[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]











DISASTER RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN THE UNITED STATES:
A Research Assessment





Dennis S. Mileti
Colorado State University


rtopttY  cc ElC "bI
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
NOAA
COASTAL SERVICES CENTER
2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE
CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413
Program on Technology, Environment and
Man
Monograph #NSF-RA-E-75-009


Institute of Behavioral Science
The University of Colorado


1975
z

---
0
:Z~
kn

]3
-




ri-
4zL	"
-,PI	.-

Pre.pared with the Support of the
National Science Foundation
Research Applied to N4ational Needs
Washington, D.C. 20550


NSF Grant Number GI-32942


Any opinions, findings, conclusions or recommiendations expressed
in this publication are those of the authors and do not neces-
sarily reflect the views of the National Science Foundation.








Copyright cD1975
by the
University of Colorado,
Institute of Behavioral Science






Library of Congress
Catalog Card No.
75-620040

Together, the entire staff of Assessment of Research on
Natural
Hazards (J. Eugene Haas and Gilbert F. White, Co-Principal
Investigators)
developed the objectives, approaches, methods and procedures, and gave
assistance which contributed to the production of this volume.
Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards Staff
Robert S. Ayre
Earl J. Baker
Elwood M. Beck
Mitchel J. Beville
Karen K. Bird
Waltraud A. R.
Brinkmann
Anita Cochran
Harold C. Cochrane
Frederick W. Dauer
Barbara S. Dunn
Ian Burton,
Don
Neil J. Ericksen	Dennis S. Mileti
J. Eugene Haas	Allan H. Murphy
Paul C. Huszar	Sarah K. Nathe
Janice R. Hutton	Deanna J. Nervig
Lee E. Kapaloski	Madalyn M. Parsons
Doris Knapp	John H. Sorensen
Brian A. Knowles	Patricia B.
Trainer
Sigmund Krane	Hazel Visvader
Michael K. Lindell	Ricnard A. Warrick
Gordon McPhee	Gilbert F. White
G. Friedman, and Robert W. Kates served
as
regular consultants to the staff; Richard R. Nervig executed
the original illustratiorns in this volume.I
Advisory Committee
George W. Baker
National Science Foundation
Kenneth E. Boulding
Institute of Behavioral Science
University of Colorado
Earl Cook
College of Geosciences
Texas A & M University
Charles H. W. Foster
Secretary of En vi ronmenital Affairs
State of Massachusetts
E. L. Quarantelli
Disaster Research Center
Ohio State University
Will Reedy
Bureau of Reclamation
Robert Schnabel
Federal Disaster
Assistance
Administration
Herbert Temple, Jr.
Office of Emergency Servi ces
State of California
George Housner
Earthquake Engineering
California InstitUte of
Technology.
Thad G. McLaughlin
U. S. Geological Survey
Joseph Tofani
U. S., Army
Corps
John Townsend
National
Oceanic
Administratio
n
of Engineers

and
Atmospheric
Daniel Price
Department of Sociology
University of Texas

Cover sketch by Michael K.
Alverson
U. S. Department of
Agriculture

ICOIASTAL
ZOLIE

Acknowledgmen
ts
I express appreciation to several persons for the contributions
they have made to this volume with their thoughtful reviews or appraisals
of earlier versions of this work.
Roy Popkin, American National Red Cross, was a constant source
of aid in the preparations of the various versions of this work and in the
development of many of the ideas. His comments were invaluable, practical
appraisals of ideas as they developed.
Thomas E. Drabek, Department of Sociology, The University
of
Denver, brought the critical eye of an experienced researcher to
bear
upon the report. His comments aided in the development of conceptual
perspective and specific details.
Clark Norton, Committee on Public Works, U. S. Senate,
brought
a legislative expertise to bear upon the report. His contributions
to
the history of national disaster relief policy were central to the develop-
ment of the vol ume.
William Anderson, Department of Sociology, Arizona State
Univer-
sity, who gave a concentrated portion of his time to an earlier
version,
of this wiork, aided in developing the "total picture" of disaster's after-
math.
Allan Barton, Bureau of Applied Sociological Research, Columibia
University, offered several comments at the national conference held in
1973 which proved to be contral in defining the conceptual perspective of
disaster.
I also express my indebtedness to Gilbert F. White, J.
Eugene
Haas, and Harold Cochrane, former members of the Assessment of
Research
on Natural Hazards research team, who provided seeds for many of the
ideas
presented in this report. Finally, I wish to thank Sarah Nathe for
her
editorial assistance, and Janice R..Hutton, project manager, whose
logis-
tical and moral support was given throughout the endeavor.

Dennis S. Mileti
Mlarch, 1975
Fort Collins, Colorado


ASSESSMENT OF RESEARCH ON NATURAL HAZARDS
AIMS AND METHODS

The Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards is intended to
serve two purposes: (1) it provides a more nearly balanced and comprehen-
sive basis for judging the probable social utility of allocation of funds
and personnel of various types of research on natural hazards; (2) it
stimulates, in the'process, a more systematic appraisal of research needs
by scientific investigators in cooperation with the use'rs of their
findings.
The basic mode of analysis is to examine the complex Set of
interactions between social systems and natural system's which-create
hazards from the extreme geophysical events. The chief hazards investi-
gated relate to: coastal erosion, drought, earthquak,e, flood, frost, hail,
hurricane, landslide, lightning, snow- avalanche, tornado, tsunami, urban
snow, volcano, and windstormfs. For each of those hazards the physical
characteristics of the extreme events in the natural system are examined.
The present use of hazardous areas and the variety of adjustments which
people have made to extreme events are reviewed. The range of adjustments
includes measures to modify the event, as by seeding a hurricane; modifying
the hazard, as by adjusting building or land use to take account of the
impact of the extreme event; and distributing the losses, as by insurance
or relief. Taking all of the adjustments into account, the impact of the
hazard upon society is estimated in terms of property losses, fatalities
and injuries, and systemic disruption. An effort is made to identify the
directions of change in the mix of adjustments and in their social impact.
As a part of this review, those forces in the national society which shape
the decisions about adjustments are appraised.
Authorities in the field are consulted through the medium of
literature review, workshops on specific hazards,, a national conference
which was held in October, 1973, and individual reviews. Where appro-
priate and practicable, simulations of the extreme events and of their
social.impacts were carried out. In selected areas scenarios of past and
possible future events and their consequences are constructed.


V

In the light of this analysis the possible contributions of
research to amelioration of the national condition with respect to
each
hazard are assessed. Each set of adjustments is reviewed in terms of
its
potential effects upon national economic efficiency, enhancement of
human
health, the avoidance of crisis surprise, the equitable distribution
of
costs, and the preservation of environmental options. Evaluation of
particular research activities includes (1) the average sum of social
costs and social benefits from application of a given adjustment in
changing property use, and (2) reduction in average fatalities and casual-
ties. In addition to the direct impacts of extreme events upon society,
account is taken of the tosts and benefits which society reaps in seeking
to cope with the hazards, as in the case of costs of insurance or of
control works.
In addition to calculating the average effects of hazard adjust-
ments, an effort is made to estimate the degree to which the
occurrence
of a very rare event which has dramatic destructive potentialities, such
as an 8.0 earthquake or a 200-year flood, would disrupt society.
Estimates also are made of the extent to which the adoption of
an adjustment reduces the options of maintenance of environmental values,
and the degree to which the pattern of distribution of income among
various groups in society may be changed.
Research proposals are appraised in the light of the
likelihood
that the research undertaken could yield significant findings, and the
likelihood that once the research is completed satisfactorily, the
findings
may be adopted and practiced by the individuals or public agencies in
a
position to benefit.
The United States as a whole is doing a competent job of dealing
with some aspects of its natural hazards and a very ragged job of handling
other aspects. The overall picture is one of rising annual property
damiage, decreasing loss of life and casualties, coupled with a
marked
growth in the potentiality for catastrophic events. On the whole, the
public costs of adjustments are increasing.
The assessment reveals that very little is known about the
dynamic relationships among many of the adjustments. It is difficult
to
predict with any confidente what the co nsequence of new Federal
investments
of initiatives will be in particular adjustments.
v
i

For each hazard a set of research opportunities,deserving
special consideration for early adoption is presented. In addition,
three
types of research which cut across the various hazards are assessed:
warning systems, land management, and relief and rehabilitation.
Among the research basic to other aspects of natural hazards
activity are: carefully planned post-audits of certain disasters by
interdisciplinary teams; community observations over time of critical
points (recovery policies and administration, health, mental health, and
preventive measures) of change and of the effects of Federal-state-
comnunity interaction; and a clearinghouse service.
In most research fields it is noted that certain types of
research which have claimed substantial amounts of public support
offer
little prospect of effecting a basic change in the,character of the
national hazard situation. In those instances there are new lines of
emphasis which promise larger returns. Many of these involve more
explicit collaboration of social scientists and natural scientists than
has been customary in past. Wherever appropriate, the research
recom-
mendations include explicit provision for the translation of
research
findings into action by individuals or public groups.
To initiate effectively the desirable new lines of research
will in some instances require a readjustment in legislative
authority.
In other cases it will require an increase in or reallocation of
public
funds for research. Much of it will involve changes in
administrative
procedures and policies of the responsible funding agencies. In many
instances the effectiveness of the research will be linked strongly
with
the resolution of issues of public policy. These issues evolve
around
national land use management, financial assistance to sufferers from
disasters, and the sharing of responsibility among local, state, and
Federal agencies in designing and maintaining community
preparedness.
vi
i

TABLE OF CONTENTS,

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS.
	...
....................ix
SUMMARY...............................	x
Chapter
I. SCOPE OF THE REPORT ......................I
Purpose
Relationship to Other Hazard Reports
II. DYNAMICS OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION.............
4
Definition
Composition
El aborati on
Relief Activities
Restoration Activities
The Emergency,Social System
Variability
Constraints
Incentivyes
Societal Factors
Community Preparedness
III. RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN
NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE.
....................30
Types of Federal Involvement
History of Federal Involvement
Costs of Involvement
Federal Roles in Community Peeparedness
Present and Future Involvement
IV. RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES..
...................49
Needed Servi ces
Service Delivery~
Timing of Service Delivery
Research Methodology
Expected Benefits of Needed Research
Confidence in the Payoff
Central Research Center
REFERENCES.                                                               ...........................68
viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
FIGURE II-I
TABLE II-1
TABLE 11-2
TABLE II-3
TABLE III-1

TABLE 111-2

TABLE 111-3


TABLE III-4

TABLE 111-5

TABLE 111-6

TABLE IV-1
RESTORATION OF "NORMALCY" THROUGH TIME.. .....
ACTIVITIES OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION.
CONSTRAINTS TO ADJUSTMENT .........
INCENTIVES FOR ADJUSTMENT ............
LEGISLATION FOR FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT
IN RELIEF AND REHABILITATION .........
DIRECT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR DISASTER
ASSISTANCE, 1953-73 .........
NUMBER OF MAJOR DISASTERS AND ESTIMATED
FEDERAL DISASTER ASSISTANCE
ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES .........
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISASTER
LOANS, 1954-74 ............
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION EMERGENCY
LOANS, 1950-73 ............
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION HOUSING
DISASTER LOANS, 1966-73 ......
FUNDING LEVELS FOR RESEARCH ...........
8
15
21
�  .	23

� �	37

39
41
42
43

44
ix

SUMMARY
Research on disaster relief and rehabilitation in the
United
States may have a great influence upon the national disaster scene
at a
*time when nation, state, and local policies, both public and
private, are
in a state of flux.
Since 1953, the President has declared over 440 major
disasters.
In contrast to a total of 141 declarations by the President in the
first
decade (1953-62), there were 222 such declarations in the next ten
years
(1963-72). During 1972 and 1973, almost 23% (94) of all
declarations
made since 1953 were issued in just two years. This trend continued
during the first half of 1974, during which 38 declarations were
made
by August 30th. Three general trends are apparent: I. an increasing
number of major disasters to which the Federal governmnent will
respond;
2. increasing kinds of aid which the Federal government will make
avail-
able; and 3. increasing Federal expenditures for involvement.
Federal
involvement in relief continues to escalate, and an ever-widening
gap
continues between benefactor and beneficiary.
Relief and rehabilitation is performed by numerous
groups.,
agencies and individuals, and is composed of varied activities
cutting
across national, state, and local boundaries. Several important
pro-
cesses in the adjustment are understood--its typical course of
events,
how people are helped, and who usually helps--but equally important
facets remain in doubt: how the adjustment affects other
adjustments
and future vulnerability; how to best coordinate all the varied
short-
and Iona-term services which the adjustment includes; what those
services
should be in terms of their immediate and long-run consequences;
and how
to prepare for use of the adjustment.
Relief and rehabilitation is not a one-dimensi onal
adjustment
to natura'l disasters; it is a series of linked activities. These
con-
sist of three unique facets which are all related, may overlap in
time,
and may exist for different lengths of time depending upon the
disaster
event.
x

The emergency or relief period encompasses the first few hours
or days after disruption and damaging impact, during which efforts are
made to provide care for all inhabitants (food, water, clothing, shelter,
medical care), and to stop continued loss and disruption directly related
to the hazard agent.
The restoration or rehabilitation period is composed of the
subsequent few weeks or months, during which actions are taken to put
things and people together in such a way that they can function tempo-
rarily. For example, temporary housing may be offered subsequent to
mass shelter, and the injured may be transported to regular hospitals
after field hospitals are closed down.
Reconstruction is the third and final period; it is comprised
of efforts to put things together and:possibly to improve on the past.
Changes are then seen as permanent.
In the latt ten years the costs of relief and rehabilitation
efforts to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration were in excess
of $1540 million; Small Business Administration Disaster loans exceeded
$3000 million, with over $800 million canceled; and Farmer's Home
Administration emergency loans exceeded $1375 million, with over $450
million canceled... Other Federal,, state, local, and private agencies
are also involved in relief and rehabilitation, increasing greatly the
costs of the adjustment. Policy is in flux on the character of what
and how Federal aid is offered. Public Law 93-288 shows intent to pro-.
vide for more planning in the reconstruction of a community than ever
before, and a shift of responsibility to states, including the authori-
zation of new regional development agencies to assist in reconstruction.
The nation has an opportunity to provide significant.direction to the
relief effort through research which will bear on new policy formation
and preparedness.
Research Opportunities
There are four central categories of research opportunities on
relief and rehabilitation:  1. what services should be made available;
2. how they should be delivered; 3. how to be sure that they will be
* delivered when they are needed; and 4. what are suitable research
methods.



xi.

1.
Services
Research is needed to determine the extent, if any, to
which
specified relief and rehabilitation policies influence other
components
of community vulnerability, preparedness, and adjustments such as
land
use planning and enforceynent, building codes and their
enforcement, and
the purchase of insurance. It is urgent because of the increasing
trend
for relief and rehabilitation policy to direct the use of other
adjust-
ments; for example, Public Law 93-234 attempts to influence
insurance,
and Public Law 93-288 to control land us'e.
The feasible policy alternatives should be assessed in
light
of their primary effects; secondary effects; and long- and short-
run
effects vis-'a-vis future vulnerability through links to the
initiation
and level of adoption of other adjustments. Disaster situations,
with
all of the attention they receive from public and voluntary
agencies,
can be catalytic in bringing to bear engineering, urban renewal ,
and
social welfare activities for fresh and integrated approaches at
reducing
vulnerability in local communities.
This effort will require sophisticated analyses of
political
processes at local, state, and, to a limited extent, the Federal
level.
It will also require an examination of the working of pressure
groups,
as well as the economic and social interests of significant
influentials
in a community. It would best be conducted by an interdisciplinary
team.
In a cross-hazard design, a variety of disaster-prone
communi-
ties should be studied in concert to achieve comparability through
standardized measures. These should be communities affected in the
past,
or potentially in the future, in which a variety of alternative
relief
and rehabilitation policies were or will be in operation. To
permit
generalization to the alternative policy issues, it should cover
varied
types of events, community policies, and areas. A sample of about
70
affected communities should be assessed.
An investigation of the effect of alternative policies on
local
economies might produce significant results after five years.
Standard-
ized indicators of aspects of the local economy such as
unemployment,
underemployment, tax bases, and trade should be developed. A
series of
disaster-stricken communities should be matched on relevant policy
issues, community size, function, and other appropriate factors in
the
recovery of a local economy. Some 40 communities would be
required.
xii

The most direct and obvious indications of social disruption
can be seen in changes in family functioning following disaster, and for
an extended time period thereafter. A primary aim should be to find how
to anticipate which communities, families, and individuals are most
likely to suffer from a particular geophysical hazard. For slow-rising
floods, the answer may not be too difficult, at least in certain years.
For hurricane and drought, however, sampling becomes much more difficult.
The monitoring of families and individuals should cover an
extended period of time and would be expected to be more intense in the
immediate aftermath of disaster. Selection of samples should be from a
variety of disasters, representing the spectrum of geophysical hazards.
2. Service Delivery
Searching studies need to be made of the methods for providing
assistance. Two such studies commend themselves as promising information
on the consequences of the various possible assistance policies.
Most voluntary and public agencies involved in relief and
rehabilitation are striving to reach those they might serve; however, the
evidence is that certain groups are under-represented when it comes to
the dispersal of opportunities and benefits. Among these are the aged,
the poorly educated, members of the lower socioeconomic classes, persons
whose background has instilled a negative value for anything perceived
as "charity", and a variety of other segments of the population.
Research on this issue would have three aims, each one con-
tingent upon the findings of the others: to what extent services are
inequitably distributed; why this is so; and what policy changes can be
made to ameliorate the problem. It might best achieve its ends by
assessing the equity issue in a variety of disaster situations such as
Presidential, SBA, and FHA declarations, and by reviewing the full range
of degree of disaster impact. For a four-year period an assessment could
be made of the dispersal of services in all three phases of the adjust-
ment in 30-35 disasters.
The coordination of all postimpact activity becomes more
tenuous as new agencies are formed, old ones are discontinued, some
reorganize, and shifts in personnel occur. Under Public Law 93-288,
increased efforts are made to upgrade efforts at coordination and to
build action for long-term recovery. However, if more and more respon-
sibility for efforts moves to state and local organizations, as current
xiii

trends suggest, agencies without much experience will find themselves
faced with a series of new events with which to cope. Although problems
of coordination do exist in the emergency and early rehabilitation
phases, the most serious problems of coordination are in later restor-
ation and reconstruction, or in coordinating earlier relief and restor-
ation efforts with long-term reconstruction.
A cross-hazard study is needed which would examine the ways of
coordinating response both within restoration and reconstruction, and
between relief, restoration, and reconstruction. For example, little
is known about what temporary housing in restoration may mean to sub-
sequent reconstruction. The research effort should view relief, restor-
ation and reconstruction as a total system and should include analyses
of all units within the system, and the role of personality traits and
individual experience in shaping personal needs.
A variety of hazard types and degrees of impact should be
assessed,in terms of program effectiveness. It should make some 20-30
case studies, and follow them through for several years after the initial
disaster through a good portion of reconstruction.
3. Timing of Service Delivery
The adoption and maintenance of preparedness is the result of
a combination of factors, some of which are known to be how often a
hazard repeats itself in a locality, community hazard awareness, and
legislated requirements for preparedness. However, other factors are
not known.
Because preparedness adoption and maintenance are conceptually
the same regardless of hazard, the research should address itself to
all natural hazards, and may well include man-made hazards in its pur-
view. It would have several goals: 1. to identify what factors account
for varying levels of preparedness; 2. to identify the factors affecting
the intensity with which preparedness is maintained; 3. to determine
what level of before-the-event preparedness is heeded to achieve adequate
postimpact performance; and 4. the transformation of the knowledge into
practical action throuigh such agencies and groups as DCPA, FDAA, and the
University of-Southern California, and through the establishment of
action groups in other universities and state governments.
Study of "before" measures of preparedness, of factors
explaining different levels of preparedness, and of "after" mneasures of

