A Review of The United States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning For Recovery

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/27/17. Copyright ASCE.
For personal use only; all rights reserved.
A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

FRAMEWORK: PLANNING FOR RECOVERY
Gavin P. Smith1
1. Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, 1616 East Millbrook Road, Suite 310
Raleigh, North Carolina 27608-4968. gpsmith@pbsj.com. Research
Professor, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Department of City
and Regional Planning
Abstract: A review of the disaster recovery literature and observations

in practice shows that the three types of assistance (funding, policy and
technical assistance) provided before and after disasters has not been
described collectively, including their potential to function as an
interconnected system guided by an operational plan. Instead, past
work has tended to focus on individual elements of programs and
policies (May 1985; Mileti 1999), funding sources, or the means by
which recovery policies are implemented (Birkland 1997, 2006). This
approach has led to a limited understanding of the process and the
suboptimal application of disaster assistance. The purpose of this
research is to describe the organizations found in the disaster aid
network, the types of aid they provide, and how they can be more
effectively integrated into a broader, action-oriented framework. The
proposed model is intended to more accurately describe the approach
taken in the United States, while assisting practitioners more
effectively coordinate the process, emphasizing the potential role of
planning.
INTRODUCTION
Following disasters in the United States, a great deal of attention is placed on the
assistance provided to individuals, groups, communities, states and nations, including
the degree to which it is distributed based on race, class and gender; power or
influence; the differential access to information; and how current post-disaster
funding practices contribute to an increased level of hazard vulnerability. While pre-
and post-disaster financial assistance plays a key role in recovery (particularly for
events that are deemed federally-declared disasters), two additional types of aid exist,
773
Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008
Solutions to Coastal Disasters 2008
774 SOLUTIONS TO COASTAL DISASTERS 2008
including policymaking and technical assistance provided both before and after a
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/27/17. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
disaster. An over reliance on the search for monetary assistance post-disaster can
supersede attempts to implement meaningful policy change or the degree to which
outreach, training or education can change behavior among individuals, groups and
organizations.
THE DISASTER RECOVERY ASSISTANCE FRAMEWORK

Disaster assistance is provided through a fragmented, multi-layered network of
organizations, each possessing differing norms and values reflected in their
organizational and regulatory structure. These contextual factors affect the rules
governing the manner in which assistance is disbursed or implemented.
Organizations include federal, state and local governments; regional planning
organizations; foundations and non-profits; financial and lending institutions;
professional associations; the private sector; nations; universities and colleges; the
media; insurance; emergent groups; and individuals. The nature of the rules guiding
decision making varies among the members of the disaster aid network. Those with
the most prescriptive rules tend to have the lowest understanding of local needs.
Conversely, those with the least prescriptive rules tend to have the highest
understanding of local needs (see Figure 1). Organizations located in the middle of
the model represent a “zone of uncertainty” requiring further study to determine their
level of prescriptive rulemaking and understanding of local needs. Based on
preliminary research they represent an area of unrecognized potential to affect
positive change in the disaster recovery assistance framework.
Figure 1. Disaster Assistance Model
Organizations found among the lower rungs of the framework, including disaster
victims, local government officials, and non-profits, who have the best understanding
of local needs, are frequently excluded from decisions associated with the

SOLUTIONS TO COASTAL DISASTERS 2008 775
disbursement of funding, the crafting of policy, and formulation of capacity building

strategies made by those located on higher rungs, including federal and state agencies.
The low level of coordination across organizations significantly limits the
development of needs-based policies and programs. The lack of organizational
awareness among members of the disaster aid network has resulted in highly
prescriptive programs rather than the creation of programmatic flexibility and the use
of multi-objective planning techniques, both of which have proven to be important
determinants of a successful recovery (Geipel 1982; Berke, Kartez and Wenger
1993).
The timing of programs, grants-in-aid, training or the exchange of information can

significantly impact disaster recovery outcomes. Each organizational layer provides
assistance pre-event and across the disaster recovery continuum. Figure 2
demonstrates a hypothetical distributional scenario of federal and non-profit
assistance. The existing framework emphasizes direct monetary aid to the detriment
of capacity building approaches, and the creation of collaboratively derived strategies.
Expenditures on capacity-building strategies, including plan making, public
participation, and facilitated policy dialogue tend to be minimal, further degrading the
effective use of recovery funding and the creation of a coherent recovery strategy that
coordinates the temporally defined distribution of assistance. Further analysis will be
undertaken to more accurately measure the timing of assistance across all
organizations in the disaster assistance network.
Figure 2. Timing of Disaster Assistance

