Tag: Model Answer

Assignment Prompt & Instructions

Instructions and readings attached 4 questions

– ## WEEK7INSTRUCTIONSCaseStudy.docx

– ## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIII.pptx

– ## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartI.pdf

– DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartII.pdf
– DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIV.pdf
– kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a.pdf

**## WEEK7INSTRUCTIONSCaseStudy.docx**

**Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters Assignment**

INSTRUCTIONS
• Provide a Biblically based support for your analysis
• Sources must be derived from Read items assigned for the Module: Week in which the
Case Study is assigned, peer-reviewed journal articles, and your independent research.
• All citations and format must be in current APA format
• Include 8 – 10 sources, not including your Biblical analysis
• Double-spaced, with 1-inch margins, written in 12-point Times New Roman font.
• (Note: Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration
Networks in Disasters Assignment must be 10-12 pages).

**Address each of the following questions related to federal-state-local collaboration during disasters**.
1. Should there be national goals and strong federal direction, as during the period of
“creative federalism,” or greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and
efforts where they feel there is the greatest need?
2. What would happen if the federal role in emergency management was simply reduced to
providing financial support?
3. How likely is it that state representatives will address the state’s major hazards without
federal encouragement?
4. What are the advantages of developing local capabilities to reduce hazards? How likely is
it that local officials will address risks to life and property without outside funding and
support?

**Video:** [**https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5**](https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5)

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIII.pptx**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations: Part III

Fiscal Relationships –
Federal, State, and Local Governments

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM

Dr. Harry McGinnis

State constitutions and statutes generally limit how much revenue cities and counties may raise through local taxes. Those limits are usually tied to the amount of assessed property value and the amount of debt that the local government has assumed.

Property “tax revolts,” such as Proposition 13 in California in the 1980s which still requires a 2/3 vote of the state legislature for new taxes, have made it very difficult for state and local governments to raise taxes for even essential services like road and bridge repair.

Because local governments are limited in how much tax revenue they may raise and how much they can borrow, most revenues are earmarked for public education, law enforcement, and a few other essential services. As a result, there may be little money to spend on emergency management and little flexibility to use money collected for other purposes.

State transfers of revenues to local governments have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities of local officials. The issue of “unfunded mandates,” meaning delegations or mandates of responsibility for programs or policies without transfers of money to finance the efforts. Local governments are being expected to provide many services, like building code enforcement, for which they lack financial resources and technical expertise.

Similarly, small local government agencies, particularly volunteer fire departments, have complained about having to have training on the National Incident Management System (NIMS) when they have very limited time, other more pressing priorities, and few resources.

Because of limited tax authority and transfers of money from state governments to local governments, as well as from the federal government to state and local governments, many governments at all levels are becoming more creative. New revenue sources frequently include:

User fees – for those receiving a service.

Impact fees – for developers and others who may increase the risk to public health or safety or increase the costs of services delivered by state or local governments.

Dedicated, limited-term sales taxes such as 1-2 cent sales taxes earmarked for particular programs and for specified periods of time.

The lease of excess or temporarily unused government facilities or land.

The sale of excess or unneeded government property or services, such as surplus office equipment.

A surtax on business and other licenses, permits, and approvals, such as approval of building permits (to mention only a few of the creative options).

Trust funds – for specific purposes. For example, emergency management trust funds have been set up by a number of states with funding provided by fees on property owners, surcharges on insurance policies, taxes on local governments based on population, and/or other revenue sources to cover the costs of disasters that do not warrant a presidential disaster declaration and local emergency management budgets.

As we learned in the earlier discussion of the intergovernmental system…

There are fewer categorical grants to assist state and local governments, although FEMA and other agencies still provide technical assistance and some funding for training programs at the state level.

The general revenue-sharing program that provided additional monies to support state and local services, offering local officials wide discretion in their use, ended in the late 1980s.

Some federal programs (see Appendix A) are providing funding, training, and technical assistance to local responders who might become involved in a terrorist event involving nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological agents.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The intergovernmental system is the context within which governments raise revenue, borrow, and spend to support policies and programs like emergency management.

Emergency managers and emergency management agencies are often at a disadvantage in the budget process because much of the revenue raised is earmarked for particular purposes.

The intergovernmental system and the federal and state budget processes are highly competitive, and emergency managers have to find influential friends in executive offices and on legislative committees, sell their programs to the public, and cultivate relationships with influential interest groups if they are to be successful.

Federal funding is available for certain emergency management and Homeland Security activities. Table 3.1 (see Appendix A) includes the major grants available to state and local jurisdictions. Most are categorical grants, meaning that they have to be spent on specific narrow purposes. Some are “pass throughs” and go directly to local governments and others are sent to the state with state officials determine where they will be spent.

## image1.jpg

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartI.pdf**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations:

Part I

Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM
Dr. Harry McGinnis

• The U.S. national emergency management system
involves local, state, and federal government agencies
and an array of special districts, public and quasi-public
authorities, and public-private organizations.

• Special districts or “special purpose” governments, such
as school districts and water districts, generally have
their own taxing and policymaking authority and may
have their own emergency plans and procedures for
dealing with hazardous materials and other hazards.

• Public authorities, such as baseball stadium and
basketball arena authorities, may also have their own
revenue-raising authority and staff and resources to
respond to emergencies.

• Public-private organizations are typically set up to fund
community activities through a combination of public and
private sources and often have their own public safety offices
and emergency procedures or contract for such services from
public or private agencies.

• Public colleges and universities, public hospitals and
mental health facilities, and other “independent”
government agencies often have their own police forces, first
aid facilities, emergency plans and procedures, and even
emergency operations centers to handle disasters.

• If a hazard or disaster extends beyond the U.S. border, the
emergency management system might also involve local,
regional, or central government agencies in Canada, Mexico,
and/or other neighboring nations.

