Pre- and Post-Disaster Planning: Key Differences Explained

Introduction

This paper addresses several questions relating to disaster pre-planning and post-planning, with a specific focus on the documents and plans created for both phases. The discussion elaborates on the differences between planning for pre-disaster and post-disaster scenarios, drawing on concrete historical examples to support the analysis. Finally, the paper considers whether pre-planning or post-planning is more important in the grand scheme of things. While post-disaster reactions and documentation are very important, planning for disasters in advance — and knowing what to do and why when the time comes — is far more critical to an effective response.

Three Key Differences Between Pre- and Post-Disaster Planning

When examining the differences between pre-disaster planning and post-disaster planning, there are easily more than three distinctions worth noting; however, this paper focuses on the three most significant. The first major difference is that pre-disaster planning is built on what is known at the time: what could be expected and what can be planned for. Florida, for example, is an area that is struck by hurricanes with some regularity, and emergency managers therefore understand likely outcomes because they can draw on what has happened with prior storms. Whether the event is a major hurricane like Hurricane Andrew or a more minor one, the after-effects have been seen and addressed before, so emergency planning organizations know what needs to occur. This is not to say that there is no "post-mortem" following each new storm — there certainly is, and there should be. Moreover, the response to each storm will differ somewhat. Even so, pre-planning is grounded in historical precedent, while post-disaster planning must respond to the realities that actually exist in the wake of the storm (Fairfax County, 2012; DHS, 2015).

A second major difference is that what is planned for and what actually happens can diverge considerably. Hurricane Katrina was extraordinarily destructive on its own terms, but what made the storm catastrophic for New Orleans specifically was the failure of the levees. It is difficult to speak in absolutes, but the city presumably operated on the assumption that the levees would hold — and they did not. This gap between anticipated conditions and actual outcomes fundamentally shapes how post-disaster planning must unfold, since responders must adapt to circumstances that pre-disaster planners could not fully anticipate.

A third major difference between pre-disaster and post-disaster planning involves the coordination — or lack thereof — between responding agencies. Hurricane Katrina generated significant debate and conflict in the storm's aftermath regarding whether federal authorities and response teams should intervene or whether local agencies at the state, county, and city levels should take the lead (Guarino, 2010). Pre-disaster plans attempt to define these jurisdictional boundaries clearly, but post-disaster realities can make those boundaries malleable and subject to renegotiation under pressure. Understanding how inter-agency coordination frameworks are structured before a disaster strikes is therefore essential to avoiding confusion during the response phase.

Conclusion

In the end, both pre-planning and post-planning for disaster response are important. However, planning for and preparing for things in advance is obviously the best approach. That said, not everything can be planned for, and sometimes things go wrong despite the best preparation. The key is to react based on best practices and what is most likely to occur given the facts on the ground as they exist at the time.