Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning 

Guide for State Governments

November 2016
FEMA Publication Number: 104-008-3
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACRONYMS ........................................................................................................................................iv

I. INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1

Purpose of this Guide .........................................................................................................................3

Audience ............................................................................................................................................3

Presidential Policy Directive 8.............................................................................................................5

National Preparedness Goal.................................................................................................................5

II. NATIONAL CONTEXT FOR PRE-DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING ...........................................5

National Disaster Recovery Framework ...............................................................................................7

National Mitigation Framework ..........................................................................................................8

Recovery Activities are Locally Driven ................................................................................................9

Disaster Recovery Planning is Broad and Inclusive..............................................................................9

Recovery Planning is Holistic and Long Term.....................................................................................9

III. KEY CONCEPTS FOR STATE-LEVEL RECOVERY PLANNING .......................................................9

State-Level Planning is Necessary for Disasters of All Sizes................................................................10

Recovery Planning is Closely Aligned with Hazard Mitigation and Building Resilience....................10

IV. PRE-DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING AND RESPONSE PLANNING LINKAGES ....................13

V. PRE-DISASTER AND POST-DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING LINKAGES ................................15

VI. THE STATE PRE-DISASTER RECOVERY PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS .................................17

A. Step 1 – Form a Collaborative Planning Team ..............................................................................18

B. Step 2 – Understand the Situation .................................................................................................21

C. Step 3 – Determine Goals and Objectives .....................................................................................25

D. Step 4 – Plan Development ..........................................................................................................27

E. Step 5 – Plan Preparation, Review, and Approval ..........................................................................52

F. Step 6 – Plan Implementation and Maintenance ...........................................................................53
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page ii

VII. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................................................57

APPENDIX A: REFERENCES ...............................................................................................................59

APPENDIX B: FACTORS FOR A SUCCESSFUL RECOVERY ............................................................... 61

Short Term (days): ............................................................................................................................65

Intermediate Term (weeks-months):.................................................................................................65

APPENDIX C: SUCCESSFUL RECOVERY OUTCOMES ......................................................................65

Long Term (months-years):...............................................................................................................66

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and Disaster Recovery and Preparedness ...............................69

APPENDIX D: STATE RECOVERY COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT CASE STUDIES ............69

State of Mississippi's Recovery Management Following Katrina ........................................................71

State of New York's Recovery Coordination and Management Following Hurricane Sandy .............73

State of Louisiana's Recovery Management Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita .......................... 76

State of Colorado's Recovery Management Following Flooding and Landslides in 2013....................79

APPENDIX E: PLANNING CHECKLIST .............................................................................................83

APPENDIX F: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................95
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page iii

Figures

Figure 1 Relationships between Different Levels of Government .........................................................7

Figure 2 Types of Planning Activities..................................................................................................15

Figure 3 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide Planning Steps..............................................................17

Figure 4 The Cyclical Nature of Planning ...........................................................................................22

Figure 5 Disaster Types .......................................................................................................................24

Figure 6 Components of a Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan. .......................................................................53

Figure 7 The Recovery Continuum .....................................................................................................67

Figure 8 The Pennsylvania Recovery Resources Team Organizational Structure.................................70

Tables

Table 1 Types of Planning Activities Pre- and Post-Disaster ................................................................ 16

Table 2 Suggested Stakeholders and Partners to address Recovery Core Capabilities ..........................19

Table 3 Different Plans and their Relevance to Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning ..................................23

Table 4 The Roles of Coordinating and Primary Agencies, and Supporting Organizations ................32

Table 5 Federal Recovery Support Functions, Their Missions, and Suggested Participating Agencies..33

Table 6 Considerations for Addressing Core Capabilities.....................................................................45

Table 7 Considerations for Addressing Success Factors........................................................................47
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page iv

Acronyms

The list below applies to acronyms used throughout the base document. Acronyms may be included in 

Appendices and will be defined as they are used. 

Acronym Definition

ADA Americans with Disabilities Act 

BRC Blue Ribbon Fire Commission

CDBG-DR Community Development Block Grant – Disaster Recovery

CDRP Commonwealth Disaster Recovery Plan

CERT Community Emergency Response Teams

CPCB RSF Community Planning and Capacity Building Recovery Support Function 

CPG Comprehensive Preparedness Guide

CRRO Colorado Resiliency and Recovery Office

CRWG Colorado Resilience Working Group

DCED Department of Community and Economic Development

DOLA Department of Local Affairs

EDA U.S. Economic Development Administration

EMAC Emergency Management Assistance Compact

FDRC Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency

GORR Governor's Office of Recovery and Renewal

GOSR Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery

HUD U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development

IA Individual Assistance

JFO Joint Field Office 

LDRM Local Disaster Recovery Manager

LRA Louisiana Recovery Authority

MDA Mississippi Development Authority

NDRF National Disaster Recovery Framework

NGO Nongovernmental Organization

NPR National Preparedness Report

NYRCRP NY Rising Community Reconstruction Program

PA Public Assistance

PPD-8 Presidential Policy Directive – 8

RRT Recovery Resources Team

RSF Recovery Support Function

SDRC State Disaster Recovery Coordinator

SWAPDD Southwest Arkansas Planning and Development District

TDRC Tribal Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

THIRA Threat and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment
Page 1

I. Introduction

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) designed this planning guide to help States and 

territories prepare for recovery by developing pre-disaster recovery plans that follow a process to 

engage members of the whole community, develop recovery capabilities across State government and 

nongovernmental partners, and ultimately create an organizational framework for comprehensive State 

recovery efforts. 

In the United States, disasters are a regular occurrence throughout the year and all over the country, potentially 

impacting millions of lives and costing billions of dollars. In fact, in 2011 and 2012, there were 1,107 fatalities 

and up to $188 billion in economic damages as a result 

of extreme weather events.1 While different States are 

susceptible to different types of disasters, all States can 

take steps to be more resilient and prepared to begin 

a comprehensive, whole-community recovery effort 

immediately after a disaster strikes.

The State plays a critical role in leading and 

organizing recovery and supporting communities 

during their disaster recovery efforts. Disaster 

recovery is largely a locally driven, wholecommunity process that enables local stakeholders to 

determine their community’s unique needs and goals 

for recovery and resilience. Pre-disaster planning at 

the State level positions the State to take a proactive stance for recovery prior to and after the disaster strikes. 

Developing a pre-disaster recovery plan equips States with the structure, process, roles, and policies to be 

well prepared to meet the unique recovery needs of each of their communities. 

A pre-disaster recovery plan, and the inclusive process used to develop it, establishes resilience through 

State-level leadership and structure, forms communication channels, and builds whole-community2

partnerships to support recovery efforts. 

A State recovery plan sets the stage for necessary strategic, operational, and tactical post-disaster planning, 

actions, and processes. A plan also facilitates capacity building by preparing State-level agencies and 

recovery stakeholders to anticipate the needs of post-disaster recovery management and planning challenges 

prior to the disaster. It can also accelerate the delivery of resources, including funding and technical 

assistance, to disaster-impacted communities. A recovery plan prepares State agencies to more easily adapt to 

new post-disaster roles needed to manage new or modified sources of State and Federal recovery resources. 

1 Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman, Disastrous Spending: Federal Disaster: Relief Expenditures Rise amid More Extreme Weather, (Washington: Center for 

American Progress, 2013), available at: https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/green/report/2013/04/29/61633/disastrous-spending-Federal-disaster-reliefexpenditures-rise-amid-more-extreme-weather/

2 Whole Community includes “not only FEMA and its partners at the Federal level, but also local, tribal, State and territorial partners; nongovernmental 

organizations like faith-based and non-profit groups and private sector industry; to individuals, families and communities the composition of the community 

and the individual needs of community members, regardless of age, economics, or accessibility requirements, must be accounted for when planning and 

implementing disaster strategies.” (From www.fema.gov/whole-community)

“Without a comprehensive, long-term recovery 

plan, ad hoc efforts in the aftermath of a 

significant disaster will delay the return of 

community stability. Creating a process to make 

smart post-disaster decisions and prepare for 

long-term recovery requirements enables a 

community to do more than react....”

—Florida Department of Community Affairs & 

Florida Division of Emergency Management, Post 

Disaster Redevelopment Planning: A Guide for 

Florida Communities.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 2

For example, State agencies focused on emergency management and other agencies key to recovery efforts, 

such as an economic development agency, often have different perspectives on the appropriate scope 

of recovery activities. This can lead to coordination problems after a disaster. By involving emergency 

managers and economic development professionals in the pre-disaster planning process, they can gain 

a better understanding of how recovery relates to response efforts, allowing both processes to operate 

efficiently.

Communities often look to their State government for assistance, leadership, and support after a disaster. 

When a State can begin helping communities recover immediately, it reinforces local confidence in the 

State’s ability to lead and instills confidence with Federal partners and other resource providers. It clearly 

shows that the State is prepared for multi-level facilitation and coordination roles it will have to perform in 

disaster recovery.

