1
Case Study 7: Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters Assignment
Ken Davis
PADM804_B02_202430 Liberty University
Dr. George Austin
September 29, 2024
2
Introduction
Case 7: The purpose of this study is to analyze intergovernmental collaboration during
disasters among Federal, State, and local governments by evaluating five areas that require more
research: 1) Should there be national goals and strong federal direction, as during the period of
“Creative federalism,” or greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and
efforts where they feel there is the greatest need; 2) What would happen if the federal role in
emergency management was reduced to providing financial support; 3) How likely is it that state
representatives will address the state’s significant hazards without federal encouragement; 4)
What are the advantages of developing local capabilities to reduce hazards; 5) How likely is it
that local officials will address risks to life and property without outside funding and support?
Collaboration between local administrations and private and grant-funded entities during a
natural or manufactured disaster, like Firefighter arson, may reduce response time. In addition, a
biblical perspective reflects a suitable response and networking during a disastrous time in
history. During a crisis or any emergency, effective communication is paramount.
Information systems ensure proper decision-making communication between federal,
state, and local government administrations. The provided technology is “integrated well with
the organization’s existing information systems infrastructure to reap the greatest benefit from
connecting people” (Valacich & Schneider, 2018, pp. 210-11). They are providing much-needed
direction between first responders and base camps. In contrast, Kapucu et al. (2010) uncovered
that using intergovernmental and inter-organizational responses to coordinate complex
operations in multiorganizational environments of catastrophic disasters was unsuccessful, like
“disasters in deep mining conditions” (Qi Qingxin et al. 2020, para. 1), both recovery and rescue
efforts during hurricane seasons. These effortsEand others are part of the foundational discussion
3
of federalism and the basis for contemporary intergovernmental relationships. The following
section addresses whetherEnational goals and strong federal direction should exist, as during the
“Creative federalism” period,Eor greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and
efforts where they feel there is the greatest need.
The Creative Federalism Period
From 1950 to late 1960, federalism's timeline wasEa creative phase of innovative
programs. In January 1964, President Lyndon B. Johnson requested Congress to aid with
“unconditional war on poverty” and to declare war “not only to relieve the symptom of poverty,
but to cure it and, above all, to prevent it” (Ginzberg & Solow, 1974, para. 2). The anchor to the
president’s war on poverty was the Economic Opportunity Act, and the other major initiatives
were the founding of Johnson’s Great Society Policies (GSP). Johnson’s administration's efforts
created over sixty educational bills, grand funding organizations, Medicare, Medicaid, the Older
American Act, andEthe Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. These
programs are identified with Johnson’s Great Society series of programs and policiesEand
intergovernmental relationships that focus on policy problems, poverty, racial injustice, and
increased cooperation between the levels of government.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 addressed the war on poverty, setting up education bills and
Medicare programs.EThese legislative accomplishments were the first civil rights policy in one
hundred years to outlaw segregation. From 1960 to 1968, President Lyndon Johnson and his
administration addressed poverty in the United States through Johnson’s GSP. Creative
federalism set the steps for federal administrative requirements requiring the state and localities
to stipulate national goals and federal directions. With the creative federalism period in mind,
4
should there be national goals and strong federal direction or greater flexibility for state and local
officials to target funds and efforts where they feel there is the greatest need?
Some scholars believe there should be a federal direction for national goals and greater
flexibility for state and local officials. Agranoff (2017) argued that at its basic level, the
American style of administration is still a product of law and politics. In contrast, Theda Skocpol
(1995) concludes that “the fragmentation of political sovereignty built into US federalism and
the division of decision-making authority among executive, legislatures, and occurs was
reproduced in new ways throughout the twentieth century" (p.23). Morton Grodzins claims in the
American System that the federal system is a marble cake, instead of a layer cake, because “no
important activity of government in the United States is the executive province of one of the
levels” (Shafritz & Hyde, 2017, p.602).
Networking During the Creative Federalism Period
During the creative federalism period, the federal government created intergovernmental
programs that required significant planning and networking. The state and localities were
sanctioned to stipulate how national goals outlined by Congress or federal agencies address those
goals. Wanting to give the state and localities flexibility, the grants applied for under Johnsons’
GSP required states and localities to request and send elaborate proposals before funding
approval. Depending on the direction of the grant and goal, there may be a difference in the fiscal
administration resources because not all governments can send a suitable proposal for funding.
