Introduction
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency
Assistance Act of 1988 (Stafford Act) oversees the capability of our country to
prepare adequately in responding to any disasters. The Act is fundamental in
making sure that there is well coordinated foundation of a national response to
these disasters. However, there are a number of shortcomings that have been
identified, and through a deeper understanding of the gaps and pitfalls, I am
going to analyze and make viable decisions as to whether we should be for, or
against the act, when dealing with preparedness, response as well as disaster recovery.
In my reflexive essay, I will argue against the reformation of Stafford Act. I
will provide reasons in a bid to provide support for my argument.
One of the main reasons as to why I am against the Stafford
Act is due to its failures in anticipating some of the most devastating
disasters in the past, for instance; Hurricane Katrina (Farber, 2006). During
this disaster, there was inadequate response because the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) was slow in addressing the issue. Due to this, there
was a lot of loss of lives and property, something that could have been
mitigated proactively. Due to the failures of FEMA, and it being the custodian
of the Stafford Act, it also reflects the inefficiency of the Act generally.
Basing on this I can say that by reformation of the Act, we might be exposed to
a similar situation in the future, something that we might live to regret. Because
of the above incident the Act has been widely criticized and it would take a lot
of time before people again reinstall their belief and trust in it.
Despite the fact the federal government paid
reimbursement of local expenditures as required by law, it is also important to
note that much of the infrastructure like transport and communication, as well
as other amenities are destroyed, something that would also force the
government to spend a lot, in a bid to restore the previous status. Destruction
of property, also leads to loss of employment spots, leading to a massive loss
of jobs. This is something should not occur. These are some of the loopholes
that I would suggest for a more efficient Act in place other the Stafford Act.
Another reason as to why I am against the
reformation of the Act is because of its lack of appropriate structures, which
give a participatory platform for all stakeholders, in this case, the
community. The end result of this is the disagreements that occur between the
FEMA officials the community on replacement of infrastructure (Hunter, 2009).
There is need for an all inclusive Act to be formulated that will guard the
interests of all parties. It is important for everyone to be satisfied with the
efforts that the federal government makes in a bid to make the lives of the
affected get back to the normal standards. This means that an Act that does not
represent all interests is seen as inappropriate. The Act should be in a
position to evaluate the true value of the losses, and compensate aggrieved
parties accordingly, something that is not common with FEMA.
There is also a lack of flexibility with this Act,
as FEMA takes a long time before settling some of the issues the aggrieved
parties face. This is often seen with the long process that it takes for cash
needed to be reimbursed. During the long wait, the affected pass through
hardships to survive. I would suggest for a more time conscious Act, that can
be able to address issues in the shortest time possible. According to Cathy
(2010), FEMA should recognize some of the immediate issues to be addressed,
like food shelter and clothing before embarking on the long term solutions.
This is not covered within the Stafford Act. To add on this, the Act prohibits any assistance to the affected except from those utilities that are publicly owned or non profit. There is a need for an Act that can be all inclusive where anyone is able to give a helping hand for emergency situations. This is something that can be helpful especially in immediate situations, which FEMA might not address.
This is not covered within the Stafford Act. To add on this, the Act prohibits any assistance to the affected except from those utilities that are publicly owned or non profit. There is a need for an Act that can be all inclusive where anyone is able to give a helping hand for emergency situations. This is something that can be helpful especially in immediate situations, which FEMA might not address.
It is also important that this Act lacks the
catastrophic for disaster housing plans that meets the needs of the community.
This leads to a lack of satisfaction and therefore poor living conditions. The
affected people are forced to work extra hard to make up for their loss of
property. If the Stafford Act were to be effective, it would help mitigate
these disasters. I believe the reformation of the Stafford Act, would not
hinder, or even clean up as well as recovery in Deepwater Horizon BP Oil Spill
in the Gulf of Mexico (Cathy, 2010). This is because of the late responses that
the Act is characterized with, and by the time it gets accessible to the site,
lots of marine life will have been lost.
Conclusion
In general the Stafford Act is meant to provide
solutions to emergency cases whenever a disaster faces people, or places.
However what I don’t understand is the length at which FEMA which is the
custodian of the Act takes to provide responses to these issues. In my opinion,
I believe that this Act lacks the efficiency that is needed for an emergency
situation, and I am against its reformation. I would suggest for a more
efficient Act, that is fast in case of an emergency, and one which can satisfy
all stakeholders in terms of solution provision.
References
Cathy, F.X. (2010). Potential Stafford Act
Declarations for the Gulf Coast Oil Spill: Issues
for Congress New York: DIANE Publishing
Farber, D. A. (2006) Disasters and the Law: Katrina
and Beyond Aspen elective series Elective Series Ohio: Aspen Publishers Online
Hunter, N. D. (2009). The law of emergencies: Public
health and disaster management. Boston, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann
JOIN OUR STUDY GROUPS