xiv

postimpact performance would require more than 100 communities because
most communities in any such sample will not be subjected to serious
events. There would be a small number of "experimental" communities
(those suffering impact), and perhaps two types of control communities,
communities which do not experience disaster during the course of the
study (in addition to those which do), could nevertheless serve as
sources of data for the studies of preparedness adoption and
maintenance.
The study may well need to be continued for an extended period
of time.  Results may be expected on adoption and maintenance within
three
to four years. However, results pertinent to how preparedness relates
to adequate postimpact performance might not be realized for one to two
decades.
4.~ Research Methodology
work is needed to develop and test the validity and
reliability
of methods foe monitoring the short- and long-term effectiveness of all
the efforts which comprise relief and rehabilitation. The aim would be
to develop monitoring procedures which are socially acceptable and
accurate in determining the primary and secondary consequences of
efforts
during the emergency, restoration, and reconstruction periods.  It
would
require extensive pretesting, and later extensive field testing, with a
design which covers varied types of events, regions of the country, and
rural and urban communities. A minimum of some 60 to 80 different
disaster and relief and rehabilitation efforts would need to be
assessed.
Once developed, the methodology would assist in carrying out most other
research on relief and rehabilitation.
5. Central Research Center
Many alternative relief and rehabilitation policies exist in
an atmosphere of continuous ch-anges. However, improvements in policy
and subsequent action generally come only when adequate data are avail-
able on their consequences. A program may have a desired outcome during
the emergency and early restoration periods, but have a strong negative
effect recognizable only during the later reconstruction period. An
alternative program may work well in one part of the country, but
poorly
in remaining areas. Parts of certain programs may produce highly
desired outcomes when used with lower social class clients, but not
with
persons of other socioeconomic levels, producing a high level of

xv

inequity.  The true consequences of new or altered programs are
often
unknown for many years. The hearings of the Senate Committee on
Public
Works in 1973-74 were the first major attempt to sift out the
experience.
Improvements are not lik(ely to occur when government
policies
are inconsistent and often in conflict, when the long-run effects
of
different programs are unknown, and when constraints to
effectiveness
are unknown. Although such knowledge is no auarantee for achieving
improvements, it certainly is a prerequisite.
It should be the purpose of a central coordinating
research
center to initiate and coordinate research on relief and
rehabilitation
among interested researchers throughout the country, and to serve
as a
center through which findings could be made available to those
respon-
sible for practical action. A center could be established within an
academic institution or some nongovernmental association. However,
it
should be formally linked to Feder al and state agencies to
facilitate
the implementation of research findings.
xvi

CHAPTER
I
SCOPE OF THE REPORT

What the activilties and services of relief and
rehabilitation
are, and how they are provided to victims of disaster can have
profound
short and long-run implications in both a positive and negative
sense.to
disaster victims and the communities in which they reside.  Human
suffer-
ing can be reduced,or increased, individuals are assisted in
restoring
order to their disrupted lives, whole communities are put back
together;
however, the restoring or even,increasing of potential for some
future
catastrophe may result by the rebuilding of a community in a
hazardous
area. The mix of activities., goods, and services which comprise
the
adjustment are far-reaching in their consequence, and can increase or
decrease disaster-imposed distress to individual victims, affected commiu-
nities, and society at large.
Relief and rehabilitation are among several major adjustments
to natural hazards and disaster. Others include land use management,
control and protection works, and building codes. Most others deal with
hazards before any,one disaster event. When all other pre-disaster
adjustments fail and disaster results, relief and rehabilitation
are the
means whereby people pick up the pieces of fragmented lives.
Relief and
reh,abilitation efforts are necessary only when pre-disaster adjustments.,
taken toge th-er,,do not prevent the natural environmzent from causing dis-
aster.
Disasters of various types have affected man, his works, and
his communities for thousands of years. Descriptions of hundreds of such
calamities are found within the cultural heritage of all persons, regard-
less of geographical or historical location. Most of these accounts
detail stories of heroics, human suffering, and the ability of
persons to
overcome hardship and loss. While most of these accounts lack
scientific
precision, they do provide insights into the varied forms of
helping
disaster victims. Scientific studies, coupled with these
historical
accounts, reveal the many modes of relief and rehabilitation and
its con-
sequences.

Purpose
Disasters cost t-he nation over $10 billion and 620 lives annu-
ally (White and Haas, 1975). Each year thousands of people are affected,
communities disrupted, and efforts undertaken to restore those persons
affected to normal lives. This restoration is generally referred to as
relief and rehabilitation. Estimates of the costs of such efforts are
staggering. For example, in the last ten years the costs of relief and
rehabilitation- efforts to the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration
were in excess of $1540 million; Small Business Administration Disaster
loans exceeded $3000 million (with over $800 million canceled); and
Farmer's Home Administration emergency loans exceeded $1375 million (with
over $450 million canceled). Many other Federal, state, local, and pri-
vate agencies are also involved in relief and rehabilitation, increasing
greatly the costs of the adjustment.
This report will examine the adjustment of relief and rehabili-
tation in order to assess current knowledge about the adjustment, and to
estimate the character and level of current opportunities for research
which promise reductions in loss, disruption, and human suffering result-
ing from natural disasters in the United States.
The major conclusions reached in the report are that opportuni-
ties for research currently exist to: (1) specify what proper composition
of goods and services should comprise the adjustment, considering both
their short- and long-run consequences; (2) determine how those goods and
services might best be delivered; (3) determine how preparedness might
best be handled to maximize the benefits of the adjustment; and (4) develop
an adequate methodology for research into the aforementioned areas of
inquiry, and into the establishment of a center for coordinating hazard
research.

Relationship to Other Hazard Reports

Individual hazard reports have been prepared by the Assessment
of Research on Natural Hazards project for specific hazards (such as
flood, tornado, earthquake and hurricane) in which relief and rehabilita-
tion is examined as one of several adjustments-to each hazard reviewed.
This report, however, deals with the adjustment of relief'and rehabilita-
tion across hazards rather than as it applies to only one hazard.
The relief and rehabilitation research opportUnities which are
presented in the report relate to research recommendations on the

2

adjustment in the specific hazard reports in the following way.
Research
into some facet of the processes in relief and rehabilitation, for
example, maintaining community preparedness for the key elements of
relief
and rehabilitation, has been called for in several reports. We hold
the
position, however, that despite differences in hazards, such research is
conceptually the same across hazards. It is not necessary to study only
floods to discover the key factors which account for maintenance of
levels
of preparedness for flood response. Generalizations regarding the
basic
process could also be discovered by assessing other preparedness
systems
for other hazards. A more fruitful, timely, and less expensive way
to
approach such issues is to conduct cross-hazard research on relief
and
rehabilitation. These are the type of issues dealt with in this
report as
we point to research which promises reward which is specific to the adjust-
mnent across hazards.
3

CHAPTER
11
DYNAMICS OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION

Adjustments to natural hazards encompass a wide range of
activi-
ties including such things as appeals to supernatural powers,
apathy, the:
application of technology, an d different behaviors thought
appropriate.
The latter two activities result in adjustm-ents such as control
and pro-
tection works and warning systems. Any one adjustment can occur at
any
level of the social order (individuals, families, communities,
states or
nations), in harmony with, or contradiction to other adjustments.
An
individual may live and seek work only in "safe"1 areas, live only
in a
house that has extra hazard resistance, or set aside a significant
finan-
cial reserve to be used in case of future loss from a geophysical
hazard
when living in a hazardous area. A family may arrange its finances
to
insure that adequate insurance protection will always, be in force
and may
have an elaborate contingency plan for reassembling separated
family mem-
bers when an earthquake hits or a flash flood occurs. The school
super-
intendent, the plant executive, and the governing board of the
local
church congregation all budget for the necessary costs of snow
removal.
Communities may, through their elected officials, put into effect
an
elaborate set of procedures to disseminate warning messages and
insure
rapid evacuation; they may also, but seldom do, establish and
consistently
enforce land use management regulations to minimize potential
property
losses.
Finally, decision-makers in any political entity may
develop
and utilize a whole range of adjustments, including the use of
satellites
to monitor major storm movements, dedicated communication networks to
carry hazard information, contingency funding for relief and rehabilita-
tion activities, and perhaps even a set of land use principles
which,
when enforced, may be most effective in mitigating hazard loss.
Adjustments may be of many types. They may have their
principal
use long before a disaster occurs, just prior to a hazard's strike,
or
immediately following its impact. Any adjustment may be primarily
social,
4

primarily technological, or, more typically, a blend of both. An
adjust-
ment may be in use at one or more levels of society. Its adoption may
be
largely voluntary or imposed at any level by larger, more powerful
compo-
nents of society. Adjustments can vary in their effectiveness and the
degree to which their use produces the consequences thought to be both
desirable and feasible: reduced losses and reduced human suffering.
Definition
Relief and rehabilitation is composed of varied activities by
numerous groups, agencies and individuals. Currently we do know several
important processes of the adjustment (its typical course of events,
how
people are helped, and who usually helps), but we do not understand
several equally important facets (how the adjustment affects other
adjust-
ments and future vulnerability, how to best coordinate all the varied
short- and long-term services which the adjustment includes, or even
what
those services should be in terms of their immediate and long-run
conse-
quences, and how to prepare for use of the adjustment).
Relief and rehabilitation is not a one-dimensional adjustment
to natural disasters, but is a series of linked activities.  Some of
these
activities as a part of relief and rehabilitation exist before a
disaster
and are enlarged or modified after a hazard's strike (Dynes, 1970;
Haas
and Ayre, 1969; Committee on the Alaska Earthquake, 1970; Drabek,
1968;
Barton, 1970). Others are instigated and exist only as a unique result
of
a hazard's strike. Those activities with the label of relief and
rehabili-
tation consist of three unique facets which are all related, may
overlap
in time, and may exist for different lengths of time depending upon
the
specific characteristics of each unique disaster event.  These are
relief,
restoration, and reconstruction.
Relief, or the emergency period, is the first response to
disas-
ter and can last a few hours, days, or weeks after a disaster occurs.
During this initial phase of the adjustment, efforts are made to stop
the
continued loss and disruption caused directly by the disaster event.
People are rescued, fed, clothed, and provided with medical care and
shelter (Kates, et al., 1973).
The restoration, or rehabilitation phase of the adjustment
can
last for a few days, weeks, or even months during which the lives of
vic-
tims, families, organizations and the community as a whole are put
together in such a way that they can function temporarily. For
example,

temporary housing may be offe-red subsequent to mass public
shelters, and
the injured may be transported to regular hospitals, after field hospitals
are closed down.
Reconstruction is the third and final phase of the adjustment.
It may last for periods of years and is comprised of efforts to achieve
permanent restoration in the community. Houses are rebuilt and
temporary
housing abandoned, new zoning ordinances drafted, enacted, and
enforced,
and economic recovery for the area achieved. The boundaries around
these
three phases of the adjustment are blurred and overlap in time in all
disaster events.
The character of any relief, rehabilitation, or
reconstruction
program can serve to prevent future disasters (through the
application of
adjustments such as land use), and secondary disasters such as fires and
explosions in the emergency period of any disaster event.
in social terms, relief and rehabilitation can be seen as con-
sisting of two types of changes in a disaster-stricken community. These
two changes.cut.across all three phases of the adjustment, but have
declining impact as time passes: changes in the ongoing activities
of
individuals, families, organizations and other components of the
entire
community; and changes in the community's social structure. The
latter
refers specifically to new patterns of social organization which
evolve
both within and between disaster-response relevant individuals,
groups,
and organizations in the emergency period so that required
activities can
be performed. These changes are temporary, and gradually disappear
as
emergency needs are met and the restoration period ensues.
During normal times, particular traditional activities or
func-
tions are performed in a community for the benefit of its
inhabitants.
However, during disaster, especially in the relief phase, many of
these
traditional activities are significantly altered or even replaced
by new
ones. For example, the production, distribution and consumption of
goods
and services change.
Sbcial control patterns and educational activities are altered
as well. The disaster creates new or increased demands on a community,
and, as a result, certain aspects of traditional community activity
become
irrelevant in the light of more pressing emergency needs. Those
aspects
of normal activities.which do not appear central to emergency needs are
replaced by more relevant activities. In a major disaster, schools may
close, business activity may come to a standstill,, and commodities
and
6

health services may be distributed on the basis of need rather than
ability to pay for them. This shi ft in priorities is most clearly
seen
during the relief phase of disaster.
The people and groups involved in relief and rehabilitation,
both local and extra-local, comprise what is referred to as an
emergency
social system (Barton, 1970). The degree of reorganization that is
required in both commiunity activities and social structure depends
in
part upon the character of the natural event which caused the
disaster--
its onset speed and scope of destruction.
Response to disaster, through efforts at relief,
rehabilitation
and eventually reconstruction, brings individuals and the community
increasingly closer to a state of restored "normalcy" in function. The
basic notion is illustrated in Figure 11-1: ongoing human life is dis-
rupted by disaster; the disaster imposes a variety of new
characteristics
on that life; and:relief, restoration, and reconstruction are
activities
through which the changes imposed by disaster are gradually abandoned as
the pre-disaster mode of life is restored in the community.
This may not be accomplished in a desirable way for all those
concerned. A community can be restored in broad terms while certain
per-
sons and families continue to suffer some of the negative consequences
of
a disaster. Likewis,e, many individuals and families can achieve
complete
restoration- while several parts of the cormunity-at-large may have
yet to
be completely restored. The consequence is not unlike a disaster which
strikes only one portion of a community directly, leaving other areas of
the community unaffected.
Disaster victims, whether individuals, families, groups or com~-
ponents of a community--such as its economy--do not exist in social
isola-
tion from the rest of that community. Individual victims are socially
connected.to other parts of society through churches, schools,
voluntary
associations, and the labor force. Although such groups may not be
directly affected by disaster, they suffer indirectly through persons
who
were affected. This ripple effect also works in reverse; when schools,
churches, and the economy of an area are impacted, individuals and
.families not directly affected by the disaster can suffer some of the
negative consequences through affiliations with other parts of the
directly
affected community.




7


ONGOING
SOCIAL
LIFE
(NORMALCY)
FIGURE 11-1
: RESTORATION OF "NORMALCY" THROUGH TIME
8

Composition
The onset o.f a natural hazard, the disaster it produces, and
what occurs in its aftermath is usually a unique experience for
persons
who are affected. However, the relief and rehabilitation efforts after
a
hazard's strike are unique only to those who are experiencing disaster
for
the first time. Many similar patterns occur in every disaster. The
ensuing discussi on will summarize what is known about the recurring
activities which comprise relief and rehabilitation in most disasters.
Some general reference sources on the topic include Mileti, Drabek and
Haas (1975); Barton (1970); Dynes (1970); Baker and Chapman (1962).
Unfortunately, little is known about many important items: (1) how
fac-
tors in relief can 'inhibit rehabilitation efforts, or how factors in
both
can inhibit long-term reconstruction; (2) how to make the dispersion
of
goods and services mo,re equitable; and (3) how to coordinate efforts
through all three phases (relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction)
of
the adjustment.,
1. Relief Activities
a. Search and Rescue
Search and rescue is one of the first actions taken following
disaster. Studies have consistently shown that initial search and
rescue
work is carried out by persons who are in the impact area and
that.formal
,rescue organizations become involved at a later point (Dynes, 1970,
p.
134; Kates, et al.., 1973). The family functions as a basic rescue
group.
The search and rescue activity of family members tends to be somewhat
patterned. Attention is first directed at assisting relatives,
followed
by a concern for neighbors, friends, and, finally strangers. Socially
isolated victims--such as the aged living alone or persons in far-
flung
areas--are often overlooked by those persons who are concerned with
helping relatives and friends, and constitute a,problem in providing
emergency aid during the initial emergency period. Individuals who enter
the impact area from the outsi,de are important since they are not com-
mitted to aiding specific victims. Local emergency organizations such as
the police, civil defense and fire department, as well as outside groups
like the national guard, gradually begin to dominate search and rescue
activity after initially assuming a supportive role. All of these organi-
zations usually bring more coordination and resources to the informal

9

rescue activity already in progress, although the informal response
usually gives some type of aid to a major portion of the victims.
b . Care for Casualties and Survivors
Once the injured have been located and rescued, they must
be
provided medical attention. Hospitals are the major locus for thie
treat-
ment of the more serious casualties following disaster in the United
States
(Quarantelli, 1970). Many of the injured are, however, also treated
in
first-aid shelters or temporary infirmaries in shelters. First-aid
sta-
tions are often bypassed and the injured brought directly to more
visible
hospitals.
A number of factors are involved in the selection of
particular
hospitals by those transporting the injured, including the distance a
hospital is from the impact area, and how familiar a hospital is to
the
official or unofficial driver. In high casualty disasters, which are
geographically localized and which occur in a metropolitan area,
publicly
visible hospitals are likely to receive many casualties regardless
of
their distance from the impact area. A few hospitals often receive
the
bulk of casualties, causing them problems.with congestion,
communication,
and resources. This is a problem in disasters with an especially
large
number of injured persons.
The survivors of disaster may be provided food, shelter,
and
clothing from many sources including the Red Cross, Salvation Army,
service and fraternal groups, and even the military in somie cases.
How-
ever, emergency relief and shelter is most likely to come from
friends and
relatives (Moore, 1964; Drabek and Boggs, 1968). iMost disasters are
characterized by an under-utilization of shelters that have been
estab-
lished and stocked by formal relief organizations, but these may
provide
aid to over half of the displaced. In many disasters there is an
over-
abundance of clothing, due in part to the generosity of outside
sources.
This convergence of clothing and other material often places an
added
burden on a community since it contributes to congestion and
requires
that personnel needed for other tasks and duties be used to handle
it,
and already strained facilities be used for storage (Taylor, Zurcher
and
Key, 1970; Barton, 1970). In major' disasters, there is a greater
depen-
dence upon formal emergency organizations for relief services.
Assistance
to survivors often extends over a long period in a disaster with
wide-
spread destruction. Organizations like the Red Cross wni,ch become
I10


involved in immediate aid to victims also participate in longer term
rehabilitation efforts.
c. Enhancement of Community Morale

