Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters

1

The period of creative federalism was a period of increased federal and state collaboration in the United States during the 1950s and into the 1960s. This period was characterized by the federal government taking a more active role in areas such as welfare, housing, education, and public works, while the state and local governments collaborated more closely with the federal government (Warner, 1970). During this period, the federal government and state governments cooperated to create new programs and services that would help stimulate the economy and improve the quality of life for citizens.

The question of whether national goals should take precedence, as they did during the period of "creative federalism", or if states and local officials should have greater flexibility to decide where their funds are best allocated is one that has been widely debated. Proponents of national goals argue that such directives promote equality and ensure resources are allocated in a manner that benefits all citizens regardless of geographical location. Those advocating for greater flexibility at the state and local levels contend that by vesting decision-making powers closer to those making use of the resources, more effective decisions can be made which take into account localized needs. This differential approach to strategies and resources could shift the degree of emphasis from uniformity across the nation towards a system whereby states best match their programs to particular sets of problems in order to drive effective change. Ultimately, consideration must be given for how such approaches might play out both nationally and locally to allow for creative solutions which benefit all stakeholders.

However, balance is always a priority in public administration. For that reason, there should be a balance between national goals and strong federal direction, and greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and efforts where they feel there is the greatest need. It is important for the federal government to provide guidance and oversight, but state and local governments should have the discretion to address their specific needs and concerns. This can be achieved through a collaborative effort between all levels of government, with the federal government setting broad goals and objectives, and the states and localities providing the necessary resources and expertise to meet those goals.

Ultimately, it does not matter whether the federal or state and local governments have more power and flexibility. For as 1 Timothy 2:1-2 states, God is the one in charge, and it is to God first that one must turn: First of all, then, I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people, for kings and all who are in high positions, that we may lead a peaceful and quiet life, godly and dignified in every way. If this perspective is adopted there will never be a problem of which level of government has the most or least power during a disasterfor all government will acknowledge that all good things come from God and will work for His reign.

Yet, given the fact that our government today at the federal level seems to be set against the laws of God, it is probably in everyones best interest if local officials be given more flexibility to target funds and efforts where they feel there is the greatest need. This way local communities can have more say over their own destinies when disasters occur rather than have to rely on a federal administration that seems to be deliberately determined to operate regardless of Gods commandments.

2

If the federal role in emergency management was reduced to simply providing financial support, it is likely that the system would become increasingly underfunded. This could lead to severely overcrowded shelters, insufficient response times from first responders, and inadequate preparedness in the event of a large-scale disaster. These consequences could be particularly devastating for small towns and rural communities that lack local resources and are already socially and financially disadvantaged. It is essential that the federal government plays an active role in managing emergencies, as those on the ground may not have either the capacity or knowledge to adequately prepare for such events. Thus, there is a clear need for consistent contributions from the federal level to ensure optimal safety during crises.

Overall, the federal government plays an incredibly important role in emergency management, especially when it comes to collaborations between federal, state, and local agencies (Perry & Lindell, 2003). If their role was simply reduced to providing financial support without any further interagency coordination, the response effort to natural disasters could be significantly hindered. Without the oversight of a central authority like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), state and local disaster responses may become uncoordinated, leading to an unnecessarily prolonged timeline for recovery. Additionally, limited...…reduces the need for outside aid in the case of a disaster or other emergency (McEntire et al., 2002).

Other considerations are these: First, developing local capabilities allows people to be responsible for their own safety and well-being. Proverbs 21:23 says, Whoever guards his mouth and tongue keeps his soul from troubles. When people develop local capabilities to reduce hazards, they can be more aware of potential risks and take the necessary steps to protect themselves. Second, it allows people to be better stewards of God's creation. The Bible calls us to be wise stewards of the resources God has given us (Genesis 2:15). Developing local capabilities to reduce hazards helps us make wiser use of resources and protect our environment. Third, it allows people to be more self-reliant. Proverbs 22:7 says, The rich rules over the poor, and the borrower is servant to the lender. When people develop local capabilities to reduce hazars, they can become more self-reliant and less dependent on outside help.

The likelihood of local officials addressing risks to life and property without outside funding and support depends on a few factors. Local governments may have limited resources and may need outside help to build the necessary capacity to identify and mitigate hazards. Local governments may also lack the necessary technical expertise to develop the appropriate response plans and protocols. Additionally, local governments may not have access to the necessary funds to implement such plans. Therefore, it is likely that local governments will need some level of outside funding and support in order to address risks to life and property.

Ultimately, it is likely that local officials will address risks to life and property without outside funding and support, as they have a vested interest in the safety and well-being of their constituents. However, without sufficient funding and resources, it will be challenging to effectively reduce hazards and prepare for disasters. As such, outside funding and support can be invaluable in helping local officials develop and implement effective disaster management plans. Unless local patrons and investors are willing to supply the necessary funding, it is likely that states and local authorities will have to turn to federal support for help. But in doing so they will also have to do something that the federal government wantsbecause it is very much a quid pro quo relationship between the levels of government. For that reason, local authorities should…