• The U.S. national emergency management system also involves
nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofit and for-
profit organizations that may participate at the national, state, or
local levels.

• Private individuals may also become involved in the national
emergency management system as disaster volunteers, contributors
of financial and other resources, and supporters of policies and
programs that help manage environmental risks, facilitate disaster
operations, or support relief and recovery efforts.

• Local governments are generally the “first responders” to natural
and technological disasters and, for minor disasters, may be wholly
responsible for protecting lives and property.

• The current political climate does not encourage an
expansion of federal responsibility for emergency
management or other policy problems, although there
has been a long history of federal assistance to state and
local governments and a general expansion of federal
responsibility for environmental and other programs.

• The intergovernmental system has undergone radical
change since the founding of the nation. At some points,
the federal government has had little or no responsibility
for reducing natural and technological hazards and at
others it has been very active in addressing hazards.

• A brief overview of intergovernmental relations illustrates the expansion and
contraction of federal responsibilities (Wright, 1983, Chapter 3):

• Initially, the federal system was viewed as a “layer cake” with federal and state
responsibilities relatively clearly defined (essentially with the federal government
having only those powers and responsibilities specifically mentioned in the
Constitution and all other powers reserved to the states). This is generally
referred to as “dual federalism” and was characteristic of the conflict phase of
federalism, and it has not been the dominant view of the federal system since
the early 1800s.

• From the mid-1800s onward, the federal role expanded in a variety of policy areas,
including transportation (principally road building) and education (including the
Morrill Land Grant Act that provided federal support to state land-grant
universities), to aid state and local governments.

• By the 1930s, with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the relationship
between federal and state officials became much more cooperative and the
sharing of responsibilities more closely resembled a “marble cake.” The period
between 1930 and 1950 became known as the period of “cooperative
federalism.”

• During the period of “cooperative federalism,” the federal government
developed hundreds of programs to address the problems of the Great Depression
and World War II. The federal government provided grants-in-aid to help state
governments, and later local governments, finance specific projects.

• By World War II, the federal-state relationship became much more
interrelated, and mechanisms for coordinating efforts, such as the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, were instituted.

• Because federal policies were implemented by federal, state, and local
officials within interconnected bureaucracies, a pattern of “picket fence
federalism” developed. Federal grants were given directly to state and local
agencies or were sent to governor’s or mayor’s offices as “pass throughs,”
without being subject to review or reallocation.

• Elected state and local officials often resented their lack of control over the
spending of moneys transferred from federal agencies to state agencies.
Program priorities were set in Washington, rather than in state capitals and
city halls.

• Federal, state, and local bureaucracies in policy areas like transportation
developed strong administrative and political connections. Personnel often
moved from one level to another within the “fence pickets” using their
professional connections.

• State and local agencies increasingly were structured like their federal
counterparts, officials tended to be given the same job titles, and administrators
developed similar value systems, including orientations toward particular policies.
• Transportation departments at all levels tended to be oriented toward road

building, rather than rail or air transportation; and
• environmental protection agencies tended to focus on standard-setting as a

means of regulating public and private actions, rather than focusing on
negotiated pollution reduction programs (although that is changing now).

• As the federal government assumed more responsibility
for programs to address urban problems, poverty, civil
rights, and other issues under President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s Great Society initiative, the relationships
among federal, state, and local officials became even
more complex.

• The expansion of federal programs was a response to the
failure or inability of state and local governments to
address the social and economic problems of cities, a
reflection of the greater resources available to federal
officials, and a result of strong political pressure put on
Congress and the president to act.

• Civil rights groups, social activists, environmentalists, and others found the members
of Congress and officials in the executive branch more supportive of their concerns
than members of state legislatures and other state and local officials.

• This period of “creative federalism” was characterized by the setting of national
goals by the federal government and the use of federal categorical grants to
encourage state and local governments, as well as the private and nonprofit sectors,
to implement the federal goals.

• During the 1970s, state and local officials complained that the federal government’s
use of categorical grants had “blackmailed” them into pursuing federal goals at the
expense of their constituents’ needs. State and local officials sought greater
flexibility to target funds where they felt the most need.

• President Richard Nixon initiated his “new federalism” policies as a reaction
against the use of categorical grants, strict federal control over goal setting,
the lack of flexibility in spending federal funds, and the emphasis on urban
problems of the Great Society programs.

• The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 created “general
revenue sharing” that provided federal funding to state and local
governments with few restrictions on how the money should be spent.

• General revenue sharing became an immensely popular program because it
expanded the fiscal resources available to state and local governments and
reduced the need for state and local officials to seek tax increases.

• President Nixon also consolidated categorical grant programs into a few “block
grants” that provided funding in specified policy areas with more flexibility for
state and local targeting of spending.

• During the 1980s, President Reagan initiated a second “new federalism” and
recommended that the responsibilities of the federal and state governments be
sorted out through a “swap” of programs and the elimination of many categorical
grant programs.

• The Reagan “new federalism” initiative was met with opposition from state
governors concerned with the high cost of Medicaid and other programs for
which their governments were expected to take responsibility, big city mayors
concerned about the proposed elimination of programs to address inner city
poverty and other social problems, and a major recession that reduced tax
revenues at all levels.

Despite the unsuccessful proposal to “swap” programs, the
Reagan Administration cut funding and eliminated many of

the programs designed to address urban poverty, removed the
mechanisms for regional coordination of planning, and

generally reduced the federal role in social, economic, and
environmental policymaking.

The evolution of the intergovernmental system has fundamentally
been based on differing views on:

Supporters of each
intergovernmental

arrangement
hoping that their
preferred system
will best protect

and advance their
own interests.

Narrow Social Or Economic Interests

The federal government
should be very active in

addressing social and
economic problems

State and local governments
should have primary

responsibility for addressing
such problems.

