Module 3 OverviewMitigation and PreparednessThe discipline of .docx

Module 3 Overview
Mitigation and Preparedness
The discipline of mitigation provides the means for reducing
disaster impacts. Mitigation is defined as a sustained action to
reduce or eliminate risk to people and property from hazards
and their effects. Preparedness within the field of emergency
management can be defined not only as a state of readiness to
respond to a disaster, crisis or any other type of emergency
situation, but also a theme throughout most aspects of
emergency management. In this module, you will describe the
variety of mitigation tools available to planners. You will
understand the impediments to mitigation and other associated
problems that exist. You will explain how the Federal
Government and other agencies and organizations support
mitigation. Different mitigation measures that are performed to
address actual disaster risk will be addressed.
In addition, you will understand why preparedness is considered
the “building block” of emergency management. The
differences that exist between hazard mitigation and disaster
preparedness will be discussed. Evaluation planning is
important and will be focused upon in this module. The
different emergency management exercise types will be
identified. Training and equipment for first responders will be
described. Lastly, you will learn how businesses and
nongovernmental organizations prepare for emergencies.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
4A
Explain why preparedness is considered the "building block" of
emergency management.
6A
Explain why evacuation planning is important, and why special

consideration must be made when planning for the disaster-
related needs of certain vulnerable populations.
8A
Explain how the Federal Government and other agencies and
organizations support mitigation.
3B
Describe the variety of mitigation tools available to planners.
4B
Describe how training and equipment helps first responders to
prepare.
5B
Discuss the differences that exist between hazard mitigation and
disaster preparedness.
10B
Describe the different emergency management exercise types
and explain what each involves.
3C
Understand the impediments to mitigation and other associated
problems that exist.
5C
Explain how businesses and nongovernmental organizations
prepare for emergencies.
3D
Identify different mitigation measures performed to address
actual disaster risk.
Module 3 Reading Assignment
Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. (2011). Introduction to
emergency management. Burlington: Elsevier. Chapters 3 and 4.

The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Mitigation
The discipline of mitigation provides the means for reducing
disaster impacts. Mitigation is defined as a sustained action to
reduce or eliminate risk to people and property from hazards
and their effects. The body of knowledge and applications in
the area of mitigation are still evolving, but many successes
have been achieved. Additionally, many of the successful
natural hazards mitigation techniques, such as building codes,
do have applicability to technological hazards.
The function of mitigation differs from other emergency
management disciplines because it looks at long-term solutions
to reducing risk as opposed to preparedness for hazards, the
immediate response to a hazard, or the short-term recovery from
a hazard event. Mitigation is usually not considered part of the
emergency phase of a disaster as in response or as part of
emergency planning as in preparedness. The recovery function
of emergency management still represents one of the best
opportunities for mitigation, and until recently, this phase in a
disaster plan provided the most substantial funding for
mitigation activities. Recently, however, there has been a trend
toward greater federal spending on pre-disaster mitigation.
Mitigation also differs from the other emergency management
phases in that its implementation requires the participation and
support of a broad spectrum of players outside the traditional
emergency management circle. The skills and tools for
accomplishing mitigation are different from the operational,
first-responder skills that more often characterize emergency
management professionals.
Tools for Mitigation
The United States has made great strides in reducing natural
disaster deaths (though economic effects and property damages
have escalated). Most practitioners agree that the primary
intent of mitigation is to ensure that fewer communities and
individuals become disaster victims. The goal of mitigation is
to create economically secure, socially stable, better built, and
more environmentally sound communities that are out of harm’s