Stakeholders and their Characteristics

Next, the stakeholders involved in disaster recovery are discussed. The implications
of their characteristics are described relative to the disaster assistance network and the
type of aid provided. This is a summary of the material collected to date as part of
the ongoing research associated with the writing of the text A Review of the United
States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning for Recovery.
Federal, State and Local Government. Federal, state and local units of government
are consumed by the administration of disjointed post-disaster federal recovery
programs. The objectives guiding these programs are not coordinated and are often
contradictory. The role of post-disaster recovery planning as a coordinative tool
remains marginalized as ESF-14, the federal “emergency support function”
responsible for this task, is not widely accepted within FEMA, the agency responsible
for its implementation. Program rules, while highly prescriptive, are regularly
modified during disasters based on the politicization of disaster, the influence of
powerful interests, and the adroit use of data, negotiations and policy dialogue.
Experienced state and local government officials who know how to operate within
this system stand to gain while others who are less aware of the process, suffer as a
result.
Following presidentially-declared disasters, state agencies are overwhelmed, often

resorting to the hiring of temporary staff focused on the administration of federal
programs. This approach significantly limits state-level capacity-building and the
ability to address those sources of aid beyond that provided by the federal
government. The inability of the state to effectively address the array of other
stakeholders in the disaster assistance network constrains post-disaster opportunities
to reshape the physical, social, economic and natural environment as noted in Smith
and Wenger’s definition of a sustainable disaster recovery (2006, p.238). States may
create a post-disaster recovery task force or committee to address this coordinative
task. The formulation of a recovery committee provides promise but is not
necessarily indicative of a sustained institutional commitment to pre- or post-event
recovery planning.
A key premise of the disaster assistance model is the realization that local
government officials are among the most aware of local needs, yet play a limited role
in the formulation of major federal policies directly affecting them. The focused
management of post-disaster grant programs often obscures the fact that local
governments possess some of the most effective pre- and post-disaster recovery tools.
Land use planning techniques including subdivision regulations, zoning, capital
investments and the strategic placement of public infrastructure have great potential
to shape pre- and post-disaster settlement patterns relative to known hazards. While
an array of tools exist, their direct application to planning for post-disaster recovery
remains underutilized (Burby 1998).
Non-profits. Non-profit organizations tend to be driven by a sense of altruism and a

desire to assist the less powerful and disenfranchised while possessing a general

mistrust of government, who are viewed as overly bureaucratic and unresponsive.

The reward system for aid-based organizations is often linked to the amount and
speed with which it is delivered. This approach has the unintended effect of limiting
local capacity-building (Cuny, 1983) and the coordination of other forms of aid that
follow. Disaster victims recognize the responsiveness of non-profits, including their
ability to rapidly distribute aid and target groups that may be ineligible for other
sources of grant and loan programs. This approach results in a greater level of trust
when compared to other members of the disaster recovery aid network. Non-profits
can serve a coordinative role through the dissemination of post-disaster recovery
information, including program and policy eligibility criteria, and the timing of
disbursement across aid networks. Patterson (1998) argues that when addressing
complex problems involving multiple levels of government and other stakeholder
groups, a network of non-profits, armed with differing “functions” (i.e. issue
advocacy and mobilization of public opinion; policy formulation and collaborative
problem solving; coordination and partnership building; trusted, innovative, and
flexible service delivery; providing, attracting and leveraging resources; and research,
education, and information dissemination) aimed at building local capacity and
commitment should be utilized (pp. 206-207).
Foundations. Foundations are public or private non-profit institutions through which