Applying for and using the grant required anEeducated, skilled administrating team and
substantial resources. Securing federal grants was essentialEfor governors, mayors, and other
state and local officials. Once approved, a trained, professional, and educated administrative
5
team provided greatEflexibility when using the federal grant funds. However, what would happen
if the federal role in emergency management was reduced to providing financial support?
If the federal role in emergency management disaster funding were reduced, the country's
financials would change the government budgetary process. Decentralization would be
noticeable when the states and local governments collaborate. As this may help some states, in
many aspects, management that crosses districts becomes indirect as the federal system acts on
its behavior as it takes part in broader national aims within the system. Different policy stances
differ on intergovernmental postures (Aranoff, 2017).
The Federal Role in Emergency Management
1974, the Disaster Relief Act wasEenacted into Public Law No: 93-288. The focus of the
grant was on disaster preparedness aid. Under Title II, the President of the United States must
provide a disaster preparedness program networking theEservices of all national, federal, state,
and local agencies. The advantage of the 1974 Disaster Relief Act was how the Titles networked,
collaborating withEthe efforts of federal, state, and localities. Each state affected by theEdisaster
should notEexceed $250,000 to develop plansEandEprograms, and disaster preparedness and
prevention capabilities must fall within the policies of the Titles.
Title 1Erequired findings, declarations, and definitions to accept theEgrant.
Title 2 authorized the president to set up a disaster preparedness program that fit
the agencies' services.
Title 3 provides that the Governor of the affected State makes all the
determinations based on the President's requests to declare that an emergency
exists.
6
Title 4 authorized repairs to the affected State at the president's request and the
jurisdiction of the agency damaged by the major disaster.
Title 5 is the economic recovery for the disaster area that includes the distribution
of food coupons and commodities, relocation aid, legal services, crisis counseling
help and training, emergency communications, emergency public transportation,
and fire suppression grants (S.3062, 1974).
The disadvantage of the 1974 Disaster Relief Act of the federal government’s role in
emergency management is the outlined stipulation to the President within the Disaster Relief
Fund (DRF).
Recovery time by the supporting statesEandElocal, tribal, and territorial
governments as they respond to and recover from various incidents.
Each state receives $250,000 regardless of the disaster.
County-level correlates of cap spending in the South and non-South only.
The ActEauthorizes the President to make grants not to exceed 50 percent of the
cost of improving, supporting, and updating State disaster aid plans, with a grant
limit of $25,000 per year per State (S.3062, 1974).
Racial discrimination of funding among white and non-white states.
Inequity at the core of the disaster policy, making some communities vulnerable
to future disasters.
Local ability at the local government level, specifically in rural, tribal, and
underserved urban areas, may not address certain disasters.
Johnson’s GSP fought the war on poverty through the Office of Economic Opportunity (OEO),
amending the TitlesEand collaborating at the federal level and between the states and localities.
7
Consequently, Public Law No 93-288, renamed and amended the 1974 Disaster Relief Act on
November 23, 1988, created the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance
Act, signed into law under the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to support first
responders. Public Law No 93-288 allowed the federal administration to address better
collaboration between federal, state, and local governments. Detailed collaboration under Public
Law No 93-288 addresses overviews and issues inherited from the disaster relief fund. The
following section focuses on how likely state representatives will address the state’s major
hazards without federal encouragement.
Addressing Hazards Through Communications
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act proved to
become aEbetter collaborative effort to enhance communication and collaboration between the
federal, state, and local counties, as the Act aided the citizens, ensuring that as a nation,
collaborative work, building, sustaining, and improving the country's capability to prepare for,
protect against, respond to, and recover from while mitigating all hazards (U.S. Department of
the Interior, 2024). State representatives will address the state’s major hazards without federal
encouragement. Under this act, FEMA receives funding from Congress annually,Ebecoming the
most-tracked account among the grant-funded programs.
