Creation of FEMA & Mitigation v. Preparedness

Natural and artificial disasters are inevitable. The series of natural disasters which struck the country in the 1960sb and 1970s exposed the weakness of the nation regarding to disaster preparedness. Many people died during the time than currently since there was less preparation. However, the situation then is different from the current situation. Since the establishment of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there are new strategies which have come up and ha help during the management of disasters. There is mitigation which deals with long-term solutions to the disaster, and there is disaster preparedness which deals with the short-term objectives of the disaster management. This paper aims at identifying and explaining the reason and events which resulted in the creation of FEMA. The article will also discuss mitigations difference with preparedness, its obstacle sand the solutions 

Discuss the reasons and circumstances that lead to the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency 

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) have a clear mission which is geared towards citizens protections and support , through first response to ensure that the citizens and the entire nation work together to build, sustain and improve the country’s capability to protect against, prepare for, respond to, mitigate and recover from the hazards. The creation of this independent organization in the United States of American stemmed from different events and reasons. FEMA traces its root in the year 1803 under the Congressional act of the year 1803 which was the first legislation piece which was drafted and had a massive impact on the fire disaster which struck New Hampshire during that year ( Koliba et al ., 2011) . The need of a body which could lead to giving a proper solution to disaster management was therefore in need. Based on this reason, several events and reasons took place that led to the formations of FEMA. 

The first events which pushed hard for the formation of a body which could act and respond quickly to the disaster were series of massive disasters which required the federal government response to rescuer people between the year 1960s and 1970s. The following were some of the documented events which struck the country during this period and the federal governments had to act by coming up with Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), as a way to have the disasters managed ( Kapucu, 2012). The events are inclusive of the Hurricane which struck the country in years 1952, The Hurricane Betsy which hit the country in the year 1965 and the Hurricane Camille which was witnessed in the year 1969. In the year 1970s, the following events took place a forced the federal to react to protect the citizens. There was hurricane Agnes which was experienced in the year 1972; there was also San Fernando Earthquakes which shook the whole California leaving many people lifeless. The series of this event intensified the issue of the need for the disaster preparedness in the entire country. The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration was very weak since it had no backup article under the constitution. Due to the series of these events, the nation needed more constitution and a stronger body to manage the disaster. This led to the establishment of the National Insurance Act which was aimed at protecting the homeowners. 

The second events took place in the year 1930 which also pushed or form a significant foundation of the FEMA. In this year, the federal efforts to have the disaster and hazards control were so common than the previous years. In the same year, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was granted authority by the federal to make disaster loans which were to help in reconstruction and repair of some public facilities which were destroyed by the earthquakes. This was the foundation of other similar events which contributed to the knowledge of the establishment of FEMA. For instance, in the year 1934, the Federal mandated the Bureau of the public Roads to provide the funds for the reconstruction of a bridge which was destroyed by the natural disaster ( Haddow et al., 2017). In the years 1965, USA Army Corps Engineering was also granted the power by the Flood Control Act to have the flood project constructed to avert flooding. The homeowners’ insurance plan under the National Insurance act was also another strategy which aimed at managing disaster and contributed a lot towards the establishment of FEMA. 

The last events which led to the formation of FEMA were the fragmented of the disaster management and bodies concerned. The institutions which were formed to protect people were shaky. The National Flood Insurance Act was very unstable, nuclear and the power plant and the transportation of the hazardous substances were then added or categorized as natural disasters to stretch these bodies. This, therefore, brought together almost one hundred bodies which were now concerned with the need to dress natural disasters, hazardous and emergencies. Due to many urgencies involved in this role, there were the national govern forced to have the part of the urgencies brought together and centralized, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter was forced to centralized all these functions into one, and thus, The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established. 

Reasons for Establishments of FEMA 

The first reason for FEMA developments was the need to centralize the federal emergency functions to bring more cohesiveness and coherency in the disaster management in the country. The inclusion of the hazards associated with nuclear power plant and other hazardous transportation as a natural disaster brought about many agencies together, more than one hundred federal agencies now involved in the aspect of the emergencies, hazards and disasters. This also brought about many policies which to some extent were parallel to each other at the state, federal and county level ( Kapucu et al., 2010). This resulted in complicated situation and regulation which were cumbersome especially when an emergency occurred. This, therefore, forced the federal to ask Jimmy Carter who was the president of the United States to come up with a way of centralizing the federal emergency functions. This brought about the creation of FEMA. 

