Reference no: EM133494500

Case Study: The National Institute of Building and Sciences, chaired by Brent Woodworth, conducted a study that demonstratedthat for every dollar spent by FEMA on mitigation there is a realization of four dollars in return. One must consider ifthis same methodology and approach work for private investments and government agencies. The report indicatesthat federal expenditures on hazard mitigation lead to additional non-federally funded mitigation projects. The level ofnon-tax dollar expenditure may be an important consideration.

Question 1: It is important that we consider in our evaluation of the work that funded it. Can this study and report, funded byFEMA, be bias in any way? The report addresses this potential bias and explains how the research was conducted, butwe must still consider did the funding source contribute to what may have been included in the research report andwhat may have not been included.

Question 2: Considering that mitigation activity undertaken by any level of government is occurring from a finite fiscal budget andexpenditures on one program often take away from investments in the other. In crafting public policy, thisconsideration often comes to the front for consideration. How might increases in expenditures in hazard mitigationactivities take from other important programs and how can we measure those cost benefits? The MultihazardMitigation Council does not propose to mitigate all risks from hazards and it is unlikely that this could be accomplished.