way. The following widely accepted mitigation tools are used
to reduce risk:Hazard Identification and Mapping is the most
essential part of any mitigation strategy as it allows for the
analysis of the hazards in a particular area. The resources for
identification and mapping are numerous, and are available
from several government agencies.
Design and Construction Applications provide one of the most
cost effective means of addressing risk. Building codes,
architecture and design criteria, and soils and landscaping
criteria all can be used to reduce a structure’s vulnerability.
Land Use Planning offers many local options for effecting
mitigation, including acquisition, easements, storm water
management, annexation, environmental review, and floodplain
management plans. It also encompasses a myriad of zoning
options such as density controls, special uses permits, historic
preservation, coastal zone management, and subdivision
controls.
Financial Incentives are emerging as an effective means for
promoting mitigation, and include special tax assessments,
passage of tax increases or bonds to pay for mitigation,
relocation assistance, targeting federal community development
or renewal grant funds for mitigation, impact fees, and transfer
of development rights.
Insurance is arguably a mitigation technique, though critics
argue that it is merely a transfer of risk from the policy holder
to the insurance company. However, the NFIP is considered
one of the most effective mitigation programs ever created.
Structural Controls, a controversial technique, can have both
positive and negative effects, and merely ‘control’ the hazard
rather than reduce it. The most common structural control is
the levee, but also include seawalls, bulkheads, breakwaters,
groins, and jetties, among others.
Impediments to Mitigation
There are several factors why mitigation programs have not
been more widely applied. These include denial of risk,
political will, costs and lack of funding, and the taking issue.

Despite the best technical knowledge, historical occurrence,
public education, and media attention, many individuals don’t
want to recognize that they or their communities are
vulnerable. Mitigation serves long-term goals, which are often
opposed to the short-term focus of politics. Mitigation requires
available capital, which can exceed the resources of local
governments. Finally, many mitigation programs involve the
use of private property, which the Constitution prohibits
without just compensation.
Federal mitigation Programs
FEMA is responsible for most federal mitigation programs, as
illustrated below (though HUD, the SBA, and the Economic
Development Administration support mitigation programs as
well). In 2000, Congress passed the Disaster Mitigation Act of
2000 (DMA2000), which amended the Robert T. Stafford
Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act in an effort to
encourage mitigation planning at the State and local levels,
requiring that States maintain mitigation plans as a prerequisite
for certain Federal mitigation funding and disaster assistance
programs.
Examples of Federal mitigation programs include the
following:The Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is the largest
source of funding for state and local mitigation activities,
providing grants to implement long-term hazard mitigation
programs after a major disaster has been declared by the
President.
The Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program provides mitigation
funding not dependent on a disaster declaration. This program
grew out of the Clinton administration’s ‘Project Impact’
initiative, which tasked communities with building a community
partnership, assessing their risks, prioritizing risk-reduction
actions, and building support by communicating their actions.
The program was changed in 2007, and includes an eligibility
requirement that local applicant communities maintain an
approved FEMA Hazard Mitigation Plan.
The Flood Mitigation Assistance Program provides annual

funding for communities to take action to reduce or eliminate
the risk of flood damage to buildings insured under the NFIP.
The Repetitive Flood Claims Program provides funding to
reduce the risk of flood damages to individual properties
insured under the NFIP that have had one or more claim
payments for flood damages.
The Severe Repetitive Loss Program provides annual funding to
reduce the risk of flood damage to individual residential
properties insured through the NFIP.
The National Earthquake Hazard Reduction Program seeks to
reduce the risks of life and property from future U.S.
earthquakes through the establishment and maintenance of an
effective earthquake hazards reduction program. NEHRP
provides funding to states to establish programs that promote
public education and awareness, planning, loss estimation
studies, and some minimal mitigation activities. 2004, NEHRP
management was transferred to the National Institute of
Standards and Technology (NIST), with FEMA remaining as
one of three supporting agencies.
The National Hurricane Program supports activities at the
federal, state, and local level that focus on the physical effects
of hurricanes, improved response capabilities, and new
mitigation techniques for the built environment.
The National Dam Safety Program provides funding to states to
establish and maintain dam safety programs, training for state
dam safety staff and inspectors, technical and archival research
in dam safety, education of the public in the hazards of dam
failure, the establishment of the National Dam Safety Review
Board, and support for the Interagency Committee on Dam
Safety.
The Fire Prevention and Assistance Act address the needs of the
nation’s paid and volunteer fire departments and supports
prevention activities. The program provides competitive grants
to fire companies throughout the United States.
Non-Federal Mitigation Grant Programs
While the most significant mitigation funding comes from

