Post-disaster, insurance typically only provides funds to rebuild the structure as it was before it was damaged or destroyed.  Policyholders, however, can ensure their policy has code upgrade coverage, which will provide extra dollars to cover the costs of rebuilding in compliance with any new building codes adopted since the home was first constructed. Strong building codes will ensure new construction is better able to withstand future disasters. In California, it is actually state law that replacement cost homeowners policies also include an extra 10% to meet any new codes. Where there are strong building codes in place, this then unlocks insurance dollars for resilient rebuilding.

Insurers could offer resilience endorsements to help pay the costs of rebuilding to safer standards above current building codes. This would be an extra addition to a homeowners policy that would provide additional funds at rebuilding to invest in resilience measures. For example, three residual insurance programs have adopted free endorsements that provide policyholders additional funds to install an IBHS FORTIFIED roof following a substantial loss.

Several hurricane-prone states have created household grant programs for loss reduction measures. These grant programs tend to provide a portion of the dollars needed for residents to adopt a FORTIFIED roof, and are typically geographically limited to the highest risk areas. The states take different approaches to where the grant programs are housed and how they are funded. New Mexico, Colorado, California, and other states are considering grant programs for wildfire mitigation.

In general, there has often been little appetite from disaster survivors to take on additional debt, even for the purpose of investing in loss reduction measures. For instance, the federal Small Business Administration makes loans (which may be at lower interest depending on income levels) for disaster repairs and rebuilding. These loans can be increased up to 20% through the Mitigation Assistance program to cover the cost of disaster mitigation, yet very few borrowers chose to do this. One recent study found only 1.5% of borrowers took additional funds to mitigate their risk.  It is unclear how much of the limited demand is due to lack of information about loss reduction, too many transaction costs to getting such work done, or from debt aversion.