This report discusses Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), as federal law and a program activity, which began in 1997. Congress established a pilot program -- Project Impact -- to test the concept of investing prior to disasters to reduce the vulnerability of communities to future disasters. From its beginnings as ¿Project Impact¿ to its current state, the PDM program has grown in its level of appropriated resources and the scope of participation nationwide. Along with that growth have come issues for Congressional consideration, including the approach for awarding grant funds, the eligibility of certain applicants, the eligibility of certain projects, the degree of commitment by state and local governments, and related questions. Illustrations.

FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program is a powerful resource in the combined effort by Federal, State, and local government, as well as private industry and homeowners, to end the cycle of repetitive disaster damage. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act was passed on November 23, 1988, amending Public Law 93-288, the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. The Stafford Act included Section 404, which established the Hazard Mitigation Grant Program. In 1993, the Hazard Mitigation and Relocation Act amended Section 404 to increase the amount of HMGP funds available and the cost-share to 75 percent Federal. This amendment also encouraged the use of property acquisition and other non-structural flood mitigation measures. In an effort to streamline HMGP delivery, FEMA encourages States to develop their mitigation programs before disaster strikes. States are adopting a more active HMGP management role. Increased capabilities may include: Conducting comprehensive all-hazard mitigation planning prior to disaster events; Providing applicants technical assistance on sound mitigation techniques and hazard mitigation policy and procedures; Coordinating mitigation programs through interagency teams or councils. Conducting benefit-cost analyses; and Preparing National Environmental Policy Act reviews for FEMA approval. States that integrate the HMGP with their frequently updated State Administrative and Hazard Mitigation Plans will create cohesive and effective approaches to loss reduction. This type of coordinated approach minimizes the distinction between “predisaster” and “post-disaster” time periods, and instead produces an ongoing mitigation effort. Hazard mitigation is any sustained action taken to reduce or eliminate long-term risk to people and property from natural hazards and their effects. A key purpose of the HMGP is to ensure that the opportunity to take critical mitigation measures to protect life and property from future disasters is not lost during the recovery and reconstruction process following a disaster. Program grant funds available under Section 404 of the Stafford Act provide States with the incentive and capability to implement mitigation measures that previously may have been infeasible. The purpose of this Desk Reference is to: Provide comprehensive information about FEMA's Hazard Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP); Increase awareness of the HMGP as an integral part of statewide hazard mitigation efforts; and Encourage deeper commitments and increased responsibilities on the part of all States and communities to reduce damage and losses from natural disasters. This Desk Reference is organized to simplify program information and assist the reader with practical guidance for successful participation in the program. Lists of program-related acronyms and definitions are included, along with appendices that amplify selected aspects of the HMGP. This Desk Reference is organized into 14 sections, each of which presents a major HMGP subject area. In each section, information is presented on the right side of the page. In several sections, job aids containing supplemental material are provided. The job aids for each section can be found at the end of the section. At the front of each section, there is a detailed table of contents to help you locate specific information.

Pre-Disaster Mitigation (PDM), as federal law and a program activity, began in 1997. Congress established a pilot program, which FEMA named "Project Impact," to test the concept of investing prior to disasters to reduce the vulnerability of communities to future disasters. P.L. 106-390, the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, authorized the PDM program in law as Section 203 of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. From its beginnings as "Project Impact" to its current state, the PDM program has grown in its level of appropriated resources and the scope of participation nationwide. Along with that growth have come issues for Congressional consideration, including the approach for awarding grant funds, the eligibility of certain applicants, the eligibility of certain projects, the degree of commitment by state and local governments, and related questions. Authorization for the PDM program expires on September 30, 2009. In the 111th Congress, Representative Oberstar and other sponsors introduced H.R. 1746 to re-authorize the program for an additional three years at $250 million per year and to remove the sunset provision. The bill would also increase the minimum amount each state can receive from $500,000 to $575,000. H.R. 1746 includes provisions that have been part of appropriations statutes that award funds both through a formula (with, as noted, a minimum amount available per state) as well as a competitive process for the majority of the funds. H.R. 1746 was approved by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 2 and was approved by the House under suspension of the rules on April 27, 2009. It is notable that the Administration's budget for FY2010 requests that the competitive process be dropped in favor of a risk-based assessment by FEMA. Congress may wish to hear more regarding the risk-based allocation formula before enacting the authorizing legislation for the coming years. In another major development in FY2008, Congress directed 95 grants to 28 states, which totaled close to 44% of all PDM funds (P.L. 110-161, Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2008). These were the first such earmarks for the PDM program. While some of the projects meet PDM eligibility standards, others may be considered emergency preparedness projects which are not eligible for grants, as defined by the Stafford Act and the PDM guidance. For FY2009, the Congress directed 51 grants to 27 states at a program cost of just under $25 million. The FY2010 DHS Appropriations measure currently has a funding level of $100 million proposed with just less than $25 million for Congressionally directed projects. The listing of directed grants for the last two fiscal years provides information on jurisdictions but does not have details on the types of projects involved. In consideration of the FY2010 appropriations, amendments were offered in the House and Senate to curtail the earmarking of PDM funds. This report will be updated as warranted by events.

FEMA has the statutory authority to deliver numerous disaster and non-disaster financial assistance programs in support of its mission, and that of the Department of Homeland Security, largely through grants and cooperative agreements. These programs account for a significant amount of the federal funds for which FEMA is accountable. FEMA officials are responsible and accountable for the proper administration of these funds pursuant to federal laws and regulations, Office of Management and Budget circulars, and federal appropriations law principles.

In the devastation that follows a major disaster, there is a need for multiple sectors to unite and devote new resources to support the rebuilding of infrastructure, the provision of health and social services, the restoration of care delivery systems, and other critical recovery needs. In some cases, billions of dollars from public, private and charitable sources are invested to help communities recover. National rhetoric often characterizes these efforts as a "return to normal." But for many American communities, pre-disaster conditions are far from optimal. Large segments of the U.S. population suffer from preventable health problems, experience inequitable access to services, and rely on overburdened health systems. A return to pre-event conditions in such cases may be short-sighted given the high costs - both economic and social - of poor health. Instead, it is important to understand that the disaster recovery process offers a series of unique and valuable opportunities to improve on the status quo. Capitalizing on these opportunities can advance the long-term health, resilience, and sustainability of communities - thereby better preparing them for future challenges. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters identifies and recommends recovery practices and novel programs most likely to impact overall community public health and contribute to resiliency for future incidents. This book makes the case that disaster recovery should be guided by a healthy community vision, where health considerations are integrated into all aspects of recovery planning before and after a disaster, and funding streams are leveraged in a coordinated manner and applied to health improvement priorities in order to meet human recovery needs and create healthy built and natural environments. The conceptual framework presented in Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters lays the groundwork to achieve this goal and provides operational guidance for multiple sectors involved in community planning and disaster recovery. Healthy, Resilient, and Sustainable Communities After Disasters calls for actions at multiple levels to facilitate recovery strategies that optimize community health. With a shared healthy community vision, strategic planning that prioritizes health, and coordinated implementation, disaster recovery can result in a communities that are healthier, more livable places for current and future generations to grow and thrive - communities that are better prepared for future adversities.