Help with Assignments
TheMatrix
HM510WK2DQ.docxHM510
Unit 2 DQ
Mitigation Planning
Mitigation planning to include funding is important to building a sustainable and hazard-resilient community. Given the three layers of governmental bureaucracy (federal, state, and local) do you believe the system is readily accessible? How do you think the process can be improved to make funding available sooner and ultimately increase the level of mitigation activity? What checks and balances should remain, and which could be removed? Share any personal experiences with the process.
Student #1: (Travis Reed)
Good morning Y’all
The funding process is among the key determinant factors for the success of any mitigation measure directed to a disaster of any nature (Smith & Vila, 2020). Without sufficient funds, the hazard mitigation strategies are rendered ineffective in restoring the status of the community following a disaster. While funding is a critical factor in hazard mitigation, it is also one area with multiple challenges. The governmental levels, which are the local, state, and federal governments, have put some measures to ensure that any eligible hazard mitigation strategy is funded to enhance community resilience. However, the existing bureaucracy coupled with conditions necessary for a mitigation measure to be eligible for funding hinders the accessibility of the funding system, thus rendering the mitigation process ineffective. There are several measures that can be undertaken to improve the process, thus making the funding readily available to facilitate mitigation activity.
One of the measures is to give local and state governments more power in releasing hazard mitigation funds. The disaster response activities have been dominated by the federal government through Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), a move that delays the process of accessing mitigation funds (Smith & Vila, 2020). Therefore, the central government should allocate sufficient mitigation funds to local and state governments based on the provided mitigation plans and further gives these governments more authority to manage these funds. Also, some communities, especially in Texas, Oklahoma, California, and New York, should be declared as major disaster areas, and funding any disasters in these areas should be implemented with immediate effect upon the occurrence of the disaster. On the checks and balances, the government should implement new tools and improve the existing support application process (USCCR, 2021). Besides, the government should modify policies that support discriminatory practices. My experience is based on the winter storm disaster that occurred in February 2021. This disaster resulted in blackouts that extended to days, a clear exemplification of how bureaucracy in the funding system hinders the mitigation process.
References
Smith, G., & Vila, O. (2020). A national evaluation of state and territory roles in hazard mitigation: building local capacity to implement fema hazard mitigation assistance grants. Sustainability, 12(23), 10013.
USCCR. (2021). https://www.usccr.gov/files/2021/05-19-TX-SAC-Government-Response-to-Hurricane-Disasters-in-Texas.pdf .
Student #2: (Antonio Custodio)
As mitigation is a constant year-round effort that can be done by communities or organizations in efforts to reduce damages from disasters man-made or natural it can be complicated in receiving funding from the Federal government if you are a local community or organization trying to promote a hazard-resilient community. Through my limited reading and research I do feel the process is not as easily or readily accessible as it may seem. As FEMA does have funding grants that can be obtainable through an application process it is not instant and, in my opinion, quickly obtainable. (Florec, V., & Rogers, A. 2020). As often seen through the news and some experience states tend to rely on federal government funding and may tend to apply for grants or request funding when it can be too late and a disaster has already occurred. In efforts of not getting political here I do feel it can also depend on administrations and their priorities with some governors and presidents more aggressive in passing bills and funding in hazard mitigation efforts and some not as aggressive or even cutting some funding. In my opinion the process can be improved if there was readily and quicker available funds at the state and local level and having these two governments not heavily rely on the Federal government programs and/or having quick access to aid and funding. As it is unfortunate different states and different local governments can vary with their budgets and disaster preparedness. (FEMA, 2021)
Reference:
Federal Emergency Management Agency. (2021). Hazard mitigation grant program (HMGP). https://www.fema.gov/grants/mitigation/hazard-mitigation
Florec, V., & Rogers, A. (2020). Economic analysis of natural hazard mitigation using the Quick Economic Analysis Tool. Australian Journal of Emergency Management, 35(4), 48–55.
Student #3: (Donald Derryberry)
Dear Professor and Class,
The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is offered by the federal government and is the largest source of funding for State and local government levels for mitigation purposes (Schwab, et al., 2017). While this is the largest source of funding, this source of mitigation funding can only be requested after an area has been classified a disaster by Presidential declaration. Once that is completed, the program greatly assists the local communities with available funding that allows for a quick recovery phase of the operation while improving structural and non-structural facilities through the program.
For communities seeking improvements in mitigation prior to a disaster, FEMA administers the Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (Haddow, et al., 2021). The requirement is that the mitigation measures must be in alignment with the risks associated to the region. The funding cost-share of the program is what hampers many States and communities with this program. The local communities are responsible for 15% of the total cost of the project with the Federal and State governments being responsible for the remaining 85% in a 50-50 cost share split.
Unfortunately, I do not have firsthand knowledge or experiences to share on the process. I imagine it is much like any other federal assistance program in that there is red tape and a lot of paperwork, with a few hurry up and waits in there for good measure. The overall process makes sense though in that local governments must communicate with the State level government, and then it goes forward to the Federal government at a request by the State Governor. The glitches and sticking points in the process are most likely at the political levels and not with the emergency management personnel and agencies actually working the issues.
Don
References
Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2021). Introduction to Emergency Management (7th ed.). https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-817139-4.00001-4
Schwab, A.K., Sandler, D., & Brower, D.J. (2017). Hazard Mitigation and Preparedness: An Introductory Text for Emergency Management and Planning Professionals. CRC Press
READING
In this unit, the reading focuses on hazard mitigation strategies at the local governmental levels. This includes an overview of governmental structures, process, and funding sources for mitigation.
Read the following from the online Library:
· Chapters 2.4 through 2.5.4 from Fundamentals of Disaster Management
· Chapters 1, 3, 4, and 5 from Disaster Resilience: An Integrated Approach
Visit the following:
· Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
· Pre-Disaster Mitigation Grant Program
· 2018 California State Hazard Mitigation Plan
· Illinois Mitigation Programs
· Florida State Hazard Mitigation Plan
· Stakeholders, Functions, and Duties