A pre-disaster recovery plan clearly identifies to all stakeholders the goals of pre-disaster recovery, the State’s 

priorities and policies, and the roles and responsibilities of different State-level stakeholders in supporting 

the recovery process after a disaster. This enables external partners to easily integrate with the recovery 

process, and understand how the State manages recovery, and sets general expectations for all involved 

parties. 

Why Prepare a State Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan?

• Establish clear leadership roles, including the 

Governor’s Office, for more decisive and early 

leadership.

• Improve public confidence in State leadership through 

early, on-going, and consistent communication of 

short- and long-term priorities.

• Avoid often-difficult, ad hoc process of post-disaster 

discovery of new roles, resources, and roadblocks.

• Gain support from whole-community partnerships 

necessary to support individuals, businesses, and 

communities.

• Improve stakeholder and disaster survivor 

involvement after the disaster through a definition 

of outreach resources and two-way communication 

methods the State will employ.

• Maximize Federal, private sector, and 

nongovernmental dollars through early and more 

defined State funding priorities and post-disaster 

planning activity.

• Facilitate more rapid and effective access to Federal 

resources through better understanding of funding 

resources and requirements ahead of time.

• Enable State leadership to bring to bear all State 

capability, and more easily identify gaps, through a 

coordination structure and defined roles. 

• Better leverage and apply limited State and 

nongovernment resources when there is no Federal 

disaster declaration.

• Maximize opportunities to build resilience and risk 

reduction into all aspects of rebuilding.

• Speed identification of local recovery needs and 

resources and ultimately reduce costs and disruption 

that result from chaotic, ad hoc, or inefficient 

allocation of resources. 

• Improve capability of local governments through 

pre-identification of when and how the State offers 

support for local government post-disaster planning, 

capacity needs, recovery management, and technical 

assistance.

• Proactively confront recovery and redevelopment 

policy choices in the deliberative and less 

contentious pre-disaster environment.

• Improve ability to interface with Federal Recovery 

Support Function (RSF) structure.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 3

Governor Hunt of North Carolina on 

Hurricane Floyd recovery and the 

importance of a recovery plan: 

“So it’s a body slam for a while. And what you want 

to do is ... to meet the needs to rebuild and to do 

it quickly so that you can limit it instead of taking 

five years to come back you can do it in two and a 

half or three years. By the way, that’s probably as 

fast as you can do it in many cases. People think 

you can get over it all of a sudden. You’re not. 

But you’ve got to be prepared; you’ve got to have 

a redevelopment commission; you’ve got to have 

enough funds; the governor's got to give it constant 

leadership, and stay on people.

I think ... the major challenge for a State is to build 

the State infrastructure so that you are ready to 

deal with the disaster effectively. That means you 

have to plan for it, get ready for it, rehearse for it, 

practice it. ... if you don’t have a State disaster 

[recovery] center ... you have to have one scoped 

out so that you can put it in place immediately with 

top officials when ... the disaster comes. ... don’t 

look upon a disaster as just an emergency. You 

look upon it as something that’s going to regularly 

happen. And you have to regularly be ready for it." 

Smith, Sabbag, Rohmer (2016). Disaster Recovery: 

A Comparative Analysis of Gubernatorial Leadership, 

Collaboration, and Capacity Building

PURPOSE OF THIS GUIDE 

The planning process outlined in this document 

directly aligns with the foundational six-step 

planning process of the National Planning System 

as defined in Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 – 

Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans3

(CPG 101). This document presents considerations 

for following the six-step planning process that 

are specific to pre-disaster recovery planning 

at the State level. This document also focuses 

more specifically on the challenges and unique 

partnerships necessary for successful, inclusive 

recovery. 

AUDIENCE 

The primary audience for this guide is State 

government4

 leadership and other stakeholders

who will be involved in the recovery process after a 

disaster. Examples of these leaders and stakeholders 

include governors and other elected officials, State 

agency leadership, and other partners from the 

whole community that have the capacity to support 

a recovery effort. FEMA has created separate 

recovery planning guides for the unique 

circumstances of tribal and local governments.

The remains of a home ravaged by fire after a disaster.

3 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101 – Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans: http://www.fema.gov/library/viewRecord.do?=&id=5697 4 Similar guides are being developed for local government and tribal government audiences. Once finalized, they will be available at https://www.fema.gov/

resource-document-library
Page 4
Page 5

II. National Context for

Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning

There are several overarching Federal statements 

of doctrine and policy that provide the context 

for State, tribal, territorial, and local recovery 

planning, as well as the recovery efforts of 

businesses, nongovernmental organizations 

(NGOs), individuals, and families. This guide 

provides further instruction on applying this 

national doctrine to recovery planning. 

PRESIDENTIAL POLICY DIRECTIVE 8

Presidential Policy Directive 8: National Preparedness5 

describes the Nation’s approach to preparing 

for the threats and hazards it faces. At its core, 

PPD-8 requires the involvement of the whole 

community in a systematic effort to keep the 

Nation safe from harm and resilient when struck 

by natural disasters, acts of terrorism, pandemics, 

and other disasters. It directs the development of 

a National Preparedness Goal. 

NATIONAL PREPAREDNESS GOAL

The National Preparedness Goal,

6

 defined in response to 

the requirements of PPD-8, identifies success as:

“A secure and resilient nation with the 

capabilities required across the whole community 

to prevent, protect against, mitigate, respond to, 

and recover from the threats and hazards that 

pose the greatest risk.”

Primary Sources for This Guide

In addition to the expertise provided by several 

working groups, this guide builds on general 

planning concepts included in the following 

documents, among others:

•

National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF)7

•

• National Mitigation Framework

Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for

State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents

•

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 201 – Threat

and Hazard Identification and Risk Assessment,

Second Edition (THIRA)

•

Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101

– Developing and Maintaining Emergency

Operations Plans (CPG 101, Version 2.0)

•

State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide – Coastal

Hazards Center of Excellence, University of North

Carolina Chapel Hill

•

Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act

• State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Planning Guidance

Recovery leadership and stakeholders speak to the 

public.

5 Presidential Policy Directive 8: https://www.fema.gov/learn-about-presidential-policy-directive-8 6

 The National Preparedness Goal: http://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal 7

 The National Disaster Recovery Framework: www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 6

The National Preparedness Goal identifies five 

mission areas (Prevention, Protection, 

Mitigation, Response, and Recovery) used 

to organize preparedness activities. Within 

these mission areas, the National Preparedness Goal

defines Core Capabilities necessary to prepare 

for the specific types of risks and hazards 

that pose the greatest risk to the security 

of the Nation. Core Capabilities represent 

the competencies necessary for the timely 

restoration, strengthening, and revitalization 

of communities impacted by a catastrophic 

disaster. The National Preparedness Goal, along 

with the NDRF and all other frameworks, 

were refreshed during 2015 to address 

lessons learned through implementation 

and stakeholder feedback. A number of 

new guidance documents will help the 

general public, businesses, NGOs, and all 

levels of government make the most of their 

preparedness activities. This guide supports 

the achievement of this goal at the State level 

by providing additional guidance to States for 

pre-disaster recovery planning to augment 

information in the National Preparedness Goal and 

in the NDRF. 

PPD-8 requires an annual National 

Preparedness Report (NPR) that summarizes 

national progress in building, sustaining, 

and delivering the Core Capabilities outlined 

in the National Preparedness Goal. The intent of 

the NPR is to provide the Nation—not just 

the Federal government—with practical 

insights on Core Capabilities that can inform 

decisions about program priorities, resource 

allocation, and community actions. Since 

2012, the Core Capabilities within the 

Recovery Mission Area have consistently 

emerged as areas for improvement.

The Recovery mission area includes eight of 

these Core Capabilities (see discussion point). 

Addressing these distinct critical elements 

is necessary to achieve the National Preparedness 

Goal for recovery. 

Discussion Point: 

Recovery Core Capabilities

The National Preparedness Goal defines eight Core 

Capabilities that apply to the Recovery mission area. The 

efforts of the whole community—not any one level of 

government—are required to build, sustain, and deliver the 

Core Capabilities.

• Planning – Conduct a systematic process engaging the

whole community as appropriate in the development

of executable strategic, operational, and/or tactical

approaches to meet defined objectives.

• Public Information and Warning – Deliver coordinated,

prompt, reliable, and actionable information to the

whole community through the use of clear, consistent,

accessible, and culturally and linguistically appropriate

methods to effectively relay information regarding any

threat or hazard and, as appropriate, the actions being

taken and the assistance being made available.

• Operational Coordination – Establish and maintain

a unified and coordinated operational structure and

process that appropriately integrates all critical

stakeholders and supports the execution of Core

Capabilities.

• Economic Recovery – Return economic and business

activities (including food and agriculture) to a healthy

state and develop new business and employment

opportunities that result in a sustainable and

economically viable community.

