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). Federal services and institutions provide a bureaucratic framework which, although imperfect and certainly disorganized at times, nevertheless offers an overall vision of how to prevent and respond to crises.

If federal aid were completely removed from disaster response services, then non-governmental organizations, non-profit organizations, the private sector, and local governance institutions would assume many of the roles and duties that had once been conferred to bodies like FEMA. Unfortunately, however, those local and non-governmental organizations may lack the ability to provide adequate resources and detached oversight typical of federal aid organizations. References Anderson, M.B. & Woodrow, P.J. (1998). Rising from the Ashes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E.L., et al. (2007). Handbook of Disaster Research.

Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. New York: Springer Science Schwab, J.C. (2014). Planning for post-disaster recovery: Next generation. American Planning Association. Smith, G. (2012). Planning for Post Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework. The Public Entity Risk Institute Publishers. Retrieved online: http://www.ncr.vt.edu/arlington/pdfs/resilency/Smith%20-%20Planning%20for%20Post-Disaster%20Recovery-%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20United%20states%20Disaster%20Assistance%20Framework.pdf 2. Post-disaster recovery planning differs from other types of planning in the emergency management realm, including response planning.

The best way to conceptualize the differences between post-disaster recovery planning and other types of planning in emergency management is via the conceptualization of the "disaster cycle" as outlined by the Partnership for Disaster Resilience (2007). Whereas post-disaster recovery planning takes into account the repercussions of the specific disaster in the context of local variables such as existing infrastructure, financial resources available, and human personnel, other phases of the disaster cycle focus on issues like risk assessment, education and outreach, business continuity plans, and mitigation plans.

One of the three core differences between post-disaster recovery planning and other types of planning in emergency management include the former's emphasis on rebuilding and reconstruction. Whereas emergency preparedness planning would entail education and outreach services through local businesses, schools, and the media, these types of resources would be used much differently during post-disaster recovery. Likewise, response planning may involve emergency operations that are no longer necessary or feasible during the post-disaster recovery phase.

During the post-disaster recovery phase, rebuilding and reconstruction of the community retain the position of top priorities. Another major difference between post-disaster recovery planning and other types of emergency management planning includes the roles that local businesses play. During pre-planning, preparedness, and contingencies, the business community provides outreach services and organizational functions. Yet in a post-disaster scenario, local businesses will remain more concerned with re-establishing their efficacy in the community following the loss of personnel and resources.

The identification of further mitigation procedures might also be called for in the post-disaster planning stage, more so than in other stages of the disaster cycle. As Smith (2012) notes, the early phases of emergency planning will engage the government and non-profit organizations differently than in later stages, with varying degrees of need for negotiation and cross-departmental communication (p. 10). Anderson & Woodrow (1998) point out the additional complications that arise in defining a disaster and what the definition means in terms of acquiring multiple sources of federal or state-based aid.

Finally, post-disaster recovery planning will involve multiple players that did not play a role during the other phases of the disaster cycle. For instance, aid and relief organizations ancillary to the community ranging from the Red Cross to FEMA will assume some of the roles and duties of post-disaster recovery (Schwab, 2014).

Attention to health and human services may also be an issue, whereas the core concerns in response planning and other phases will be less about recovery and more about forging the alliances between various governmental and private sector organizations that help mitigate conditions. In a post-disaster scenario, recovery planning will differ from other types of emergency management planning.

Post-disaster planning will occasionally cross over with other phases of disaster planning including the mitigation of circumstances, planning for further emergencies that may be directly related to the initial precipitating event, or in the cross-over roles of institutes and organizations. Generally, though, post-disaster recovery planning involves conscientious attempts to rebuild the community with the collaborative work of multiple stakeholders and a large number of interest groups. References Anderson, M.B. & Woodrow, P.J. (1998). Rising from the Ashes. Boulder, CO: Lynne Reinner. Partnership for Disaster Resilience (2007).

Post-Disaster recovery planning forum: How-to guide. Retrieved online: http://www.crew.org/sites/default/files/Post-Disaster-Recovery-Planning-Forum_UO-CSC.pdf Schwab, J.C. (2014). Planning for post-disaster recovery: Next generation. American Planning Association. Smith, G. (2012). Planning for Post Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework. The Public Entity Risk Institute Publishers. Retrieved online: http://www.ncr.vt.edu/arlington/pdfs/resilency/Smith%20-%20Planning%20for%20Post-Disaster%20Recovery-%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20United%20states%20Disaster%20Assistance%20Framework.pdf 3.

Recovery in some ways refers to the process by which communities rebuild, reestablish their infrastructures and institutions to pre-disaster status, and general return daily life of residents to what it had been prior to the crisis. However, there is no such thing as "normal," and sometimes a disaster precludes the return of a community to its absolute pre-crisis phase.