Studies have shown that disaster-stricken communities exhibit
a high degree of solidarity. Part of this cohesion stem's from the
sharing
of externally imposed problems, and participation in collective efforts
to
solve themn. However, conscious efforts are also made, especially
during
the relief period, to enhance and nurture community morale (Dynes,
1970,
p. 144). Actions are taken for the specific purpose of convincing
commu-
nity residents that they should not be disheartened because immediate
problems will be solved and a better tommunity will somehow rise from
the
tragedy.
Mass medi,a organizations, public officials s.uch as the mayor
and governor, and religious leaders often play important roles in this
kind of activity. IThe mass media provide the public with stories and
anecdotes about the heroics and unselfish actions of local residents
and
organizations in the face of extreme odds. Local public officials make
morale-boosting appearances and declare their faith in the stamina of
the
residents and in the community's tradition of overcoming adversity.
Out-
side officials and organ-izations also support morale boosting efforts
with
frequent announcements that the community does not stand alone in its
hour
of need, and that they can be depended upon to provide assistance and
resources, which may not be available locally.
d. Maintenance of Community Order
During disaster, special social control measures are taken by
groups and organizations in a community for the purpose of maximizing
immediate relief efforts. In a major disaster, police forces, e.g.,
city, county, state, and several types of military units, such as the
National Guard or members from a base located nearby, may all assume
social control functions. The impact area becomes a magnet which
attracts
many kinds of persons including sightseers, those who are concerned
about
relatives and friends, and would-be helpers (Fritz and Mathewson,
1957).
This makes the job of those engaged in relief activities more
difficult.
In responte to.this problem, attempts are usually made by officials to
limit access to the impact area to relief workers and others with
official
credentials. Roadblocks are usually set up around the critical area
which

are manned by guards, and a pass system is established.
Frequently, social control agencies anticipate serious
looting
problems. However, unlike in civil disturbances, there is little
evidence
that this takes place on a large scale during natural disaster in
the
United States (Quarantelli and Dynes, 1968). Similarly, there is
little
evidence that panic is a major problem during natural disaster in
the
United States, although it too is frequently anticipated
(Quarantelli,
1954). More of a problem for social control agencies are those
persons
who converge on the impact area because they want to help or are
curious,
rather than persons who flee out of uncontrollable fear.
e. Protection Against Accompanying Hazards
Some disasters are ac'companied by significant additional
hazards.
Disaster-relevant groups and organizations must not only engage in
relief
activities aimed at problems created by the impact of the initial
hazard
agent, but in activities related to the accompanying hazards as
well.
For example, in addition to their initial disruption, earthquakes
may
create fire hazards, tsunamis, and the danger of injury from fallen
power
lines and partially destroyed buildlings. These additional hazards
will
call for the expansion of initial relief activities--search and
rescue,
care for survivors, social control--as well as such,specific actions
as
fire suppression and debris clearance.
2. Restoration Activities
Although restoration (rehabilitation) activities are often
initiated while relief efforts are still in progress, they tend to
becomne
most prominent after the latter have been completed. It is then that
relevant community organizations and supporting groups can turn
their
attention to long-term problems. By the time rehabilitation efforts
begin
in earnest, many groups which performed vital relief roles have
returned
to more normal activities and social patterns. Proportionate to
relief
activities, there has been little, research on rehabilitation
(Mileti,
Drabek and Haas, 1975; Bates, et al., 1963). Perhaps this is related to
the fact that many relief tasks have immediate consequences for
disaster
victims and are more dramatic in nature than rehabilitation
activities.
Some restoration work on water, roads, and electricity is
done
during, the relief phase of disaster when the success of relief
activities
is dependent upon it. Rescue efforts may be hampered by blocked
highways,
1 2

and interrupted gas, electric, water, and telephone service mlay
interfere
seriously with efforts of hospitals to provide the injured with miedical
attention and with attempts by other relief organizations to assist sur-
vivors in other ways. Efforts by organizations such as private utility
companies and public works agencies are initially directed at restoring
these services to some minimal level of operation. During
rehabilitation,
however, the restoration of such services to their pre-disaster
capacities
becomes the goal of these organizations.  Restoring a Icommunity to its
pre-disaster state includes providing assistance to individuals,
farnilies,
and private businesses, as weill as governmental units.
During the rehabilitation phase of disaster, somie groups and
organizations look beyond restoration. They may see the disaster context
as an opportunity to accelerate plans for change which had already been
in progress, or as a chance to introduce now changes in the community
(Anderson, 1970).
Some communities are able to recover more quickly and derive
more benefits from disaster than others. Rogers (1970), for example,
reports on the different recovery rates and benefits derived by several
Alaskan communities from the 1964 earthquake. He notes that because it
was the largest city in the state and the center of much governmental
and
construction activity, Anchorage benefited most from the post-earthquake
reconstruction. Anchorage's economy also benefited from the fact that tiie
city had the only major port facility in operation immediately after the
disaster; it attracted freight business from Seward, Whittier, and
Valdez,
w.hich it maintained for years. The port cities of Seward and Valdez did
not fare as well.  Seward's population and economy underwent a long-
termn
decline despite rebuilding and major improvements to its port. Valdez
failed to experience growth despite its relocation and rebuilding.
Restoration, then, may involve more than merely returning to prior
existing conditions. It is doubtful that most disaster-stricken communi-
ties can limit their long-term recovery efforts to a return to the
status
quo, or want only that.
3. The Emergency Social System
There are providers and-recipients during relief and
rehabilita-
tion; the roles, of course, are not mutually exclusive. Those who are
providers at one point may later become recipients.  Recipients can
include
individuals and families in the impact area, groups such as businesses,

hospitals, and schools, and all levels of government.
Provider groups play the key role in the emergency social
system
which develops during disaster. These include pre-existing groups,
as well
as ad hoc or emergent groups which form spontaneously within a
stricken
community. Pre-existing provider units include established,
expanding,
and extending organizations. Established organizations undergo
little
structural change during disaster and perform their regular tasks in
the
emergency social system. Expanding organizations exist with a
smaller
ongoing active membership prior to impact and mobilize volunteers
and
reserve personnel when disaster occurs. Extending organizations
perform
tasks which they don't normally assume. The following typology shows
the
different kinds of disaster-relevant organizations (Dynes, 1970).
(1) Emergent Groups
(2) Pre-existing Groups
(a) established organizations, e.g., police, fire
departments
(b) expanding organizations, e.g., Red Cross,
Salvation Army.
(c) extending organizations, e.g., construction
company, Boy Scouts.
Examples of emergent providers would be informal search and
rescue groups, debris removal groups, and the message or
communications
center.  Emergent groups are usually active only during the relief phase
of disaster. Police and fire departments would be examples of establisiled
organizations; Red Cross chapters, Salvation Armiy units, and state
and
local civil defens e agencies would be examples of expanding
organizations.
Extending organizations are such disaster-activated units as church
groups
and Boy Scouts.
The emergency social system also manifests changes in
inter-
organizational relationships. Whereas during normal times many
community
organizations exhibit a high degree of autonomy, the demands of
disaster
require increased interaction and coordination between disaster-
relevant
organizations requiring decreased level s of autonomy. Furthermore,
the
inv'olvement of;non-local organizations in community activities is
height-
ened in disaster. Conflict may result from the arrival of outside
actors
in the community and their efforts to.coordinate the usually more
autono-.
mous community groups.
Table 11-1 is presented as a summary of the activities
which
comprise relief, rehabilitation, and the emergency social system. In
1
4

TABLE 11-
1
ACTIVITIES OF RELIEF AND REHABILITATION

(1)  Initial assessment of physical and human effects:
through
direct observation and contacting others, seeking to discover what has
happened, who is hurt and,who is safe.
(2) Efforts to secure self, family, and organization: a
quick
initial attempt to shore up and to save those persons and property
inmaediately around the individual.
(3)  Spontaneous search and rescue activity:  cries for help
and the sight of debris are qUickly followed by spontaneous, mostly
indi-
vidual, efforts at finding the injured, stranded, trapped, and dead.
(4) Attempts to insure or reestablish public order: respon-
sible officials and other persons believing that public order has or
is
about to break down take hurried actions to keep the curious and
most of
the altruistic out,of the damaged are~a, to direct vehicular
traffic, and
to take steps thought to minimize'the likelihood of looting.
(5)  Spontanelous, sporadic attempts to limit secondary
effects:
blockades are quickly thrown up next to a fallen bridge, valves are
shut
off to stem the flow from obvious ruptures in the water system, and
attempts are made to stamp out small fires and to take quick corrective
action against a few obvious fire hazards.
(6) Attempts are made to mobilize previously existing emergency-
relevant organizations: off-duty personnel are called in, directives for
action are prepared, equipment and supplies are assembled, and all are
combined with a continuing effort to ascertain the needs and priorities.
(7) Beginning actions of emergent groups.and organizations:
where certain needs are obvious and are not.being nmet, e.g., search and
rescue, traffic control, examination of buildings for safety, new
groups
form and carry out "needed" activities.
(8) News media arrive which eventually increases curiosity
in
other areas.
(9) Systematic attempts to li-mit secondary effects
including
systematic evacuation: pre-~existing local organizations, in some
instances with assistance from non-local organizations, take
immediate
steps to reduce any further threat to life and property.
(10) Convergence: the affected area acts as a magnet
attracting
persons, food, medicines, clothing and all manner of material. Much
of
the influx goes to key nodes in the emergency social system such as
hos-
pitals. In the early hours and days much of the influx is not in
response
to specific need, but is largely from a naive altruistic impulse to
help
(Fritz and Mathewson, 1957).
In addition to the convergence of persons and material,
there
is a communications convergence. Every mode of communication is soon
jammed with inquiries concerning the location and health of-
residents
and offers of help. The convergence is a mixed blessing. It creates
all
manner of logistical and other problems, but often in the cornucopia
are
some of the critically needed specialists, equipment, and supplies
(Kates,
et at., 1973).
(continued)


15





























I

(11) The overwhelming feeling is that all obvious needs,
especially immediate human needs, sholuld be met promptly regardless
of
the magnitude of the effort or the cost involved. Under such circum-
stances there is little patience for such normal procedures as
keeping
careful records, clearing decisions with higher level officials,
coordi-
nating plans before taking action and checking carefully on the
eligibility
of persons and groups who appear to be in need. Any person
attempting to
conduct business as usual will be met with expressions of
incredulity
followed by outpourings of hostility (Taylor, Zurcher and Key,
1970).
(12) Full implementation of the emergency community "super-
structure" between the varied groups and organizations involved in
con-
ducting the mass assault; systematic efforts to provide needed
emergency
services: careful search and rescue with records be.ing kept, care
for the
injured is no longer happenstance, identification of the dead,
programs of
inoculation, organized distribution of food and water as needed,
organizing
shelter for the homeless, provision of critical services by emergency
organizations, emergence of the kinship ties of the affected as a source
of aid.
(13) Organized debris removal and the beginning of
emergency
repairs: efforts are to normalize the physical setting so that the
full
range of activities can be carried out with relative efficiency.
(14) Efforts by public officials to boost the morale of the
local citizens: through news releases and public appearances,
citizens
are told that the worst is over, that help is forthcoming, that the
commu-
nity will be rebuilt, and that "we shall overcome."
(15) Individual family assistance, temporary housing
initiated,
beginning of applications for disaster loans.
(16) Emergence of victim hostility toward bureaucratic
relief
organizations; continued stream of the curious even weeks later; old
-antagonisms re-emerge; more and more victims and would-be victimns
push
to see that they get their "fair share"L of technical assistance,
grants
and loans.
1
6




concert, the factors listed in the table are the major patterns which
emerge in all disasters consistently.
This overview should make it clear that relief and rehabilita-
tion efforts are not conducted only,by previously existing, emergency-
relevant organizations. Individuals are active on their own, and person-
to-person assistanice is very common. A large amount of victim
assistance
comes from kin groups and associates.
One important facet which often is not portrayed very well in
any attempt to summarize post-disaster events is the profound sense of
shock and sadness over the death, injury, and destruction on all sides,
and the emotion of altruism. There is an incredibly widespread and very
intense desire to help. In the first few days, at least, this general
desire to help Odoes not c arry with it evidence of expectations of
compen-
sation or other reward.  This has been call-ed the "therapeutic
community"
(Fritz, 1961), the "altruistic community" (Barton, 1970), and a "thera-
pautic mood" producing a cornucopia of varied types of assistance
(Taylor,
Zurcher and Key., 1 970).
In addition, any activity in relief and rehabilitation can
serve
as a point of conflict in the emergency social system. A note of caution
should be inserted here. It is our belief, based on some direct observa-
tion following a number of disasters, and on our examination of the
rele-
vant literature, that what has been presented above is a reasonably
accurate representation of the phenomena it purports to describe.
However,
from a scholarly and scientific perspective we must point out that the
empirical data base for the generalizations we have presented is narrow,
as evidenced by a very.recent, comprehensive review of all the relevant
social science literature (Mileti, Drabek and Haas, 1975).
4.Variability in Relief and Rehabilitation
Despite the similarities in relief and rehabilitation efforts
in most disasters, communities struck by disaster can manifest consider-
able variation in their relief and rehabilitation efforts. Differences
can be noted, fo,r example, in the duration, scope, and organization of
efforts, as well as in the kinds of problems which beset them. These
differences are directly associated and are a direct consequence of tne
physical characteristics of thie natural hazard which strikes. The speed
and scope of a natural hazard, particularly, seem to affect the
character
of.relief and rehabilitation. The following types of disasters can be


17

delimited within these two important dimensions (Carr, 1932):
(1 ) fast--wi despread
(2) fast--localized
(3) slow--widespread
(4) slow--localized
These four kinds of disaster have different consequences
for
communities; they place very different levels of stress on different
parts
of the community. Fast-widespread disasters such as those caused by
flash
floods, make the greatest demands on a community's relief and
rehabilita-
tion capabilities because they occur with little or no warning and
impact
a wide area. This type of disaster, if there has been strong impact
whnich
is caused by an agent like an earthquake, calls for an extensive
relief
and rehabilitation operation to be undertaken. In fact, it may
require
rehabilitation efforts to extend over a period of several years.
Because
the demands placed on a community by fast-widespread disaster are so
great,
many groups may have to take on volunteers, i.e., expand, and many emer-
gent groups may have to be formed to perform disaster tasks which cannot
be assumed by pre-existing organizations. Considerable outside assistance
is also usually required. In such disasters, for example, the
military
often plays a major role in the emergency social system, including
involve-
ment in such activities as search and rescue, caring for casualties
and
survivors, and maintaining community order.
Fast-localized disasters, caused by such agents as
tsunamis,
may provide little or no warning. The scope of this type of
disaster,
however, is limited; massive outside aid may not be needed, at least
in
the large urban areas which possess the typical eme,rgency
resources. The
extended family and kinship relations that victims have also serve
as an
important source of aid in this type of disaster. In most cases, pre-
existing local emergency organizations are able to handle the emergency
problemfs without the involvement of ad hoc groups (Drabek, 1969). Fewer
transportation and communication problems are created for groups
perform-
ing relief services than by fast-widespread disasters.
Slow-widespread disasters are caused by such agents as
hurri-
canes.  Like earthquakes, hurricanes 'create widespread destruction
and
social disruption which require a community to mobilize its own resources,
as well as to seek support from outside groups like Federal agencies and
the military.  However, unlike t.he fast-widespread disaster, a warning
can precede a progressive-diffuse disaster if the hazard is predictable,
18