The next reason for the creation of FEMA was the complains which stemmed from many people who complained that the bodies which existed at that time such as the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), were disorganized and lacked coordination, and the result especially during disaster occurrence was inferior. The confusion, inadequate cooperation and coordination and the poor outcome was because the series of natural events which hit the country brought about over one hundred different federal agencies together. Due to the number, there was the role clash, bureaucracy, and general change and action resistance due to slow and poor decision making from some of the officials. This, therefore, means that there was a need for an independent and flexible body which could react to the emergency in a more coordinated, manner in ordered to save the situations and rescuer people during the onset of the disaster. 

Explain mitigation and how it differs from preparedness.  Also, describe three constraints to mitigation and actions that can be taken to overcome them. 

Natural and artificial disasters are inevitable. The field of mitigations provides means and ways in which the impact of the human-made and natural disasters can be brought under control. Mitigation, therefore, is defined as sustained actions to have the risk to people and property reduced or eliminated from hazards and its effects ( Berke et al ., 2012). Mitigation roles in the disaster management are very distinct from others such as the hazard preparedness. As opposed to hazard preparedness this only focused on the short-term solutions to the disaster managements, mitigations look at a long-term solution for the disaster under question. Alternatively, Mitigation is not considered as part of the emergency phase of hazard management, and neither does it classified under the planning phase for the disaster managements like other strategies of disaster management such as preparedness are classified. Another different who distinguish the mitigation role in the emergency disaster management and others strategies such as preparedness is in implementations. Unlike preparedness, the implementation of the mitigation programs and other related activities requires support as well as the participation of the broad spectrum of players whom may have no connection with the traditional emergency preparedness management cycle. Proper implementation of the mitigation strategies includes, among others, constructing and building officials, land use planners, both public and private, insurance companies, business owners, politicians and community larders. 

Mitigation faces different constraints which may choke the entire process and bring about complications of the whole process or make it fail entirely. In case the barriers are identified during the mitigation process, strategies need to be in place to ensure that they are corrected at early stages to avoid interrupting the entire process. The first barrier to mitigation process is poor communication planning. Poor communication of the mitigation plan may lead to its failure at the implementation stage. During the implementation of mitigation process, the stakeholders have to be adequately informed to ensure that there are transparency and accountability of every individual taking part in the mitigation process. To eliminate this barrier, the team should have clear channels of communication. The team should have ways of receiving feedback on progress and strategies on how any difference may be solved in case any occur. 

The second obstacle to mitigation is the poor planning. Mitigation aims at providing long term solutions to the disaster. This, therefore, means that critical preparation for the long-term goal needs to be in place. The team needs to have the scope of the plan well-articulated. They need to have put in place a flexible program which has an option for addressing any negative issues which may appear. To have this problem solves, the mitigation team need to have a flexible plan which will help in ensuring that the entire project is put in place. The last obstacle is the inadequate funds. The mitigation plan only works well in case there is a budget which covers all the methods which need to be in place for the mitigation goal to be achieved. This can be solved by ensuring that plan is within the budget as estimated in the plan. 

In conclusion, the paper has cited unpreparedness and inadequate coordination, in conjunction with series of disasters which occurred between the year 1960s and 1970s which led to the establishment of the FEMA ( Mallic & Vogt, 2011). The paper has also determined the differences between the mitigation and preparedness and cited some of the obstacles to mitigation together with ways on how they can be handles for successful disaster mitigation. 

References 

Berke, P., Smith, G., & Lyles, W. (2012). Planning for resiliency: Evaluation of state hazard mitigation plans under the disaster mitigation activities. Natural Hazards Review , 13 (2), 139-149. 

Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. P. (2017). Introduction to emergency management . Butterworth-Heinemann. 

Kapucu, N. (2012). Disaster and emergency management systems in urban areas. Cities , 29 , S41-S49. 

Kapucu, N., Arslan, T., & Demiroz, F. (2010). Collaborative emergency management and national emergency management network. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal , 19 (4), 452-468. 

Koliba, C. J., Mills, R. M., & Zia, A. (2011). Accountability in governance networks: An assessment of public, private, and nonprofit emergency management practices following Hurricane Katrina. Public Administration Review , 71 (2), 210-220. 

Mallick, B., & Vogt, J. (2011). Social supremacy and its role in local level disaster mitigation planning in Bangladesh. Disaster Prevention and Management: An International Journal , 20 (5), 543-556.