FLOOD07834

• County: Statewide
• Community: Nationwide
• Basin: Statewide
• Title: Report on Trends in State Mitigation Spending
• Date: 1/1/1999
• Prepared By: NEMA
• Floodplain - Doc Type: Educational/Technical/Reference Information

BREAKING THE CYCLE:
TRENDS IN MlnGATION SPENDING

It is clear that states are now adopting a simple, common sense philosophy when it
comes to the numerous and costly disasters which strike every year: break the cycle.
States are choosing to adopt innovative, proactive mitigation initiatives that allow
them to meet these disasters head-on rather than falling victim to a vicious, reactive
cycle of response, recovery and reconstruction. States
agree that by investing now, lives and money will be
saved in the years to come.

MITIGATION SPENDING

States are investing resources in emergency management
like never before, including hazard mitigation, emergency
preparedness, response and recovery. In fiscal 1997
alone, states reported spending a total of $2.77 billion on
emergency management, which represents a 13S percent
increase over the past five years.

Preparedness
$468 Million

Even more significantly, spending on mitigation was an
impressive $1.24 billion in fiscal 1997, or 45 percent of all
state emergency management costs (Figure 1). Mitigation
represented 33 percent of total state spending in fiscal
1996 and l' percent in fiscal 1992.

Spending among states varied widely in fiscal 1997 from $17,500 to $719 million,
with an average of $31.08 million (Appendix 3). On average, states spent $16 million
on mitigation in fiscal 1996 and about $3 million in fiscal 1992.

Figure 1: State Spending by Phase

In part, this variability reflects the differences in size, population and the history of
disasters in each state. The fiscal 97 figures represent an 80 percent increase in state
mitigation spending over the
previous year. States reported
spending $690 million in fiscal 1400
1996 and $130 million in fiscal
1992 (Figure 2). 1200

When compared with population,
total state mitigation spending
was again significant, with $5.42
per capita spent in fiscal 1997, up
from $2.73 in fiscal 1996. Again,
state spending per capita also
varied a great deal from $0.01 to a
remarkable $23.26 per capita in
one state.

When grouped by population
category, it is apparent that large
and very large states have been
better able to increase their

Ui"
c 1000
~
i 800
III
::>
~
r 600
:;;
c
.. 400
...
III

200

o

: , : ~

1992

1993

1994 1995
Fiscal Year

1996

1997

Figure 2: State Mitigation Spending for FY 1992-97

I Investing in Our Future: Report on Trends in State Mitigation Spending L2J