Introduction
The emergency management system is a complex regulatory component that necessitates multidimensional work on numerous government entities to prevent, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters (Dorasamy et al., 2017). In order to build a model for analyzing the business and functional features of emergency guidelines, this document gives a rationale for assessing the skills required to execute a strategic crisis plan as well as the behavioral aspirations that push development initiatives. Through a study of the federal catastrophe finance procedure, the research investigates the degree to which each kind of society’s abilities and political objectives are matched, as well as the relationship between motivations and competencies. Existing government spending practices may erroneously favor disaster response activities while weakening prevention and planning. Several reform options could provide more constant benefits, aligning disaster financing with the specific functional competencies of different administrative levels.
Disasters and Disaster Management
The primary goal of crisis management is to minimize the magnitude to which a disaster affects a community’s position. According to Dorasamy et al. (2017), authorities and disaster management take several actions before and after a disaster to avoid potential harm and restore current damage. Nevertheless, these efforts are frequently hampered by characteristics of disasters that make them challenging to overcome. First, catastrophes are significant, rapid-onset occurrences in relation to the magnitude and capabilities of the affected territory. They inflict severe harm to a substantial percentage of the jurisdiction’s infrastructure or population, and the damage occurs quickly compared to the state or county’s ability to avoid or avert it. Consequently, working with them requires the vast majority, if not the entirety, of the city or county employees, resources, machinery, and funds. Tragedies happen seldom. During the duration of a legislator’s or ordinary civilian’s term, most communities experience few disasters.
The severity, unpredictable nature, vitality, and rareness of catastrophes set the conditions for multiagency action; modern relief efforts have changed over time into a selection of operational processes that have been characterized, recognized, designated to relevant stakeholders and coordinated across authorities. Currently, the disaster preparedness field describes these responsibilities using a broad framework created in 1978 by the national government as part of its hazard mitigation study (Lassa, 2018). This system, known as comprehensive emergency management (CEM), includes four steps for dealing with modern calamities, as illustrated below.
The first step is readiness, which refers to measures carried out in the near term, before a catastrophe, to increase an organization’s or community’s capacity to react effectively to catastrophes. The second phase is mitigation, which entails long-term operations undertaken before the disaster event to avoid crises and mitigate the harm caused by them, such as modifying the origins of hazards, lowering sensitivity to risk, and spreading possible losses (Dorasamy et al., 2017). The third stage is the reaction, in which operations are carried out quickly following a disaster to provide emergency assistance to victims and prevent future dangers. The fourth stage is recovery, which consists of both short-term and long-term measures taken following a disaster with the objective of returning people and property in a damaged neighborhood to their pre-disaster level of well-being.
Mitigation Effects of Community Inclusion
Understanding, training, planning, forecasting, as well as emergency plans could all assist to mitigate the destruction caused by major disaster. Nonetheless, countermeasures such as rezoning, land-use plans, and building codes are essential to avoid or reduce real damage from hazards. As a result, communities should be able to play an essential role in reducing the risk and effect of catastrophes. Communities have the ability to trigger internal resistance capability to handle and recover regions devastated by natural disasters via collaborative efforts and varied projects, as seen below.
The Budgetary Treatment of Disaster Expenditure
The federal spending process has undergone many significant changes in 1990, as an aspect of a couple of years’ budget agreement reached by President Bush and Congress as well as implemented in the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1990. (Dorasamy et al., 2017). The Budget Enforcement Act (BEA) formed proposed rules to limit concessional spending and forbids shortfall adjustments to taxation and mandatory spending. The BEA made three fundamental changes that would affect disaster response: spending restrictions, the pay-as-you-go approach, and the emergent situation categorization. For the first time in federal planning history, the BEA’s constraints on discretionary expenditure set a legislative cap on the amount of budget authority and disbursements that might result from the budgetary process. According to Lassa (2018), if natural catastrophe finance had to vie for funds with other institutions subject to appropriation limitations, there is an incentive to reduce overall emergency relief expenditure because the constraints created a scenario in which discretionary distributions were not “zero-sum.” Suppose the expense of disasters remained consistent with or surpassed the prior high of disaster spending in a given year. In that case, these events could not be funded through routine allocation bills without jeopardizing other discretionary expenditures.
The BEA subsequently introduced the pay-as-you-go (PAYGO) method. This technique required adjustments in law affecting revenues and mandatory spending that increased the budget gap in any particular year to be compensated by deficit cutbacks to the degree that the ultimate result of all modifications is deficit-neutral. If those budgeting factors fail to reach this deficit-neutrality standard, required expenditure programs will suffer automatic cuts, sometimes known as “sequestration.” The funds allotted for emergency preparedness were sharply curtailed because of PAYGO.