frequently giving a commun ity the opportunity to evacuate the
threatened
area, mobilize emergency organizations, and to make such preparations
for assisting disaster victims as the opening of shelters.
Because some actions can be taken before hazard impact, and
because they are limited in scope, slow-localized disasters, such as
small-
scale floods, create feWer problems for communities than the three
types
of disasters we have mientioned. The relief and rehabilitation
operation
which evolves in this type of disaster context is apt to be of short
duration and can involve local organizations which normally provide
the
community with emergency servi'ces in key roles. As these official
emer-
gency organizations deal with the problems associated with disaster,
most
* of the rest of the community, being relatively unaffected by it,
carries
on in a fairly routine fashion.
*         ~~~There are other characteristics of natural hazard agents
besides
their speed of onset and scope of impact which exert some influence on
t'ne
nature of relief and rehabilitation. One of these is their recurrence.
Communities which are repeatedly struck by a particular kind of
natural
hazard agent sometimes develop fairly routinized responses to them.
Some,
for example, may become fairly expert at coping with hazards such as
floods and hurricanes. Relief and rehabilitation efforts following
recur-
rent disasters in such tommunities assume a more institutionalized
charac-
ter than they would in communities which have had little experience
coping
with them.  Areas which have developed organized responses to a
recurrent
natural hazard are said to have a disaster subculture (Moore, 1964,
pp.
195-213).
Finally, whether or not a disaster is of such a nature that
it
generates additional hazards also affects the character of relief and
rehabilitation. If an earthquake produces major fires or a hurricane
spawns widespread flooding, the scope and duration of relief and
rehabili-
tation efforts in a stricken community may have to be significantly
expanded, and the number and types of groups participating in the
emer-
gency social system may have to be enlarged.
5. Constraints to Relief and Rehabilitation
Many factors operate to complicate and reduce the
effectiveness
of relief and rehabil itation after disaster: (1) the lack of complete
coordination between all involved relief organizations and groups,
such
that there may be a duplication of efforts in some areas of
responsibility,

19*

or, of much greater significance, neglect of other areas; (2) the tempo-
rary, but extreme, work overload of local relief agencies; (3) built-in
bureaucratic inflexibility which resuilts in some inability to cope with
unusual, or non-uniform, events; and (4) the lack of requisite legislation
for required funds and necessary operations for relief, and more specific-
ally, for rehabilitation.
Factors which work against the adjustment are not only limited
to those providing relief. Some of the characteristics of the recipient
population which tend to encumber relief and rehabilitation are: (1) an
ignorance on the part of the victims as to the potential availability of
relevant services and which agency or group can provide particular ser-
vices; (2) the dispersion of the afflicted population over a large geo-
graphical area; (3) the lack of racial, ethnic, and economic homogeneity
among the recipient population'; and (4) a natural tendency oh the part of
victimns being assisted to get hostile toward relief-giving organizations
whose personnel may react defensively.
There is a re current dilemma in the relief and rehabilitation
process. Decisions to act quickly to relieve suffering and to get the
economy going again can often undermine those actions that s hould be taken
for long-term recovery. Unfortunately, little is known about which
soecific decisions in the relief effort may indeed act as constraints in
rehabilitation.  Several of the major constraints *to the adjustment are
liste.d and briefly described in Table II-2.  Such constraints exist at
most social levels, e.g., individuals and families, groups and organiza-
tions, and the community. They exist in both those giving aid (providers)
and those receiving aid (recipients).
Several items' become obvious on the basis of this review. First,
there atre problems of upgrading the coordination of relief and rehabilita-
*tion efforts, given the variety of agents and agencies involved in the
processes, the length of time over which long-term efforts occur, and the
diversity of types of people aided. There are, however, increasing
efforts at upgrading coordination of the national, region, and local
levels. Second, little is known about how relief and rehabilitation
operations serve to act as constraints to the reconstr~uction period
following rehabilitation; how relief and rehabilitatiorn affect further
vulnerability, the general quality of life, ai~_.d even things such as the
local economy of the community, family life, and the mental heAalth of
individuals. Third, because of some of these constraints and other
20


TABLE 11-2
CONSTRAINTS TO ADJUSTME�NT

Provider Variables
(1)  Individual performance.  Some individuals may not perform adequately in
provider roles.  This may be especially true during the relief phase of
personnel in emergent groups and volunteers in expanding organizations who
assume tasks which are unfamiliar to them.
(2)  Communication.  As previously mentioned, inter-organizational coordination
Is vital during disaster. However, a lack of efficient and comprehensive
inter-organizational communication can seriously impair such coordination
and thereby reduce the effectiveness of relief and rehabilitation.  Intra-
organizational communication is also important. A lack of communication
between components of the same organization can reduce response efficiency.
This is particularly the case in, but not limited to, organizational field
unit cmmnunications in relief.
(3)  Resumption of non-emergency tasks.  As previously noted, many community
organizations referred to as extending groups assume new tasks during
disaster. For example, churches have been known to extend their activities
to providing food, clothing, and shelter for disaster victims. Such non-
regular tasks may be effectively met for a short time by an organization;
however, at some point itmust return to normal duties. This cuts the
contribution many extending organizations can make to long-term rehabilita-
tion efforts.
(4) Voluntary funding. An organization which functions on voluntary contribu-
tions may find its capacity reduced as these funds run out. This is
especially true if the organization is to participate in the rehabilitation
process.
(5) Community experience.  Previous community activity provides some learning
which may be applied to subsequent situations.  The absence of disaster
experience may result in a less efficient and effective emergency response
from providers.
(6) Systemic effects.' The varied and changing policies for relief and rehabili-..
tation can have negative effects on future vulnerability and long-term
recovery.
(7) Preparedness. Low-levels of community preparedness for disaster retards the
maximum benefits achieved from the adjustment.
Recipient Variables
(1) Dependency, Receiving the benefits of relief and rehabilitation requires
victims to assume dependent roles.  This produces psychological conflict in
victims in a society such as ours, where independence is a strong social
value (Taylor, Zurcher and Key, 1970; Bates, et aZ., 1963).. Effective relief
and long-term rehabilitation efforts presuppose the willingness of recipients
to accept aid from providers. However, it may be the case that some category
of recipients is unwilling, or holds a negative value for accepting aid from
providers.
(2) Inability to initiate contact. Relief, and especially rehabilitation efforts
often.require interaction in the process to be initiated by the recipient
rather than the provider. This may result in the uneven distribution of aid
(especially in the rehabilitation process where more formalized channels for
aid exist than in relief) among those individuals who know how to interact
with organizations and those who do not hold this knowledge, and those who
know how to speak English and those who do not. However, several measures
have been initiated to countermand such constraints as "ethnic dissonance."
(3)  Decline in aid from close associates.  In the initial period following a
disaster, many evacuees are included in the families of friends and rela-
tives. This relieves the burden of additional numbers of homeless in the
community.  However, as this source of aid declines, it can serve to per-
petuate the need for publicly offered services.


21

unknown factors, aid is often disproportionately-allocated across
various
social, economic and ethnic groups in a community.	The aged
rarely
receive a proportionate share of'ai'd'and services.	Such services
should
i,ncorporate the means whereby their allocation might be
equali'z'd,ad:'rio
all suc,  "roups.;- ..  .
6.  Incentives for Relief and "Rehabi-litation
T:  .3Tiherre- are s.eve-ral -incentives,,f:or the, active'
parti ci pati'on of
re ie"f in:d reh:abilitati6on o'rganizations  not the-.:least
:of..which is the
communltys:-:desres: oree,:-move:ithe.e added economic-.burden
pl,aced. on local
revenues by structural damage of business-and personal property, as
well.
as to av,ert.,possible :unemployment.  In addition,.to the :purely.
economic
stimulus.,'for , re.i efand  rehabili tati on,. there is,a hiTgh
premium placed on
life andi; the al,al!<'evi'ati:io:n 'ofX suffering in western ,cultre.
Di.;sasters also
provi.de an pportunity f'-or relief  rganizationsto justi fy their
own
existence and demonstrate their organizational value.  As wi'th
constraints,
incentifves: are' asily divided. intorovider and i.ici'.pie' nt 'a abi
s.   In
addition 'to - iose- alrea!dy mefnti           o'herin'cen ives. are
liste d
in Table ,,II3. Incen.tives s.uch.as these help to2,ejxp,lai.n ,.hy
the adjust-
ment exst xi1s,nt  asls Anh                           disda-s w es',  cs as
;' cur.

7.  Societal Factors
Se-veral general societal trends 'can have a di"rec:t,
effect on the
freq,uen.cy,of .an.adjus itment.'s puse an.d..on its:effectiveness.
Research
opportunities on relief and' r'ehabilitation are aalso affeted 'by
such
general trends.


..... ' .... ' '  '~'~" .-; ........	'hen I- d st bution
. '~'-"'.' ;''Th'ree:trends 'have -been ide'n'tified'	t.inh'
:ze and'distributiond
of pop:ulation:-: (1') popu-lati'onhwill : c'ntinue to:'ncreas'e'',as
the year 2000
is approached, then the rate will level off; (2) regional ,migration
patterns will cont inue--Californi a, Arizona, Nevada, Colorado
Texas, and
Florida are growth leaders, while the Northeast is losing
population, witn
the exceptions:-of Delaware,- Maryland, and New Jersey which are
increasing;
and (3)::rural-to-urban and-.suburban migration will continue, but
at a
slackened- pace-- .:In-, addition, most of the -istates -whi:ch are
leade.rs in net
size growth are -the :,same:states that are above the national
average in
percent increase in urban population.- Urbanizati:onh i(which:
continues even
22

TABLE 11-
3
INCENTIVES FOR ADJUSTMENT
Provi der Variables
(1) Opportunity to be altruistic. Disaster provides the
oppor-
tunity for individuals and groups to be altruistic. This
is
most characteristic of relief, declining as time passes
in
any prolonged period of rehabilitation.
(2) Excitement. Disaster allows some individuals to get away
from the routine through participation in emergency-
activated
groups. Again this is more true of relief than
rehabilita-
tion.
i



I
I
(3) Opportunity for reconstruction. Various community
segments
may seize the rehabilitation.process as an opportunity
to
reconstruct some community structure, either social or
physi-
.cal, above previous levels. For example, "instant urban
renewal" sometimes results in areas lived in by low-
income
segments of the population.
Recipient
Var
.(1I
)
ri:ables
Personal need.
need for aid
in
major force
for
Regardless of Ithe recipient unit
involved,
its various dimensions is present and
is a
relief and rehabilitation efforts.
(2) Personal gain.- Regardless of the recipient unit
involved,
anticipated personal gain beyond pre-impact levels may
moti-
vate some to ose available services. This is largely
linmited
to rehabilitation rather than relief, since
rehabilitation
affords more avenues for aid enabling the passing of
pre-
impact levels.
23

in states which are losing population) will continue to increase
concen-
trations of population. Such trends need not reflect increases in
overall
vulnerability; however, by increases in the population of any one
place,
vulnerability to catastrophic disasters and their accompanying
losses is
increased. As a consequence, the growth leader areas of the country
are
increasing in hazard vulnerability generally, and in catastrophic
events
specifically, while states losing population are experiencing
decreasing
vulnerability in the same manner. Population pressure in densely
settled
areas is causing expansion into areas which are subject to greater
hazard
risk. For example, there is development of areas of artificial fill
in
earthquake-prone cities in the West.
Any increase in the vulnerability of an area to a
catastrophic
event will increase the reliance on rel:ief and rehabilitation in
major
disasters, and is impetus for current research opportunitieslon the
adjust-
ment.
b. Corporate Organization and Size
Corporations are becoming larger. There are increasing
numbers
of conglomerates with widely dispersed investments in a variety of
indus-
trial and commercial endeavors. If such increases in corporate size
and
diversification mean that there will be proportionately more
financial
reserves which could be used to cope with hazards (through any mix'
of pre-
or post-event adjustments), the trend means that losses to hazards
could
be reduced. Regardless of trends in size, the increased tendency for
physical dispersion makes the possibility of corporate self-
insurance
more feasible. In other words, large enterprises may be more able to
install pre-event adjustments, and more able to withstand the
destruction
of some segment of their diversified interests or holdings.
Assuming no change in the installation of pre-event
adjustments,
the trend toward diversification means an increased capacity of such
corporations to sustain loss. Any installation of pre-event
adjustments
would itself decrease overall vulnerability.
These general trends could affect relief and rehabilitation
as
an adjustment in two opposite ways. First, the increasing ability of
corporations to install other adjustments can decrease the need for
relief
and rehabilitation by decreasing vulnerability. However, an
increasing
ability of corporations to cope with a hazard (through both pre- and
post-
event adjustments) could encourage the escalated development of
hazardous
24

areas--thereby increasing vulnerability to catastrophic losses--and
escalate the need for relief and rehabilitation when disaster strikes.
c. Citizen Participation
Citizen organizations have recently begun to have impact in
areas such as public safety, consumer protection, and environmental
issues.
Governmental efforts have been made to respond to such groups with, for
example, seat belts, crib, auto, and fire safety, and the testing of
toys.
There does seem to be a trend to increased concenl in many
quarters, but it is unclear whether these concerns have carried over
permanently to the natural hazards arena. Only a few examples of such
cases exist, one of which stands out as a major departure in citizen
response to relief activity. The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania brought a
law suit as a complaint against relief activities following Hurricane
Agnes in 1972.  However, in other areas affected by Agnes, relief
activity
was seen by the citizenry as appropriate and expeditious. However, if
this trend could be made to include the natural hazards arena, its
effect
on relief and rehabilitation could be dramatic by increasing the
adoption
of pre-event adjustments, decreasing vulnerability, and increasing
levels
of community preparedness to cope with future disasters. The League of
Women Voters and Ralph Nader groups, for example, are agents which
could
give impetus to such a trend.
d. Other Societal Factors
A variety of the forces and trends which operate in society
can
have implications on any adjustment in the hazard system.  The
preceding
trends reviewed have illustrated how such forces could affect relief
and
rehabilitation in a variety of ways, by either increasing or decreasing
the effectiveness of the adjustment through preparedness and the need
for
its use.
The exogenous factors reviewed are only a small portion of
all
possible forces which might affect the adjustment. Others include:
(1) an increasing revitalization of the basic value of individualism;
(2) community action to decrease vulnerability; and (3) an increasing
trend toward multi-family and mobile dwelling units, which is itself
the
result of larger economic forces.
Any research opportunities that exist at this point in time
are
affected by trends such as these, and should be undertaken in
recognition


25

of the effect such trends may have on the
adjustment.
8. Community Preparedness
Preparations for future emergencies are sometimes
initiated by
community groups and organizations during the rehabilitation phase
of
disaster, although few studies have addressed this issue. Such
prepara-
tions can be viewed as efforts to rehabilitate a community in order
to
mitigate the impact of future hazard agents.
We know that disasters serve as catalysts for increased
commu-
nity preparedness, but that they don't have a lasting effect.  The
studies
which have been done (Anderson, 1970 and 1970a; Drabek, 1968)
identify the
following kinds of changes in emergency planning produced by
disaster:
(1) the creation of written disaster plans where none previously
existed,
and the improvement of existing ones; (2) the enlargement of the
staffs of
emergency organizations; (3) the acquisition of emergency equipment
such
as standby generators and emergency vehicles; and (4) the
establishment
and improvement of emergency communications systems. Such changes
have
generally been forthcoming when community groups, as a result of
their
disaster experience, perceive the need for changes an d also
possess the
capacity for effecting them.
Some community organizations experience an increased
capacity
*to expand their ernergency preparedness. Normally, organizations
like
civil defense, which often have the major assigned responsibility
for
. disaster planning at the local level, have considerable difficlulty
con-
vincing the public and political leaders that they have a vital
community
function to perform and deserve more than minimAal support for
their pro-
grams. However, following disaster, these organizations sometimes
receive
unprecedented financial support from city councils, state
legislatures,.
and other sources, which enable them to expand their programs.
The importance of another type of support for facilitating
changes in community preparedness has also been noted (Anderson,
1970a).
Both Crescent City, California, and Hilo, Hawaii, experienced
tsunami
disasters in the 1960's, but extensive improvements in community
pre-
paredness came only in Hilo. One of the chief reasons for this was
that
outsi.de experts, such as those at the Hawaii Institute of
Geophysics in
nearby Honolulu, were available to advise Hilo officials, while
comparable
advice was not sought or received by officials in Crescent City.



26

Jn general , community preparedness for relief and rehabilitation
must begin with an understanding of how much of a hazard exists in a
specific commrunity, and how that community might best respond to it.
Disaster response plans must be adaptable to situations of varying degrees
of impact from all geophysical hazards in a community; such plans are best
,based on local vulnerability analysis and potential damage assessment.
For any hazard, community preparedness must be based on a series of
community-specific questions-
(1) What is the hazard?
(2) Where is it likely to occur?
(3) How frequently is it likely to occur?
(4)  What is the range of magnitudes most likely to occ ur?
(5 ) What response will be required given varied degrees of
impact?
(6) With:what resources (personnel and material) can it be done?
(7) What approach, wethod or procedure would be best used?
(8) 'Who would be involved?
(9)~ What will they do?
(10) How will they do it'
(11) How would the total effort be best coordinated?
(12) Who will pay for it?.
Seldom, however, can one plan provide for all possible events.
A viable Plan for community preparedness must be adaptable to all degrees
of hazard impact, and address administrative and operational issues. it
should specify the organization of the emergency social system--including
its communication patterns, interrelationships between relevant units such
as government agencies, utilities, voluntary organizations, the military,
and other groups--and assign particular functions to each: coordination,
welfare, health and medical, and law enforcement.  Once the specifics of
the total res,ponding community are detailed, such a plan must calculate
and provide for the optimum relationship between system capability and
the varying levels of demand which could be placed on it.
Once gbod preparedness is achieved, it must be maintained over
time. Little is known about what is required to maintain the important
elements of preparedness.  This knowledge should be pursued since, pre-
paredness can dramatically reduce loss of life, casualties and social
disruption from disaster.







27

a. Constraints to Preparedness
It is one thi.ng to have good community plans on paper, and
quite
another thing to be able to carry out those plans when disaster
strikes.
Preparedness, especially at the community level, should include the
fre-
quent enactment of those plans in practice exercises. Somie factors
which
tend to work against the effectiveness of plans, as suggested by
Dynes,
et al. (1972), are the following: (1) plans often do not specify
somieone
to assess the overall disaster situation; (2).provisions are often
over-
looked.for communicating emergency information to all concerned; (3)
a
central command post is often ommitted from a community's plan; (4)
inade-
quate planning for interorganizational coordination is frequent, for
example, responding agencies or groups can act autonomously, which
inhibits
coordination; (5) plans rarely provide for all the different
disaster
demands which must be miet once disaster strikes- (6) varied duties
are
often ignored in plans; (7) plans are rarely adaptable to all
situations--
communities often plan for only certain kinds of disaster impact;
(8)
plans rarely include specifying the way a community can return to
normalcy;
and (9) plans are not updated often enough to provide for changes in
thie
community (pp. 77-79). The Defense Civil Preparedness
Administration,
through its on-site assistance program, is one agency attempting to
reduce
some of these constraints. Under this program, requesting cities and
counties receive assistance from Federal and state officials in
preparing
and updating preparedness plans.
The adoption of preparedness programs. is inhibited
because:
(1) existing plans are usually seen as adequate, (2) in some cases
the
adoption of plans must await the passage of legislation, (3) there
is a
lack of finances (OEP, 1972, Volume 1, p. 9), (4) community
officials may
lack the necessary knowledge for developing plans, (5) daily
community
demands often distort priorities, and other community needs usually
take
precedence over planning for disaster, and (6) a disaster creates a
new
type of task which has a different quality from normal demand loads.
The
level of interdependency among the varied responding units is
altered.
Recognizing this increased interdependency, each organizational
official
will temporarily accept the legitimacy of the emergent "synthetic
organi-
zation" and yield to the requests coming from it. However, once this
task
is done, each official will seek to return to the previous authority