grant funding flows to identified recipients, technical assistance programs are
provided, and policy positions are advocated. Disbursed contributions are routinely
evaluated by appointed board members who expect assistance programs to provide
meaningful returns based on the mission and goals established by the organization.
The success of foundations, like others involved in recovery, is often measured by the
rapidity of response to identified needs. The provision of aid in the immediate
aftermath of a disaster (e.g. food, water and short-term shelter) provides evidence of
their commitment to action. Foundations also provide resources to non-profit
organizations that repair or rebuild damaged or destroyed houses, conduct community
organizing efforts, initiate participatory planning workshops, or disseminate
information regarding disaster recovery assistance programs. Evidence suggests that
a growing emphasis is being placed on post-disaster recovery planning efforts.
Following Hurricane Katrina, a number of foundations provided direct financial and
technical support to states and local governments to develop disaster recovery plans
(Office of Governor Haley Barbour, 2006; Unified New Orleans Plan, 2007).
Foundations affect policy formulation through their work as advocates or noted

experts. Problems or shortfalls in the existing disaster aid network are addressed
through direct contributions to organizations that carry out identified foundation
goals. Issue-specific foundations are often comprised of technical experts who
provide advice, training or direct public testimony on policy-related issues.
Regional Planning Organizations. Disasters are typically regional in nature,

causing widespread physical, social, environmental and economic impacts that extend
beyond political boundaries. Regional planning organizations, whose actions are tied

to land use and transportation planning, public health, economic development and
environmental conservation, play an important role in disaster recovery.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Councils of Government, economic
development organizations and other groups possess the means to acquire, analyze,
and display key data relevant to a well thought out recovery and reconstruction
strategy. Regional organizations, particularly in rural areas, are often the primary
source of important economic, demographic and environmental datasets. This
information serves as the basis for a variety of plans, many of which are developed by
regional planning organizations in coordination with local governments. Plan
implementation requires the identification of appropriate resources, including
stakeholders and sources of funding. Regional organizations frequently solicit and
administer federal, state, and foundation grants on behalf of governments. Without
this support many jurisdictions would not be able to compete for a number of grant-
in-aid programs nor implement adopted plans.
Regional organizations serve an important training and outreach function for smaller
municipalities with limited staff and larger metropolitan areas sharing multi-
jurisdictional concerns. Their involvement in pre- and post-disaster recovery
activities varies widely across the country and is linked to developing pre-disaster
relationships across stakeholder groups and facilitating an organizational culture that
supports collaborative work and multi-objective planning. Watershed management
groups provide a good example of this approach. Following major flood-related
disasters in the United States, for example, the large-scale acquisition of flood-prone
properties protect natural habitats (i.e. wetlands and riparian ecosystems) while
reducing future disaster losses.
Professional Associations. Members of professional associations possess highly

specialized technical expertise grounded in practice. This collective expertise, and
the ability to mobilize it to address identified needs, represents an important aspect of
disaster recovery. These organizations frequently advise state and federal agencies
and members of state legislatures and Congress through policy counsel, testimony at
state and federal hearings, or training and educational programs. These actions have
played a role in the formulation of important federal policy, such as the creation of
the Disaster Mitigation Act, the increasing importance of planning for post-disaster
recovery, and the interstate sharing of resources post-disaster (Smith and Wenger
2006).
The effective adoption of policy at the local level requires a sustained commitment to
advise and train stakeholders that will be tasked with implementation. Providing
examples of what is possible must be tempered by what is feasible considering the
political, social, economic conditions present. This does not mean that significant
policy change cannot be achieved. Rather, for meaningful change to occur, a strong
local champion must be identified, a broad-based coalition of support established, and
technical professionals identified to assist. Not withstanding the adoption of the
above actions, significant resistance to changes in the status quo or competing
reconstruction ideologies may prevail.