• Health and Social Services – Restore and improve

health and social services capabilities and networks

to promote the resilience, independence, health

(including behavioral health), and well-being of the whole

community.

• Housing – Implement housing solutions that effectively

support the needs of the whole community and

contribute to its sustainability and resilience.

• Infrastructure Systems – Stabilize critical infrastructure

functions, minimize health and safety threats, and

efficiently restore and revitalize systems and services to

support a viable, resilient community.

• Natural and Cultural Resources – Protect natural and

cultural resources and historic properties through

appropriate planning, mitigation, response, and recovery

actions to preserve, conserve, rehabilitate, and restore

them consistent with post-disaster community priorities

and best practices and in compliance with appropriate

environmental and historic preservation laws and

executive orders.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 7

NATIONAL DISASTER RECOVERY FRAMEWORK

The NDRF provides guidance regarding the State role in preparing for and implementing recovery, as well 

as guidance to all other stakeholders in recovery. It also establishes guiding principles, best practices, and 

expectations to enable efficient and effective recovery support and coordination. It is built upon a scalable, 

flexible, and adaptable coordinating structure intended to align key roles and responsibilities to deliver the 

necessary Core Capabilities. The strategies it identifies should inform State recovery planning. 

The NDRF also identifies recommended leadership 

responsibilities at the State, tribal, territorial, local 

and Federal levels throughout different stages of the 

recovery process, including pre-disaster. The role of 

the State is to lead, manage, and drive the State-level 

recovery process, support local and community 

recovery efforts, keep the public informed, and be 

responsible for coordinating the State’s recovery 

activities and providing financial and technical 

support. The State acts as a conduit for delivery 

of many Federal assistance programs to the local 

level. The State also develops programs and secures 

funding for implementation of many recovery 

projects. Figure 1 depicts the relationships between 

different levels of government during disaster 

recovery.

Another key feature of the NDRF is its use of 

Recovery Support Functions (RSFs) to organize 

Federal resources. The six RSFs—Community 

Planning and Capacity Building, Economic, Health 

and Social Services, Housing, Infrastructure, 

and Natural and Cultural Resources—compose 

a flexible recovery structure that is designed to 

support State, tribal, territorial, and local recovery 

structures. This guide will discuss how the State 

may develop its own RSF structure to meet Statespecific needs and goals.

Figure 1 Relationships between Different Levels 

of Government
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 8

NATIONAL MITIGATION FRAMEWORK

The National Mitigation Framework establishes a 

common platform and forum for coordinating 

and addressing how the Nation manages risk 

through mitigation capabilities. Mitigation reduces 

the impact of disasters by supporting protection 

and prevention activities, easing response, and 

speeding recovery to create better prepared and 

more resilient communities. 

During the recovery planning and coordination 

process, actions can be taken to address the 

resilience of State, tribal, territorial, or local 

communities. The NDRF defines resilience as 

the ability to adapt to changing conditions, and 

withstand and rapidly recover from disruption 

due to emergencies, while mitigation includes 

the capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and 

property by lessening the impact of a disaster. 

Consideration should be given to integration of 

the National Mitigation Framework and mitigation 

Core Capabilities into the structure, policies, and 

roles developed during the course of building a 

State recovery plan. A recovery plan can contain 

important elements to operationalize mitigation 

Core Capabilities during the recovery period.

Discussion Point: 

Mitigation Core Capabilities

The National Preparedness Goal defines seven Core 

Capabilities that apply to the Mitigation mission 

area. The first three are common Core Capabilities, 

shared with all mission areas.

• Planning

• Public Information and Warning

• Operational Coordination

• Community Resilience

• Long-Term Vulnerability Reduction

• Risk and Disaster Resilience Assessment

• Threats and Hazards Identification

Colorado recovery leadership and Federal recovery 

leadership discuss Federal disaster recovery 

coordination.
Page 9

III. Key Concepts for

State-Level Recovery Planning

Through years of national, State, tribal, and local experiences implementing disaster recovery efforts, several 

key concepts have emerged as a foundation for successful pre- and post-disaster recovery planning. These 

concepts, discussed briefly below, are expanded upon in greater detail throughout the NDRF.

RECOVERY ACTIVITIES ARE LOCALLY DRIVEN

Disasters are local, and impacted communities lead their own recovery with State support. In some cases, 

a community may not have the capacity or resources to address some or all of a disaster’s impacts. State 

recovery plans can better prepare the State government (along with State government partners, such as 

NGOs) to help the local government find resources, as well as coordinate and manage certain planning and 

implementation activities.

DISASTER RECOVERY PLANNING IS BROAD AND INCLUSIVE

Multiple stakeholders, agencies, and organizations have an interest or role in recovery. Planning for inclusive 

recovery is therefore a shared responsibility. It involves State agencies, regional planning organizations, State 

and local foundations, community development organizations, community leaders, the private sector, and 

other organizations. All of these groups, working together support recovery planning and implementation 

after a disaster strikes. Each group brings its stakeholders into the process. 

The State should take efforts internally, as well as encourage communities, to focus on including all population 

segments as contributors to the recovery process, including seniors; individuals with disabilities and others 

with access and functional needs; those from religious, racial, and ethnically diverse backgrounds; and people 

with limited English proficiency. People with disabilities and others with access and functional needs are often 

disproportionately, adversely impacted by disasters. As emphasized in the Department of Justice Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA) Guide for Local Governments,8

 recovery planning, both before and after a disaster, must include at 

the onset, people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs to prevent delays or exclusion 

in post-disaster recovery efforts. For example, affected populations may need to relocate, and including these 

stakeholders in pre- and post-disaster planning processes helps to better integrate their needs in plans and 

recovery actions. State and local community leaders must engage all individuals in the whole community to 

effectively plan for an inclusive recovery effort.

RECOVERY PLANNING IS HOLISTIC AND LONG TERM

Recovery activities may continue for months or years after a disaster and the organizational structure 

for overseeing recovery will need to be flexible and durable in order to appropriately carry out its 

responsibilities. The pre-disaster recovery planning process should address all of the Core Capabilities, and 

include relevant State capabilities assessments, such as State Preparedness Reports, and other activities that 

support building community resilience. 

8 U.S. Department of Justice, An ADA Guide for Local Governments: Making Community Emergency Preparedness and Response Programs Accessible to People 

with Disabilities: http://www.ada.gov/emerprepguideprt.pdf
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 10

STATE-LEVEL PLANNING IS NECESSARY FOR DISASTERS OF ALL SIZES

States will be better prepared to address recovery needs regardless of the level of Federal support available 

to them through development of a full recovery plan that includes a range of resources for all sizes and 

types of disasters. In the case of Presidentially declared disasters, more Federal resources may be deployed 

to States to support their recovery. In the case of non-Presidentially declared disasters, development of 

a plan enables the impacted State to leverage existing capacity and resources more effectively to address 

needs. Having an inclusive pre-disaster recovery plan and a structure in place to support recovery is critical 

to ensure that the State is prepared to support recovery from any disaster.

RECOVERY PLANNING IS CLOSELY ALIGNED WITH HAZARD MITIGATION AND 

BUILDING RESILIENCE 

Increasing resilience, defined in the National Preparedness Goal as “the ability to adapt to changing conditions 

and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption due to emergencies,” is a key goal of both hazard 

mitigation and recovery. The shared objective of increased resilience allows mitigation and recovery 

planning to reinforce one another and leverage greater benefits. Ideally, resilience is developed before 

a disaster and opportunities to increase it are continually considered within the development of plans, 

programs, or projects. Because both mitigation and recovery planning can be carried out pre-disaster, 

there is generally ample time to coordinate activities and promote more widespread attention to resilience. 

Recovery planning can support hazard mitigation and resilience building by providing a post-disaster 

mechanism for implementation and integration into the roles, processes, and decisions that occur in the 

complex recovery environment. 

Additionally, much of the research involved in the development of mitigation plans can be used to inform 

the pre-disaster recovery planning effort. The State mitigation plan is a very useful starting point for 

research for the pre-disaster recovery plan.

The pre-disaster recovery planning process will benefit from and build upon hazard mitigation as:

• The mitigation planning process identifies local hazards, risks, exposures, and vulnerabilities;

• Implementation of mitigation policies and strategies will reduce the likelihood or degree of disasterrelated damage, decreasing demand on resources post-disaster;

• The process will identify potential solutions to future anticipated community problems; and

• Mitigation activities will increase public awareness of the need for disaster preparedness.

Pre-disaster recovery planning efforts also increase resilience by:

• Establishing partnerships, organizational structures, communication resources, and access to resources

that promote a more rapid and inclusive recovery process;

• Describing how hazard mitigation will underlie all considerations for reinvestment;

• Laying out a process for implementation of activities that will increase resilience; and

• Increasing awareness of resilience as an important consideration in all community activities.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 11

Building Resilience Into the Recovery Process – The National Mitigation Framework

Recovery offers a unique opportunity to reduce future 

risk. Following any disaster, recovery efforts can be 

leveraged to implement solutions that will increase 

community resilience in the economic, housing, natural 

and cultural resources, infrastructure, and health and 

social services, and government sectors. Well planned, 

inclusive, coordinated, and executed solutions can 

build capacity and capability, and enable a community 

to better manage future disasters. 

