Laserfiche WebLink
<br />In addition, state mitigation programs are supported through federal programs <br />administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, especially the Hazard <br />Mitigation Grant Program. States also benefit directly or indirectly from the State <br />Hazard Mitigation Program, the Flood Mitigation Assistance Program and Project <br />Impact. <br /> <br />THE NEXT STEP <br /> <br />States are discovering that identifying and securing funds for mitigation is sometimes <br />not easy. State emergency management programs must compete with many other <br />worthwhile public services in an era of budgetary constraints. Proponents of mitiga- <br />tion are also challenged by the need to demonstrate its benefits. This is because <br />while the rewards may be reaped as soon as the next disaster strikes, the value of <br />such projects may not be realized for several years. Yet that is sometimes the price we <br />pay to invest in a safe future. <br /> <br />METHODOLOGY <br /> <br />Data used in this report was gathered from surveys conducted by the National <br />Emergency Management Association (NEMA) and The Council of State Governments <br />from 1996 to 1998 on spending and funding for state emergency management <br />programs. Between 44 and 50 states responded to each survey. A listing of state <br />emergency management agencies by region and population grouping is included in <br />Appendix Tables 1 and 2. <br /> <br />Respondents provided mitigation funding data for fiscal years 1996 to 1998 and total <br />emergency management spending data for fiscal years 1992 to 1997. In the case of <br />state expenditures, states reported spending for all state emergency management or <br />disaster programs, regardless of the source agency. It is important to note that no <br />federal or local funds were included in these figures. <br /> <br />L.!J National Emergency Management Association <br />