The emergency spending vulnerability is troublesome not only because it provides for financial trickery but rather because the statute does not define an emergency. Indeed, according to a previous Congressional Budget report, emergency spending is often decided by Congress and the President (Lassa, 2018). Similarly, plans to create objective standards for emergencies have proved problematic. In 1991, the Treasury Department created five criteria for deciding whether a request should be designated as an emergency: required, urgent, unanticipated, temporary, and abrupt.
Reforming Emergency Budgetary Practice
Since 1991, constraints on discretionary spending have decreased the discretionary pie to historically unheard-of amounts in relation to GDP. This situation resulted in a ‘zero-sum game’ that benefitted both the public and the government (Dorasamy et al., 2017). Given the difficulties involved in the current disaster relief finance techniques, a number of recommendations have been made to change the way catastrophe money is managed in budgeting. Several of these changes can potentially diminish existing incentives for disaster response and recovery at the expense of mitigation. The following are the most often discussed reform options for disaster finance.
Crafting a Pay-As-You-Go Rule for Disasters
This option would necessitate any humanitarian funding included in a supplemental appropriation act to be balanced by cutbacks to other initiatives. The emergency designation would be basically canceled, as well as the limits would remain valid for the rest of the year. Because of the urgency, disaster assistance should raise the bar for extra finance to an excessively high or unachievable level, according to some.
Financing Emergency Assistance at Average Level
Because of the propensity of ordinary allocation measures to defund catastrophe spending, ensuring additional financing for disaster helps each year, some have proposed that crisis responses be supported at a higher level in regular appropriation legislation. Increased funding for these initiatives would need reductions to other programs in order to keep within the budget constraints. Nevertheless, this would lower the incidence and almost certainly cut the amount of catastrophe supplementary funding (Dorasamy et al., 2017). Appropriating emergencies at a greater level during the budgeting process would make the caps more effective and meaningful. Another spending would have to be decreased to absorb the extra money under the present ceiling.
Narrowing Down the Criteria for Emergencies
At present, the only need for proclaiming an emergency is agreement from the administration and Congress. To dissuade the use of the crisis designation for non-emergency purposes, specific requirements, such as those set by the Management and Budget Board in 1991, are required (Dorasamy et al., 2017). Although this would make it even harder to misuse the emergency categorization, it would still leave a lot of leeway for analysis regarding how phrases such as ‘sudden,’ ‘urgent,’ and ‘unforeseen’ may be used strictly uniformly.
Limit Emergencies to One per Appropriation Bill
Fears that non-emergency situations frequently find their way into conventional or supplemental appropriation proposals have led to a suggestion that only one case of emergencies categorization is authorized per the appropriation act. This implies that if more funds are needed for both a tsunami as well as a hurricane in the same year and the emergency classification is used to give extra cash for both, two separate supplemental allocation acts are necessary.
Generating “Reserve Funds” for Emergency Assistance
Another option would be to create one or more cash reserves for disaster assistance. Annual donations to the fund(s) would be retained until a particular amount was reached, and these resources would be used only in the event of an actual disaster. These funds would work similarly to state “rainy day” earnings, which accumulate monies during solid economic periods in preparation for recessions. Furthermore, many states and towns already have extra disaster resources. Implementing a similar system at the federal level would guarantee that the nation’s emergency preparedness system’s fiscal structure is uniform.
Conclusion
Finally, whereas the current administration budgetary procedures may unintentionally prioritize disaster response and recovery while trying to undermine prevention and preparedness, a variety of reform ideas may also provide more coherent incentive schemes, aligning disaster funding with the corresponding capabilities of various levels of government. Through a study of the federal catastrophe finance procedure, this research comprehensively assesses the extent to which each kind of society’s abilities and political objectives are aligned, as well as the relationship between motivations and competencies. The article concluded that the emergency preparedness system is a complex policy subsystem that necessitates a nonlinear effort from various government departments to avert, plan for, respond to, and recover from disasters. As a result, the article gave emergency response budgeting and its mitigation and management effect.
References
Dorasamy, M., Raman, M., & Kaliannan, M. (2017). Integrated community emergency management and awareness system: A knowledge management system for disaster support. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 121, 139-167. Web.
Lassa, J. A. (2018). Roles of non-government organizations in disaster risk reduction, 1-24. Web.