The Roles Of The Federal And State
Governments

Supporters of a broader
federal role are more

confident that their policy
preferences will fare better at

that level

Supporters of a leading role
for state governments are
more confident that their

policy preferences will fare
better among state officials

and legislators.

Public Policy Choices

The least government possible
to ensure low taxes and little
interference with their own

social and economic pursuits

Others preferring an active or
“positive” role for

government in addressing
society’s problems (i.e., the

“positive state”).

The Role Of Government In General

• Differing views on the federal system of government and
intergovernmental relations result in differing perceptions of the proper
roles of agencies like FEMA in managing hazards and disasters.
• For example, some Americans prefer a very active network of federal,

state, and local emergency management agencies engaged in
reducing risk and protecting life and property;

• Very little government, even when there are natural and technological
risks, and more self-reliance – essentially an orientation toward local
self-reliance with little outside help;

• Particular policy options, like voluntary rather than government-
mandated measures to reduce the risk of flood damage or
government-backed all-hazards insurance to help individuals following
a disaster; and/or

• More reliance on community-based programs, with less federal and
state oversight (to mention but a few of the political perspectives
present in the U.S.).

• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, on October 17, 1986, required (in Title III)
governors to establish state emergency response commissions,
create local emergency planning districts, and appoint local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs).

• The LEPCs were charged with developing appropriate
emergency response plans, including identification of facilities
and transportation routes for extremely hazardous materials,
on- and off-site response procedures, emergency notification
procedures, methods for determining the occurrence of a
release and the affected area, evacuation routes, training
programs, etc.

Federal law also creates intergovernmental mandates,
requiring action at the federal, state, and local levels.

• Under the “Community Right-to-Know” provisions, facilities are
required to notify the LEPC, the state emergency response
commission, and the local fire department if seriously hazardous
materials are being used, stored, or transported and to specify what
kind of chemicals or materials are involved (by chemical and
common names), amounts (ranges), locations, manner of storage,
etc.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the
inventories of chemicals, the reporting process, and any toxic
chemical releases (EPA, n.d.).

• The provisions of SARA Title III ensure that federal, state, and local
officials are aware of the presence of significant amounts of
hazardous materials, can monitor threats to public health and safety,
and have appropriate response plans. The information is also
available to the public so that the hazards can be understood.

• When FEMA was created in 1979, the objective was to coordinate
federal disaster programs by facilitating executive control. The
agency was comprised of a collection of dissimilar programs
ranging from the National Flood Insurance Program to the National
Fire Academy and including civil preparedness programs drawn
from the Department of Defense (see Session No. 2).

• FEMA, like other agencies for which the president appoints senior
administrators, has reflected the interests and values of the
president in office; hence the emphasis on defense and earthquakes
during the Reagan-Bush Administrations and the broader natural
disaster emphasis during the Clinton Administration.

The focus on national goals or “results” under the
Governmental Performance and Results Act of

1993 has encouraged the development of
“partnerships” with state and local governments,
as well as with private and nonprofit organizations,

to reduce hazards, expand local capabilities, and
achieve the national goals to reduce suffering and

economic losses and to improve program
performance.

– Disasters and �Intergovernmental Relations: Part I��Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors�
– Slide Number 2
– Slide Number 3
– Slide Number 4
– Slide Number 5
– Slide Number 6
– Slide Number 7
– Slide Number 8
– Slide Number 9
– Slide Number 10
– Slide Number 11
– Slide Number 12
– Slide Number 13
– Slide Number 14
– Slide Number 15
– Slide Number 16
– Slide Number 17
– Slide Number 18
– Slide Number 19
– Slide Number 20

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartII.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartii-pdf)

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIV.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartiv-pdf)

**kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a-pdf)

**kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a-pdf)

**## WEEK7INSTRUCTIONSCaseStudy.docx**

**Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters Assignment**

INSTRUCTIONS
• Provide a Biblically based support for your analysis
• Sources must be derived from Read items assigned for the Module: Week in which the
Case Study is assigned, peer-reviewed journal articles, and your independent research.
• All citations and format must be in current APA format
• Include 8 – 10 sources, not including your Biblical analysis
• Double-spaced, with 1-inch margins, written in 12-point Times New Roman font.
• (Note: Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration
Networks in Disasters Assignment must be 10-12 pages).

**Address each of the following questions related to federal-state-local collaboration during disasters**.
1. Should there be national goals and strong federal direction, as during the period of
“creative federalism,” or greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and
efforts where they feel there is the greatest need?
2. What would happen if the federal role in emergency management was simply reduced to
providing financial support?
3. How likely is it that state representatives will address the state’s major hazards without
federal encouragement?
4. What are the advantages of developing local capabilities to reduce hazards? How likely is
it that local officials will address risks to life and property without outside funding and
support?

**Video:** [**https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5**](https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5)

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIII.pptx**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations: Part III

Fiscal Relationships –
Federal, State, and Local Governments

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM

Dr. Harry McGinnis

State constitutions and statutes generally limit how much revenue cities and counties may raise through local taxes. Those limits are usually tied to the amount of assessed property value and the amount of debt that the local government has assumed.

Property “tax revolts,” such as Proposition 13 in California in the 1980s which still requires a 2/3 vote of the state legislature for new taxes, have made it very difficult for state and local governments to raise taxes for even essential services like road and bridge repair.

Because local governments are limited in how much tax revenue they may raise and how much they can borrow, most revenues are earmarked for public education, law enforcement, and a few other essential services. As a result, there may be little money to spend on emergency management and little flexibility to use money collected for other purposes.

State transfers of revenues to local governments have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities of local officials. The issue of “unfunded mandates,” meaning delegations or mandates of responsibility for programs or policies without transfers of money to finance the efforts. Local governments are being expected to provide many services, like building code enforcement, for which they lack financial resources and technical expertise.