This necessitates the pre-disaster mobilization of professional resources. While an

array of assistance exists, and the nascent role of planning and design-related
associations offer promise, their potential remains underutilized. This is particularly
true in areas such as land use planning, grants management and administration, and
other long-term recovery activities. In order to be most effective associations must
commit to a sustained effort over time to include building the local capacity necessary
to implement post-disaster recovery plans while assisting communities with intensive
pre-event planning.
Universities and Colleges. The research community has contributed to an expanding

body of knowledge regarding topics as fundamental to the field of hazards
management as how people, groups, and organizations behave prior to, during, and
after disasters; the impact of power and political systems in decision making; how
structures and human settlement patterns are affected by the forces of nature; and the
role of preserving environmental systems as a way to reduce future hazard-related
losses. Early research efforts were chronicled in the 1970s by White and Haas (1975)
and characterized as failing to systematically integrate technological and physical
sciences with social, political and economic realities. Since that time, social scientists
have made significant strides towards gaining a better understanding of how and why
people, groups and organizations behave the way they do in the context of natural
hazards and disasters (Mileti 1999).
Among the most powerful contributions of those involved in academic scholarship is

the ability to critically assess complex systems with the unbiased eye of a scientist.
The perspective of identified experts can play a role in policy formulation and
assessment as witnesses are called upon by governmental committees after disaster,
frequently asked to provide context to what went wrong and offer recommended
solutions. Their comments and testimony can affect change if supported by
policymakers. Unfortunately, much of the knowledge generated through research is
not effectively disseminated to professionals in the field. Scholars do not typically
invest the time necessary to share their findings through media recognized by
practicing professionals while practitioners do not reach out to researchers seeking
answers to unsolved dilemmas (Yin and Moore 1985, Fothergill 2000, Smith and
Wenger 2006). The faculty of universities and colleges tend to focus on the
advancement of knowledge, rather than its application in practice. The transfer of
this information represents an ongoing challenge across many of the disciplines
traditionally associated with hazards research, including sociology, public
administration, planning, and engineering. Indicators of positive change include the
growing number of university-affiliated hazard centers and the increasing number of
degree programs across the United States. The increasing prevalence of research
centers focused on natural hazards provides an institutional venue to engage in
collaborative multi-disciplinary research while facilitating the critical exchange of
ideas through face-to-face dialogue.

Private Sector. The private sector contributes to disaster recovery efforts in several
meaningful ways. Businesses and corporations make significant financial, material

and technical donations following disasters. Construction, engineering, architecture
and planning firms reconstruct communities following disasters. A growing
proportion of pre- and post-disaster recovery program administration, grants
management activities, and training historically performed by local, state and federal
governments have been assumed by the private sector. Financial institutions provide
the fiscal resources needed to initiate reconstruction activities, while insurance
companies provide payouts to policyholders.
Striking an appropriate balance between market-driven recovery and reconstruction

practices with a well though out governmental intervention strategy remains an
ongoing tension. A strict adherence to “disaster capitalism” can result in significant
negative externalities affecting equity, environmental well being and public safety
(Klein 2007). Private sector interests may fight changes in policies that result in safer
communities. Changes to building codes, the adoption of higher reconstruction
standards, and the use of new land-use planning measures following a disaster may
elicit claims of increased housing costs, slowed recovery or reduced profits. This
requires a countervailing approach that may include policy and program incentives
(i.e. targeted grants, low interest loans, increased development densities in targeted
locations, and insurance reductions) and disincentives (i.e. limited governmental aid
for certain types of development, fines, impact fees, etc.). Case studies demonstrate
the merits of bringing development interests to the table early in the process and
reaching agreements driven by collaborative problem solving techniques and focused
on complimentary interests (Smith 2004). Thomas and Fritz (2006), recognize that in
order for corporate donations, including monetary, staff, logistics, IT and
communications-related support to be effective, it requires developing an improved
relationship with disaster relief agencies before a disaster occurs.
Federal, state and local agencies tasked with the administration of disaster assistance
are increasingly reliant on private sector contractors. Examples include policy
formulation, grants management activities, training of local, state and federal
emergency management officials, the development of risk assessment models, and the
management of temporary housing. Widespread outsourcing has led to several
negative outcomes, including a reduction of government staff that posses an in-depth
understanding of policy issues and institutional knowledge, lower employee morale,
and a greater dependence on organizations who are motivated by profit and
professional recognition rather than public service. Private contractors can play a
crucial role when effectively utilized. In order to be effective, contractors and
government officials must develop a strategy that addresses identified needs while
sustaining the internal capabilities of government through a process of project
implementation, local training, and extensive public involvement.
Media. The media does not control monetary aid, govern policy development or
provide direct technical assistance. Rather, their actions play a significant role in
influencing post-disaster assistance through the distribution of information. The