struc-
ture wherein the degree of autonomy granted each respective unit is
far
greater.
28

Other relevant factors may be constraints to the adoption of
upgraded preparedness; however, little is known about what these
factors
may be.
A comprehensive program for the development of preparedness
is
currently being conducted in many California cities and counties
which may
amneliorate some of these constraints. The program is sponsored by
the
Defense Civil Preparedness Agency and the California Office of Emergency
Services, and is being implemented by the University of Southern California
*       ~~Institute for Disaster Preparedness.  Among the goals of the program are:
the training of officials and personnel in direction and control under
emergency conditions; inc reasing the awareness that individual skill area
capability is not enough for large scale disasters; and developmient
of a
local capability to carry out simulation exercises (Meyer,, 1969). In
such
simulation exercises, officials may be learning to switch in and out
of
the appropriate idisaster-related authority structure, and as a
consequence
may be more proficient. in making the transition during a real disaster.
b. Incentives for Preparedness
As previously stated, little is known about the factors which
account for the different degrees of preparedness in communities.
Community-level hazard awareness is, without a question, a
significant
incentive. Often, preparedness plans are reviewed, updated, and
expanded
after a major disaster in a community, when prior plans proved to be
inadequate. In such cases awareness of the hazard increases; the
influx
of money fromoutside the community and possible personal or political
gain by those in power may also provide incentives.


















29

CHAPTER III
RELIEF AND REHABILITATION IN NATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

Relief and rehabilitation is much more than what is
provided by
the Federal government to those affected by disaster., The full range
of
activities, specified in Chapter II, cuts across all levels of government,
involving persons in all walks.of life. Nevertheless, a significant
por-
tion of the various activities which comprise the adjustment stems
from
Federal programs and policy. Any change in Federal policy alters
some
portion of the adjustrent. It is the purpose.of this chapter to
review
the different types, history, and cost of FederalI involvement in
relief
and rehabilitation and community preparedness. In addition, the
present
Federal policy on the adjustment will be summarized and trends
projected
into the future.
Types of Federal Involvement
Federal resources are made available to disaster-stricken areas
through the provision of services, supplies, equipment, and manpower, and
by the allocation of congressionally authorized funds for relief,
rehabili-
tationland reconstruction purposes. Four definitions of disaster
exist
which define the mode of Federal involvement: major disasters
declared
by the President; emergencies declared by the President; disasters
declared by either the Small Business Administration (SBA) or the
Farmer's
Horne Administration (FH-A); and disasters in which no formal
declaration
is made.
The President, at the request of the governor of an
affected
state, can declare a major disaster if damage is of sufficient
severity
and magnitude as to exceed state resources and capabilities for
effective
response. Until recently, Public Law 91-606;, as amended, provided
the
range of benefits available to state and local governments,
individuals,
non-profit enterprises, and businesses. Some of the primary benefits
included home loans, temporary housing, the restoration of public
facili-
ties, community disaster grants, debris removal, unemployment
compensation,


30

coordination of relief organizations, and emergency relief support teams.
Recently, Public Law 93-288 added certain new benefits and modified
others, for example, 100% grants for repairing or reconstructing disaster-
damaged public educational, park, and recreational facilities.  Other
noteworthy changes included a 25% community loan program, the establishment
of a Recovery Planning Council for affected areas, and an individual and
family grant program for disaster-related needs and expenses.
The benefits provided by the Federal government in cases of a
Presidential declaration of a major disaster are subject to the following
major considerations:  (1) Federal assistance can be applied in a manner
to suit the level of destruction incurred, which is subject to concurrence
with the governor, and in amounts necessary to supplement individual,
state and local resources, including equipment and personnel as well as
monetary aid; and (2) Federal assistance to individuals, non-profit organi-
zations, and businesses is conveyed directly, as in the case of loans and
temporary housing, and indirectly through state and local agencies, as
with grants to individuals, unemployment payments, and food stamps.
The President can declare an emergency, rather than a major
disaster, when the governor of a state certifies that danger from, or
damage caused by a natural hazard requires Federal emergency assistance
to supplement state and local efforts to save lives, protect property,
public health and safety, or in order to avert or lessen the threat of a
disaster. Although extensive Federal help is available when such an
emergency is declared, benefits provided for individual and governmental
losses are not as inclusive or sizable as those in a major disaster.
The Federal government may also become involved in disasters in
which neither a Presidential declaration of a major disaster or an emer-
gency is made, because of statutes which authorize the heads of the Small
Business Administration or the Farmer's Home Administration--on their own
prerogative--to make loans to individuals and small businesses, and to
provide other aid to agriculture in stricken areas.
In cases in which no disaster declaration of any sort is made,
other Federal programs (such as urban renewal) may still involve the
Federal government in relief and rehabilitation.  These programs can be
a significant part of local long-range rehabilitation efforts.  However,
they are not brought into action by existing disaster legislation; they
continue to function in their normal pre-disaster capacities. For
example, heavily damaged areas of a city can be incorporated in a new or

31

enlarged urban renewal program. Estimates of the portion of Federal expen-
ditures for these programs which are directed at post-disaster
activities
are not available.
Approximately 30 volunteer agenicies and groups, such as
the
American National Red Cross--which is congressionally chartered as a
disaster relief agency--and the Salvation Army, have played a very
signifi-
cant role in both declared and undeclared disasters, and continue to
do
so. The increasing involvement of the Federal government in major
disas-
ters (with food stamps, for example) has relieved some of the
financial
burden formerly borne by these organizations and further commits
Federal
expenditures to disaster relief.
History of Federal Involvement
Publi c Law 81-875, enacted in 1950, provided for the first
permanent program of Federal disaster assistance to state and local
governments. Prior to its enactment, assistance from the Federal
govern-
ment was provided only in cases of special appeal after a disaster
had
occurred. Between 1803 and 1950 there were over 100 distinct cases
in
which Congress passed assistance acts in response to special
appeals.
Public Law 81-875 was concerned primarily with Federal
assistance
to state and local governments; however, it did authorize a minimum
anmount
of disaster aid to indi viduals through cooperation with the Red
Cross in
the distribution of relief supplies. Public Law 82-107, enacted in
1951,
amended Public Law 81-875 and authorized the use of ernergency
housing for
disaster victims. Public Law 83-~134, enacted in 1953, further
amended
Public Law 81-875 to allow for the donation and loan of Federal
surplus
.commodities to state and local governmients and individuals. Public
Law
87-502 was enacted in 1962 and expanded the definition of a state,
making
Public Law 81-875 applicable to all of the United States and its
posses-
sions. It also authorized the emiergency repair and temporary
replacement
of damaged state government facilities; previously only public
facilities
owned by local governments were recipients of such aid.
The expansion of Federal programs for assisting disaster
victims
accelerated after the Alaskan earthquake of 1964. Public Law 88-451
increased Federal contributions for damage in Alaska from 50% to
94.9% for
highway construction, authorized the matching of state funds for
paying
mortgages, provided additional assistance for public facilities
through
FH-A loans, and permitted the Small Business Administration to make
30-year
32

loans on dwellings.  Public Law 89-41, the Pacific Northwest Relief
Act of
1965, authorized $70 million for the repair and reconstruction of
damaged
highways in that area, which were not eligible under Public Law 81-
875.
In 1965, Public Law 89-339, the Southeast Hurricane
Disaster
Relief Act, (passed as a result of Hurricane Betsy) for the first
time
provided a forgiveness feature for SBA disaster loans. A $1,800
forgive-
ness was provided for after the first $500 of the loan was repaid.
How-
ever, the law applied only to Hurricane Betsy victims and did not
provide
the forgiveness benefit to victims of other disasters.
Public Law 89-769, enacted in 1966, further amended Public
Law
81-875 and is an important landmark act in the history of disaster
legis-
lation. For the first time benefits to the private sector were made
permantly available, including such assistance as the following:
(1) the
adjustment of disaster loans; (2) loan refinancing; (3) 50% grants
for the
repair and reconstruction of public facilities; (4) up to 100%
grants for
the repair and reconstruction of public higher educational
facilities;
(5) priority for Federal aid applications for public housing, urban
renewal and public facility grants; (6) the authority to use civil
defense
communications for disaster warnings; and (7) the inclusions of
rural
communities, unincorporated towns, and villages as communalities
capable
of applying for Federal disaster aid through some state or local
govern-
ment.
In 1969, Public Law 91-79, the Disaster Relief Act of
1969, was
enacted. The increased range of Federal benefits it provided
included:
(1) temporary housing with the possibility of rent adjustments for
up to
12 months, with rental charges not exceeding 25% of the total
family
income; (2) grants not exceeding $250,000 to states for disaster
plans on
a 50% matching basis; (3) re-establishment of the $1,800
forgiveness on
Small Business Administration and Farmer's Home Administration
loans, with
interest rates at the cost to the government; (4) provision for a
Federal
coordinating officer to oversee all relief activities; (5) disaster
unemployment insurance; (6) grants for debris removal; and (7) food
coupons to low-income victims.
The Disaster Relief Act of 1970, Public Law 91-606,
repealed
all previous disaster legislation and established a comprehensive,
expanded program of assistance to both public and private sectors.
The
forgiveness amount of Small Business Administration and Farmer's
Home
Administration loans was increased to $2,500; loans were authorized
for
33

major sources of employment; temporary housing was mnade free of
rental for
one year; grants for losses to public facilities were doubled to
100%; and
community disaster grants were authorized. Among the new benefits it made
available were the provision of legal services. relocation assistance,
emnergency public transportation, grants for removing damaged timber from
private lands, predisaster aid, and- disregard of the age of applicants for
assistance.
Public Law 92-209, enacted in 1971, authorized grants of 100% to
repair or reconstruct private non-profit medical facilities damaged
or
destroyed in major disasters. Public Law 92-385, enacted on August
16,
1972 and repealed on April 20, 1973, further revised the Federal
disaster
loan program to forgive up to the first $5,000 and to lower the
interest
rate to 1% on any additional balance. This financial resource became
available to disaster victims not only after a Presidential disaster
declaration (as was the case prior to Public Law 92-385), but also
after
SBA and FHA disaster declarations.
The act called for a comprehensive review and revision of
Federal
disaster assistance programs. As a result, the proposed Disaster
Pre-
paredness and Assistance Act of 1973 (S. 1840) was submitted by the
Presi-
dent to the Congress on May 8, 1973. This bill reportedly was
designed
to (1) standardize benefits for disaster victims, (2) improve the
execu-
tion of the assistance progra m, (3) prevent the misuse of benefits,
(4)
strengthen preventive measiures to minimize future losses, and (5)
increase
the role of state and local governmnents in implementing the
disaster
program. The bill failed to become law.
The Disaster Relief Act of 1974, Public Law 93-288,
repealed all
but the loan section of the Disaster Relief Act of 1970 (Public Law
91-
606) and chartered a number of new programs and features, as well as
furthering many provisions of the old law, the more significant of
which
can be summarized as follows:
(1) "major disaster" was redefined to include additional
causes for disasters and to permit a different level
of response for a major disaster than for those of
lesser impact;
(2) provisions for disaster planning, preparedness, and
Imitigation were strengthened;
34

(3)  the acquisition of available insurance to protect
against future disaster loss on any public property
repaired or restored with Federal assistance was
requi red;
(4)  civil and criminal penalties for violation of United
States disaster relief laws was stipulated;
(5)  the President was authorized to assure the avail-
ability of construction materials needed in major
disaster areas;
(6)  100% grants for repairing or reconstructing public
educational, park, and recreational facilities and
non-profit private educational, utility, emergency,
medical, and custodial care facilities, including
those for the aged or disabled and facilties on Indian
reservations were provided;
(7)  grants to state and local governments were authorized
at 100% of the estimated cost for repair, reconstruc-
tion, and debris removal costing less than $25,000;
(8)  an optional 90% grant program for damaged public
facilities, providing greater flexibility and local
discretion was established;
(9)  maintenance of adequate stocks of food commodities
for distribution in major disaster areas was mandated;
(10)  75%.grants to states (retroactive to April 20, 1973)
were provided for the purpose of making funds avail-
able to individuals and families for disaster-related
expenses and needs;
(11)  loans were authorized to any local government for lost
tax revenues (not to exceed 25% of annual operating
budgets), of which portions may be canceled if future
revenues are insufficient;
(12): professional counseling services for mental health
problems caused or aggravated by a'disaster were
authorized;
(13)  a long-range economic recovery program for major
disaster areas was established, including grants
and loans for public works and developmient facilities,
with a total authorization of $250 million;
(14)  disaster unemployment assistance was extended to a
maximum for one year;
*(15)  Presidential powers to provide emergency assistance
were broadened;3



35

(16) disaster assistance administrative procedures and
controls were clarified and strengthened.
Table III-1 traces the major legislative history of Federal
involvement in relief and rehabilitation, and includes the
innovative
features of the most recent acts. Public Law 93-288 is a landmark
piece
of legislation because it provides for more planning in the
reconstruction
of disaster areas than ever before, and there is a definite partial
shift
of responsibility to the states in carrying out relief and
rehabilitation
activities.
Costs of Involvement

Any figures on the cost of any Federal expenditures in
relief
and rehabilitation underestimate the true cost to the Federal
government
and of the adjustment. Costs absorbed by individual victims and
local and
state governments would add considerably to total estimates. It has
been
estimated that natural hazards cost the nation $10 billion and 620
lives
annually (White andHaas, 1975). This estimate is itself incomplete;
it
says nothing of the social costs which result from the disruption of
family and community life.
The following tables are presented in order to estimate
the
direct cost of the adjustment to the Federal government. Table III-2
presents direct Federal expenditures for disaster assistance for the
1953-
1973 period, which totalled over $4 billion, but does not take into
account the costs of items such as subsidized interest rates on
disaster
loans nor indirect costs such as agency salaries. The costs
attributed
to the eight Federal agencies in the table reflect the costs of
providing
the following services:  (1) Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration--
direct relief expenditures from the President's emergency fund and
reimbursement of other Federal agencies for disaster-related costs;
(2)
Small Business Administration--forgiveness credit or the
cancellation of
principal on disaster loans; (3) Farmer's Home Administration--
forgiveness
credit or the cancellation of principal on disaster loans; (4)
Department
of Agriculture--cost of food commodities and coupons provided to
disaster
victims for the 1969-73 period; (5) Federal Highway Administration-
-repair
and reconstruction of disaster damages to highways on Federal-aid
systems;
(6) U. S. Army Corps of Engineers--emergency flood preparation,
fighting
and rescue operations, and repair or restoration of flood control
works
threatened, damaged or destroyed by floods; (7) Veteran's
Administration--
36

TABLE III-1
LEGISLATION FOR FEDERAL INVOLVEMENT IN RELIEF AND REHABILITATION

1803-1947     Special aots (128)--to provide relief for victims of specific disasters.
1947
PL 80-233     First general disaster relief act; surplus Federal property transferred to state
and local governments.
1950
PL 81-875     Federal funds authorized for emergency repair and replacemelt of public facilities
cf local governments.
1951
PL 82-107     Authorized emergency housing.
1953
PL 83-134     Permitted loan or donation of Federal surplus property to state and local govern-
ments for repair of public facilities and for individual rehabilitation.
1962
PL 87-502     Extended coverage of PL 81-875 to include state public facilities and Guam,
American Samoa, and Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
1964-1965
PL 88-451	1964 Alaska earthquake assistance.
PL 89-41	1964-65 flood damage assistance to California, Idaho, Nevada, Oregon, and
Washington.
PL 89-339     Hurricane Betsy (1965) assistance to Florida, Louisiana, and Mississippi with a
forgiveness of $1,800 on SBA loans.
1966
PL 89-769     Further expanded PL 81-875 with additional disaster relief benefits including:
--The adjustment of disaster loans,
--Home mortgage refinancing,
--50% grants for the repair and reconstruction of pnblic facilities,
including those under construction at the time of a disaster,
--Up to 100% grants for the repair and reconstruction of public higher
education facilities,
--Priority for applications for aid to housing projects above
all other applications,
--The authority to use civil defense communications for disaster
warnings,
--The inclusion of rural communities, unincorporated towns and vil-
lages as units capable of applying for Federal aid,
--Affirmed OEP authority to coordinate all Federal disaster
assistance programs, and OEP responsibility for disaster pre-
paredness liaison with state and local governments.
1969
PL 91-79      Comprehensive act covering most aspects of prior legislation but limited to 15
months (expired on December 31, 1970); provisions included:
--Designation of a Federal coordinating officer to coordinate all
relief activities during a major disaster,
--Federal agency cooperation in rendering disaster assistance,
--Federal assistance authorized up to $250,000 in 50% matching grants
to states for development of disaster plans,
--Debris removal from public and privately owned lands and waters by
Federal agencies and grants to state and local governments for
this purpose,
--Forest and grassland fire suppression grants to states,
--Temporary housing for up to 12 months with rentals adjusted to not
more than 25% of family income,
--SBA, FHA, VA loans at cost to government for borrowing,
--$1,800 forgiveness after repayment of the first $500 on SBA and
FHA loans,
--Authority to distribute food commodities and coupons to disaster
victims,
--Federal unemployment compensation,
--Federal funds for purchase of timber in disaster areas,
--Restoration of U. S.-owned facilities in disaster areas,
--Federal contribution of 50% to state governments to repair and
reconstruct roads and highways not on any Federal-aid highway
system.
1970
PL 91-606     Comprehensive disaster assistance act with no expiration date; most provisions of
PL 91-79 included, and new ones added covering:
--Emergency support teams,
--Use of local firms and individuals,
--Coordination of relief organizations,
--Nondiscrimination in providing disaster assistance,
--Emergency communications,
--Provision of emergency public transportation,
--Disregard of age of applicant for assistance,
--Aid to major sources of employment,
--Provision of legal'services,
--Grants to states and local governments to repair or reconstruct
public facilities increased from 50% to 100%,
--Reimbursement for Federal agencies,
--Federal utilization of state and local services and agencies,
--Protection against duplication of benefits,
--Pre-disaster assistance,
--Minimum standards for residential structure restoration,
--Relocation assistance to victims,
--Free temporary housing for one year without regard to income,
--Sale of temporary housing to occupants authorized,
--Interest rate on SBA and FHA disaster loans, in disasters declared
by either the President or the agency, reduced to 2% less than
government cost, but in no case more than 6%.
37

TABLE III-1 (continued)



1971
PL 92-209     Amended PL 91-606 to authorize Federal grants for repair, reconstruction, or re-
placement of medical care facilities owned by private tax-exempt organizations
damaged or destroyed by a major disaster--up to 100% of net cost for existing
facilities, up to 50% for those under construction.
1972
PL 92-385      Forgiveness was increased up to the first $5,000 and an interest rate of 11 on
any additional balance for disasters declared by the President, the SEA or the
FHA; 100% grants for the repair or reconstruction of damllaged facilities of non-
profit, private educational institutions.
1973
PL 93-24       Forgiveness feature rescinded for all disaster loans; interest rate increased to
5%; grants for non-profit, private educational institutions repealed.
1973
PL 93-234      Flood Disaster Protection Act; doubled the amount of coverage for subsidized
insurance; erosion losses eligible for coverage; Federal aid to projects in flood-
prone areas prohibited unless covered by flood insurance; no Federal financial
assistance or guaranteed loans after July 1, 1975 for structures in flood hazard-
ous areas unless local community participates in the flood insurance program.
1974
PL 93-237      Reinstated for a 90-day period FHA disaster loans at 1% interest and $5,000 for-
giveness for farmers living in counties designated major disaster areas between
December 27, 1972 and April 20, 1973.
PL 93-288      Comprehensive disaster assistance act enacted on May 22, 1974; includes most pre-
vious benefits with new ones added covering:
--Presidential declaration of "emergency" as well as major disaster,
--Added hazards of tsunami, volcano, landslide, mudslide, explosion,
--Encourages local and state adoption of insurance; mandatory on
public property,
--Encourages hazard mitigation such as land use and construction