Similarly, small local government agencies, particularly volunteer fire departments, have complained about having to have training on the National Incident Management System (NIMS) when they have very limited time, other more pressing priorities, and few resources.

Because of limited tax authority and transfers of money from state governments to local governments, as well as from the federal government to state and local governments, many governments at all levels are becoming more creative. New revenue sources frequently include:

User fees – for those receiving a service.

Impact fees – for developers and others who may increase the risk to public health or safety or increase the costs of services delivered by state or local governments.

Dedicated, limited-term sales taxes such as 1-2 cent sales taxes earmarked for particular programs and for specified periods of time.

The lease of excess or temporarily unused government facilities or land.

The sale of excess or unneeded government property or services, such as surplus office equipment.

A surtax on business and other licenses, permits, and approvals, such as approval of building permits (to mention only a few of the creative options).

Trust funds – for specific purposes. For example, emergency management trust funds have been set up by a number of states with funding provided by fees on property owners, surcharges on insurance policies, taxes on local governments based on population, and/or other revenue sources to cover the costs of disasters that do not warrant a presidential disaster declaration and local emergency management budgets.

As we learned in the earlier discussion of the intergovernmental system…

There are fewer categorical grants to assist state and local governments, although FEMA and other agencies still provide technical assistance and some funding for training programs at the state level.

The general revenue-sharing program that provided additional monies to support state and local services, offering local officials wide discretion in their use, ended in the late 1980s.

Some federal programs (see Appendix A) are providing funding, training, and technical assistance to local responders who might become involved in a terrorist event involving nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological agents.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The intergovernmental system is the context within which governments raise revenue, borrow, and spend to support policies and programs like emergency management.

Emergency managers and emergency management agencies are often at a disadvantage in the budget process because much of the revenue raised is earmarked for particular purposes.

The intergovernmental system and the federal and state budget processes are highly competitive, and emergency managers have to find influential friends in executive offices and on legislative committees, sell their programs to the public, and cultivate relationships with influential interest groups if they are to be successful.

Federal funding is available for certain emergency management and Homeland Security activities. Table 3.1 (see Appendix A) includes the major grants available to state and local jurisdictions. Most are categorical grants, meaning that they have to be spent on specific narrow purposes. Some are “pass throughs” and go directly to local governments and others are sent to the state with state officials determine where they will be spent.

## image1.jpg

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartI.pdf**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations:

Part I

Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM
Dr. Harry McGinnis

• The U.S. national emergency management system
involves local, state, and federal government agencies
and an array of special districts, public and quasi-public
authorities, and public-private organizations.

• Special districts or “special purpose” governments, such
as school districts and water districts, generally have
their own taxing and policymaking authority and may
have their own emergency plans and procedures for
dealing with hazardous materials and other hazards.

• Public authorities, such as baseball stadium and
basketball arena authorities, may also have their own
revenue-raising authority and staff and resources to
respond to emergencies.

• Public-private organizations are typically set up to fund
community activities through a combination of public and
private sources and often have their own public safety offices
and emergency procedures or contract for such services from
public or private agencies.

• Public colleges and universities, public hospitals and
mental health facilities, and other “independent”
government agencies often have their own police forces, first
aid facilities, emergency plans and procedures, and even
emergency operations centers to handle disasters.

• If a hazard or disaster extends beyond the U.S. border, the
emergency management system might also involve local,
regional, or central government agencies in Canada, Mexico,
and/or other neighboring nations.

• The U.S. national emergency management system also involves
nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofit and for-
profit organizations that may participate at the national, state, or
local levels.

• Private individuals may also become involved in the national
emergency management system as disaster volunteers, contributors
of financial and other resources, and supporters of policies and
programs that help manage environmental risks, facilitate disaster
operations, or support relief and recovery efforts.

• Local governments are generally the “first responders” to natural
and technological disasters and, for minor disasters, may be wholly
responsible for protecting lives and property.

• The current political climate does not encourage an
expansion of federal responsibility for emergency
management or other policy problems, although there
has been a long history of federal assistance to state and
local governments and a general expansion of federal
responsibility for environmental and other programs.

• The intergovernmental system has undergone radical
change since the founding of the nation. At some points,
the federal government has had little or no responsibility
for reducing natural and technological hazards and at
others it has been very active in addressing hazards.

• A brief overview of intergovernmental relations illustrates the expansion and
contraction of federal responsibilities (Wright, 1983, Chapter 3):

• Initially, the federal system was viewed as a “layer cake” with federal and state
responsibilities relatively clearly defined (essentially with the federal government
having only those powers and responsibilities specifically mentioned in the
Constitution and all other powers reserved to the states). This is generally
referred to as “dual federalism” and was characteristic of the conflict phase of
federalism, and it has not been the dominant view of the federal system since
the early 1800s.

• From the mid-1800s onward, the federal role expanded in a variety of policy areas,
including transportation (principally road building) and education (including the
Morrill Land Grant Act that provided federal support to state land-grant
universities), to aid state and local governments.

• By the 1930s, with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the relationship
between federal and state officials became much more cooperative and the
sharing of responsibilities more closely resembled a “marble cake.” The period
between 1930 and 1950 became known as the period of “cooperative
federalism.”

• During the period of “cooperative federalism,” the federal government
developed hundreds of programs to address the problems of the Great Depression
and World War II. The federal government provided grants-in-aid to help state
governments, and later local governments, finance specific projects.

• By World War II, the federal-state relationship became much more
interrelated, and mechanisms for coordinating efforts, such as the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, were instituted.

• Because federal policies were implemented by federal, state, and local
officials within interconnected bureaucracies, a pattern of “picket fence
federalism” developed. Federal grants were given directly to state and local
agencies or were sent to governor’s or mayor’s offices as “pass throughs,”
without being subject to review or reallocation.