accurate dissemination of information in the aftermath of a disaster is critically

important as members of the disaster aid network administer a multitude of policies

and programs, each of which have a unique, often contradictory set of rules. Given
the complexity of the system, an over reliance on the media versus the use of more
interactive methods of information exchange can lead to missed opportunities to
coordinate program objectives. The media may disseminate misinformation,
resulting in the perpetuation of disaster myths or cause conflict among groups. These
practices can hinder the effective layering of assistance. Involving the media in pre-
disaster recovery committees or other collaborative planning processes represents a
sound means to utilize their abilities to share information while keeping them
informed, thereby maximizing their potential to positively impact disaster recovery
outcomes.
Emergent Groups. The U.S. system of disaster recovery assistance is in many ways
reflective of the larger governmental and societal processes prevalent across other
policy arenas. That is, large, complex problems are addressed through the
implementation of disjointed federal programs rather than grass roots-driven
processes. As a result, the assistance is provided without a clear understanding of
local needs. Emergent groups often form in response to perceived needs that go
unfulfilled by other members of the disaster assistance network. These groups tend to
be informal, assume tasks that they have not previously undertaken and engage in this
activity for a limited period of time. Examples of aid provided may include
addressing the failure to effectively or equitable distribute limited recovery assistance
funding (Bolin and Stanford 1998) education of underrepresented groups about risk
and preparedness activities (Lindell and Perry 1992), or providing a voice for those
who feel disenfranchised. Research conducted by Stallings and Quarantelli (1985)
has shown that emergent groups address numerous recovery-related activities,
including limiting future development in flood-prone areas, replanting trees following
a tornado, opposing proposed post-disaster housing approaches, and identifying funds
to pay for the reconstruction of homes following a landslide.
Individuals. Studies have shown the merits of localized recovery strategies that
drive policy formulation, technical assistance and the distribution of financial aid
(Anderson and Woodrow 1989; Oliver-Smith 1990; Smith and Wenger 2006).
Successful local efforts demonstrate to participants that they can affect change,
leading to a growing sense of empowerment and self-reliance. Individuals possess
detailed experiential knowledge regarding program clarity, lessons learned, and how
to craft more effective policy reflecting local needs. Individuals, particularly those
impacted by a disaster, can provide critically important input into the broader disaster
aid framework through such collaborative processes as public participation, policy
dialogue, and involvement in disaster recovery planning committees.
CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Preliminary conclusions and recommendations are based on work to date on the
textbook A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning for

Recovery. Three primary recommendations have emerged: (1) Develop and

institutionalize a comprehensive national recovery strategy; (2) Increase local

capacity and commitment by enhancing self reliance and accountability; and (3)
Maximize the use of collaborative problem solving and resource allocation strategies.
Each recommendation suggests a key role for professional planners and the practical
application of tools they regularly employ.
Develop and Institutionalize a Comprehensive National Recovery Strategy

The federal government has failed to develop a comprehensive national recovery
strategy. The National Response Framework, the current document used to guide
post-disaster response and recovery efforts, focuses on the means to administer an
uncoordinated series of narrowly defined federal programs rather than the
development of a more inclusive and participatory planning process that involves
stakeholders described in this paper. Key aims of an improved plan should include:
(1) A greater emphasis on the development of a coordinated multi-objective planning
approach, seeking innovative ways to more effectively blend the types of aid
provided across members of the disaster assistance network; (2) An increased focus
on the creation of pre- and post-disaster capacity building efforts; and (3) Holding
recipients of assistance accountable for their pre- and post-disaster related actions,
particularly those that increase hazard vulnerability.
Increase Local Capacity and Commitment by Enhancing Self Reliance and