There are several ways communication is shared for a hazardous event. Public health
messages distribute local preparedness by coordinating expert planning involvements for
minimal results during the pre-hazardous phase. Public health messages aim to canvas the local
community so localities can get involved in pre-hazardous disaster preparedness and community
response by taking simple steps to ensure that the basics and mandatory supplies are gathered.
This communication effort is conveyed by the media, policymakers, mass media, and public
8
health professionals so that in the future, coordination can be enhanced among these localities
before, during, and after aEdisaster. At the public health preparedness level, the focus of the
communities and individuals is on preventive care through emergency responder training, EMS
awareness, a local administration directory, and a local evacuation route are all preventive
measures to the public health messages preparedness. Preventive care for public health messages
is a technological advance. Communicating through technology is the fastest method for
preventive measures before and after a storm. However, not all communities and local
government technology is updated before a storm, as the federal government now has the
authority to fund each state based on prior events.
Another way to address hazards through communication is by a media-driven disaster
policy highlighting deficiencies in the delivery of relief rather than local preparedness and
national coordination efforts (Barnes et al., (2008). The media tend to address differently based
on the type of disaster; for instance, in May 2024 in Houston, the city was hit by a Tornado, and
the emergency beacons alarmed through text and radio frequency, instantly warning the city of a
Tornado falling from the sky. Compared toEHurricane Beryl, the media focused on
telecommunication, explaining the type of category hurricane, demographics, temperature, where
it would make landfall, and how long it is expected to remain inland. Barnes et al.E(2008) argued
that the media is agenda-setting on basic assumptions of weather.
Local Collaborating Communications Addressing Hazards
Local capabilities have advantages in reducing hazards. The local county representative
would know how to look for and adapt their concerns to federal programs and their needs. Local
differences are rooted in the social and political factorsEdesigned to shape county funding
through state and political operation settings. Several studies have found that locals living near a
9
hazardous business come with risks such as adverse health concerns. Government agencies can
alter the trajectories of any state by filtering multiple programs into the state and local
administrative patterns and enforce procedures reducing pollution from the nearby ecosystem.
Agranoff (2017) argued that a different policy stance on intergovernmental postures permits state
representatives to address hazards based on the district's needs. Bender et al., 2011, p.3, argued
“In a 1999 national telephone survey among US voters,1 74% of respondents thought that
environmental factors had an important impact on childhood cancer, and 73% thought
these factors had an impact on birth defects. More than 50% of respondents felt that air
pollution, contaminated drinking water, and toxic waste greatly impacted a person's
health.”
Local administrations' advantages in reducing hazards within their district include
jurisdictional interdependence, theEjoint administration dimension of intergovernmental
relationships, andEfederal-nonfederal proliferation. Local officials will not likely address risks to
property owners without outside funding and support.
State Communications Addressing Hazards
Information on state management agencies (SEMAs’) listed on the web showed that “3 of
the 51 SEMAs in the United States did not have Web sites accessible to the public, and another
13 provided no hazard analysis information on their Web sites” (Hwang et al. (2001). Sadly, the
agents communicating showed poor correspondence about long-term vulnerability from earlier
mapping, which corresponded to the state's major disaster. Could this be how some states are
missing information in addressing hazards? Michael Lindell (2023) argued that “due to major
challenges in theEcommunication of spital hazard information is the existence of substantial
10
variation in people’s ability to infer the appropriate conclusions from hazard maps correctly”
(Hwang et al. 2023, para. 1).
Federal Communications Addressing Hazards
Federal agencies in the United States conduct chemical evaluations on different exposure
scenarios. Some of those exposure scenarios are listed in the district's statutory requirements,
focusing on various scenarios (Shaffer, 2021). Risk assessment is still a concern in public health
practices and policy, leaving no clear summary of the evaluation processes. Federal agencies that
find chemical exposures discover that chemical exposures affect the environment, workplace,
hazardous waste sites, cosmetics, and certain foods. These assessments are statutorily required
(Shaffer, 2021, para.1). Many chemical assessments serve as guidance. Most are sources of
information, and less than half result from risk management. The broader community is
facilitated and engaged as the roles are explained and understood. Although much collaboration
and communication towards chemical hazards have been evaluated, there isEmore to study,
particularly in the aggregate risk assessment due to regular exposure across domains.
