Trends in the use of US federal emergency supplemental appropriations for disasters.

Q3 Medicine Journal of Emergency Management Pub Date : 2024-09-01 DOI:10.5055/jem.0873
Ellen P Carlin, Jeff Schlegelmilch
{"title":"Trends in the use of US federal emergency supplemental appropriations for disasters.","authors":"Ellen P Carlin, Jeff Schlegelmilch","doi":"10.5055/jem.0873","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Federal appropriation for disaster prevention through recovery occurs across a complex landscape of funding mechanisms. Emergency supplemental appropriations are one such mechanism and increasingly a way that Congress funds disasters. These bills also often include nondisaster-related spending. To better identify congressional tendencies in the use of emergency appropriations for disasters, including the frequency and dollar value of such spending, we analyzed publicly available data on emergency appropriations over the first two decades of the 21st century. Using legislative appropriations data from the Congressional Budget Office for all supplemental appropriations enacted for fiscal years 2000 through 2020, we calculated that nondefense spending for disasters via supplemental appropriation represented USD 1.024 trillion in budget authority across 40 bills over this period. Natural disaster emergencies accounted for 58 percent of the federal government's emergency supplemental spending, with the rest generally related to Global War on Terror and other military activities. Among the spending prompted by presidential request, the difference between how much funding the president had requested for that emergency (if any) and a congressional appropriation of emergency funding reveals no apparent trend over the time period studied, although confirmatory analysis is obscured by a dearth of data points. As the risk of disasters and, particularly, the rate and size of billion-dollar disasters increases, characterizing the congressional approach to the funding of disasters may allow improved understanding of whether this approach is optimized to meet the needs of disasters in the 21st century and whether response spending should be mitigated through proactive and routine appropriations toward resilience targets.</p>","PeriodicalId":38336,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Emergency Management","volume":"22 5","pages":"519-534"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Emergency Management","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.5055/jem.0873","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Federal appropriation for disaster prevention through recovery occurs across a complex landscape of funding mechanisms. Emergency supplemental appropriations are one such mechanism and increasingly a way that Congress funds disasters. These bills also often include nondisaster-related spending. To better identify congressional tendencies in the use of emergency appropriations for disasters, including the frequency and dollar value of such spending, we analyzed publicly available data on emergency appropriations over the first two decades of the 21st century. Using legislative appropriations data from the Congressional Budget Office for all supplemental appropriations enacted for fiscal years 2000 through 2020, we calculated that nondefense spending for disasters via supplemental appropriation represented USD 1.024 trillion in budget authority across 40 bills over this period. Natural disaster emergencies accounted for 58 percent of the federal government's emergency supplemental spending, with the rest generally related to Global War on Terror and other military activities. Among the spending prompted by presidential request, the difference between how much funding the president had requested for that emergency (if any) and a congressional appropriation of emergency funding reveals no apparent trend over the time period studied, although confirmatory analysis is obscured by a dearth of data points. As the risk of disasters and, particularly, the rate and size of billion-dollar disasters increases, characterizing the congressional approach to the funding of disasters may allow improved understanding of whether this approach is optimized to meet the needs of disasters in the 21st century and whether response spending should be mitigated through proactive and routine appropriations toward resilience targets.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
美国联邦灾害紧急补充拨款的使用趋势。
从灾害预防到灾后恢复的联邦拨款涉及各种复杂的筹资机制。紧急补充拨款就是这样一种机制,而且越来越多地成为国会为灾害提供资金的一种方式。这些法案通常也包括与灾害无关的支出。为了更好地确定国会在使用灾害紧急拨款方面的趋势,包括此类支出的频率和金额,我们分析了 21 世纪前 20 年紧急拨款的公开数据。利用国会预算办公室提供的 2000 财年至 2020 财年颁布的所有补充拨款的立法拨款数据,我们计算出在此期间通过补充拨款用于灾害的非国防支出在 40 项法案中占预算授权的 1.024 万亿美元。自然灾害紧急支出占联邦政府紧急补充支出的 58%,其余一般与全球反恐战争和其他军事活动有关。在由总统申请的支出中,总统为该紧急事件申请的资金数额(如果有的话)与国会紧急拨款之间的差额在研究期间没有显示出明显的趋势,尽管由于数据点的缺乏而无法进行确认分析。随着灾害风险的增加,尤其是十亿美元级灾害的发生率和规模的增加,对国会的灾害拨款方式进行分析,可以更好地了解这种方式是否能够满足 21 世纪的灾害需求,以及是否应该通过积极主动的常规拨款来减少应对灾害的支出,从而实现抗灾目标。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Emergency Management
Journal of Emergency Management Medicine-Emergency Medicine
CiteScore
1.20
自引率
0.00%
发文量
67
期刊最新文献
United front: Emergency management managers, public health, and infection prevention. What's next for the disaster profession? A study of the opinions of local and state emergency managers and their recommendations for a more resilient future. A case study of university mass casualty simulation with high school deaf students who sign. A qualitative analysis of the effects of the COVID-19 response on low-income residents in Cameron County, Texas: Lessons for future pandemic response. Beirut 2020 explosion and health system response: An alarm for the dangerous consequences of Natech incidents in industrial cities.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1