• Elected state and local officials often resented their lack of control over the
spending of moneys transferred from federal agencies to state agencies.
Program priorities were set in Washington, rather than in state capitals and
city halls.

• Federal, state, and local bureaucracies in policy areas like transportation
developed strong administrative and political connections. Personnel often
moved from one level to another within the “fence pickets” using their
professional connections.

• State and local agencies increasingly were structured like their federal
counterparts, officials tended to be given the same job titles, and administrators
developed similar value systems, including orientations toward particular policies.
• Transportation departments at all levels tended to be oriented toward road

building, rather than rail or air transportation; and
• environmental protection agencies tended to focus on standard-setting as a

means of regulating public and private actions, rather than focusing on
negotiated pollution reduction programs (although that is changing now).

• As the federal government assumed more responsibility
for programs to address urban problems, poverty, civil
rights, and other issues under President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s Great Society initiative, the relationships
among federal, state, and local officials became even
more complex.

• The expansion of federal programs was a response to the
failure or inability of state and local governments to
address the social and economic problems of cities, a
reflection of the greater resources available to federal
officials, and a result of strong political pressure put on
Congress and the president to act.

• Civil rights groups, social activists, environmentalists, and others found the members
of Congress and officials in the executive branch more supportive of their concerns
than members of state legislatures and other state and local officials.

• This period of “creative federalism” was characterized by the setting of national
goals by the federal government and the use of federal categorical grants to
encourage state and local governments, as well as the private and nonprofit sectors,
to implement the federal goals.

• During the 1970s, state and local officials complained that the federal government’s
use of categorical grants had “blackmailed” them into pursuing federal goals at the
expense of their constituents’ needs. State and local officials sought greater
flexibility to target funds where they felt the most need.

• President Richard Nixon initiated his “new federalism” policies as a reaction
against the use of categorical grants, strict federal control over goal setting,
the lack of flexibility in spending federal funds, and the emphasis on urban
problems of the Great Society programs.

• The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 created “general
revenue sharing” that provided federal funding to state and local
governments with few restrictions on how the money should be spent.

• General revenue sharing became an immensely popular program because it
expanded the fiscal resources available to state and local governments and
reduced the need for state and local officials to seek tax increases.

• President Nixon also consolidated categorical grant programs into a few “block
grants” that provided funding in specified policy areas with more flexibility for
state and local targeting of spending.

• During the 1980s, President Reagan initiated a second “new federalism” and
recommended that the responsibilities of the federal and state governments be
sorted out through a “swap” of programs and the elimination of many categorical
grant programs.

• The Reagan “new federalism” initiative was met with opposition from state
governors concerned with the high cost of Medicaid and other programs for
which their governments were expected to take responsibility, big city mayors
concerned about the proposed elimination of programs to address inner city
poverty and other social problems, and a major recession that reduced tax
revenues at all levels.

Despite the unsuccessful proposal to “swap” programs, the
Reagan Administration cut funding and eliminated many of

the programs designed to address urban poverty, removed the
mechanisms for regional coordination of planning, and

generally reduced the federal role in social, economic, and
environmental policymaking.

The evolution of the intergovernmental system has fundamentally
been based on differing views on:

Supporters of each
intergovernmental

arrangement
hoping that their
preferred system
will best protect

and advance their
own interests.

Narrow Social Or Economic Interests

The federal government
should be very active in

addressing social and
economic problems

State and local governments
should have primary

responsibility for addressing
such problems.

The Roles Of The Federal And State
Governments

Supporters of a broader
federal role are more

confident that their policy
preferences will fare better at

that level

Supporters of a leading role
for state governments are
more confident that their

policy preferences will fare
better among state officials

and legislators.

Public Policy Choices

The least government possible
to ensure low taxes and little
interference with their own

social and economic pursuits

Others preferring an active or
“positive” role for

government in addressing
society’s problems (i.e., the

“positive state”).

The Role Of Government In General

• Differing views on the federal system of government and
intergovernmental relations result in differing perceptions of the proper
roles of agencies like FEMA in managing hazards and disasters.
• For example, some Americans prefer a very active network of federal,

state, and local emergency management agencies engaged in
reducing risk and protecting life and property;

• Very little government, even when there are natural and technological
risks, and more self-reliance – essentially an orientation toward local
self-reliance with little outside help;

• Particular policy options, like voluntary rather than government-
mandated measures to reduce the risk of flood damage or
government-backed all-hazards insurance to help individuals following
a disaster; and/or

• More reliance on community-based programs, with less federal and
state oversight (to mention but a few of the political perspectives
present in the U.S.).

• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, on October 17, 1986, required (in Title III)
governors to establish state emergency response commissions,
create local emergency planning districts, and appoint local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs).

• The LEPCs were charged with developing appropriate
emergency response plans, including identification of facilities
and transportation routes for extremely hazardous materials,
on- and off-site response procedures, emergency notification
procedures, methods for determining the occurrence of a
release and the affected area, evacuation routes, training
programs, etc.

Federal law also creates intergovernmental mandates,
requiring action at the federal, state, and local levels.

• Under the “Community Right-to-Know” provisions, facilities are
required to notify the LEPC, the state emergency response
commission, and the local fire department if seriously hazardous
materials are being used, stored, or transported and to specify what
kind of chemicals or materials are involved (by chemical and
common names), amounts (ranges), locations, manner of storage,
etc.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the
inventories of chemicals, the reporting process, and any toxic
chemical releases (EPA, n.d.).

• The provisions of SARA Title III ensure that federal, state, and local
officials are aware of the presence of significant amounts of
hazardous materials, can monitor threats to public health and safety,
and have appropriate response plans. The information is also
available to the public so that the hazards can be understood.

• When FEMA was created in 1979, the objective was to coordinate
federal disaster programs by facilitating executive control. The
agency was comprised of a collection of dissimilar programs
ranging from the National Flood Insurance Program to the National
Fire Academy and including civil preparedness programs drawn
from the Department of Defense (see Session No. 2).