Federally-funded grant programs, all States have established
State Hazard Mitigation Officers (SHMO’s) to manage the
programmatic and financial matching requirements of the
Federal programs and to produce a State-wide hazard mitigation
plan. Regional programs, such as Rebuild Northwest Florida
which is administered by a public-private partnership, also
support mitigation through grants. There are non-governmental
programs that provides the monetary, material, and technical
assistance that individuals, businesses and communities require
to mitigate their hazard risks, with The Institute for Business
and Home Safety (IBHS) an example. Two other entities are
focusing on mitigation and related issues. The Association of
State Flood Plain Managers (ASFPM) is a strong proponent of
mitigation at all levels (and has successfully lobbied Congress
for increases in Federal mitigation dollars), and the newly
formed National Hazard Mitigation Association (NHMA) exists
to promote mitigation nation-wide and within the international
community.
The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Preparedness
Preparedness within the field of emergency management can be
defined not only as a state of readiness to respond to a disaster,
crisis or any other type of emergency situation, but also a theme
throughout most aspects of emergency management. Since the
building of fallout shelters and the posting of air raid wardens
in the 1950s, preparedness has advanced significantly and its
role as a building block of emergency management continues.
No emergency management organization can function without a
strong preparedness capability. This capability is built through
planning, training and exercising. Today we recognize that all
organizations, whether they are private, nongovernmental, or
governmental, are susceptible to the consequences disasters and
must therefore ensure their preparedness. We also know that
preparedness must focus not only on the protection of citizens,
property and essential government services in the aftermath of a
disaster event, but also on ensuring that the viability of the
community – including its businesses and markets, its social

services, and its character, are able sustainable despite the
hazard risks that exist. Emergency management agencies alone
cannot ensure this, which is why the practice continues to
expand.
As an academic field and an applied practice, emergency
management is young. The fields upon which it draws are
steeped in tradition—relying less on academic or analytic
processes. Without a foundation tying academia and structured
analytic methodologies with tradition, the extreme complexity
of emergency management will not be effectively managed. A
systematic approach is necessary for emergency management.
The FEMA National Preparedness (NP) Directorate has depicted
the planning process, beginning with planning for the range of
hazards that exist and working in a cyclical manner to establish
and improve preparedness. This cycle recognizes the
importance of the four major components of any preparedness
effort, namely planning, equipment, training, and exercise, and
stresses the importance of evaluation and improvement. This
cycle also represents preparedness not only for government
jurisdictions at all levels, but also preparedness actions taken by
individuals, businesses, nongovernmental organizations, and
other entities.
Mitigation versus Preparedness
Significant confusion exists regarding what constitutes
mitigation and preparedness (and how much crossover exists).
At the Federal level, mitigation and preparedness are highly
defined, with FEMA maintaining two completely distinct
directorates to manage these functions. However, at the State,
local, organizational, and private levels, the boundaries are less
defined. The major distinction is in the mission of the actions
themselves. Mitigation attempts to eliminate hazard risk by
reducing either the likelihood or consequence components of the
risk associated with the particular hazard. Preparedness, on the
other hand, seeks to improve the abilities of agencies and
individuals to response to the consequences of a disaster event
once the disaster event has occurred.

Preparedness: The Emergency Operations Plan (EOP)
The EOP is the playbook by which emergency management
response operations are conducted. However, the development
of an EOP is not just documentation of what will be done and
by whom, but rather the cyclical process by which these factors
are determined. Select components now appear in almost all
EOPs, having formed because they are the most logical
presentation of the response and recovery needs of the
jurisdictions. These components include the Base Plan,
Functional Annexes, and the Hazard or Situational Annexes.
Planning both dictates and accounts for the equipment that must
be purchased to treat the disaster consequences that are planned
for and to carry out the tasks assigned. Planning also becomes
the basis of training and exercise, and responders train to the
capabilities laid out in the plan and rely upon the assumptions
captured by the plan to determine those core competencies that
are sought. And exercises that are conducted are what test the
effectiveness of the jurisdiction or organization to carry out
what is prescribed in the plan. Nationwide planning efforts are
currently guided by the FEMA-produced Comprehensive
Planning Guide-101 (CPG-101), created to provide general yet
standardized guidelines on developing Emergency Operations
Plans (EOPs).
Evacuation Planning
For many communities, citizen evacuation in major disasters is
their greatest planning consideration. For disasters with
advance notice, or for situations where post-disaster mass-
movement of citizens is possible, advance planning is required
in order to determine activation, routes, transportation methods,
destinations, security, order adherence, and facilitation. Many
communities have conducted evacuation planning, but few have
conducted a full-scale test of those plans. After Katrina, the US
Department of Transportation conducted a Gulf Coast
evacuation plan study and found there exist seven key elements
that can be used to measure the comprehensive nature of a plan,
including the following:Decision Making and Management