The National Mitigation Framework establishes a 

common platform and forum for coordinating and 

addressing how the Nation manages risk through 

mitigation capabilities. Mitigation reduces the impact 

of disasters by supporting protection and prevention 

activities, easing response, and speeding recovery to 

create better prepared and more resilient communities. 

The mitigation and recovery mission areas focus on 

the same community systems—community capacity, 

economic, health and social services, housing, 

infrastructure, and natural and cultural resources—to 

increase resilience. Cross-mission area integration 

activities, such as planning, are essential to ensuring 

that risk avoidance and risk reduction actions are 

taken during the recovery process. Communities have 

developed Hazard Mitigation Plans, which outline 

strategies and priorities to further community resiliency 

through mitigation. Following a disaster, integrating 

mitigation actions into practices. Integrating mitigation 

actions into pre- and post-disaster recovery plans 

will also provide systematic risk management after 

a disaster, with effective strategies for an efficient 

recovery process. 

Recovery projects that increase resilience can occur 

in any of the community systems outlined above. For 

instance, housing and infrastructure projects may 

increase resilience by rebuilding housing to meet 

new building and accessibility codes that minimize 

future damages or relocating critical infrastructure 

out of hazardous areas. Other resilience strategies 

could focus on diversifying the economy and bringing 

in sustainable industries or assisting community 

organizations to increase the resilience of all 

populations through preparedness efforts. Using 

innovative solutions to address recovery needs is 

an important consideration in developing recovery 

strategies. State, tribal, territorial, and local 

communities can look to a wide range of organizations 

for help in increasing resiliency, such as the Rockefeller 

Foundation or various university centers and research 

institutes. 

Lessons learned during the recovery process also 

inform future mitigation actions and pre-disaster 

recovery planning. Linking recovery and mitigation 

breaks the cycle of damage-repair-damage resulting 

from rebuilding without mitigation following disasters.
Page 12

Discussion Point: Equity in Disaster Planning and Recovery

Disasters can disproportionately affect some members of the community, including low-income, aging, functional and 

access needs, and minority populations. These groups are more likely to be displaced and have more limited access 

to resources, mobility issues, or difficulty participating or being represented in recovery planning and community 

activities. The planning process should evaluate the risk of these groups and their likelihood of displacement and 

establish a strategy for basic communication, as well as a plan for ensuring equal participation in post-disaster 

recovery planning and decisions.

For example, housing construction costs and replacement home values are likely to increase as a result of increased 

demand and reduced supply in a significant disaster. This can disproportionately affect the ability of the low- or 

fixed-income residents to find adequate and safe housing. Hazard mitigation strategies used after a disaster, such as 

buyouts, can also have the effect of reducing the stock of affordable housing if housing redevelopment plans are not 

adequately addressed. The community’s affordable and fair housing plans should be coordinated with its recovery plan 

to ensure that all residents can participate and are served in recovery and that workforce housing can be replaced. For 

communities receiving Community Development Block Grant funds, the Consolidated Plan can also address recovery 

and resilience issues.

Housing support or mitigation programs should take care to ensure equal access where possible. In some cases, 

resources from Federal, State, or non-governmental agencies can be used to augment housing or mitigation programs 

to encourage the participation of these groups or assist in the redevelopment of affordable housing in safe areas.
Page 13

IV. Pre-Disaster Recovery

Planning and Response 

Planning Linkages

While closely linked, response and recovery are 

fundamentally different elements of disaster 

management. Initially, when disaster strikes, 

response activities demand the most attention. 

Emergency responders address the most urgent 

and immediate needs of disaster-impacted 

communities, including food, water, shelter, and 

medical attention. Recovery, however, addresses 

short-, intermediate-, and long-term needs with a 

focus on rebuilding in a resilient way. The recovery 

process begins during response, soon after a 

disaster strikes. 

The National Planning System as defined in CPG 

101 serves as the foundation for all emergency 

planning and provides a six-step foundational 

process used to develop most response plans. 

Because the process presented in this guide also 

follows the CPG 101 process, pre-disaster recovery 

plans can build on the same straight-forward 

planning steps or concepts from response planning. 

Examples of similar fundamentals between the 

two processes include a community-based and 

inclusive planning process; analytical problemsolving processes, the consideration of a variety of 

hazards, risks, and vulnerabilities; flexibility; and 

the identification of goals. Furthermore, effective 

plans for both response and recovery delegate 

responsibility and authority, and contribute to 

overall community preparedness ahead of disasters.

Case Example: 

Arizona Disaster Recovery Framework

Arizona developed a recovery framework that 

describes the roles and responsibilities of different 

stakeholders. It also identifies the link between 

response and recovery: 

“Recovery Support Function structure coexists with 

and builds upon the Emergency Support Functions 

under the National Response Framework.

Because recovery cannot wait until those occupied 

with response have time and space to start 

thinking about recovery, a discrete and wellresourced recovery focus is established up front 

to ensure that communities are well positioned 

for major reconstruction and redevelopment. The 

State Disaster Recovery Coordinator will engage 

with the Recovery Support Function agencies to 

organize and coordinate State recovery assistance 

as the level of response activities declines, and 

RSF coordinators will work closely with ESF leads 

to share information about impacts, assistance 

provided, and working relationships at all levels. 

It is essential that State partners address 

responsibilities across the recovery continuum, 

including preparedness, mitigation, and 

development activities as well as post-disaster 

stabilization and recovery actions by creating 

supporting guidance and tools for recovery 

implementation.”9

9

 Arizona Disaster Recovery Framework, 2014: http://docplayer.net/1598475-Arizona-disaster-recovery-framework.html. The Arizona State Emergency Response 

and Recovery Plan is being revised as of November 2016. The draft can be found at https://dema.az.gov/sites/default/files/publications/EM-PLN_State_Emergency_

Response_and_Recovery_Plan-Basic_Plan_SERRP_2016FINAL_Oct7.pdf.
Page 14
Page 15

V. Pre-Disaster and Post-Disaster 

Recovery Planning Linkages 

The planning process is used to define goals,

objectives, and actions, before a disaster as well

as following a disaster. Planning in both contexts

is strategic, operational, and tactical. A predisaster plan can define what overarching goals

and processes will be used to coordinate and

manage recovery and to conduct disaster-specific

planning in response to a particular disaster that

has occurred. The post-disaster recovery planning

process integrates specific information and recovery

needs presented by the particular disaster with

long-term goals that are then adapted to fit the

circumstances of the disaster that has occurred.

This post-disaster planning process strives to

actively engage stakeholders in the public choices

to be made for recovery, including building

resilience into recovery approaches. Post-disaster

planning at the State level often takes the form of

high-level State recovery strategies or commission

reports, operational or action plans documenting

selected State priorities, or plans documenting

how interagency coordination and programs are

managed.

A variety of post-disaster planning steps can be

defined or agreed upon before a disaster occurs.

Understanding the range of potential needs,

establishing leadership and partnerships, reaching

consensus on priorities, and accomplishing other

planning activities through a pre-disaster planning

process will help to facilitate the post-disaster

recovery process. If completed in advance, States

will not need to spend valuable time organizing

themselves in the wake of a disaster. They will be

better prepared to address impacts immediately after

disaster strikes and develop a post-disaster recovery

plan with a vision, goals, objectives, and priorities

matched to available resources more quickly than if

pre-disaster planning does not take place.

Post-disaster recovery plan documents can take 

a variety of forms, and States will need to decide 

what types of documents will best suit their needs. 

Some States may chose to develop a formal written 

strategy or plan, while other may develop a robust, 

coordinated action plan for various grants, and 

others may create a legislative package or agenda 

that establishes State programs to support recovery. 

For example, some programs, such as U.S. 

Department of Housing and Urban Development's 

(HUD's) Community Development Block Grant 

– Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) often requires

an action plan for use of the funds. Pre-disaster, 

decisions can be made about what types of postdisaster plans will be developed, which entities 

will be responsible for developing those plans, or 

how plans will be coordinated. 

Figure 2 and Table 1 outline types of planning 

activities and the pre- and post-disaster tasks 

associated with each. While the process outlined 

in this guide addresses the tasks associated with 

all types of pre-disaster planning activities (i.e., 

strategic, operational, and tactical planning), it 

is important to remember that successful predisaster recovery planning will speed post-disaster 

planning and activities. Therefore, consideration of 

post-disaster planning tasks are equally important 

during pre-disaster planning.

Figure 2 Types of Planning Activities
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 16

Table 1 Types of Planning Activities Pre- and Post-Disaster 

Type of

 Planning Pre-Disaster Post-Disaster

STRATEGIC

Driven 

by policy, 

establishes 

planning 

priorities

• Develop a mitigation plan that establishes

long-term risk reduction priorities and

policies to guide post-disaster recovery and

redevelopment.

