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

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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)349-354
Number of pages6
JournalJournal of Emergency Management
Volume8
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 2020

Keywords

  • Disaster management
  • Emergency management
  • Hazard mitigation
  • Mitigation
  • Postdisaster assistance

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Comparing predisaster mitigation grant spending with postdisaster assistance spending: Are mitigation investments saving federal dollars?'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this