Financial planning for local disasters has never been easy, especially in this age when society is prone to accidents. This process could seem like a contradiction for agencies whose main aim is to control, and possibly avert disasters. Onondaga County in New York State has a population of slightly more than 450,000 residents currently and is prone to such natural disasters like earthquakes. The Emergency Management Commission of the county may not have to worry much about earthquakes (McDonnell et al. 2018). However, it is tricky when such a tragedy is to occur because the first instinct is to always protect the life and safety of the citizens without worrying much about the financial cost incurred. Due to this, many times than not the commission has had to spend way more than they should whenever an emergency occurs because it initially lacked proper channels of financial management under whose guidelines help could be offered. It is because of this that the commission came up with clear financial instructions during an emergency.
The first question is the implications of emergency finances. When an emergency happens, such as a catastrophic earthquake or a tornado, the last thing that comes to mind at that point is financing issues (Staehr, 2015). The first instinct is to always protect and save the lives in danger without caring how much that would cost the body. This is the reason why money issues are always resolved before a disaster strikes. Another reason is to avoid the interlocking resources of private and public organizations which limit the use of finances while the community is exposed to a disaster (Staehr, 2015). The second reason is that the intensity of the catastrophe determines the financial impact realized by the commission. Public disasters range from events that impact a small number of people to catastrophic adversities that devastate the whole community (Staehr, 2015). Another reason is that in case of hazardous materials, it is the private interests that will be at the receiving end for the costs incurred by public agencies in their response of the event.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The next question in emergency financing is who is responsible. Depending on the seriousness of the event, responsibility for dealing with disasters is taken on different levels, both in the local, state, and federal governments. Incidents of a lesser impact are handled locally, while in cases where the local government may be proven inadequate, the state could come in handy with financial resources and a workforce (Pralle, 2017). If the state, on the other hand, is to be stretched beyond its capabilities, it can request a Major Disaster Declaration from the federal government which must first of all determine the seriousness of the incident based on the assessments of the damage (Pralle, 2017). The resources, in this case, primarily come from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The government then utilizes the Pre-Disaster Mitigation programs to adopt the best ideas to reduce the risk of natural hazards. However, the request to FEMA must include a commitment to provide long-lasting local and state resources for disaster management. FEMA then reviews this request for additional aid before making recommendations to the president (Pralle, 2017). The white house either then initiates the federal action or has the FEMA inform the requester of a denial.
These resources include family emergency plans which create plans for families during emergency, the emergency supply list, general preparedness which provides information on emergency planning and involvement. The pet owners as a resource provide information and suggestions for pet emergency preparedness and planning. There is a unique plan for Americans with access and functional limitations through the people with disabilities resource program. It equally provides tips for the elderly population on how to prepare for emergencies through the senior category of resources. Individuals too, have a role to play in disaster management. Their input helps minimize the damage and the resulting cost of recovery. Their primary duty is to maintain adequate insurance coverage both for personal and real property.
Important to note, however, is that even in cases when FEMA programs aid the disaster management, local governments must be responsible for covering a third of the cost. Mostly it does this through establishing an emergency management program plan that is geared towards minimizing the exposure of emergencies by assessing the risks, planning for recovery, training the responders and educating the public (Pralle, 2017). This plan establishes procedures for incident alerts and warnings prior to the incidents. The recovery activities in the program are meant to restore the community to its initial state and correcting the adverse conditions that facilitated the disaster in the first place (Pralle, 2017). Pre-disaster mitigation projects allowed for in the emergency financing plan require local resources. These local resources also provide domestic benefits beyond waiting for a disaster to happen.
There are specific resources however that the Emergency Management Commission cannot provide in times of financial planning due to its limited funding. These include shelter. On its own, the commission is limited and unable to provide accommodations for victims of natural hazards like earthquakes or hurricanes. That is why it mostly partners with organizations such as the American Red Cross to provide shelter. The commission's main job in disaster management is to ensure the safe relocation of victims to a safer place. The second thing the body is unable to do is to provide a scheme for relocation or rebuilding of houses. The body cannot rely on its own to build new homes or relocate victims to newer homes due to its limited financial capability. To this end, it liaises with the American housing corporations mostly contracted by the federal or state government for the reconstruction exercise. The third resource the commission is unable to provide is clothing. It only provides victims with food.
References
McDonnell, S., Ghorbani, P., Desai, S., Wolf, C., & Burgy, D. M. (2018). Potential Challenges to Targeting Low-and Moderate-Income Communities in a Time of Urgent Need: The Case of CDBG-DR in New York State after Superstorm Sandy. Housing Policy Debate , 28 (3), 466-487.
Pralle, S. (2017). Drawing lines: FEMA and the politics of mapping flood zones. Climatic Change , 1-11.
Staehr, A. E. (2015). Human resource risk and succession planning: Implementing an integrated personal and financial consulting model in New York State. Agricultural Finance Review , 75 (1), 133-139.