regulations,
--Long-range economic recovery program,
--Recovery Planning Council for affected area to coordinate long-
range economic recovery programs,
--Post-disaster critiques and evaluations,
--Prevention included as a component of preparedness,
--Agreements with private communication systems for warning
reinlbursement,
--Governor of affected state has to provide information before
President can act,
--Repair of farm fencing,
--Any Federal agency may accept and utilize services or facilities
of any local or state government and fix compensation, employ
experts, and contract needed goods and services,
--Mandatory priority of applications for housing and public facili-
ties over all other applications,
--Criminal and civil penalties for fraudulent requests for aid and
wrongfully applying proceeds of a loss or cash benefit,
--Mitigation of hazards through land use and construction practices
for Federal facilities repaired or reconstructed after a major
disaster,
--Up to 100% grants for repair or reconstruction of private non-
profit educational, utility, emergency, medical, and custodial
care facilities, including those for the aged or disabled and
facilities on Indian reservations; includes all educational,
public park and recreational facilities,
--Option of state to obtain grants equal to 90% of Federal estimate
of total cost of repairing or replacing all damaged facilities
to use and administer as the state deems appropriate,
--Installation of essential utilities for temporary housing at
Federal expense when determined to be in the public interest,
--Sale of, or other availability of temporary housing units to
states or local governments,
--One year availability of unemployment benefits for disaster victims
not eligible under state laws,
--75% grants to states to make funds available to individuals and
families with disaster-related necessary expenses and serious
needs,
--Required Federal provision of food comnodities,
--Loans to any local government for lost tax revenues (not to exceed
25% of annual operating budget); all or portions may be canceled
if local revenues are insufficient,
--In lieu contribution at 100% of estimated losses to state and local
governments for repair, reconstruction, debris removal in
disasters costing less than $25,000 to be spent as determined
necessary by those governments,
--Public works and development facility grants and loans, guarantee
of private loans, and technical assistance for economic recovery
authorized,
--$250 million authorized for long-range economic recovery programs
in major disaster areas,
--Crisis counseling assistance for mental health problems caused
or aggravated by major disasters,
--Environmental impact statements not required for emergency activi-
ties, debris removal, or restoration of facilities to pre-
disaster condition;
--President authorized to assure availability of construction and
other materials in disaster areas,


(OEP, 1972, Volume 1, pp. 171-172; Norton, 1974; U. S. Senate, 1974, p. S2221).
--- - --- -------- ---------
38

TABLE 111-2
DIRECT FEDERAL EXPENDITURES
FOR
DISASTER ASSISTANCE, 1953-
73
AGENC
Y
AMOUN
T
1. Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration
(FDAA), formerly Office of Emergency
Plan-
ning and Office of Emergency
Preparedness
(OEP)
2. Small Business Administration
3. Farmers Home Administration
4. Department of Agriculture
5. Federal Highway Administration,
formerly
Bureau of Public Roads
6. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
7. Veterans' Administration
8. Office of Education
9. Federal Insurance Administration
$1,844,827,29
0



809,254,92
2
448,180,76
6
18,415,15
9
484,637,00
0

299,341,94
0
2,000,00
0
102,330,69
1
46,774,00
0

Total
$4,051,761,768
(U. S. Senate, 1974, p.
S2221)
3
9

losses on VA home loans because of disasters; (8) Office of
Education---
repair, restoration and reconstruction of disaster damaged public
elemen-
tary and secondary school buildings, debris removal, and purchase
of
equipment and supplies; and (9) Federal Insurance Administration--
net
program costs of the national flood insurance program for the 1969-
73
period.
Tables 111-3 through II1-6 are presented to illustrate the
yearly costs of disasters to the Federal government through the
opera-
tional programs of FDAA, SBA, and FHA. In these tables dollar costs
have
been made constant by using 1967 as, the. base year and equal to
100. A
review bf these tables illustrates that Federal expenditures for
relief
and rehabilitation have increased dramatically in recent years.
For
example, the trend is evident if Federal disaster assistance
expenditures
for obligations by OEP and FDAA are broken down into five-year
categories:
1953 through 1957 ($33.4 mlillion); 1958 through 1962 ($69.6
million);,
1963 through 1967 ($251.5 million); and 1968 through 1972 ($1,663.8
million).
One of the prime reasons for increased Federal costs is
tne
trend toward increasing the legislated availability of new and
expanded
benefits authorized by Congress. In recent years, the Federal
governmient
has beeh assuming part of the costs previously incurred by private
relief
organizations. For example, as a result of a Presidential
declaration of
a major disaster., the Federal government may provide many
household and
other supplies distributed by these agencies and assume aLll costs
for
temporary housing. Likewise, Federal assumption of responsibility
for
major reconstruction and repair programs through low-interest loans
have
reduced Red Cross expenditures for housing. Following Hurricane
Camille
in 1969, the Red Cross spent over $6 million building or repairing
homes;
however, after Hurricane Agnes (with almost twice as many families
assisted), such expenditures were limited only to temporary minor
repairs,
and only $125 thousand was spent.
Federal Roles in Comnmunity Preparedness
Federal involvement in community preparedness operates on
the
assumption that it is essential for preparedness prograrns to be
combined
efforts of Federal, state, and local governments. The Federal
effort is
now based in the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency (DCPA) and in
the
Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (FDAA), whose tasks
include
14
0

TABLE III-3
NUMBER OF MAJOR DISASTERS AND ESTIMATED FEDERAL DISASTER
ASSISTANCE ADMINISTRATION EXPENDITURES
I ~~~~Number of
Number of	Estimated
Required
Year                Declared Major	FDAA Expenditures
Di asaters
14
17
18
16
16
7
7
12
12
22
20
25
25
11
11
19
29
17
17
48
46
38
1953
1954
1955
1956
1957
1958
1959
1960
1961
1962
1963
1964
1965
1966
1967
1968
1969
1970
1971
1972
1973
1974 (through
August)
$   1,844,274
6 ,470,393
12,080,838
3,396,204
10,618,246
3,920,599
4,057,310
7,330,247
10,570,010
43,732
,493
9,951,121
120,948,534
81,307,904
10,442,370
28,826,139
14,788,414
264,100,236
113,815,978
278,767,823
992,305,887
264,176,757
_   _        _   _ _   _       _
Total
447
2,283,451
,868
(U. S. Senate, 1974, p. S2221; Norton,
1974)
 In constant dollars, 1967 = 100
41

TABLE III-4
SMALL BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION DISASTER
LOANS, 1954-74
Fiscal	Number	Totall  Amount1
Year	of Loans	Amount          SA Share1Canceled
Amount ~~~~Canceled
1954	157    $	519,478    $             519,478
1955	1,086	5,668,183	5,615,623          ----
1956	3,309	33,301,700	31,876,874
1957	1,597	10,393,331	9,795,151	----
1958	1,559	13,844,661	13,417,073	----
1959	908	7,361,398	7,210,449	----
1960	625	3,702,185	3,590,809	----
1961	2,778	21,360,501	20,522,740	----
1962	6,106	34,125,203	33,469,177	----
1963	2,305	17,600,413	16,949,661	----
1964	2,509	43,985,862	42,583,503	.
1965	3,891	70,338,188	67,708,651	$ 32,876,069
1966	30,950	193,276,082	191,539,131	.
1967	2,035	24,237,021	23,769,036	----
1968	14,126	118,743,704	118,138,722	----
1969	2,128	25,476,463	25,344,331	----
1970	17,011	211,873,580	211,696,017	31,466,045
1971	57,407	387,510,260	387,324,243	38,899,938
1972	93,342	450,287,138	448,782,525	265,251,234
1973	215,001	2,307,912,160	2,306,759,568	656,206,367
1974 (July 1-
Nov. 30, 1973)	44,350	401,280,000      399,760,000	144,474,626

Total	503,180	4,382,797,510   4,366,312,762	1,169,174,279

(U. S. Senate, 1974, p. S2222)

In constant dollars, 1967 = 100
42

TABLE  111-5
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION
EMERGENCY LOANS, 1950-73

Fiscal	Amount1	Amountl1
Year	Obl i gated	Canceled

1950	$ 19,580,082           .
1951	13,655,591                      ----
1952	22,402,857	.
1953	30,866,219	.
1954	65,855,134	----
1955	64,171,116	----
1956	65,238,243	----
1957	53,339,073 -
1958	50,735,355	.
1959	31,873,177	.
1960	18,743,862                      ----
1961	22,005,097	.
1962	54,472,465	.
1963	54,341,402	-     ---
1964	45,086,261	.
1965	72,124,927	----
1966	97,402,351	6,856,236
1967	94,604,930	305,486
1968	112,328,476	----
1969	130,776,414	----
1970	108,210,494	2,883,579
1971	165,926,677	21,581,118
1972	151,387,416	10,331,365
1973	847,804,531	623,223,299

Total	2,392,932,250	665,181,083

(U. S. Senate, 1974, p. S2222)
In constant dollars, 1967 = 100
43

TABLE III-6
FARMERS HOME ADMINISTRATION HOUSING
DISASTER LOANS, 1966-73

Fiscal	Number	Amount 1	Amount 1
Year	of Loans	Obligated	Canceled

1966	194	1,646,371
1967	92	1,161,500                 ----
1968	309	925,922
1969	113	1,043,323
1970	405	5,384,292	----
1971	486	6,451,211	152,529
1972	273	2,824,06.3	908,571
1973	1,694	11,475,149	5,478,183

Total	3,566	30,911,833	6,539,283
(U. S. Senate, 1974,
p.
In constant dollars, 1967= 100
S2222)







I 0  f              1 -  I     0                                . .  . - IT                             .              .                              :
44.
: : : : : :

fostering the development of state and local organizational plans
to cope
with disasters. FDAA also serves as a source of assistance to the
states
in developing plans and programs -for assisting individuals
suffering
losses as a result of major disasters (OEP, 1972, Volume 1, p. 1).
Under Public Law 93-288, the President is authorized to
estab-
lish a program of disaster preparedness that uses the services of
all
appropriate agencies for the following purposes:  (1) preparation
of
disaster pr-epar edness plans for mitigation, warning, emergency
operations,
rehabilitation and recovery; (2), training and exercises; (3) post-
disaster
critiques and evaluations; (4) annual review of programs; (5)
coordination
of Federal, state and local preparedness programs; (6) application
of
science and technology; and (7) research. Since 1950, however,
policy
still places the Federal role in a supplementary position to state
and
local governments.
A contract with the Federal Disaster Assistance
Administration
(which was at that time the Office of Emergency Preparedness)
enabled the
Council of State Governments to prepare the Example State Disaster
Act
(OEP, 1972, Volume 2), as well as Guidance for State Disaster
Planning
(OEP, 1972, Volume 2), illustrating features of a state disaster
plan.
Guidance for community preparedness programs at the state level can
pro-
ceed to individual counties within a state. Guidance for the
Development
of a County Emergency Plan, issued by the California Community
Emergency
Planning Program--part of the California Office of Emergency
Services---
serves as an illustration (California Disaster Office, 1969).
In October, 1969, the Federal government began providing 50%
matching grants to stateslup to $250,000 to help fund the development
of
state disaster plans. In addition, matching funds not to exceed
$25,000
per year mnay also be provided for improving, maintaining, and
updating
state disaster assistance plans. However, only about half of the
states
have participated in this program, and only one has recei ved the
full
$250,000 grant. Under Public Law 93-288 these funds continue to be
authorized, but on a 100% non-matching basis'(except for annual
mainten-
ance grants),, and include disaster prevention as a component of
prepared-
ness.
Under the same act, Federal commitment to disaster preparedness
continues to be applied to disaster warnings as a component of prepared-
ness. The President is authorized to take the following actions:
(1)
insure that all appropriate Federal agencies are prepared to issue
45

warnings to state and local officials; (2). direct appropriate Federal
agencies to provide technical assi]stance insuring timely-and effective
warnings; (3) make available civil defense communication systems; and,
for the first time, (4) enter into agreements with private or commercial
communication systems on a reimbursable or non-reimbursable basis for the
provision of warnings.
An example of Federal involvement in the development of local
and community preparedness is presonted in the Outline Plan for Federal
Response to a Major.Earthquake, issued by OEP in 1971. This plan reviewed
the planning responsibilitiLss of varied Federal agencies in response to a
major earthquake. In the same year, OEP commissioned several damage
assessment studies on the assumption that community preparedness for a
major disaster in a metropolitan area requires a detailed vulnerability
analysis. One of these focused on the San Francisco Bay area; A Study
of Earthquake Losses i'n the San Francisco Bay Area (National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration, 1972) serves as a prototype of a planning
program based in highly detailed community-specific vulnerability analy-
sis., It is intended to extend such action to other high risk earthquake
areas. Viewed as a pilot project in the eventual formulation of integrated
national planning for all disasters, this, study was the first attempt to
base preparedness planning on specific localized vulnerability analysis
(OEP, 1972., Volume l,.p. 9; OEP, 1972a, pp. 1-2).
A vulnerability analysis for preparedness conducted at thne
Federal level resulted in the Interim Federal Earthquake Response Plan
(OEP, 1973a) for the San Francisco Bay Area. This attempted to specify
Federal response to needs for relief and rehabilitation and was designed to
complement a state plan for response then being developed. The plan
assumed that various levels of re'sponse will be required, depending upon
the magnitude of an earthquake, the epicenter location, the season of the
year, and the time of day of impact.
Present and Future Involvement
The modes through which the Federal government is committed to
the distribution of benefits, as well as the costs of their availability
seem to have increased markedly during a relatively short perio d of time.
As more benefits are increasingly made available, their costs in Federal
expenditures for relief and rehabilitation seem to increase inevitably
with each new piece of legislation. In addition, the number of

46

Presidential major disaster declarations has been increasing. Since
1953,
the Peesident has declared over 440 major disasters with a varied
incidence
by year; the number ranges from lows of seven in both 1958 and 1959,
to
highs of 48 in 1972 and 46 in 1973. In contrast to a total of,141
declara-
tions by the President in the first decade (1953-62), there were 222
such
declarations in the next ten years (1963-72). Every record was
surpassed
during 1972 and 1973, however, when almost 23% (94) of all
declarations
made since 1953 were issued in just two years. This trend continued
during the first half of 1974, during which 38 declarations were
made by
August 30th (see Table 111-3). Three general trends seem to exist;
(1) an
increasing number of major disasters to which the Federal government
will
respond, (2) increasing kinds of aid which the Federal government
will
make available, and (3) increasing Federal expenditures for
involvemient.
Cochrane (1974) has suggested that Federal involvement in relief
will
continue to escalate, and also that ani ever-widening gap exists
between
benefactor and beneficiary: one income group or region of the
country
will be taxed for relief which benefits others.
In light of the recent enactment of Public Law 93-288, the
issue
of future involvement becomes an assessment of the likely
consequences of
this newly revised Federal policy. Two major shifts in Federal
policy are
reflected in the act. Firsts there seems to be a clear intent to
provide
for more planning in the reconstruction of a community than ever
before,
,as well as planning in general. Second, there seems to be a partial
shift
of responsibility to the states to carry out certain relief and
rehabili-
tation activities. For example, the law provides an individual and
family grant program (Section 408) which is a grant to the state,
the
purpose of which is to help individuals meet disaster-related
expenses or
needs. These policy modifications raise several general questions
rele-
vant to future research opportunities on the adjustment: (1) can
relief
and rehabilitation policy really be structured broadly enough to
reduce
hazard vulnerability?; (2) can relief and rehabilitation be used to
maximize the benefits to be reaped from the use of other adjustments, and
if so, how can this be best-achieved?; (3) which alternative relief and
rehabilitation policies can be most effective in reducing future catas-
trophic potential?; and (4) how should relief and rehabilitation
programs
be applied to achieve the most benefit to be earned by the use of the
adjustment? The two aforementioned shi fts in Federal policy may be
seen
47

as almost experimental attempts to maximize relief and
rehabilitation
benefits; their consequences are as yet unmeasured.
4
8


CHAPTER IV

RESEARCH OPPORTUNITIES

On the basis of the foregoing analyses, areas of research on
relief and rehabilitation which currently promise the greatest reduction
in hazard losses are indicated.
In attempting to assess research opportunities, the effort has
been to canvass: the full range.of relief and rehabilitation measures, the
dynamic factors affecting them, the total benefits and costs to society
of current policies, and the likely consequences for society of intro-
ducing new information and, techniques through research. ,In no case has it
been practicable to) identify all of the forces at work or to specify the
full social impacts of different policies. This fact in itself indicates
the desirability of pressing harder for investigation of social response
to relief and rehabilitation.  The findings presented here represent a
judgment based upon sifting of seasoned experience, a necessarily incom-
plete cost-benefit analysis, and a critical examinatibn of social and
physical factors af fecting the needs for, and uses of relief and rehabili-
tation.
There are four central, issues for research opportunities on
relief and rehabilitation: (1) what services should be made available;
(2) how they should be delivered; (3) how to be sure that they will be
delivered when they are needed; and (4) what a good research methodology
for carrying out research on relief and rehabilitation is.
In a subsequent section of the chapter, after the specific
research opportunities centering on these four questions have been
addressed, attention will be centered on three additional important
questions: (5) why research is needed and what benefits can be expected;
(6) how to be 'confildent in payoff; and (7) why a central coordinating
research center is needed to assist in initiating and coordinating
research among interested researchers throughout the country.




49

INeeded Services

1. Relationship to Other Adjustments and Future
Vulnerability
Research is needed to determine the extent, if any, to
which
certain relief and rehabilitation policies influence other
components of
community vulnerability, preparedness, and adjustments such as land
use
planning and enforcement, building codes and their enforcement, arnd
the
purchase of insurance. This research is needed immiediately because
of the
increasing trend for relief and rehabilitation policy to direct the
use of
other adjustments; for example, as P ublic Law 93-234 attempts to
influence
insurance, and Public Law 93-288 to control land use.
There is considerable speculation, but actually very little
available evidence, about how, or even if certain relief and
rehabilitation
policies (presumably known in advance of disaster impact) affect
future
vulnerability to disaster-caused loss and disruption. Will current
pro-
visions for rebuilding outside of a hazardous area allow efforts to
reduce future vulnerability to occur after some disasters? Does the
availability of the present cornucopia of relief and rehabilitation
services increase the chances of having community public officials
and
other influentials intentionally avoid difficult and potentially
contro-
versial pre-disaster land use and building code decisions?  Does
knowledge
of or beliefs about certain relief and rehabilitation policies
contribute
to lower levels of community preparedness, and to what extent is
this so?
Quite apart from what the announced relief and
rehabilitation
policies and programs are prior to any disaster, the planned and
unplanned
relief and rehabilitation activities that take place are likely to
have a
significant shaping influence on the subsequent reconstruction phase
in
the damaged community. For example, what is the influence of the
type
and placement of temporary housing.on future vulnerability and
quality of
life in the city? Does the providing of grants to repair damaged
homes
in the flood plain speed community recovery but keep vulnerability
at an
unacceptably high level? How is it possible during the restoration
period
to speed the decision regarding a permanent change in land use,,
e.g.,
permanently vacating a heavily damaged commercial area?  Should the
up-
grading of repairable structures to some national set of standards
be
required for federally financed or insured loans, and if so, with
what
effect on the speed of recovery?
50

The basic question is broad: how do alternative relief and
rehabilitation policies affect vulnerability to disaster at local levels
through links to the level of adoption of other adcjustments? Alternative
policies may appear on the surface as positive, but have larger negative
implications; some.may appear negative, but have very beneficial implica-
tions in the long run.
In short, all feasible policy alternatives must be assessed in
light of all their implications:  primary ef-fects; secondary effects; and
long- and short-run effects vis 6 vis future vulnerability through links
to the initiation and level of adoption of other adjustments. Disaster
situations, with all of the attention they receive from public agencies,
can be catalytic in bringing to bear engineering, urban renewal, and
social
welfare activities for fresh and integrated approaches at reducing vulner-
ability in local communities.
This effort will require more than survey research or some
experimental studies in hypothetical decision-making.  It requires
sophisticated analyses of political processes a-t local, state, and, to a
limited extent, even the Federal level.  It will also require an examina-
tion of the working of pressure groups, as well as the economic and social
interests of significant influentials in a community. The research would
best be conducted by a team of interdisciplinary scholars in the fields
of political science, sociology, law, and geography.
The issues to be addressed are very complex and the answers can
be reached wi th more ease, less expense, and in a shorter time period
with an integrated maj'or effort than with small research efforts aimed at
each individual issue. Such a major effort would also allow an assessmnent
of the links between each individual issue.
The research would seek to determine the effect of alternative
relief and rehabilitation policy issues on issues including: (1) land use
planning and enforcement, (2) building codes and enforcements, (3) insur-
ance, (4) community preparedness, (5) engineering works, (6) speed of
recovery, (7) quality of life, and (8) how these issues, coupled with the
alternative relief and rehabilitation policy issues, affect future vul-
nerabi ity.
In a cross-hazard design, a variety of disaster-prone communi-
ties Ghould be studied in concert so that comparability between each
event could be achieved through the use of standardized measures. These
should be communities affected in the past, or potentially in the future,

51


in which a variety of alternative relief and rehabilitation policies were
