Open Access Open Access  Restricted Access Subscription or Fee Access

Comparing predisaster mitigation grant spending with postdisaster assistance spending: Are mitigation investments saving federal dollars?

Katharina Renken, PhD, Andrea M. Jackman, PhD, Mario G. Beruvides, PhD, PE

Abstract


This work is a companion paper to “Quantifying the Relationship Between Predisaster Mitigation Spending and Major Disaster Declarations for US States and Territories.” Mitigation is a relatively new undertaking, especially for local jurisdictions, within the United States disaster policy. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires local jurisdictions to plan for and implement mitigative strategies in order to access federal grant funding options for emergency management. After DMA 2000 went into effect in the mid-2000s, a supporting study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC 2005) found that on average, mitigation projects yielded a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1 at the local level.1 This paper evaluates and compares predisaster mitigation spending and postdisaster assistance spending at the state and FEMA Regional levels, hypothesizing that as mitigation spending increases, postdisaster spending should decrease. The results however indicate the opposite, with most states showing increasing in both types of spending over time.


Keywords


disaster management, mitigation, emergency management, hazard mitigation, postdisaster assistance

Full Text:

PDF

References


National Institute of Building Sciences: Natural Hazard Mitigation Saves: An Independent Study to Assess the Future Savings from Mitigation Activities, 2005. Available at http://www.nibs.org/mmc_projects#nhms. Accessed February 16, 2016.

Federal Emergency Management Agency: What is mitigation? 2015. Available at http://www.fema.gov/what-mitigation. Accessed August 17, 2015.

Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: Measuring the quality of emergency management. In: Proceedings of the 34th American Society of Engineering Management. Minneapolis, Minnesota: National Conference; 2013.

Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: How much do hazard mitigation plans cost? An analysis of Federal Grant Data. J Emerg Manage. 2013; 11(4): 271-279.

Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: Local hazard mitigation plans: A preliminary estimation of national eligibility. J Emerg Manage. 2013; 11(2): 107-120.

Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, Public Law 106-390 (106th Congress October 30, 2000). Available at https://www.congress.gov/106/plaws/publ390/PLAW-106publ390.htm. Accessed August 2, 2016.

Planning Advisory Service: Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: Next Generation. Chicago, Illinois: American Planning Association; 2014.

Renken K: Economic Effects of Mitigation Spending in Emergency Management in the United States of America From 2004 to 2014 [dissertation]. Lubbock, Texas: Texas Tech University; 2016.

Renken K, Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: Quantifying the relationship between pre- and post-disaster from a mitigation perspective. J Emerg Manage. 2020. 18(4): 341-347.

Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: The variational effects of jurisdictional attributes on hazard mitigation planning costs. J Emerg Manage, 2015; 13(1): 53-60.

Jackman AM, Beruvides MG, Nestler GS: Disaster Policy and its Practice in the United States: A Brief History and Analysis. New York: Momentum Press; 2017.

Lindsay BR, Murray J: (2011). Disaster Relief Funding and Emergency Supplemental Appropriations. Darby, Pennsylvania: DIANE Publishing; 2011. Congressional Research Service.

Renken K, Jackman AM, Beruvides MG: Disaster Mitigation: An Analysis of Compliance Versus Disaster Declarations and Spending. In: Proceedings of the 2019 American Society of Engineering Management National Conference, Philadelphia, PA. 2019. In press.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.2020.0479

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Copyright (c) 2020 Journal of Emergency Management