Emergency Disaster Crisis Relief Rescue

Federal disaster recovery assistance has long been taken for granted in the United States, embedded in federal laws such as the Stafford Act and the Flood Insurance Act. Federal disaster recovery efforts have been further supported by key organizations including those directly involved in crisis scenarios, such as FEMA. Moreover, a number of ancillary national organizations directly or indirectly provide disaster relief assistance, including the United States Department of Transportation, and most notably the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, which offers Community Development Block Grants for Disaster Recovery (Schwab, 2014). If the federal government should one day determine that its role no longer supported disaster relief services, then a number of regional, state, and local organizations would step up to fill the void in resources and management. Some of those organizations would be from the private sector and others from the public sector. In fact, a situation in which the federal government withdrew its support would likely inspire the creation of new state-level organizations that would address the specific local needs of communities within their borders. While this would allow for each state to outline disaster relief plans meaningful and applicable to it depending on climactic, geographic, and other risk assessment issues, overall the situation would be detrimental in that the closer management is to a disaster zone, the more likely that organization will directly and adversely impacted by the crisis. If the offices and employees of a disaster relief organization are affected by the crisis through physical damage, economic repercussions, and fatalities, then the responsiveness of those organizations is severely reduced.

Specific organizations that would provide local relief include NGOs, universities, and even faith-based and other nonprofit organizations (Smith, 2012). As Rodriguez, et al. (2007) point out, non-state actors like these would potentially be able to respond to social justice inequities and problems related to race, class, gender, and disenfranchisement during disaster scenarios. Furthermore, a high understanding of local needs means that community development organizations, local governments, and even individuals would be empowered to respond (Smith, 2012). Generally, though, if federal funding to those organizations were cut entirely and if the bulk of response services came from within the disaster zone, relief efforts would be far less effective than they are now.

As Anderson & Woodrow (1998) point out, NGOs usually offer insufficient and inadequate support services in disaster areas. Existing infrastructure is rarely used in a way that maximizes the potential of the locality to develop long-term recovery plans. Furthermore, preventative measures including general risk reduction sometimes requires concerted ongoing efforts of collaboration. Local populations and local leadership do need to be closely involved in the risk management and crisis recovery processes. However, if all of the burden of disaster recovery were placed on the shoulders of state and local organizations, there is a clear risk that responses would be hindered by lack of communication and coordination. Financial institutions, insurance corporations, local and regional businesses, colleges and universities, the media, professional organizations, regional planning associations and other entities occupy what Smith (2012) dubs the "zone of uncertainty" in that their roles in disaster relief are poorly explicated (p. 5).