• Establish pre-disaster priorities and policies

to guide recovery and reinvestment across the

other recovery Core Capabilities.

• Develop an inclusive and accessible wholecommunity public engagement strategy.

• Evaluate current conditions; assess risk,

vulnerability, and potential community-wide

consequences.

• Integrate recovery and mitigation goals and

policies into other Federal, State, regional,

and community plans.

• Establish priorities and identify opportunities

to build resilience, including sustainable

development, equity, community capacity, and

mitigation measures.

• Evaluate community conditions, reassess

risk, evaluate needs, and forecast future

needs and trends.

• Set goals and objectives—short, intermediate

and long-term—engaging the public in the

process.

• Identify opportunities to build in future

resilience through mitigation.

• Consider standards for sustainable,

universally accessible, healthy community

design and construction that also integrates

mitigation and long-term resilience building

activities.

• Ensure policies are inclusive of the whole

community including people with disabilities

and others with access and functional needs.

OPERATIONAL

Describes roles 

and 

responsibilities, 

focuses on 

coordinating 

and integrating 

the activities 

of the whole 

community

• Establish clear leadership, operational

coordination, and decision-making structures

at the State, tribal, territorial, local, and

Federal levels.

• Develop pre-disaster partnerships to ensure

engagement of all potential resources.

• Identify and engage whole-community

stakeholders, including the general public,

community leaders, faith-based organizations,

nonprofit organizations, private sector

entities, and health providers (including

behavioral health).

• Identify limitations in community recovery

management capacity and the means to

supplement this capacity, such as training

and education, and make it available to all

stakeholders.

• Determine roles, responsibilities, and

resources of whole-community partners.

• Establish continuity of operations plans to

ensure essential recovery services can be

delivered during all circumstances.

• Organize, build on, and adapt as necessary,

pre-existing plans and priorities, including

pre-disaster recovery and mitigation plans.

• Use a community-driven and locally managed

process, designed to promote local decisionmaking and ownership of the recovery

planning and implementation effort.

• Work collaboratively with all groups of people

affected by the disaster to promote inclusive

and accessible outreach to their communities

and address issues relevant to them.

• Ensure inclusion and encourage participation

of individuals and communities that may

require alternative and/or additional outreach

support.

• Keep the public informed on all aspects of

recovery and encourage collaboration across

partners.

• Implement a coordination structure and

build partnerships among local agencies;

jurisdictions; and State, tribal, and Federal

governments.

• Develop tools and metrics for evaluating

progress against set goals, objectives, and

milestones.

TACTICAL 

Identifying 

specific 

projects and 

managing 

resources

• Establish specific local procedures,

requirements, regulations, or ordinances

to address specific, expected post-disaster

recovery actions.

• Establish specific plans, contracts, and

resources for tactical activities expected postdisaster (e.g., debris management, recovery

management, temporary housing, building

permitting).

• Identify, adapt, implement, and manage

actions, procedures, programs, requirements,

organizations, regulations, ordinances, and

policies to address specific needs.

• Identify specific projects in areas of

critical importance to the State, region, or

community’s overall recovery.

• Provide well-defined activities and outcomes,

including schedules and milestones, aimed at

achieving recovery.
Page 17

VI.The State Pre-Disaster Recovery

Plan Development Process

The process presented in this guide follows the foundational simple six-step planning model presented 

in CPG 101. By following CPG 101 and subsequently the activities outlined in the following sections of 

this guide, States will be able to create a written pre-disaster recovery plan that will aid them in effective 

leadership and management of recovery operations after a disaster. Each State can adapt this process to most 

effectively meet its unique needs. The six planning steps depicted in Figure 3 are interrelated. Forming a 

collaborative planning team comprising whole-community stakeholders allows planners to understand the 

situation from people with different areas of expertise and different viewpoints. Once the core planning 

team fully understands the situation, planning goals and objectives can be set. Goals and objectives are 

the basis for plan development, during which courses of action are developed and resources identified to 

support those courses of action. After courses of action are identified, the plan can be prepared, reviewed, 

and approved, then eventually implemented and periodically exercised to determine what, if any, changes 

or updates need to be made to the plan.

Figure 3 Comprehensive Preparedness Guide Planning Steps
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 18

A. STEP 1 – FORM A COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TEAM 

As explained in CPG 101, successful planning efforts are launched using a team made up of a variety 

of partners from the whole community. For pre-disaster recovery plans, it will be important to garner 

support for the planning effort and form a team of unique partners that will serve in leadership roles 

during recovery efforts. A collaborative recovery planning team will lead the pre-disaster recovery planning 

process and steer the group through the steps needed to prepare for recovery. 

Discussion Point: 

Engaging Partners in Recovery

A major challenge to involving different State 

agencies and other organizations in the recovery 

process is helping them understand their role in 

recovery, or why what they do on a day-to-day basis 

is relevant to planning for recovery and would be 

directly relevant to supporting recovery. There may 

be an expectation that the emergency management 

agency (or equivalent) would be responsible for 

directing recovery because they play a critical role 

during the short-term and intermediate phases of 

recovery with the implementation of assistance 

offered through the Stafford Act. 

However, recovery goes beyond activities typically 

associated with emergency management. Recovery 

is holistic in nature; at the State level, it is intended 

to address the State’s priorities and known disaster 

impacts. Because of recovery’s holistic nature, 

a variety of agencies and organizations, such as 

housing economic development, and disability 

organizations, play a role in the process. If they 

understand their roles ahead of time, they can 

begin supporting recovery immediately. If they do 

not understand their role and the importance and 

relevance of their subject matter expertise, they 

may not understand how they can support recovery. 

Recovery planning will be negatively impacted, 

because the resources or expertise those agencies 

bring to bear are not considered in pre-disaster 

planning efforts, nor in post-disaster recovery 

implementation efforts.

The Governor’s Office may designate members of 

the core recovery planning team based on existing 

State priorities and goals, taking into consideration 

previous recovery efforts and associated needs 

that were identified in the past. The recovery 

planning team may include representatives from 

the Governor’s Office and representatives from 

State agencies and other organizations that have 

expertise in fields such as community planning, 

economic development, infrastructure, and 

emergency management. Members of the State 

hazard mitigation planning team, and other 

existing planning teams, can also be considered 

and included. Table 2 lists suggested stakeholders 

and partners to address recovery Core Capabilities.

Getting Leadership Support 

Getting the support of the Governor’s Office 

and other elected leadership is an important 

step in developing a State-level, pre-disaster 

recovery plan. This support is key to ensuring 

that State agencies and other public and private 

organizations are active partners in the recovery 

planning process. A major challenge to defining 

roles and responsibilities for recovery is that many 

potential stakeholders may assume that recovery 

falls exclusively within the realm of emergency 

management. Although emergency management is 

an important stakeholder in the recovery process, 

recovery needs may go beyond the capacity of an 

emergency management agency. Therefore, it is 

important that State leadership be supportive of 

a holistic and inclusive planning process and that 

they encourage the active participation of all State 

agencies and public and private organizations.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 19

Table 2 Suggested Stakeholders and Partners to Address Recovery Core Capabilities 

Recovery Core Capability Suggested Stakeholders and Partners

PLANNING

Consider organizations that understand and practice strategic planning, such 

as emergency management, hazard management, and community development 

agencies or organizations. Professional planning and design organizations, 

such as the American Planning Association, American Institute of Architects, 

and American Society of Landscape Architects are also resources. Include 

regulators (such as zoning and permitting, safety, ADA coordinators) and those 

involved in the mitigation plan and other community development planning.

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND 

WARNING

Consider people and organizations with community outreach experience or 

expertise in effective and accessible mass communications, facilitation, and/

or civic engagement. Stakeholders should also have experience in reaching out 

to populations with access and functional needs. Involve public affairs officer or 

communications department.

OPERATIONAL 

COORDINATION

Consider leaders such as agency directors or staff from the Governor’s Office.

HEALTH AND SOCIAL 

SERVICES

Consider including representatives from State government departments, 

medical professionals, education departments, consumer and legal service 

organizations, and managers of non-profits providing disability and other 

services that support physical, programmatic, and effective communication 

access for the community. Also involve voluntary organizations that are active 

after a disaster and other organizations that represent the service and support 

needs of all community members, including immigrants and refugees, and 

people with disabilities, or access or functional needs.

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

Consider including economic and workforce development officials, 

representatives of Community Development Corporations, major employers, 

local business owners, representatives from employment and labor 

departments, labor organizations, and faculty from colleges and universities.

HOUSING

Consider including developers, residential construction companies, fair or 

affordable housing advocates, homeless organizations, representatives of 

housing agencies, and housing department staff.

INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS

Consider including public works officials and engineers. The American Society 

of Civil Engineers and other similar professional organizations are potential 

resources.