• FEMA, like other agencies for which the president appoints senior
administrators, has reflected the interests and values of the
president in office; hence the emphasis on defense and earthquakes
during the Reagan-Bush Administrations and the broader natural
disaster emphasis during the Clinton Administration.

The focus on national goals or “results” under the
Governmental Performance and Results Act of

1993 has encouraged the development of
“partnerships” with state and local governments,
as well as with private and nonprofit organizations,

to reduce hazards, expand local capabilities, and
achieve the national goals to reduce suffering and

economic losses and to improve program
performance.

– Disasters and �Intergovernmental Relations: Part I��Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors�
– Slide Number 2
– Slide Number 3
– Slide Number 4
– Slide Number 5
– Slide Number 6
– Slide Number 7
– Slide Number 8
– Slide Number 9
– Slide Number 10
– Slide Number 11
– Slide Number 12
– Slide Number 13
– Slide Number 14
– Slide Number 15
– Slide Number 16
– Slide Number 17
– Slide Number 18
– Slide Number 19
– Slide Number 20

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartII.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartii-pdf)

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIV.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartiv-pdf)

**kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a-pdf)

**## WEEK7INSTRUCTIONSCaseStudy.docx**

**Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration Networks in Disasters Assignment**

INSTRUCTIONS
• Provide a Biblically based support for your analysis
• Sources must be derived from Read items assigned for the Module: Week in which the
Case Study is assigned, peer-reviewed journal articles, and your independent research.
• All citations and format must be in current APA format
• Include 8 – 10 sources, not including your Biblical analysis
• Double-spaced, with 1-inch margins, written in 12-point Times New Roman font.
• (Note: Case Study: Federal/State/Local Collaboration
Networks in Disasters Assignment must be 10-12 pages).

**Address each of the following questions related to federal-state-local collaboration during disasters**.
1. Should there be national goals and strong federal direction, as during the period of
“creative federalism,” or greater flexibility for state and local officials to target funds and
efforts where they feel there is the greatest need?
2. What would happen if the federal role in emergency management was simply reduced to
providing financial support?
3. How likely is it that state representatives will address the state’s major hazards without
federal encouragement?
4. What are the advantages of developing local capabilities to reduce hazards? How likely is
it that local officials will address risks to life and property without outside funding and
support?

**Video:** [**https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5**](https://youtu.be/knGR7CnNKKE?si=w2inDeRyI8qUiyV5)

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIII.pptx**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations: Part III

Fiscal Relationships –
Federal, State, and Local Governments

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM

Dr. Harry McGinnis

State constitutions and statutes generally limit how much revenue cities and counties may raise through local taxes. Those limits are usually tied to the amount of assessed property value and the amount of debt that the local government has assumed.

Property “tax revolts,” such as Proposition 13 in California in the 1980s which still requires a 2/3 vote of the state legislature for new taxes, have made it very difficult for state and local governments to raise taxes for even essential services like road and bridge repair.

Because local governments are limited in how much tax revenue they may raise and how much they can borrow, most revenues are earmarked for public education, law enforcement, and a few other essential services. As a result, there may be little money to spend on emergency management and little flexibility to use money collected for other purposes.

State transfers of revenues to local governments have not kept pace with the expanding responsibilities of local officials. The issue of “unfunded mandates,” meaning delegations or mandates of responsibility for programs or policies without transfers of money to finance the efforts. Local governments are being expected to provide many services, like building code enforcement, for which they lack financial resources and technical expertise.

Similarly, small local government agencies, particularly volunteer fire departments, have complained about having to have training on the National Incident Management System (NIMS) when they have very limited time, other more pressing priorities, and few resources.

Because of limited tax authority and transfers of money from state governments to local governments, as well as from the federal government to state and local governments, many governments at all levels are becoming more creative. New revenue sources frequently include:

User fees – for those receiving a service.

Impact fees – for developers and others who may increase the risk to public health or safety or increase the costs of services delivered by state or local governments.

Dedicated, limited-term sales taxes such as 1-2 cent sales taxes earmarked for particular programs and for specified periods of time.

The lease of excess or temporarily unused government facilities or land.

The sale of excess or unneeded government property or services, such as surplus office equipment.

A surtax on business and other licenses, permits, and approvals, such as approval of building permits (to mention only a few of the creative options).

Trust funds – for specific purposes. For example, emergency management trust funds have been set up by a number of states with funding provided by fees on property owners, surcharges on insurance policies, taxes on local governments based on population, and/or other revenue sources to cover the costs of disasters that do not warrant a presidential disaster declaration and local emergency management budgets.

As we learned in the earlier discussion of the intergovernmental system…

There are fewer categorical grants to assist state and local governments, although FEMA and other agencies still provide technical assistance and some funding for training programs at the state level.

The general revenue-sharing program that provided additional monies to support state and local services, offering local officials wide discretion in their use, ended in the late 1980s.

Some federal programs (see Appendix A) are providing funding, training, and technical assistance to local responders who might become involved in a terrorist event involving nuclear, chemical, biological, or radiological agents.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The taxing authority of local governments has not been keeping up with the demands being placed on local officials and, even when authority has been expanded, it is very difficult to enact new local taxes; and state governments are transferring relatively little tax revenue to local governments to support essential public services, although there is greater pressure to provide more state financial support for public education.

The intergovernmental system is the context within which governments raise revenue, borrow, and spend to support policies and programs like emergency management.

Emergency managers and emergency management agencies are often at a disadvantage in the budget process because much of the revenue raised is earmarked for particular purposes.

The intergovernmental system and the federal and state budget processes are highly competitive, and emergency managers have to find influential friends in executive offices and on legislative committees, sell their programs to the public, and cultivate relationships with influential interest groups if they are to be successful.