Accountability
An explicit aim of disaster recovery programs should be to increase self reliance and
accountability. As part of any aid package or program, its recipients should be
required to take action to reduce the impacts of future events while committing to
enhance their self reliance. Capacity building strategies should include direct
assistance in the form of funding, training and new policy initiatives that support this
approach. Once achieved, pre- and post-disaster aid must be more closely linked to
specific expectations. Examples include requiring federal, state and local
governments to take action to reduce the impacts of future events in a more
systematic manner than that required under existing federal legislation. The Disaster
Mitigation Act of 2000, for example, requires local and state governments to develop
hazard mitigation plans in order to remain eligible for certain types of federal
assistance. Yet plan standards do not effectively limit continued development in
known hazard areas. Communities must take greater responsibility to control growth
in these areas or face limited assistance in future disasters. In order for this to work,
members of the disaster assistance network should commit to significant
improvements in capacity building while speaking with a common voice regarding
local accountability.
Maximize the Use of Collaborative Problem Solving and Resource Allocation

Strategies
The planning profession has a long history of using collaborative problem solving
techniques, while the practice of plan-making is grounded in the identification and

allocation of resources to achieve organizational goals and objectives. These

techniques are directly applicable to many of the problems encountered in disaster

recovery. Collaborative methods employed by planners include dispute resolution,
policy dialogue, facilitation, capacity-building, empowerment, and education and
training. Plan-making techniques involve the collection and analysis of data, goal
setting, policy recommendations, evaluation and modification. The application of
these actions and tested approaches to disaster recovery planning provides a vehicle
to coordinate the three types of assistance provided.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This paper represents the work conducted to date on the text A Review of the United
States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning for Recovery, to be published by the
Public Entity Risk Institute. The model evolved from an educational tool used to
train staff while serving as the Director of the Governor’s Office of Recovery and
Renewal in the State of Mississippi following Hurricane Katrina.
REFERENCES
Anderson, M. and P. Woodrow. (1989) Rising from the Ashes: Development
Strategies in Times of Disaster. Boulder, Colorado: Westview.
Berke, Philip R., Jack Kartez and Dennis Wenger. (1993). Recovery After Disasters:
Achieving Sustainable Development, Mitigation and Equity. Disasters 17(2), 93-
109.
Birkland, T.A. (1997). After Disaster, Agenda Setting, Public Policy, and Focusing Events.
Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press.
Birkland, T. A. (2006). Lessons of Disaster: Policy Change After Catastrophic
Events. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press:
Bolin, R.C. and L. Stanford. (1998). The Northridge Earthquake: Community-Based
Approaches to Unmet Recovery Needs. Disasters 22 (1), 21-38.
Burby, Raymond. (1998). Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural Hazards
with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Washington, D.C.:
Joseph Henry Press.
Cuny, F. (1983). Disasters and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Comerio, M. (1998). Disaster Hits Home: New Policy for Urban Housing Recovery.
Berkeley, California: University of California Press.
Fothergill, A. (2000). Knowledge Transfer between Researchers and Practitioners.
Natural Hazards Review. 1(2), 91-98.
Geipel, R. (1982). Disaster and Reconstruction. London: Allen and Unwin.
Haas, J.E., R. Kates, and M. Bowden. (1977). Reconstruction Following Disaster.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Klein, Naomi. (2007). The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Capitalism. New
York: Henry Holt and Company.
Lindell, M. and R.W. Perry. (1992). Behavioral Foundations of Community
Emergency Planning. Washington, D.C.: Hemisphere.
May, Peter. (1985). Recovering from Catastrophes: Federal Disaster Relief Policy
and Politics. Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press.
Mileti, D. (1999). Disasters by Design: A Reassessment of Natural Hazards in the

United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Oliver-Smith, A. (1990). Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and Social