NATURAL AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Consider including historic preservation experts; members of cultural, museum, 

library, and archival organizations; members of landmarks, parks, and tree 

boards; and parks and environmental protection department staff.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 20

Involving and Engaging Other Stakeholders and Partners 

The collaborative planning team will evolve over time as other public and private agencies and 

organizations are identified as partners in the planning process. These partners may be governmental 

agencies or NGOs that have responsibilities or resources relevant to recovery and can assist with data 

collection or analysis, provide advice on planning policy development or provide other technical assistance 

(both pre- and post-disaster). These stakeholders should have knowledge, skills, and expertise in the Core 

Capability areas.

Using the Core Capabilities is one way to identify stakeholders and partners to engage in the pre-disaster 

recovery planning process. Table 2 on page 19 includes potential partners for each Core Capability. The 

table is not intended to be an exhaustive list.

External partnerships, such as those with community-based organizations, statewide professional organizations, 

chambers of commerce, or universities, facilitate the sharing of resources across and between jurisdictions. 

Communication and coordination with external partners pre-disaster will also help ensure that they are prepared 

to help the State and its communities recover more quickly after a disaster. 

The planning team and other stakeholders and partners should include people, or organizations, who will serve 

as advocates for the needs of children, seniors, those with disabilities and others with access and functional 

needs, those with limited English proficiency, and those from historically underserved and culturally sensitive 

populations. The planning team should also consider engaging local governments during the plan development 

and approval process, as they are a critical stakeholder in the recovery process.

Role of Emergency Management 

Recovery is multi-faceted and requires participation from a variety of agencies and organizations with 

different types of subject matter expertise. Recovery goes beyond emergency management. It requires the 

expertise and experience of stakeholders from a wide swath of agencies and organizations beyond those 

traditionally associated with response activities or short-term recovery. 

Emergency management is a critical partner in the recovery planning process. Emergency management 

agencies often lead the early phases of recovery and facilitate the transition from Emergency Support 

Functions to RSFs (or their analogous groups). Furthermore, emergency management agencies often 

direct FEMA Individual Assistance and Public Assistance programs, which are key resources for short-term 

recovery, stabilization, or repairing damaged eligible facilities. It is important to engage and coordinate 

these programs with broader resources for recovery and redevelopment. Emergency management provides 

on-the-ground knowledge of recovery issues and can provide very valuable situational awareness and 

communicate issues to other recovery stakeholders. 

To address the priorities that a State will identify through a recovery planning effort, which may include 

encouraging sustainable communities, promoting economic revitalization and new growth, or developing 

resilient infrastructure, including accessible transportation systems, the agencies and organizations involved 

in planning for recovery must have capabilities beyond that of an emergency management agency (or 

its equivalent). For example, encouraging sustainable communities may fall under the purview of a State 

department of community development; development of enhanced transportation infrastructure may 

fall under the purview of a State department of transportation; and economic growth may fall under the 

purview of the State economic development agency. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 21

The role of emergency management changes greatly from response to recovery. Initially, the role of the 

emergency management agency is to direct other agencies and organizations in responding to a disaster. As 

the State transitions into recovery, the emergency management agency will become one of many entities 

playing a role in the recovery organization. 

B. STEP 2 – UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION

In order to develop a pre-disaster recovery plan, it is important to understand and analyze current goals, 

known vulnerabilities, and the State’s capacity to manage the recovery process. In CPG 101 Step 2, the 

planning team will identify threats and hazards and assess the State’s risk. For this analysis, the planning 

team will utilize existing State planning products and will focus on a broad range of recovery-specific 

impacts. 

Existing Plans, Laws, Rules, and Regulations

The integration of goals from existing planning products into a pre-disaster recovery planning process can 

help inform basic recovery goals related to different sectors. Reviewing State plans, policies, or initiatives 

already in place during pre-disaster recovery planning will help minimize conflicts during post-disaster 

recovery planning and implementation. Analyzing and understanding the laws and authorities that govern 

the recovery process, recovery programs, steady-state programs, and authorities of different elements 

of State and local government helps to avoid problems faced when States design recovery processes or 

programs. Consider requirements such as the authority of the Governor or legislature to create or modify 

programs, regulations, or contracts quickly, or the applicability of laws requiring non-discrimination, equal 

access, and reasonable accommodations for people with disabilities.

Existing plans, policies, and initiatives should be reviewed and considered as part of the pre-disaster 

recovery planning process. These plans might include, at a minimum:

• Emergency operations plans and continuity plans 

• State affordable housing policies or plans, or temporary housing plans

• State hazard mitigation plans 

• Other State long-term plans, goals, and priorities

• Economic development or resiliency plans

There should be clear linkages defined among existing State plans and the recovery plan, which will foster 

more effective integration of State-level partners and their activities. In addition, connecting to State plans 

and programs can help leverage available resources and reduce duplication of effort. Finally, building 

upon existing State plans helps foster the integration of other State agencies in the pre-disaster recovery 

planning process and post-disaster implementation processes. Developing a set of policies integrated with 

State agencies addressing relevant functions such as community development, work force development, 

or affordable housing (many of whom are not traditionally associated with emergency management) 

is critically important as disaster recovery requires the active involvement of a diverse coalition of 

stakeholders.10

10 Gavin Smith and Dylan Sandler. State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Coastal Hazards Center of Excellence, 

The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2012), available at: http://coastalhazardscenter.org/dev/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/State-Disaster-RecoveryPlanning-Guide_2012.pdf
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 22

Developing a pre-disaster recovery plan is one piece of a cyclical planning process outlined in Figure 4. 

Existing plans and policies will inform the recovery plan. Conversely, the recovery plan, once implemented 

in a post-disaster setting, will facilitate a recovery process that may inform updates to existing plans. 

Examples of specific State plans, policies, or initiatives to be considered during a State-level, pre-disaster 

recovery planning process are included in Table 3 with an explanation of their relevance to the recovery 

planning process. The list of plans in this table is not exhaustive.

Figure 4 The Cyclical Nature of Planning
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 23

Table 3 Different Plans and Their Relevance to Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning

Plan Relevance 

EMERGENCY 

OPERATIONS PLAN

Understanding how the State addresses response issues will allow the recovery 

plan to address how the State will transition from response to recovery—

and help distinguish between emergency response issues that belong in an 

emergency operations plan and recovery issues that belong in a recovery plan. 

It will also integrate the emergency management agency (or equivalent) as a 

partner in the recovery planning process.

STATE HAZARD MITIGATION 

PLAN

A comprehensive State hazard mitigation plan is developed before a disaster 

occurs. The purpose of a State hazard mitigation plan is to identify local 

policies and actions that can be put in place to reduce risk and future losses 

from hazards. Using a public planning process that includes a wide range of 

stakeholders, statewide mitigation policies and actions are identified based 

on an assessment of hazards, vulnerabilities, and risks. Pre-disaster recovery 

planning should take these identified risks into account. Strategies identified in 

hazard mitigation plans also help determine post-disaster priorities and help to 

build resilience across the State. Additionally, the State hazard mitigation plan 

should include an evaluation of the existing hazard management programs and 

capabilities that can inform the pre-disaster recovery planning process.

THREAT AND HAZARD 

IDENTIFICATION AND RISK 

ASSESSMENT (THIRA)

THIRAs identify threats and hazards of concern in a State and analyze risk 

based on the Core Capabilities. This analysis involves developing targets and 

examining resources within the realm of each Core Capability. In relation to 

pre-disaster recovery planning, THIRAs not only help States understand their 

vulnerabilities, but they also present a starting point for the development of 

recovery goals and objectives.

STATE LAND USE/

COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

States that have land use plans (or policies), growth management plans or 

requirements, or other land use initiatives or regulations may incorporate those 

elements into their recovery plan. This way, statewide land use policies are 

considered during the post-disaster recovery process. Additionally, many States 

have environmental restoration/conservation strategies or habitat protection 

planning efforts that should be linked to the pre-disaster recovery planning 

process. Their inclusion in the pre-disaster recovery plan will help ensure these 

considerations, when relevant, surface soon after a disaster.

ECONOMIC AND 

WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 

PLANS

The State recovery plan should address State-level economic development 

initiatives with the understanding that economic recovery of communities may 

be supported with the strengthening of existing economic and/or workforce 

development plans. States often have economic development agencies that 

define their economic and workforce needs and work to address these needs 

by recruiting targeted industries and implementing workforce development 

programs.

OTHER STATE PLANS

Other plans, such as transportation and infrastructure plans, capital 

improvements plans, continuity of operations and government plans, housing 

plans, resilience plans, and climate action plans or strategies, may have 

recovery-relevant elements incorporated. Having a plan for financing recovery 

is particularly important, as replacement of infrastructure can be very costly. 

Establishing links to these relevant plans in a pre-disaster context will help 

States take action quickly in the post-disaster environment, which is often the 

best time to implement these strategies.