Federal, State, and Local Communication Addressing Hazards
Public officials must be prepared to communicate effectively with the media and local
commerce to deliver messages. The message that the media receives does not supersede the
federal, state, and local network communication system. The communication system's message
must “educate instead of being aEprovoking alarm whenever there are acts of terrorism, mass
violence, natural or other disasters, and public health emergencies occur” (Samhsa, 2019, p.4).
Communication before, during, and after a crisis should become a standard practice between the
federal, state, and local administrations. Risk communication procedures should become a
training tool between district administration to foster trust and confidence, which is vital in crisis
11
situations. Additional communications, such asEnews channels, nontraditional media, blogs, and
social media systems, should propel a 24-hour or less news cycle during a crisis, ensuring
effective collaboration.
A biblical concept of hazardous communication
The Bible is clear that if we obey the Lord God's statutes, ordinances, and laws, our way
will prosper and produce good success (Joshua 1:8). However, communicating and interpreting
are not the same. At the local level, we interpret what is law based on culture, but at the kingdom
level, what the Lord requires may not be what we think. Verkler andEAyayo (2023) argued that to
be a good interpreter of scripture, one must also become an interpreter of hermeneutics. In Mark
10:21-23, Jesus addresses a young ruler who wanted to know what he must do to inherit eternal
life. This passage focuses on communication as the young ruler wanted to know what should be
done. Jesus asked him about keeping the law, and the young ruler replied that he had kept those
laws since childhood. Jesus concurred but gently explained that his understanding was perfect,
but he missed the point. The young ruler was asked to sell all he had obtained by observing the
law and give to the poor, and then shall he have eternal life. It is hazardous to communicate a
message and even more dangerous not to interpret it correctly.
12
References
Agranoff, R. (2017). Crossing boundaries for intergovernmental management.
Georgetown University Press.
Barnes, M. D., Hanson, C. L., Novilla, L. M., Meacham, A. T., McIntyre, E., & Erickson, B. C.
(2008). Analysis of media agenda setting during and after Hurricane Katrina: implications
for emergency preparedness, disaster response, and disaster policy. American Journal of
Public Health, 98(4), 604–610. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2007.112235
Brender, J. D., Maantay, J. A., & Chakraborty, J. (2011). Residential proximity to environmental
hazards and adverse health outcomes. American Journal of Public Health, 101 Suppl
1(Suppl 1), S37–S52. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2011.300183
Ginzberg, E., & Solow, R. M. (1974). The great society: Lessons for the future.E(No Title).
Gillette, M. L. (2010).ELaunching the war on poverty: An oral history. Oxford University Press.
Hwang, S. N., Sanderson, W. G., & Lindell, M. K. (2001). State Emergency Management
Agencies’ Hazard analysis information on the internet. International journal of mass
emergencies & disasters, 19(1), 85-106. https://doi.org/10.1177/028072700101900104
Qi Qingxin, Pan Yishan, Li Haitao, Jiang Deyi, Shu Longyong, Zhao Shankun, Zhang Yongjiang,
Pan Junfeng, Li Hongyan, and Pan Pengzhi (2020). Theoretical basis and key technology
of prevention and control of coal-rock dynamic disasters in deep coal mining. Journal of
China Coal Society, 2020, 45(5). DOI: 10.13225/j.cnki.jccs.DY20.0453
S.3062 - 93rd Congress (1973-1974) (1974). Disaster Relief Act of 1974.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/93rd-congress/senate-bill/3062
Shaffer R. M. (2021). Environmental Health Risk Assessment in the Federal Government: A
Visual Overview and a Renewed Call for Coordination. Environmental science &
technology, 55(16), 10923–10927. https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.1c01955
13
Shafritz, J. M., & Hyde, A. C. (2016). Classics of public administration (8th ed.). Boston, MA:
Cengage.
U. S. Department of the Interior (2024). Federal Emergency Management Agency. Accessed
October 5, 2024,
https://www.doi.gov/recovery/about-us/primary-agencies/FEMA#:~:text=The%20Federal
%20Emergency%20Management%20Agency,from%2C%20and%20mitigate%20all
%20hazards.
Virkler, Henry A., & Karelynne Gerber Ayayo (2023). Hermeneutics: Principles and processes
of biblical interpretation. Bakers Books.