or will be in operation. In order that findings could be generalized to
the alternative policy issues, the design of the study should cover not
only varied types of events, but also varied community policies and areas
of the country. A sample of affected communities, about 70, should be
assessed to insure a large enough number of sample units, give the variety
of events and community policies which would be reviewed, to provide for
the generalizab ility of the findings, and to allow communities to be
matched on a variety of the aforementioned facto rs in an experimental
design. No example of this type of research design exists in the hazard
arena'. however, on a much smaller scale, Clifford's study of disaster
response (1956)- shows that two stricken communities can be compared if
standard factors are assessed in the communities.
Policy implications would be forthcoming'out of such an endavor,
conducted for a period of six to.ten years with an effort of 15 person
years* per year.
2. Imnpact on Local Economy
Public Law 93-288 provides for a lIong-term effort to coordinate
the recovery of disaster affected local economies.  However, the numerous
other factors which now exist as part of the adjustment can affect the
local e-conomy in positive and negative ways--many of which are presently
unknown. For example, under what conditions does the extensive use of
non-local labor and business firms have a more desirable effect on the
local economy than using alrnost all local labor and business?; and under
what conditions is the local economy aided or negatively affected by the
speed of rebuilding? Answers are needed to questions such as these to
direct policies relevant to the recovery of local economies.
With the current trend toward a less standardized adjustment
across the country as individual states assume a more influential role in
determining services available, the potential to conduct some careful
comparative studies appears to be great.
A research effort designed to assess the effect of alternative
policies on the local, economy might produce significant results after five
years, with a total outlay of five person years annually. Standardized

*A person year is the amount needed to support one research
worker, including staff and travel, for one year; currenitly $60,000.

indicators of aspects of the local economy such as unemployment, under-
employment, tax bases, and trade should be developed. This study should
match a series of disaster-stricken communities on relevant policy issues,
cormmunity size, function, and other appropriate factors, and in quasi-
experimental fashion seek to reveal the effect of alternative policies
on the key factors in the recovery of a local economy.  Some 40 commAunities
should be examined to allow scientific comparisons to be made.
3. Family Functioning and mental Health
Since the family is the basic unit to society, the most direct
and obvious indications of social disruption produced by disaster impact
can be seen in changes in family functioning following impact, and for an
extended time peri od thereafter (Drabek, et al.., 1973). The referenced
study is the first and only published longitudinal, quasi-experimental
research effort.on human response to disaster. It needs to be replicated
,across hazards with different analytical characteristics such as type of
event, amount of loss, and.different relief and rehabilitation efforts.
.A series of,coordinated research studies on this topic that
would collectively lead tolan i;ntegrated design is needed. The design
should be enlarged to include immediate post-impact data collection. Even
that effort would be absolutely minimal because of the cornplex and very
large set of variables which inflluence family functioning. Consideration
must be made of the possible relation of the location and character of
emergency shelter and temporary housing on family income and employment,
educational. progress and school attendance of the chiildren, and the physi-
cal and miental health of each member of the famnily. The possible inter-
play among educational activity, employment, and health, quite apart from
the influence of housing, indicates the possible dynamics of the family
as a small, sometimes volatile, social system.
The components of family. functioning which would be assessed
should include intra-famnily decision-making patterns, roles, differentia-
tion, conflict rates, degree of solidarity. Kin linkages, as well as
links to other social systems such as the neighborhood and friendship
groups should be assessed.
One of the primary questions concerns how best to anticipate
which commun ities, families, and individuals are most likely to suffer
from a particular geophysical hazard. For slow-rising floods, the answer
may not be too di fficult, at least in certain years. For hiurricane and

53

drought, however, sampling becomes much more difficult. For
earthiquake
and tornado it becomies almnost impossible withiin any tolerable
cost limits
to select a sample in advance of disaster impact and recontact the
same
families afterward. Thus, some variation in research design is
required.
But the complexity of the research design should not be permitted to
cloud
our recognition of the need for the findings. The monitoring of
families
and individuals selected for study should cover an extended period of
time. This monitoring of families and individuals selected would be
expected to be more intense in the immediate aftermath of disaster, and
to decline in intensity over time. Selection of samples should be
from a
variety of disasters., representing the spectrum of geophysical
hazards.
At a level of seven person years per year for the first five years,
followed by five person years for a following period of two to three
years, the study would provide information about minimal family and
miental
health services needed during disaster, arnd in subsequent years.
Service Delivery
Searching studies need to be-made of the methods for
providing
assistance. Two such studies commend themselves as promising
information
on the consequences of the various possible assistance policies that
are
open to the nation.
1. Equity
Most agencies involved in relief and rehabilitation are
striving
to reach those they might serve; however, data indicate that certain
groups are, in fact, under-represented when it comes to the
dispersal of
some disaster-related opportunities and benefits. Among these groups
are
the aged, the poorly educated, mnembers of the lo.wer socio-economic
classes,
persons whose background has instilled a negative value for anything per-
ceived as "charity", and a variety of other segments of the population.
These groups are not thne same in all areas of the country; the groups who,
for whatever reason, do not receive a just and fair share of relief and
rehabilitation differ according to geographical region and sub-
culture.
A research effort on this issue would have three aims, each
one
contingent upon the findings of the latter~ (1) to what extent services
are inequitably distributed; (2) why this is so; and (3) what policy
changes can be made to amelioeate the problem. This research might
best
achieve its ends by assessing the equity issue in a variety of
disaster
.   .
54

situations, such as Presidential, SBA, and FHA declarations, and by
reviewing the full range of degree of disaster impact. Several of the
many items which might be looked at are socioeconomic class, ethnicity,
literacy, and religion.  The effort could be acc.omplished with expendi-
tures of three person years annually for a four-year period.  During that
period, an assessment could be made of the dispersal of services in all
three phases of the adjustment in 30-35 disasters. This number would
insure an adequate representation of hazard types, areas of the country,
and community types.
The findings from this study need not impugn anyone's motives,
but would reveal the unintended and unanticipated consequences of present
organization.and agency policies and procedures to provide a base for the
refinement of present policies.
2. Coordination
The coordination of all post-impact activity (relief, restora-
tion and reconstruction) becomes more tenuous as new agencies are formed,
old ones are discontinued, some reorganize, and shifts in personnel occur.
Some agencies respond to victim's needs slowly. Under Public Law 93-288,
increase d efforts are made to upgrade efforts at coordination. However,
if more and more responsibility,for efforts mnoves to state and local
organizations, as current trends suggest, agencies without much experience
will fin'd themselve's faced with a series of new events with which to
cope.
.Data indicate that although problerms of coordination do exist
in the emergency and early rehabilitation phases, the most serious prob-
le'ms of coordination are in later restoration and reconstruction, or in
coordinating earlier relief and restoration efforts with long-term
reconstruction.
A general cross-hazard study is.needed which would examine and
focus on the issue of coord inating response both within restoration and
reconstruction, and between relief, restoration, and reconstruction. A
variety of public agencies (at all levels--Federal, state, and local) and
private agencies are involved in disaster response across all three
activities. The Federal Disaster Assistance Administration does assign
varied tasks to varied agencies in relief; however, each agency operates
separately according to its own bureaucratic procedures. No central
information source exists to provide information transfer or organization
beyond one that might emerge during the emergency period, to dissolve

55

shortly thereafter. Few attempts are made to coordinate efforts
between
relief, rehabilitation, and reconstruction. Public Law 93-288
reflects
an increased awareness of this problem. However, little is known
about
what temporary housing in restoration may mean to the subsequent
recon-
struction period. Little coordination traditionally exists between
short-
term and long-term assistance,
Research is needed to address the policy quettions of how
best
to coordinate what goes on in relief with what goes on in
restoration;
both should be coordinated with what comprises reconstruction. The
basic
issues to be addressed include inter-agency communication and the
coordi-
nation of services delivered between all three phases of the
adjustment.
The research effort should approach the problem by viewing
relief, restoration and reconstruction as a total system rather than
three
separate entities. Although this perspective is not new in the
hazards
arena, no study to date has applied the perspective to all three
phases
of the adjustment. Drabek's studies of the coliseum explosion at the
Indiana State Fairgrouds, and of floods in Denver are excellent
examples
of emergency disaster response conceptualized as a total system of
responding units. Clifford's analysis of the Rio Grande Flood
illustrates
how communities can be approached as systems. Future research using
this
perspective, however, should include analyses of all units within
the
system, the role of personality traits and individual experience in
shaping personal needs, and apply the perspective across all three
phases.
Such a research endeavor should loo'k to a variety of
disaster
situations for its data.  A variety of hazard types and degrees o f
impact
should be assessed in terms of program effectiveness and
coordination of
all services. Policy conclusions could be drawn from this. In order
that
such a project might have the time and scope to accomplish such a
task,
it should look at some 20-30 case studies, and follow them through
for
several years after the initial disaster to assess coordination
through
a good portion of reconstruction. At a rate of five person years per
year, the study would provide relevant policy findings of utility to
local,
state, and Federal agencies within a four-year period.
Timing of Service Delivery
The activities of relief, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction
are performed by a variety of sources, ranging from emergent emergency
groups to local, regional, state and Federal governments. Most of those
5
6

acti vi ti es,~ especi ally: in rehabi litation ,and reconstruction:,
are set. by
legisla-ted, policy;, for these  as well as most other aspects -of
the adjust-
ment,: preparedness is a- key-, factor i,nmaximizing thebenefits of
the
adjustment.      ..       .    ... :
,We- have heretofore pointed to research which:would help
deter-
mine the moo:st benefi cialt mix of-- programs, and relationships
between those
programs -and those involved  inr providings-the serviices-of the
adjustment.
Preparedness, to transform those programs and policies. into practical
.acttion-at ,local- l-evels must,,be attained if payoff is tol be achieved.
Despite efforts by such groups as  DCPA and FDAA, w:ho hold the
primary.
respons,ibitity, and group-s such as the Univ ersity -of Southern,
Cali forni a,
who have special- traini,ng -and :education ; programs-,:
constraints against the
adop,ti,on -of .local preparedness are hi gh:  , (1l) more routine
community
problems ;which ,a.re Aimmediate -and: visiblel supersede preparing
for-rare
hazard events ;. ,(2t) the requi'site legisl ation of :funds i s di
fficult, at
local] leve,ls fori events;which may not occur; (33) when adopted,
prepared-
ness .is di fficult: to maintain 'at some fun-ctional :level an:d -
often:l falls
into decay; and ,(4) there:is never .a -guarantee that even, the
most :detai:le:d
disaste  -response,-panepa  wi-l.l work after severa-l years because of'chan:ge in
community vulnerability, change in the composition of a' community,: and
the un-qgueness of each; disaster' event.:- -There are, a number of
organiza-
tions of. pub,li.c-administrators, such as the  Conference of-
Mayors, which
might,be -i.nvol,ved in a more extens-ilve program of training and
indformation
dissem,ination.._-
 Current research, opportunities .now. promise to-help
upgrade the
benefits to be reaped through --the. adjustment :bygiving us more knowledge
about,,the adoption. andimaintenance.-of preparedness  at the:- local level.
The. adoption .,and: maintenance, of preparedness- is the
result of
a combination of factors,:among which: are 'how often a hazard
repeats
itself i n a l ocali-ty  ::community hazard awareness, iand
legislated requi re-
ments for, preparedness. --Many :unknown factors also affect
prepare dnesS.
Research.in-to -the:-adoption and maintenance of
preparedness
wo uld gene.rate ,neede.d knowledge in :the mostl: effi ci ent  and
least -costly
manner by being ,integrated ..into one, effort.:  Because
preparedness  adoption
and ma,intenance -,are .,-conceptually the same :regardl.ess -of
hazard, the
resear,ch effort: would best real i ze res ults b.y addressing i
tself' to all 1
natural  hazards,. an  may: well include man-made hazards in. its
purvi'ew.
This integrated cross-hazard comparison of preparedness adoption
and
:5
7

maintenance could produce information applicable to all hazards.
Such a study should seek several-research goals: (1) to
identify what factors account for varying levels of preparedness; (2) to
identify the factors which account for the intensity with which those
plans are maintained; (3) to determine what level of before-the-event
preparedness is needed to achieve adequate post-impact performance with
criteria including the delivery of safety, health, and welfare services,
vulnerability reduction, and coordination between relief, rehabilitation,
and reconstruction activities, and (4) the transformation of the knowledge
into practical action through such agencies and groups as DCPA, FDAA, and
the University of Southern California, and through the establishment of
other action groups in other universities and state governments.
The study should determine the varying degrees to which commu-
nities are in a ready state, and reveal the alternative forms and modes
of organization, maintenance, and other factors which explain such varied
degrees of readiness.  These background factors can be used to explain
readiness; however, no one type of plan will be most successful for all
communities and times. It is necessary to determine how varied degrees
of readiness (determined in a pre-disaster community) provide varied
levels of post-impact performance.
In this way the effort requires "before" measures of prepared-
ness and of factors explaining different levels of preparedness, and
"after" measures of post-impact performance through all phases of the
adjustment.  These requirements necessitate a very large nUmber of com-
munities in the study. It will require more than 100 communities in a
purposive sample to get the required data base and post-impact measure,
since most of the communities in any such sample will not be subjected to
serious hazard impact during any given five or ten-year period.
With a large panel of communities for this type of quasi-
experimental research, there will be a small number of "experimental"
communities (those suffering impact) and perhaps two types of control
communities; communities which do not experience disaster during the
course of the study (in addition to those which do) could still serve as
sources of data for both preparedness adoption and maintenance.
Due to the scope of the endeavor, the study may well need to be
continued for an extended period of time. Results may be expected on
adoption and maintenance within three to four years.  However, results


58

pertinent to how preparedness relates to adequate post-imnpact performance
might not be realized for one to two decades. The study should be main-
tained at an annual expenditure of 20 person years for at least a ten-year
period.
Research Methodology
Fundamental to every research effort is the need to develop an
acceptable, pointed, and accurate methodology to ascertain the dynamics
of social and economic change in the aftermath of disaster. This tool
must be developed if we are to generate accurate, reliable, and usable
findings.
Research is needed to develop and test the validity and relia-
bility of an acceptable methodology for monitoring the short- and long-
term effectiveness of all the efforts which comprise relief and rehabili-
tation. The methodology should determine the primary and secondary conse-
quences of efforts during the emergency (relief), restoration (rehabili-
tation), and reconstruction periods following disaster. The aim would be
to develop scientific monitoring procedures which are both socially
acceptable and accurate.
Some officials in disaster are concerned with the image and
domain of their agencies and groups. In the past, disaster researchers
have found that they.have attempted to undercut any system of monitoring
they consider too threatening o-r other-wise unacceptable. Disaster
researchers have themselves often not taken into account that they are
dealing with harassed, overworked agency officials. To the extent that
monitoring entails contacts with, and detailed questioning of clients,
especially on sensitive matters, it must be conducted with an acceptable
rnethodol ogy.
At the same time, the information secured must be accurate and
deal with the significant indicators of short- and long-term program
impact on the complex social system; primary, secondary and tertiary
impacts are experienced directly and indirectly by most segments of the
community and population. A tentative list of indicators by which all
facets of program, impact may be measured include: medical care, shelter,
unemployment, underemployment, restoration of living standards, duration
of uncertainty about economic compensation, tax-base and local business
recovery, and how these items affect human dignity in the receipt of aid.



59

For the three aims to be realized, the research effort
will
require extensive pretesting, and later extensive field testing,
with a
design which covers varied types of events, regions of the country,
arnd
rural and urban communities. By looking at a variety of types of
events
and areas affected, confidence in the methodology's working in.a
variety
of circumstances and places will grow.
It is important to establish that the methodology can be
used
without significantly altering any of the relief and rehabilitation
pro-
cesses that would have normally taken place. Conifidence in.this
will
require the use of a set of quasi-experimental research designs in
the
field testing. In this way., families, groups, organizations,
communities,
and regions affected by disaster can be matched on a variety of key
factors (such as relief and rehabilitation policy, degree of
disaster,
and community type), and monitored differentially to ascertain
whether
the processes and impacts are altered by the monit oring process
being
developed.
The entire effort requires that a variety of hazard types
and
events be assessed in different areas of the tountry, in different
types
of communities, and with a quasi-experim-ental field design. To
achieve
these necessary components of the research effort, a minimum of
some 60
to 80 different disaster and relief and rehabilitation efforts would need
to be assessed. The total effort, including the field testing of
the
procedures for monitoring the long-term implications of a variety
of
efforts,, may well take a decade with an expenditure of an average
of ten
person,years per year, or 100 person years for the total effort.
Once
developed, however, the methodology would serve in carrying out
most
other research on relief and rehabilitati-on.
Since the implications of relief and rehabilitation inhere
in
no discipline boundaries, this effort must be interdisciplinary--
including
the relevant fields of economics, sociology, geography, and
political
science.
These research opportunities, in terms of current or
projected
expenditures, additional research expenditures in person years, and
amount of time needed for the research are summarized in Table IV-
1.
60

TABLE IV-
1
FUNDING LEVELS FOR RESEARCH

Suggested Addi-	Time
Hor-
Current Annual	tional Research	izon for
Levell	in Person years2	Research

Research miethodology                   0                100
10
Relationship to other adjust-
ments and future vulner-              0                150
10
ability
Impact on local economy	23	25	5
Family functioning and	13	45	7
mental health
Equity	0	12	4
Coordination	23	20	4
Preparedness	2	200	10

0 = no expenditure or less than $10,000
1 = 10,000- 100,000
2 = 100,001 - 1,000,000
3 = 1,000,001 - 2,000,000
4 = 2,000,001 - 4,000,000
2Funds needed to support one research worker, including
staff
and travel, for one year; currently $60,000.
3Public Law 93-288 includes estimated efforts.

Expected Benefits of Needed Research
In the aftermath of disaster, people are rescued, fed,
clothed,
sheltered, and given funds for rebuilding.  The relief-giving
groups
disperse their services, and Federal aid is always made available
through
one means or another.  In general, people manage to overcome
obstacles
and restore their lives. One reality of American society is that we
will
continue to have relief and rehabilitation activities following
most
natural and man-made catastrophes. This assumption about tne
future,
however, is more than a prediction based on a past trend. It is
also
based on the American fabric of values: an altruistic value of
helping
those suffering the consequences of an "act of God", and a zeal to
reduce
personal cost.
6
1

One such institution is our political system, which
tradition-
-ally serves as a source bf relief and rehabilitation activities,
services,
and aid offered victims. In very precise terms, something is, and
will
always be offered the afflicted by our political system because of
the
perceived negative personal political costs those in power
anticipate
will be their windfall if they adopt a non-altruistic posture.
It is our position that research will upgrade the
activities
which presently comprise the adjustment in light of the implications
those
activities carry to individual victims, the affected community, and
the
hazard potential in the country. Such research is warranted in
light of
the fact that relief and rehabilitation activities will continue
without
much assessment of their implications, costs, or true
effectiveness.
Several encouraging changes can be expected in public