LOCAL, REGIONAL, AND/

OR TRIBAL PRE-DISASTER 

RECOVERY PLANS

If they exist, local, regional, and/or tribal pre-disaster recovery plans will allow 

the State recovery planning team to understand how the State organization will 

be supporting the community-level recovery activities. The role of the State as 

a support to the community and local levels is best considered throughout the 

planning process.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 24

Scope of the Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan

Decisions about the level of detail and overall 

scope of the pre-disaster recovery plan will 

impact the rest of the planning process. With 

that in mind, the planning team should 

consider the level of detail that the predisaster recovery plan will provide early 

on in the process. 

Recovery plans often provide specific 

guidance that must be followed by 

State agencies after a disaster. Recovery 

frameworks, however, provide guidance 

that may be more general in nature so 

as to allow for flexibility. The NDRF, 

for example, provides guidance on 

recovery roles and responsibilities and 

broadly describes how the Federal 

government is organized to support 

recovery. The associated Federal 

Interagency Operations Plan describes in 

more detail how agencies will support 

recovery when needed. In this way, the 

Federal government has both a general, flexible framework and a plan with more specific details. This 

approach may be appropriate for States, or State leadership may wish to include both flexible guidance 

and operational details in the same document. State priorities or policies guiding recovery may also be 

addressed in either type of document.

Impacts and Community Consequences 

Understanding the State’s risks and the possible direct, indirect, long-term, and systematic impacts from a 

disaster will provide a foundation for pre-disaster recovery planning, and will also allow the planning team 

to determine potential capability gaps before a disaster. Figure 5 identifies different disaster types that may 

require consideration as the State assesses risks. A full understanding of the indirect and systematic impacts can 

also be very useful in driving greater participation by a larger range of agencies and stakeholders that do not 

typically see a role for themselves in addressing the more direct consequences. These vulnerabilities and expected 

consequences may be identified in a State or local hazard mitigation plan, a THIRA, other risk assessments, or 

based on historical data about past disaster impacts. Regional Comprehensive Economic Development Strategies 

supported by the U.S. Economic Development Administration (EDA) require a resilience and recovery-planning 

component that may be helpful for State planning.

Vulnerabilities may include hazard-prone and low-capacity communities, including those that are 

historically underserved or that also are likely to lack sufficient resources for recovery. For example, 

following Hurricanes Katrina and Sandy, many homeowners lacked sufficient resources to repair damaged 

housing and several States, including Louisiana, Mississippi, and New Jersey, responded by establishing 

State-led housing recovery programs. Whole-community inclusion will help ensure more comprehensive 

awareness of impact, resources, and expertise.

Figure 5 Disaster Types
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 25

After the vulnerabilities are identified, likely consequences are to be analyzed. Understanding potential 

vulnerabilities and consequences will help the State refine any existing recovery priorities, determine 

additional recovery priorities, and also determine whether it has the capacity to address the consequences. 

Knowing existing strengths will allow the State to leverage its existing resources and expertise, while being 

aware of existing gaps will allow States to plan ahead to address those gaps. 

To assess capacity, the planning team must consider 

whether or not the State has the resources to carry 

out the post-disaster planning and implementation 

processes. This can be done through a focused 

analysis of the Core Capabilities. If the State does 

not have the capacity to address certain recovery 

issues that may arise, the pre-disaster recovery plan 

can include the methods through which the State 

will build the capacity necessary to do so. These 

methods may include training of staff and the 

development of mutual aid agreements, as well as 

the enhancement of existing partnerships, or the 

establishment of new ones.

C. STEP 3 – DETERMINE GOALS AND 

OBJECTIVES 

To build a pre-disaster recovery plan at the State 

level, it is important to evaluate the State’s recovery 

priorities and to develop goals based on those 

priorities. Those priorities may be identified in 

existing planning and policy documents or they 

may have been identified based on vulnerabilities 

identified in the “Understand the Situation” step, 

discussed in the previous section. Any goals and 

objectives developed for the pre-disaster recovery 

plan should be consistent and work with the 

priorities outlined in other existing planning 

documents. 

State principles, policies, and priorities may be 

broad, and will likely take into consideration how 

the State will assist all communities in rebuilding 

in a more resilient manner. For example, State 

priorities may include:

• Developing resilient and accessible 

transportation infrastructure

• Preserving and restoring natural and cultural 

resources

Key Resource: Effective Coordination 

of Recovery Resources for State, 

Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents

FEMA developed the guide: Effective Coordination 

of Recovery Resources for State, Local, Tribal 

and Territorial Governments to provide specific 

examples and recommended processes for 

organizing and undertaking a post-disaster 

recovery coordination operation. Some of these 

examples and recommended processes include:

• Leading coordination process

• Organizing a coordination structure 

• Assessing impact and identifying priorities

• Identifying coordinating recourses

• Engaging whole community

• Implementing solutions

Recovery stakeholders at a Joint Field Office discuss 

the recovery strategies.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 26

• Developing, reconfiguring, and restoring the education system

• Empowering and supporting local governments

• Instituting requirements for local government planning

• Reconfiguring State facilities

• Encouraging sustainable communities

• Encouraging considerations of both physical and mental health

• Returning displaced persons to their homes as quickly as possible

• Expanding affordable, accessible, and safe housing

• Restoring, hardening, or expanding critical infrastructure and key resources

• Developing or expanding broadband infrastructure and digital inclusion

• Reopening key industries and large employers

• Re-orienting economic strategies

• Restoring the tax base and revenues to at least pre-disaster levels

• Financing recovery without assuming onerous debt

It is also important to take into account identified vulnerabilities and which vulnerabilities the State might have 

the most difficult time addressing (capability gaps) as these will likely become focus areas after a disaster. The 

impacts may include those related to:

• Affordable and accessible housing

• Social, income, and equity issues

• Infrastructure and public works

• Economic growth

• Tourism

• Historic sites and districts, museums, and other cultural resources

• Public health services (including behavioral health)

• Tax base and community viability

• Food systems

• Environmental resources

Understanding the State’s existing and future priorities and vulnerabilities will allow the planning team 

to develop goals and objectives that align with existing efforts. Through collaborative development of 

goals and objectives with all members of the planning team, the recovery planning process can begin to 

determine formal post-disaster roles and responsibilities for those agencies and organizations that will 

be involved in recovery. It is important to remember that following a disaster, disaster-specific goals, 

objectives, and/or priorities will be based on those established pre-disaster and will be further developed 

within the context of the disaster impacts. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 27

Case Example: 

Governor Haley Barbour, Mississippi, 

Creation of a Commission, Office, and 

a Council

Governor Barbour created the Governor’s 

Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal 

and the Governor’s Office of Recovery and Renewal 

(GORR). Both were designated to develop recovery 

policy and roles for implementing policies. The 

Commission and Office both worked with local 

governments to identify local needs unmet by 

Federal disaster assistance. These entities 

also supported local capability building through 

education and outreach initiatives. The Governor 

appointed members from areas that were affected 

across the State and had experience in various 

sectors. The Gulf Coast Business Council was 

created to address business redevelopment and 

work with local entrepreneurs.

The Commission produced the report After 

Katrina: Building Back Better than Ever. This 

list of recommendations was then used by the 

GORR to find ways to fund and implement the 

recommendations, including providing technical 

assistance to local governments.

D. STEP 4 – PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

As explained in CPG 101 Step 4, pre-disaster recovery leadership, coordination, and operations solutions 

should be carefully developed, analyzed, and compared before a decision is made. In order to develop the 

content of a pre-disaster recovery plan, decisions will need to be made (i.e., courses of action for analysis 

and comparison). Specifically this section focuses on considerations for recovery leadership, decisionmaking, coordination/organizational structures, scalability, roles and responsibilities, legal and policy 

issues, coordination mechanisms, integration of Core Capabilities and success factors, communications, 

resource management, and sector-specific elements. The needs of the whole community, including those 

with access and functional needs, should be considered throughout these elements. CPG 101 provides 

general guidance on conducting this analysis. Collectively, decisions made during this step will serve as the 

basis for the written State pre-disaster recovery plan. 

Recovery Leadership 

Successful recovery requires leadership throughout all levels of government, sectors of society, and 

phases of the recovery process.11 Leadership can be discussed in three dimensions: technical, political, 

and collaborative.12 Technical leadership means the ability to manage specific functions, such as grant 

writing, program administration and plan creation. Political leadership is used to define public policy and 

influence the behavior of others. It is also used to 

provide public benefit despite facing opposition. 

Collaborative leadership requires both technical 

and administrative actions to build enduring 

coalitions while being mindful of political realities. 

All three of these dimensions must be considered 

in determining the leadership of a recovery 

organization.

Governor’s Office

Leadership, support, and involvement from the 

Governor’s Office is important in facilitating 

the pre-disaster recovery planning process. The 

Governor’s Office can bring other resources and 

partners to the table in the planning process 

and establish their recovery responsibilities. For 

instance, resources made available by NGOs can 

be leveraged to provide peer-to-peer mentorship, 

networking opportunities, lessons learned, and best 

practices as they relate to disaster management at 

the State level.