Inequality: A Challenge to Policy and Practice. Disasters, 14, 7-19.
Office of Governor Haley Barbour. 2006. One Year After Katrina: Progress Report
on Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal. Governor’s Office, State of
Mississippi.
Olson, R.S. (2000). Towards a Politics of Disaster: Losses, Values, Agendas and
Blame. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and Disasters, 18(2), 265-
287.
Patterson, Robert G. (1998). The Third Sector: Evolving Partnerships in Hazard
Mitigation. Pp. 203-230. In Cooperating with Nature: Confronting Natural
Hazards with Land Use Planning for Sustainable Communities. Raymond
Burby, editor. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.
Rubin, C. (1985). The Community Recovery Process in the United States After a
Major Natural Disaster. International Journal of Mass Emergencies and
Disasters, 3(2), 9-28.
Smith, G. (2004). Holistic Disaster Recovery: Creating a More Sustainable Future.
Federal Emergency Management Agency, Emergency Management Institute
Higher Education Project.
http://training.fema.gov/emiweb/edu/completecourse.asp.
Smith, G. and D. Wenger. (2006). Sustainable Disaster Recovery: Operationalizing
an Existing Agenda. Pp. 234-257. In Handbook of Disaster Research.
Havidan Rodriguez, Enrico Quarantelli, and Russell Dynes, editors.
Washington, D.C.: Springer.
Stallings, R.A. and E.L. Quarantelli. (1985). Emergent Citizen Groups and
Emergency Management. Public Administration Review, 45, 93-100.
Thomas, A and L. Fritz. (2006). Disaster Relief, Inc. Harvard Business Review,
84(11), 114-122.
Unified New Orleans Plan. 2007. City of New Orleans.
White, G. and E. Haas. (1975). Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards.
Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Yin, R. and G.B. Moore. (1985). Utilization of Research: Lessons from the Natural
Hazards Field. Washington, D.C.: Cosmos Corporation.


A Review of The United States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning For Recovery

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

A Review of The United States Disaster Assistance Framework: Planning For Recovery

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, San Diego on 05/27/17. Copyright ASCE.

For personal use only; all rights reserved.

A REVIEW OF THE UNITED STATES DISASTER ASSISTANCE

Abstract: A review of the disaster recovery literature and observations

THE DISASTER RECOVERY ASSISTANCE FRAMEWORK

Figure 1. Disaster Assistance Model

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

disbursement of funding, the crafting of policy, and formulation of capacity building

The timing of programs, grants-in-aid, training or the exchange of information can

Figure 2. Timing of Disaster Assistance

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

Stakeholders and their Characteristics

Following presidentially-declared disasters, state agencies are overwhelmed, often

Non-profits. Non-profit organizations tend to be driven by a sense of altruism and a

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

mistrust of government, who are viewed as overly bureaucratic and unresponsive.

Foundations. Foundations are public or private non-profit institutions through which

Foundations affect policy formulation through their work as advocates or noted

Regional Planning Organizations. Disasters are typically regional in nature,

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

environmental conservation, play an important role in disaster recovery.

Professional Associations. Members of professional associations possess highly

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

This necessitates the pre-disaster mobilization of professional resources. While an

Universities and Colleges. The research community has contributed to an expanding

Among the most powerful contributions of those involved in academic scholarship is

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

meaningful ways. Businesses and corporations make significant financial, material

Striking an appropriate balance between market-driven recovery and reconstruction

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

accurate dissemination of information in the aftermath of a disaster is critically

important as members of the disaster aid network administer a multitude of policies

CONCLUSIONS AND POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

Recovery. Three primary recommendations have emerged: (1) Develop and

institutionalize a comprehensive national recovery strategy; (2) Increase local

Develop and Institutionalize a Comprehensive National Recovery Strategy

Increase Local Capacity and Commitment by Enhancing Self Reliance and

Maximize the Use of Collaborative Problem Solving and Resource Allocation

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

allocation of resources to achieve organizational goals and objectives. These

techniques are directly applicable to many of the problems encountered in disaster

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

United States. Washington, D.C.: Joseph Henry Press.

Oliver-Smith, A. (1990). Post-disaster Housing Reconstruction and Social

Copyright ASCE 2008 Solutions to Coastal Disasters Congress 2008

You might also like