Planning
Public Communication and Preparedness
Evacuation of People with Special Needs
Operations
Sheltering Considerations
Mass Evacuation Training and Exercises
Special Needs Populations
Traditionally, emergency planning has looked at a homogenous
population thought of collectively as the ‘community’.
However, communities are made up of distinct individuals and
groups, each with a unique conditions that define their lives,
their interactions, and their abilities. Communities must assess
their population to determine what special needs exist, and how
those needs must be addressed in the emergency plan. Planners
must work with representatives from or representing each
group. By including these key stakeholders, the planners are
better able to adjust existing policies or create new policies that
allow for the safety and security of these groups before, during,
and after emergency events.
Preparedness Equipment
Emergency management organizations rely upon an incredibly-
diverse range of equipment categories by which they are able to
perform the response roles assigned to them. These categories
of equipment, which include (among many others) Personal
Protective Equipment (PPE), firefighting apparatuses, and
communications’ systems. In the preparedness phase,
consideration of equipment becomes very important, as it is
during this phase that: 1) equipment needs are identified; 2)
equipment is purchased, and 3) staff are trained in the use of the
equipment required to meet anticipated response requirements.
Education and Training Programs
Education and training has always been integral to the
emergency services. Firefighters acquired (and continue to
acquire) their skills by attending the fire academy. Police
officers did the same at the police academy. EMS officials
received medical and emergency first aid training from both

public and private sources. However, there has been a
revolution of sorts in the provision of education and training in
the emergency management profession. The advent of
emergency management training and education coincided with
the creation of the Federal Emergency Management Agency in
1979, which touched off development of the practice as a
profession. FEMA’s Emergency Management Institute has
become the focus of emergency management
professionalization, establishing the core competencies of
emergency management professionals and developing a common
understanding of what constituted an emergency management
curriculum.
Public Preparedness Education
Perhaps the most difficult component of emergency management
preparedness training is that which focuses on the general
public. Public preparedness education, also called risk
communication, is a field that has seen vastly mixed success. In
recent years, there has been a flurry of mass communication in
the emergency management and preparedness spectra, but very
little has come close to achieving such widespread behavioral
change for two reasons: most campaigns are conducted by
emergency managers with understandably little training in the
highly complex social marketing and public education
disciplines, and the public faces myriad risks on a daily basis
beyond what is being communicated. CERT is one effort that
has seen a great amount of success despite the obstacles that
exist.
Emergency Management Exercises
Once an emergency response plan is developed, equipment is
purchased, and personnel trained to the plan and in the use of
equipment, there is a need ensure that a critical level of
preparedness has occurred. In actuality, the only true validation
of preparedness efforts comes as the result of a response to an
actual disaster event. Exercise is a controlled, scenario-driven,
and simulated experience designed to demonstrate and evaluate
an organization's capability to execute one or more assigned or

implicit operational tasks or procedures as outlined in its
contingency plan. There four types of exercises identified by
FEMA: full-scale, partial-scale, functional, and tabletop.
FEMA supports exercises through the Homeland Security
Exercise and Evaluation Program (HSEEP), created to provide
guidance and standardization to the exercise efforts of
emergency management organizations, and to develop a
framework for evaluation. HSEEP compliance is required for
grant eligibility. The penultimate emergency management
exercise series is the DHS-supported National Level Exercise
(NLE) program. The NLE program, formerly called TOPOFF
(for Top Officials), is a full-scale exercise held once a year that
tests response to major disaster events spanning states, regions,
and across international borders.
Evaluation and Improvement
It is through evaluation and assessment that those responsible
for response and recovery are best able to refine preparedness
capabilities. There are several programs by which emergency
management evaluation may be conducted. A select few of the
more commonly-encountered include The Emergency
Management Accreditation Program (EMAP), the State
Preparedness Report (SPR), the Target Capabilities List (TCL),
the NIMS Compliance Assistance Support Tool (NIMSCAST),
the Disaster Emergency Communications (DEC)
Communications Project, the Comprehensive Assessment
System (CAS), and the Certified Emergency Manager (CEM)
program.
Preparedness: A National Effort
Emergency and Disaster Preparedness is conducted at all levels
of government, but it is through the FEMA National
Preparedness (NP) Directorate that a national-level strategy for
preparedness is developed, communicated, and supported. NP
was established on April 1, 2007 in order to oversee
coordination and development of the strategies necessary to
achieve these goals, and was established in order to provide
preparedness policy and planning guidance, and to help build

