, as well as a professional development opportunity for talented caseworkers.
  
  However, one potential drawback discussed was the increased risk of staff burnout: handling disaster casework is extremely emotionally difficult, and exposing teams to multiple rounds of vicarious trauma (in the name of supporting colleagues) may exacerbate staff turnover.

• CAO surge team
  Beyond Member-to-Member detailing, offices also expressed enthusiasm for a possible “surge force” housed at CAO or SAA or something similar (and several expressed a sincere appreciation for the CAO’s Coach program and suggested that expanding it may be the right solution). While the human connection of meeting constituents face to face in disaster casework is best done by caseworkers who will remain part of the Member office and available to constituents for the long term, there are plenty of purely administrative tasks that may be done by a less-experienced staffer. For example, one office handling recent hurricanes was able to essentially attach a newly-hired staff assistant to a more-experienced caseworker as an extra pair of hands to take notes, draft emails, and collate documents to prepare inquiries.
  
  However, one office noted that this surge force may raise its own political challenges: if the CAO has a small surge team, who would make decisions about where to deploy its personnel in a large-scale disaster? It may be difficult to establish reliable metrics that would allow for more objective decision-making in a fast-moving emergency — and in the absence of objective criteria, offices expressed concern that deployment of these staff may become politicized.
  
  To the idea of expanding the Green and Gold Fellowship to supplement staff capacity, one office noted that the current hiring wait time for a Green and Gold Fellow is around 60 days — meaning that investing the time into recruiting, interviewing, and hiring a Green and Gold Fellow would not currently be a judicious use of resources in a disaster.

• Raising the staff cap
  Finally, offices were hesitant about proposals to temporarily increase the cap on full-time employees for offices handling disasters — with the largest objection being that in the midst of a disaster, the last thing an office has time for is the labor of recruiting, interviewing, and onboarding a new employee from scratch. However, some offices did see potential utility in raising the staff cap to convert interns (who already have government email addresses and mandatory trainings completed, as well as an understanding of the office’s policies and procedures) into temporary full-time employees. This would not require raising the cap for full-time permanent employees, but perhaps raising the limit on shared or temporary staff.

Recommendation: The Committee on House Administration should continue to explore options for additional staffing flexibility and resources for districts recovering from disasters.

We suggest that this may take the form of a phased approach, attempting relatively lighter-lift solutions and evaluating their performance before taking on more significant reforms. In order, this could include:

• Liaise with the Ethics Committee to modify guidance around Member-to-Member staff details
  The Committee on House Administration could consider working with the Ethics Committee to update guidance to sanction limited use of MRA resources (including staff time) to support colleague offices in case of a disaster. This would allow offices to effectively use unspent MRA funds and build collegial working relationships.

• Explore possibilities for establishing surge capacity within CAO
  Offices emphasized that this potential surge force should provide administrative (non-constituent facing) support, and that criteria for deploying these staff should be clearly communicated and not overly -burdensome. The existence of the CAO Coach program may provide a vehicle to increase staff cap in an existing program to meet this need, rather than standing up a new program.

• Continue to explore options for raising the cap on shared or temporary employees
  While hiring new permanent full-time employees may be unrealistic in a disaster, the Committee on House Administration should continue to explore the feasibility of raising the temporary or shared staff cap to allow offices additional flexibility to bring interns on full-time in a disaster or share post-disaster specialist support staff. Focusing initially on part-time and temporary staff may be easier than raising the staff cap overall.

Offices need flexibility to refer to local nonprofits in their communities

One clear gap is in offices’ ability to refer constituents to local nonprofits — or to be more precise, the fact that this practice is technically against House Ethics rules. Every office expressed certainty that when faced with constituents in need, they would use their best judgment to refer constituents to local nonprofit resources that would be able to help them, especially given the fact that many of these nonprofits (like the United Way, the Red Cross, etc.) are able to mobilize support much more quickly than federal or state agencies. For example, one office noted that they refer constituents to their local 2-1-1 line as a streamlined way to direct them to local resources.

This is an opportunity and a clear need for the House Ethics Committee to provide more appropriate, targeted guidance that benefits constituents who are in need, instead of a blanket ban that limits staffers’ ability to help those they serve.

Recommendation: The Committee on House Administration should work with the House Committee on Ethics to establish appropriate guidance for House offices to refer constituents to nonprofit resources.

Earlier this year, the Committee on House Administration worked with the House Ethics Committee to modify Ethics rules to allow offices to cosponsor constituent service events with nonprofits. This change reflected the expanded constituent service role many offices play in their communities. These proposed two additional changes — allowing Member offices to detail their staff to colleagues’ offices, and allowing Member offices to directly refer constituents to nonprofit resources — would further bring Ethics guidance in line with common practice and provide targeted guidance reflective of Congress’s post-disaster roles.

More resources for mass communication may be helpful