expendi-
ture, political distress, and social irritation from policy which
research
can reveal. It can be expected that political distress and social
irrita-
tion would decrease as refinements in the adjustment are made. No
guarantee of this is possible; altered policy may alleviate old
areas of
social unrest only to create new ones. Public expenditure may
increase
or decrease. Determination of such a trend is possible only after
the
policy revisions which research can produce are stated. However,
whether
expenditure increases or decreases in actual amounts, it can be
expected
to increase any estimates of the cost-benefit or cost-effectiveness
measures of the adjustment if research achieves its goal.
Other possible gains can be expected from taking advantage
of
the research oppoetunities. Catastrophe potential for hazards is
increasing; even though the average number of yearly deaths
resulting
from some hazards is declining, data indicate that deaths resulting
from
catastrophic events are increasing. One might also suspect that
social
disruption from such events is increasing. Patterns of urbanization
in
the country also suggest that the potential for large-scale
catastrophes
is increasing. Relief and rehabil-itation function to mitigate loss
and
continued disruption most dramatically in just such major
catastrophic
events.
Two forces are operating to give credence to the research
opportunities on relief and rehabilitation:  (1) an ever-escalating
potential for catastrophe, and (2) the previously described AMerican
value to implement the adjustmient and mitigate the effects of the event,
62


thereby insuring the use of the adjustment.  Nationial gain in terms of
the
average dollars that could be saved is difficult to estimate. As previ-
ously specified,, taking advantage of the research opportunities which
currently exist is no guarantee that cost will decrease; indeed, it may
even increase the level of expenditure on the adjustment. However, it
may well reduce many of the hidden costs involved in the aftermath of
disaster.because the overall effectiveness of the adjustment will
increase.
This will minimize individual misery, social disruption, and other nega-
tive (many unknown) consequences of the adjustment on other aspects of
social life and future vulnerability.
For example, the traditional use of temporary housing units,
while certainly alleviating the plight of victims, may indeed serve only
to complicate their lives: the haste-with which the units are provided
does not allow changes in school enrollments to be taken into account,
workable plumbing to be installed, or accessibility to laundry, and
shopping centers to be considered. In the past, forgiveness clauses in
disaster loans, have traditionally been for purposes of rebuilding, rather
than for relocating. Such a policy stance, when applied to a flood
disaster, encourages the redevelopment of the flood plain, thereby
offering no remedy for the escalation of the potential for some future
catastrophe. With the enactment'of Public Law 93-288, however, relocation
is now a real alternative which may have a very-positive effect on
reducing future vulnerability.

Confidence in the Payoff.
Several factors provide for confidence that research on the
adjustment would be implemented or adopted by relevant agencies and
communities so that potential payoff might be realized. First, those
involved in Iany research project dealing with practical and applied
issues
must realize their obligation to deal with the application of relevant
results. A major responsibility of those researchers engaged on a project
must be to get their results translated into action; this goal should be
as major an objective to any research effort as ascertaining the immediate
research goals of the project. Consulting, teaching, publishing in
mediums which will carry the information to those who might use it, and
participating in a variety of conferences are four rneans with which to

Second, the research endeavor must be able to issue apPlied
recommiendations that can be implemented. Methods of design which are
earthquake-resistant are now in common use in the state of California for
dams and other hydraulic structures, and originated out of recommendations
of earthquake design researchers and their applied research endeavors and
concern to make those recommendations known. The same results could be
expected in other lines of research if the researchers concern themselves
with implementation.
In addition, it has been the experience of several applied
researchers that research results are given practical implementation if
community and agency decision-makers ~perceive the need. Again, the
responsibility for creating this atmosphere falls upon the shoulders of
the res-earchers.
In addition to these, we might also expect implementation to be
the result of what we might term "the residual effect." In research on
the response of three Alaskan communities to tsunami warnings (Haas,
1971), the researchers report that community awareness of the hazard
increased in community leaders purely as a result of their fieldwork. As
a result, warning systems, at least for the time on which information was
available, were upgraded simply because of the raised awareness the field-
work brought to warning officials in the communities. The same result
might be expected in reference to research on preparedness for relief and
rehabilitation. Although reliance upon this "residual" benefit of the
research alone for implementation is far from sufficient, it too must be
.considered in the net applied benefit of any research endeavor.
In addition, the history of major legislation on relief and
rehabilitation policy adoption and changes suggests that bills are fre-
quently and expeditiously passed and signed into law in the immediate
wake of major catastrophes. Because this seems to be a good time to get
disaster policy enacted, policy implications which are the product of
research should be prepared and made available to public officials and
legislators for inclusion in the political system at just such times.
Many of the research opportunities take on the character of
social experiments. Some comparable research efforts in other arenas
illustrate the benefit potential to be reaped by such efforts, and the
similar demands that they have made on the research community because of
this design. These are the negative income tax studies reported on by
Heffernan (1972), and the pre-sentence experiments by the VERA Institute

64

of Justice (Lieberman, et al.., 1971); both of these will serve as analo-
gous examples of what we mean by a social experiment.
Two separate social experiments were constructed to dtermine
if negative income tax, or a guaranteed minimum income for lo wer income
families, could affect participation in the labor market. Control groups,
to which no guaranteed income was offered, and experimental groups, to
which varied minimum incomfes were given, were established.  After one
year, a tentative conclusion was reached that guaranteed incomes had no
detectable influence on participation in the labor market.
The Bronx Sentencing Project of the VERA Institute of Justice
was another type.of social experiment not unlike the type of social
experiments proposed for some facets of relief and rehabilitation. In the
State of New York a judge can. make a probational or conditional discharge
deternination of persons found guilty of misdemeanors on the basis of two
items: the nature of the crime; and the history, character, and condition
of the defendant. The latter, however, requires that a lengthy report be
submitted to the judge by the Office of Probation; for a variety of
reasons such reports appeared in less than 20% of the misdemeanor cases--
excluding, under the law, 80% of the cases from the option of non-prison
sentences.
Using this past history as a control group, VERA developed a
shortened report. It was implemented and, as a result, in the first eight
months of the project non-prison sentences were given in 83% of the cases
in which the VERA form recommended such a senteance. With the advent of
VERA, many defendants who probably would have been imprisoned because of
no pre-sentencing report were granted supervised or unsupervised release.
As a result of the findings from the project, a new Criminal Procedure
Law went into effect in New York, permitting the use of short formn reports
on pre-sentencing adult misdem eanants. Now used throughout the state,
indications show the same results determined by the VERA project.
Such social experiments, althou gh different in specific purpose,
could be used as a technique for determining the effect of many alterna-
tive relief and rehabilitation policy issues. The implications that such
experiments coul.d have on national policy could be as substantial as the
effect the VERA experiment had on changing pre-sentencing report policy
in the State of New York.

One basic constraint to the implementation of research
findings,
as stated by Fritz (1971), is that the ineffective utilization of
existing
knowledge is in part a problem of communication. A lack of
communication
between the scientific community, the user agencies, and thie public
ham-
pers the amount of scientific information given to disaster
managemfent an'd
administration. It is hoped that the few examples and suggestions
stated
here illustrate how this major constraint might be overcome.
Central Research Center

Confidence in payoff from the research opportunities which
now
exist can be increased through the coordination of research, and the
translation of findings into action; both -tasks can be
achieved,within
the confines of a national center for hazard policy research.
Many alternative relief and rehabilitation policies exist
in an
atmosphere of continuous change; however, improvements in policy and
subsequent act ion can com-e only when adequate data are available
on their
consequences. The major concern is with the consequences of the
various
policies--singly and in combinations. A program may have a desired
out-
come during the emergency and early restoration periods, but have a
strong
negative effect recognizable only during the later reconstruction
period.
An alternative program may work well in one part of the country, but
poorly
in remaining areas. Parts of certain programs may produce highly
desired
outcomes when used with lower social class clients, but not with persons
of other socioeconomic levels, producing a high level of inequity. ,The
true consequences of new or altered programs are often unknown for
many
years.
Improvements are not likely to occur when we do not know
what
is happening, when government policies are inconsistent and often in
con-
flict, when the long-run effects of different programs are unknown,
and
when constraints to effectiveness are unknown. Although such
knowledge is
no guarantee for achieving improvements, it certainly is a
prerequisite.
The question of what services should be made available is
more
easily stated than answered, and it serves as. a pivotal point from
which
sever-al research efforts were seen as required and necessary in
order to
provide an answer. But the question is more than an indication for
needed
research, it is also a call for the establishment of some meacns to provide
some order to all research on dioaster. Without such an arrangement, the
many small and segmented research endeavors which go on in the study of
66

disaster cannot be assessed as a whole. The consequence of not having
such an arrangement is the duplication of effort and gaps in essential
knowledge; the identification of both cannot be made without the estab-
lishment of such a unit.
It should be the purpose of a central coordinating research
center to initiate and coordinate research among interested researchers
throughout the country, and to serve as a center through whi:ch research
findings could be translated into policy and practical action. For
example, current data indicate that relief recipients becorme hostile to
large bureaucratic helping agencies. This may be unavoidable. However,
workers in such agencies could be trained not to react defensively. That
training, or at least the necessary information, could be dispersed to
the numerous relevant agencies through the center.
As a center for coordinating hazard research and translating
findings into action, the center could be established within an academic
institution br soIme non-governuent association. The center, however,
should be formally linked to Federal and state agencies to facilitate the
implenientation of research findings.





























67

REFERENCES
Anderson
,
1970



1970a




Barton,
Al
1970

Bates,
F.
1963
William A.
"Disaster and Organizational Change in Anchorage."
Pages
96-115 in Committee on the Alaska Earthquake The Great
Alaska Earthquake of 1964:  Human Ecology.  Na-tional
Rese-arch Council .  Washington  Nat:iona  Academy of
Sciences.
"Tsunami Warning in Crescent City, California, and
Hilo,
Hawaii." Pages 116-124 in Committee on the Alaska
Earth-
quake The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human
Ecology.
National Res-ear'ch  ouncil.  Washington:  National
Academy
of Sciences.
H.
Communities in Disaster: A Sociological Analysis of
Collective Stress SituaTtions.  New York:  Anchor
Books.
li1
en
L., et al.
The Social and Psychological Consequences of a
Natural
Disaster.  National Research Council Disaster
Study #18.
Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Californi
a
1969


Carr,
Lowel
1932
Disaster
Offi
Guidance
Sacramen
tc
Program.
1 J.
"Disaste
r
Change."
ice
for the Development of a County Emergency
Plan.
:  CTalifornia Community Emergency
Planning


and the Sequence-Pattern Concept of Social
American Journal of Sociology 38, pp. 207-
218.
Clifford
,
1956


Cochrane
,
1975

Committe
e
1970
Roy A.
The Rio Grande Flood:  A Comparative Study of Border
Communities.  Nation--al Research Council Disaster
Study #7.
Washington: National Academy of Sciences.
Harold C.
Natural Hazards and Their Distributive Effects.
Boulder:
University of C6ol_ado Institute of Behavioral
Science.
on the Alaska Earthquake
The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecology.
Nati onaIal Research Council .  Washington:  National
Academy
of Sciences.
Dacy,
Douglas
1969
and Howard Kunreuther
The Economics of Natural
Disasters.
Press.
New York: The
Free
68

Drabek, Thomas E.
1968       Disaster in Aisle 13:  A Case Study of the Coliseum
Explosion, October 31; 1963.  Disaster Research
Center
Series, College of Aminist-rative Science Monograph
#D1. Columbus: The Ohio State University.
Drabek, Thomas E. and Keith Boggs
1968       "Families in Disaster:  Reactions and Relatives."
Journal
of Marriage and the Family 30 (August), pp. 443-451.
Drabek, Thomas E., et al.
1973       Longitudinal Impact of Disaster on Family
Functioning.
Final Report to the National Institute of Mental
HealTth,
July, 1973.  Denver:  University of Denver Department
of
Sociology.
Dynes, Russell R.
1970       Organized Behavior in
Disaster.
D. C. Heath and Company.
Lexington,
Massachusetts:
Dynes, Russell R., et al.
1972       A Perspective on Disaster Planning.  Disaster
Research
Center Report Series #11. Columbus: The Ohio State
University.
Eliot, Thomas D.
1932       "The Bereaved Family."  Annals of the American
Academy of
Political and Social Science 160 (Mach), pp.  84T
Fritz, Charles E.
1961       "Disaster."  Pages 657-694 in Robert K.
Merton
A. Nisbet (eds.) Contemporary Social
Problems.
Harcourt-Brace.
and
Robert
New
York:
1971       Some Guidelines for Developing an Office of
Emergency
Preparedness Clearinghouse for Emergency-Related
Research,
Volume 1.  Arlington, Virginia:  Institute for
Defense
Analysis, International and Social Studies Division.
Fritz, Charles E. and J. H. Mathewson
1957       Convergent Behavior in Disasters.  National
Research
Council Disaster Stud  #9. Washington:  National
Academy
of Sciences.
Haas,
J.
1971



Haas, 3.
1969
Eugene
Final Report on Effectiveness of Tsunami Warning
System in
Selected Coastal Towns in Alasl-a.  Submitted to the
Environmental Science Services Administration.
Boulder:
University of Colorado Institute of Behavioral
Science.
Eugene and Robert S. Ayre
The Western Sicily Earthquake Disaster of
1968.
ton:  National Academy of Engineering.
Washing
-
69

Eugene and Thomas E. Drabek
Complex Organizations: A Sociological
Perspective.
Yorik  Macmillan.
Haas, J.
1973
Ne
w
Harbridge House
1973       An Inquiry into the Long-Term Economic Impact of
Natural
Dlsastersi        e i  the    -a--Stes
(Mimeographed-.  Prepared
for teff-----ce of Technical Assistance, Economic
Develop-
ment Administration, U. S. Department of Commerce.
Boston,
Massachusetts.
Heffernan
,
1972
Joseph
"Negative Income Tax
Studies:
the Graduated Work
Incentive
Review 46 (March), pp. 1-
12.
: Some Preliminary Results
of
Experiment." Social
Science
Kates, Robert W., et al.
1973        "Human Impact of the
Managua
182, pp. 981-990.
Earthquake
Disaster."
Scienc
e
Kunreuther, Howard
1973       Recovery from Natural Disasters.  Washington:
American
Enterprise Instlitut''e for  Public Policy Research.
Lieberman, Joel M., et cZ.
1971       The Bronx Sentencing Project of the VERA Institute of
Justi-ce.  An Experiment in the Use of tEhe Short-Form
Presentence eports of Ault Misdemeanors.  VERA
Institute
of Justice for the U. S. Department of Justice, Law
Enforcement Assistance Administration, National
Institute
of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice. Springfield,
Virginia: National Technical Information Service.
McLuckie, Benjamin F.
1970       A Study of Functional Response to Stress in Three
Societies.  Doctoral thesis.  Coumbus:  Tlie Ohio
State
Univesity Departments of Sociology and Anthropology.
Meyer, Henry H.
1969       Emergency Operations Simulation Training.  School of
Public
Administration, Institute for Civil Defense and
Disaster
Administration. Los Angeles: University of Southern
California.
Mileti, Dennis S., Thomas E. Drabek and J. Eugene Haas
1975       Human Systems in Extreme Environments.  A
Sociological
Perspective.   oulder:  University of Colorado
Institute
of Behavioral Science.
Moore,
Harry
1964
Esti ll
And the Winds Blew. The
Hogg
Austin, Texas:  University
of
Foundation for Mental
Health.
Texas.
70

National Oceanic and Atmospheric~ Administ.rat~io'n',
Enivi,rohnental' Re`earch
~4972~<"brA StU    f  E_`it` qua e, obs6s es, th  J n Franc 'i s co Bay Area:
Data and Analysis-."- A 'Repo_rt pre`a_dfrth   fieo
Emergenc  Prepatedness. Washingtor    Uj~ ~S  Depatme
nt o

Norton, Frank R. B. and J. Eugene Has-
1970       "The Native Villages."  Pages 35773R9, inCmite1eo
the
Alaskia Earthquake.The Greakr't" Al-k  EatiU,aI e of l~:


Norton, Clark F.
1974       Personal Communication to Dennis S. Mileti.
WashiPngtonp  i
,Sen ate Commnittee on Publ i r Works -

Office of Emergency Preparednes"s
1971       Outline~ Plan for Feder,,al Response -to .aMj ao r,
Earthquake._,
Executive Office of theTPr'6Tkn    Wating pt'   U.S


1972       Disaster Preparedness, Volumes 1, 2, and 3.
Executiye,
o :the President., Wash,ington:_U  .~oenet

1972a      Federal Disaster Assistance Handbook.	Executi ve.
Offi ce,.-_
of the, Prea~T Wshidngtp~., y3$	Go'rnet  rlh ntlihp
O'ffdI    ,'' ,FA    I    J
.3.  -,
I '.J s          JtMr   P
Po6,kiiP  9   J,
1 972~ ii5 -	~    ~	r ~-,',. mn an,Nat` ,a' Red Cross.
J" ' h 1	W'Athto n:	A&ei can`:Nat-ilna' "Red-_Cross -
,~Headquarters.
Quarantelli,.E. L..
1954       "The Nature and Conditions of
Panic."
Sociology 60, pp. 267-275.
American Journal
of

ierican Behavioral

AM
E
197
0
"The Community General Hospital."
Scientist 13, pp. 380-391.
Quaran
telIIi ,
1968
E. L. an'd Russell R. Dynes
"Looting and Civil
Disorders:
American Behavioral
Scientist
An Index of Social
Change."
5 (March-April), pp. 7-
10.
Rogers, George W.
1970       "Economic Effects of the Earthquake."  Pages 58-
76 in
Committee on the Alaska Earthquake The Great
Alaska
Earthquake of 1964: Human Ecoloqyj. National,
Research
Council. Washington:  NationalFrcademy of
Sciences.

Small Business Administration
1972       Letter to Sarah K. Nathe from Frank Schwengel.
Los
Angeles: Small Business Administration Disaster
Branch
Office, October 26.
71-
1.,

Small Business Administration
1972a      Letters to Sarah K. Nathe from Richard Sadowski.
Washing-
ton: Small Business Administration Reports and
Management
Division, November 14 and 30.
Taylor, James B., Louis A. Zurcher and William H.
Key
1970       Tornado:  A Community Responds to
Disaster.
University o   ashington Press.
Seattle
:
U. S.
House
1974



U. S.
Senate
1974
of Representati yes
After Disaster Strikes: Federal Programs and
Organizations.
Report to the CCommittee on o-vernment Operations.
93d
Congress, 2d Session. Washington: U. S. Government
Printing Office.

Senate Bill
3062.
pp. S2220-
S2243.
Congressional Record 120 (February
26),
White, Gilbert F. and J. Eugene Haas
1975        Assessment of Research on Natural
Hazards.
lassachusetts:  MIT Press.
Cambridge
,
Yutzy, Daniel
1970       "Priorities in Community Response."  American
Behavioral
Scientist 13, pp. 344-353.
Yutzy, Daniel and J. Eugene Haas
1970       "Disaster and Functional Priorities in Anchorage,"
and
"Chronologies of Events in Anchorage Following the
Earth-
quake." Pages 90-95 and 403-424 in Committee on the
Alaska
Earthquake The Great Alaska Earthquake of 1964: Human
Ecology.  Na-ti'onaTesearch Council. Washington:
National
Academy of Sciences.
.0
72

University of Colorado
Institute of Behavioral Science
Program on Technology, Environment and Man
Monograph Series
Friedman, Don G. Computer Simulation in Natural Hazard Assessment.
NSF-RA-E-75-002.
Cochrane, Harold C. Natural Hazards mand Their Distributive Effects.
NSF-RA-E-75-003.
Warrick, Richard A., et al. Drought Hazard in the United States: A
Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-004.
Ayre, Robert S., et al.  Earthquake and Tsunami Hazards in the United
States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-005.
White, Gilbert F., et al.  Flood Hazard in the United States:  A Research
Assessment.  NSF-RA-E-75-006.
Brinkmann, Waltraud A. R., et al.  Hurrtcane Hazard in the United States:
A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-007.
Baker, Earl J. and Joe Gordon-Feldman McPhee. Land Use Management and
Regulation in Hazardous Areas: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-
75-008.
Ericksen, Neil J.  Scenario Methodology in Natural Hazards Research.
NSF-RA-E-75-010.
Brinkmann, Waltraud A. R., et al. Severe Looal Stornm Hazard in the
United States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-011O.
Warrick, Richard A. Volcano Hazard in the United States: A Research
Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-012.
Mileti, Dennis S.  Natural Hazard Warning Systems in the United States:
A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-013.
(The above publications are available-from the Institute of
Behavioral
Science #1, University of Colorado, Boulder, CO  80302.)

Mileti, Dennis S. Disaster Relief and Rehabilitation in the United
States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-009.
Sorensen, John H. with J. Kenneth Mitchell. Coastal Erosion Hazard in
the United States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-014.
Huszar, Paul C. Frost and Freezing Hazard in the United States: A
Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-015.
Sorensen, John H., Neil J. Ericksen and Dennis S. Mileti. Landslide
Hazard in the United States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-016.
73

Assessment of Research on Natural Hazards
Staff.
in the United States: A Research Assessment.
Snow. Avalanche
Hazard
NSF-RA-E-75-O17.
Cochrane, Harold C. and Brian A. Knowles. Urban Snow Hazard in the
United States: A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-018.
Brinkmann, Waltraud A. R. Local Windstorm Hazard in the United States:
A Research Assessment. NSF-RA-E-75-019.
Ayre, Robert S. Technological Ad'ustments to Natural Hazards.
NSF-RA-E-75-020.
(The above publications are available from the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22151.)
Assessment of Research on Natural
MIT Press. NSF-RA-E-75-001.
White, Gilbert F. and J. Eugene Haas.
Hazards. Canmridge, Massachusetts:

4
74