Federal funding is available for certain emergency management and Homeland Security activities. Table 3.1 (see Appendix A) includes the major grants available to state and local jurisdictions. Most are categorical grants, meaning that they have to be spent on specific narrow purposes. Some are “pass throughs” and go directly to local governments and others are sent to the state with state officials determine where they will be spent.

## image1.jpg

**## DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartI.pdf**

Disasters and
Intergovernmental Relations:

Part I

Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors

PADM 804 – IGR AND IGM
Dr. Harry McGinnis

• The U.S. national emergency management system
involves local, state, and federal government agencies
and an array of special districts, public and quasi-public
authorities, and public-private organizations.

• Special districts or “special purpose” governments, such
as school districts and water districts, generally have
their own taxing and policymaking authority and may
have their own emergency plans and procedures for
dealing with hazardous materials and other hazards.

• Public authorities, such as baseball stadium and
basketball arena authorities, may also have their own
revenue-raising authority and staff and resources to
respond to emergencies.

• Public-private organizations are typically set up to fund
community activities through a combination of public and
private sources and often have their own public safety offices
and emergency procedures or contract for such services from
public or private agencies.

• Public colleges and universities, public hospitals and
mental health facilities, and other “independent”
government agencies often have their own police forces, first
aid facilities, emergency plans and procedures, and even
emergency operations centers to handle disasters.

• If a hazard or disaster extends beyond the U.S. border, the
emergency management system might also involve local,
regional, or central government agencies in Canada, Mexico,
and/or other neighboring nations.

• The U.S. national emergency management system also involves
nongovernmental organizations, including nonprofit and for-
profit organizations that may participate at the national, state, or
local levels.

• Private individuals may also become involved in the national
emergency management system as disaster volunteers, contributors
of financial and other resources, and supporters of policies and
programs that help manage environmental risks, facilitate disaster
operations, or support relief and recovery efforts.

• Local governments are generally the “first responders” to natural
and technological disasters and, for minor disasters, may be wholly
responsible for protecting lives and property.

• The current political climate does not encourage an
expansion of federal responsibility for emergency
management or other policy problems, although there
has been a long history of federal assistance to state and
local governments and a general expansion of federal
responsibility for environmental and other programs.

• The intergovernmental system has undergone radical
change since the founding of the nation. At some points,
the federal government has had little or no responsibility
for reducing natural and technological hazards and at
others it has been very active in addressing hazards.

• A brief overview of intergovernmental relations illustrates the expansion and
contraction of federal responsibilities (Wright, 1983, Chapter 3):

• Initially, the federal system was viewed as a “layer cake” with federal and state
responsibilities relatively clearly defined (essentially with the federal government
having only those powers and responsibilities specifically mentioned in the
Constitution and all other powers reserved to the states). This is generally
referred to as “dual federalism” and was characteristic of the conflict phase of
federalism, and it has not been the dominant view of the federal system since
the early 1800s.

• From the mid-1800s onward, the federal role expanded in a variety of policy areas,
including transportation (principally road building) and education (including the
Morrill Land Grant Act that provided federal support to state land-grant
universities), to aid state and local governments.

• By the 1930s, with President Roosevelt’s New Deal programs, the relationship
between federal and state officials became much more cooperative and the
sharing of responsibilities more closely resembled a “marble cake.” The period
between 1930 and 1950 became known as the period of “cooperative
federalism.”

• During the period of “cooperative federalism,” the federal government
developed hundreds of programs to address the problems of the Great Depression
and World War II. The federal government provided grants-in-aid to help state
governments, and later local governments, finance specific projects.

• By World War II, the federal-state relationship became much more
interrelated, and mechanisms for coordinating efforts, such as the Advisory
Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, were instituted.

• Because federal policies were implemented by federal, state, and local
officials within interconnected bureaucracies, a pattern of “picket fence
federalism” developed. Federal grants were given directly to state and local
agencies or were sent to governor’s or mayor’s offices as “pass throughs,”
without being subject to review or reallocation.

• Elected state and local officials often resented their lack of control over the
spending of moneys transferred from federal agencies to state agencies.
Program priorities were set in Washington, rather than in state capitals and
city halls.

• Federal, state, and local bureaucracies in policy areas like transportation
developed strong administrative and political connections. Personnel often
moved from one level to another within the “fence pickets” using their
professional connections.

• State and local agencies increasingly were structured like their federal
counterparts, officials tended to be given the same job titles, and administrators
developed similar value systems, including orientations toward particular policies.
• Transportation departments at all levels tended to be oriented toward road

building, rather than rail or air transportation; and
• environmental protection agencies tended to focus on standard-setting as a

means of regulating public and private actions, rather than focusing on
negotiated pollution reduction programs (although that is changing now).

• As the federal government assumed more responsibility
for programs to address urban problems, poverty, civil
rights, and other issues under President Lyndon B.
Johnson’s Great Society initiative, the relationships
among federal, state, and local officials became even
more complex.

• The expansion of federal programs was a response to the
failure or inability of state and local governments to
address the social and economic problems of cities, a
reflection of the greater resources available to federal
officials, and a result of strong political pressure put on
Congress and the president to act.

• Civil rights groups, social activists, environmentalists, and others found the members
of Congress and officials in the executive branch more supportive of their concerns
than members of state legislatures and other state and local officials.

• This period of “creative federalism” was characterized by the setting of national
goals by the federal government and the use of federal categorical grants to
encourage state and local governments, as well as the private and nonprofit sectors,
to implement the federal goals.

• During the 1970s, state and local officials complained that the federal government’s
use of categorical grants had “blackmailed” them into pursuing federal goals at the
expense of their constituents’ needs. State and local officials sought greater
flexibility to target funds where they felt the most need.