disaster response capabilities. As a FEMA Directorate, NP has
wide leverage to develop and institute preparedness programs
that include training courses, national policy development and
state/local policy guidance, and the planning and conduct of
exercises. The requirements of a national-level preparedness
effort are guided by the National Response Framework (NRF),
which superseded the National Response Plan (NRP) in January
of 2008. The NRF was released to establish a comprehensive,
national, all-hazards approach to domestic incident response,
and to provide clear guidance over the integration of
community, state, tribal, and federal response efforts. In order
to achieve the capability to conduct the necessary actions
prescribed within this framework, FEMA has released a series
of doctrine guiding preparedness at a strategic level. Homeland
Security Presidential Directive-8 (HSPD-8) directed the
Secretary of Homeland Security to develop a national domestic
all-hazards preparedness goal. As part of that effort, in March
2005 DHS released the Interim National Preparedness Goal.
This goal was later adapted into what is now the National
Preparedness Guidelines. Two other programs maintained by
FEMA that help guide national-level preparedness are the
Radiological Emergency Preparedness Program (REPP) and the
Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness Program (CSEPP).
Business continuity planning (BCP) is the process by which
businesses prepare for disasters by identifying the risks to their
business processes, their facilities, their people, and their
information, and take action to reduce that risk. BCP also
includes identification and enactment of the processes by which
businesses are able to continue to function during periods of
disaster such that they are able to remain viable for the long
term and so that the products and services that they provide the
community and country remain available. BCP is the most
effective way for businesses to prepare for emergencies as the
process initiates a much greater understanding of how
community risk affects the businesses and what will be required
of the business. BCP, like all preparedness efforts, increases

community-wide resilience as the sooner the business sector is
able to get back up and running, the sooner the community is
able to recover. In November of 2009, FEMA announced the
Voluntary Private Sector Preparedness Accreditation and
Certification Program (PS-Prep), which was mandated by
legislation that followed the September 11th 2001 attacks. This
process involves the development of preparedness standards,
which did not exist previously. BCP, however, is chiefly driven
by the private sector itself. For instance, DRI International
(DRII), a business continuity planning institute, provides
significant guidance on higher education programs on BCP,
supports BCP research, and maintains a capacity to enable
businesses to self assess their preparedness capabilities.
Required Web Resources:
Natural Disasters: Prepare, Mitigate, Manage
Required Presentations:
Chapter 3
Chapter 4
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 1
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University

Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
PART I
Directions: Answer the following questions. Research the
Hazard Mitigation Plan for a city or county near you. Use this
plan to identify a high-risk hazard, and explain what is being
proposed to address this risk. Answer the following questions.
Be sure to cite any sources you use. Please visit the Academic
Resource Center for concise guidelines on APA format.
List the high risk priority hazards and identify which hazard
you are investigating.
What are the mitigation options presented in the plan?
What are the costs and/or benefits that are associated with the
mitigation measure(s) presented?
To what degree will the mitigation measure(s) reduce the
hazard?
To what extent do the mitigation tools and measure(s) correlate
to those presented in your text?
PART II
Directions: Based on your review of the article “Natural
Disasters: Prepare, Mitigate, Manage” (see link at the end of the
Lecture Notes) write a summary report on specific steps that
can be taken to mitigate damage suffered from natural disasters.
Please ensure that your report is at least 1.5 pages in length,

using 12-point font and double spacing. Be sure to cite any
sources you use. Please visit the Academic Resource Center for
concise guidelines on APA format.

Module 3 OverviewMitigation and PreparednessThe discipline of .docx

More Related Content

Similar to Module 3 OverviewMitigation and PreparednessThe discipline of .docx (20)

More from annandleola (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

Module 3 OverviewMitigation and PreparednessThe discipline of .docx