Therefore, the goal of recovery should focus less on the pre-disaster situation and more on how the community can work with its resources and available infrastructure in order to create a viable and promising future. Moreover, recovery in some disaster zones may entail changes that include preventative strategies. Pre-event planning and participatory planning would be helpful in guiding the community immediately following a disaster (Smith, 2012, p. 11). Risk assessments need to be conducted to ascertain whether changes need to be made to roads, buildings, and other infrastructure.

Community leadership and the roles individuals and businesses play might be much different after the disaster than before. As Rodriguez et al. (2007) point out, some community members might perceive disasters differently than others, leading to conflicts in how those communities prepare and plan for the future.

For example, a strong religious presence in the community would mean that restoration work would be more faith-based and focused on alleviating the psychic tension among community members; in more secular societies, restoring the community would not include faith-based efforts as much and would be more pragmatic in its approach to restoring concrete infrastructure and leadership.

Common themes in recovery management include rebuilding lost housing and commercial real estate, restoring the local economy through business associations and job creation, and restoring damaged community infrastructure ranging from transportation and communication to essential services in the utilities sector (Partnership for Disaster Resilience, 2007, p. 17). The notion of returning a community to "normal" might be feasible in some disasters, whereby the community had already boasted a strong and resilient infrastructure.

However, many scenarios will involve communities with weak planning and weak infrastructure and in those cases, a "new normal" is more feasible. As Schwab (2014) points out, there are some general principles that guide definitions of "positive outcome" in affected communities (p. 16). The community should ideally emerge "safer and stronger," for example, better able to prevent future crises or respond to them more efficiently after learning from procedural mistakes.

Removing debris and health hazards from the community helps restore it to "normal," but rebuilding might mean altering the fundamental appearance or landscape of the community. Restoration is an ideal goal of disaster relief, but recovery does not necessarily return a community to its pre-disaster state of "normalcy." In some cases, "normal" was not necessarily desirable, as it is in countries with poor infrastructure like Haiti. Furthermore, restoring communities after serious disasters may not be possible.

The goal should therefore be to work with the available resources to create a cogent vision for a future in which the community is stronger and more resilient, as well as better equipped to deal with potential future disasters. References Partnership for Disaster Resilience (2007). Post-Disaster recovery planning forum: How-to guide. Retrieved online: http://www.crew.org/sites/default/files/Post-Disaster-Recovery-Planning-Forum_UO-CSC.pdf Rodriguez, H., Quarantelli, E.L., et al. (2007). Handbook of Disaster Research. Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research. New York: Springer Science Schwab, J.C. (2014).

Planning for post-disaster recovery: Next generation. American Planning Association. Smith, G. (2012). Planning for Post Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework. The Public Entity Risk Institute Publishers. Retrieved online: http://www.ncr.vt.edu/arlington/pdfs/resilency/Smith%20-%20Planning%20for%20Post-Disaster%20Recovery-%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20United%20states%20Disaster%20Assistance%20Framework.pdf 4.

Disaster recovery differs according to location, with notable differences between highly developed and financially endowed countries like the United States and countries that are considered "undeveloped." Anderson & Woodrow (1998) discuss case studies of Mali, Guatemala, Sudan, Colombia, Burkina Faso, Ethiopia, and Thailand in order to illustrate the contextual variables at stake in disaster recovery. No two situations are alike, but generalized differences between the assumptions and methods of disaster recovery can be articulated, particularly with regards to pre-existing infrastructure and governance.

Each community is vulnerable in different ways, leading to differential planning and prevention strategies. The assumptions in question refer to perceived or acknowledged vulnerabilities. Magical thinking and attributions to supernatural powers will minimize the ability for teams to respond effectively to major risks, leaving populations particularly vulnerable. Yet at the same time, "imposed" relief aid that assumes a colonial tone is undesirable and ineffective in the long run, leading to chaotic implementation of aid and disastrous consequences in times of crisis (Anderson & Woodrow, 1998, p. 3).

Local populations do need to be engaged in the recovery process, but that level of leadership and responsibility will vary depending on the extent of physical and practical damage in the community and the ability of local individuals to serve. It is often assumed that local populations will be somewhat powerless to restore essential services, regardless of whether the community is in a "developed" or "developing" nation.

Methods of disaster recovery vary more than the assumptions made, with a strong "zone of uncertainty" being shared between available financial institutions, the media, and businesses (Smith, 2012, p. 5). However, in developing nations, insurance sectors are underdeveloped. This means that insurance resources are less available in those areas, with subsequently fewer contingencies based on the desires and goals of insurance company stakeholders. When insurance companies become overly involved in the disaster recovery process, as they.