• President Richard Nixon initiated his “new federalism” policies as a reaction
against the use of categorical grants, strict federal control over goal setting,
the lack of flexibility in spending federal funds, and the emphasis on urban
problems of the Great Society programs.

• The State and Local Fiscal Assistance Act of 1972 created “general
revenue sharing” that provided federal funding to state and local
governments with few restrictions on how the money should be spent.

• General revenue sharing became an immensely popular program because it
expanded the fiscal resources available to state and local governments and
reduced the need for state and local officials to seek tax increases.

• President Nixon also consolidated categorical grant programs into a few “block
grants” that provided funding in specified policy areas with more flexibility for
state and local targeting of spending.

• During the 1980s, President Reagan initiated a second “new federalism” and
recommended that the responsibilities of the federal and state governments be
sorted out through a “swap” of programs and the elimination of many categorical
grant programs.

• The Reagan “new federalism” initiative was met with opposition from state
governors concerned with the high cost of Medicaid and other programs for
which their governments were expected to take responsibility, big city mayors
concerned about the proposed elimination of programs to address inner city
poverty and other social problems, and a major recession that reduced tax
revenues at all levels.

Despite the unsuccessful proposal to “swap” programs, the
Reagan Administration cut funding and eliminated many of

the programs designed to address urban poverty, removed the
mechanisms for regional coordination of planning, and

generally reduced the federal role in social, economic, and
environmental policymaking.

The evolution of the intergovernmental system has fundamentally
been based on differing views on:

Supporters of each
intergovernmental

arrangement
hoping that their
preferred system
will best protect

and advance their
own interests.

Narrow Social Or Economic Interests

The federal government
should be very active in

addressing social and
economic problems

State and local governments
should have primary

responsibility for addressing
such problems.

The Roles Of The Federal And State
Governments

Supporters of a broader
federal role are more

confident that their policy
preferences will fare better at

that level

Supporters of a leading role
for state governments are
more confident that their

policy preferences will fare
better among state officials

and legislators.

Public Policy Choices

The least government possible
to ensure low taxes and little
interference with their own

social and economic pursuits

Others preferring an active or
“positive” role for

government in addressing
society’s problems (i.e., the

“positive state”).

The Role Of Government In General

• Differing views on the federal system of government and
intergovernmental relations result in differing perceptions of the proper
roles of agencies like FEMA in managing hazards and disasters.
• For example, some Americans prefer a very active network of federal,

state, and local emergency management agencies engaged in
reducing risk and protecting life and property;

• Very little government, even when there are natural and technological
risks, and more self-reliance – essentially an orientation toward local
self-reliance with little outside help;

• Particular policy options, like voluntary rather than government-
mandated measures to reduce the risk of flood damage or
government-backed all-hazards insurance to help individuals following
a disaster; and/or

• More reliance on community-based programs, with less federal and
state oversight (to mention but a few of the political perspectives
present in the U.S.).

• The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
(SARA) of 1986, on October 17, 1986, required (in Title III)
governors to establish state emergency response commissions,
create local emergency planning districts, and appoint local
emergency planning committees (LEPCs).

• The LEPCs were charged with developing appropriate
emergency response plans, including identification of facilities
and transportation routes for extremely hazardous materials,
on- and off-site response procedures, emergency notification
procedures, methods for determining the occurrence of a
release and the affected area, evacuation routes, training
programs, etc.

Federal law also creates intergovernmental mandates,
requiring action at the federal, state, and local levels.

• Under the “Community Right-to-Know” provisions, facilities are
required to notify the LEPC, the state emergency response
commission, and the local fire department if seriously hazardous
materials are being used, stored, or transported and to specify what
kind of chemicals or materials are involved (by chemical and
common names), amounts (ranges), locations, manner of storage,
etc.

• The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency monitors the
inventories of chemicals, the reporting process, and any toxic
chemical releases (EPA, n.d.).

• The provisions of SARA Title III ensure that federal, state, and local
officials are aware of the presence of significant amounts of
hazardous materials, can monitor threats to public health and safety,
and have appropriate response plans. The information is also
available to the public so that the hazards can be understood.

• When FEMA was created in 1979, the objective was to coordinate
federal disaster programs by facilitating executive control. The
agency was comprised of a collection of dissimilar programs
ranging from the National Flood Insurance Program to the National
Fire Academy and including civil preparedness programs drawn
from the Department of Defense (see Session No. 2).

• FEMA, like other agencies for which the president appoints senior
administrators, has reflected the interests and values of the
president in office; hence the emphasis on defense and earthquakes
during the Reagan-Bush Administrations and the broader natural
disaster emphasis during the Clinton Administration.

The focus on national goals or “results” under the
Governmental Performance and Results Act of

1993 has encouraged the development of
“partnerships” with state and local governments,
as well as with private and nonprofit organizations,

to reduce hazards, expand local capabilities, and
achieve the national goals to reduce suffering and

economic losses and to improve program
performance.

– Disasters and �Intergovernmental Relations: Part I��Roles of the Major Intergovernmental Actors�
– Slide Number 2
– Slide Number 3
– Slide Number 4
– Slide Number 5
– Slide Number 6
– Slide Number 7
– Slide Number 8
– Slide Number 9
– Slide Number 10
– Slide Number 11
– Slide Number 12
– Slide Number 13
– Slide Number 14
– Slide Number 15
– Slide Number 16
– Slide Number 17
– Slide Number 18
– Slide Number 19
– Slide Number 20

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartII.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartii-pdf)

**DisastersandIntergovernmentalRelationsPartIV.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/disastersandintergovernmentalrelationspartiv-pdf)

**kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a.pdf**

This file is too large to display. [View in new window](https://www.sweetstudy.com/files/kapucu-et-al-2010-examining-intergovernmental-and-interorganizational-response-to-catastrophic-disasters-toward-a-pdf)

– 1
– 2
– 3
– 4
– 5
– 6