11 The National Disaster Recovery Framework: www.fema.gov/national-disaster-recovery-framework 12 Gavin Smith and Dylan Sandler. State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 28

Given the inherent authorities and roles of the 

Governor, it is important that they be involved 

in the development of the plan. A governor may 

declare a state of emergency and implement 

the State’s emergency management plan when 

a disaster strikes. The Governor may also issue 

executive orders to facilitate the recovery process, 

such as those easing existing State laws or statutes 

that could interfere with or help expedite recovery. 

An executive order may also create a special 

office or commission dedicated to supporting an 

inclusive recovery process, or statutory authority 

may be granted to an agency to oversee recovery. 

The NDRF recommends that the Governor’s Office 

also appoint a State Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

(SDRC, discussed below) as part of the pre-disaster 

recovery planning process. The authority of the 

SDRC to be able to represent the State and speak on 

behalf of the Governor’s Office regarding recovery 

matters should be defined in the plan. The SDRC 

will coordinate with the Federal Disaster Recovery 

Coordinator (FDRC), who coordinates support 

from Federal and national partners. 

Discussion Point: 

The Role of the Governor’s Office

After a disaster, governors often must act quickly 

to marshal the full suite of resources available at 

the State level to respond to the situation. In most 

States, governors are granted limited extraordinary 

powers during times of emergency. Governors 

routinely use executive orders to facilitate disaster 

mitigation and response measures, for example, 

declaring states of emergency, mobilizing the 

National Guard, suspending State regulations 

and statutes, ordering evacuations, implementing 

public health measures, and authorizing the use of 

emergency funding.

A review of gubernatorial actions during disasters in 

2008 revealed that governors also rely on executive 

orders to meet a number of other response and 

recovery challenges, both in the short term and long 

term. Those challenges came in five areas:

• Directing the response and recovery

• Providing housing to disaster survivors

• Expanding social services

• Supporting the State workforce

• Managing elections disrupted by the disaster

Source: National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices Issue 

Brief, October 2009
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 29

State Disaster Recovery Coordinator 

The State Disaster Recovery Coordinator (SDRC), 

a leadership position recommended by the NDRF, 

leads the disaster recovery coordination activities 

for the State. The SDRC organizes, coordinates, and 

advances the recovery mission at the State level. 

Additionally, the SDRC will work to increase the 

State’s preparedness for engaging in an inclusive 

recovery process post-disaster. The SDRC can be 

appointed by the Governor and trained to address 

the preparedness roles that will be part of their 

day-to-day job. To do this work effectively, it is 

important for the SDRC to have the right knowledge 

and skills. These include a strong background 

in leadership, policy, public administration, 

community development or planning, and 

program management, as well as a good working 

relationship with other State, local, tribal, and 

volunteer agencies. Understanding of the resources 

that recovery partners can provide, such as postdisaster technical support and grant funding 

programs, is also important to a successful SDRC. 

Equally important is an understanding of the wide variety of needs of different populations that exist in 

their State. These may include children, adults and children with disabilities, and those with limited English 

proficiency, as those populations are important recovery stakeholders. The SDRC will play a large role in 

managing and coordinating the redevelopment and rebuilding of impacted communities. 

Multiple skill sets are required of an SDRC, so it is important to consider candidates from a variety of 

backgrounds to fill this role. The identification of an SDRC is best if evaluated across a broad array of 

backgrounds and not limited to candidates with an emergency management background. 

In addition to the skills mentioned above, the SDRC is most capable if they have experience working 

with stakeholders from different levels of government and NGOs across the spectrum of State program 

areas and/or community development challenges. Those with experience working with other levels of 

government and NGOs will have the most understanding about what to expect from those stakeholders. 

Having the skills to undertake long-range planning efforts and the relationships needed to garner support 

for such efforts are critical to the SDRC’s success as a leader.

Discussion Point: 

Staffing the SDRC Position

A concern often expressed by State stakeholders 

is the lack of funding or other resources available 

to support a full-time SDRC position. While it is 

strongly recommended that States hire a full-time 

SDRC, this is not always possible. One alternative 

way to staff this position is to identify several 

existing State staff who are qualified to serve 

in the role of SDRC after a disaster. With this 

approach to staffing the SDRC position, the State 

would have a roster of staff from across State 

government agencies that could serve in the role 

of SDRC. 

Appointment of an SDRC, under this model, is 

dependent on the specific nature of the disaster. 

This gives the State the flexibility to appoint a 

person with the most applicable background, 

knowledge, and experience to effectively manage 

the recovery from that specific disaster.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 30

Decision-Making

Making decisions post-disaster is more complicated in large part because of the time-compressed 

environment of post-disaster recovery, which necessitates an expansion of information management, 

communication, and fiscal capacity in order to successfully speed up normal activities. A tension between 

acting quickly and taking time to deliberate inevitably occurs in disaster recovery, particularly with more 

complex decisions that involve multiple stakeholders as well as some level of change from pre-existing 

conditions, policies, and approaches. The planning team will need to determine a process for post-disaster 

decision-making that allows for accelerated information flow and maximum stakeholder engagement. 

Information must be shared between both governmental and NGOs to facilitate coordination. Recovery 

is not achieved by any one agency or level of government, but rather requires a system of recovery 

stakeholders being informed and empowered to make decisions and take action.13

State decision-making processes must augment and incorporate the decision-making process that may be 

in place at the local level. As recovery needs are identified, there must be a process for making decisions to 

address those needs. Establishing this decision-making process guides decision-makers in allocating limited 

resources. It is important to organize and prioritize decisions using the best available information and 

consider the balance that must be made between speed and deliberation. When possible it is useful to take 

time to: 

• Evaluate the conditions and needs and determine a set of scenarios and decision options

• Consider how the decision options match recovery goals and objectives

• Consider implementation, funding, and other constraints on various options

• Ensure that there is sufficient transparency and input on decisions from key stakeholders and that

stakeholder communication is linked to the post-disaster decision-making

• Measure progress against recovery goals and objectives and reconsider and adjust decision as needed

throughout the process

Regardless of the leadership structure chosen, a successful recovery hinges on leadership’s ability to make 

informed and timely decisions that best achieve recovery of the affected communities. Timely decisions 

in response to disaster impacts can significantly reduce recovery time and cost. They can also allow for 

implementation of projects that complement one another and may provide opportunities to leverage one 

project with another, creating increased benefits.

When engaging local government, the State needs to strike a balance. If the State attempts to engage local 

governments too early, they may be preoccupied with response issues. If the State attempts to engage 

local governments too late, there may be missed opportunities to make good long-term decisions.

13 Laurie A. Johnson and Robert B. Olshansky, “The Road to Recovery: Governing Post-Disaster Reconstruction,” Land Lines, July 2013
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 31

Organizational Structure for Recovery 

The State recovery leadership, including the SDRC, will need an effective organizational structure to 

support them. Following the identification of State recovery priorities and partners, the State can define an 

organizational structure that helps to establish clear roles and responsibilities, reporting relationships, and 

other operational details. The Federal recovery structure consists of RSFs introduced by the NDRF. States 

can build their recovery structure based on what will best support their recovery. There are three general 

models that States can follow to form an organizational structure, which are discussed below.14 This is not 

an exhaustive list. States are encouraged to develop structures that will best serve their anticipated recovery 

needs. Additionally, the structures can be used alone or in combination (e.g., a RSF structure can be used in 

combination with a Task Force). Whatever structure is chosen, it is important to define the leadership role and 

the roles and responsibilities of the other members of the structure to ensure emphasis of whole-community 

inclusive recovery. 

Integration with Existing Response and Recovery Operational Structures

The plan should establish guidance for how new or modified State recovery coordination structures and 

leadership roles will interface with existing field office organizational structures and disaster operations. 

This is particularly important early in a disaster when an emergency operations center and/or field office 

is operational, including for the transition from response to recovery activity focus. For a Presidentially 

declared disaster, the State and Federal field office is referred to as a Joint Field Office (JFO). 

Key elements that should be considered when defining an organizational structure and relationships in the 

plan are:

• How will Emergency Support Functions and traditional recovery programs (such as Individual

Assistance, Public Assistance, interim housing, public facilities, businesses, and voluntary agency

coordination) coordinate with and/or transition to State-level recovery support functions?

• If the Governor establishes a SDRC, office, or commission, how will that position/organization relate

to the State Coordinating Officer and the emergency management agency? How will responsibilities

be divided and coordinated between these positions?

• How will recovery coordination operations outside the JFO (e.g., under the Governor’s Office

or elsewhere) interface with the Incident Command System structure and processes used during

response and short-term recovery? Will there be liaisons, operations within the JFO, or some other

relationship?

• Will elements of the National Incident Management System or Incident Command System be used

after transition to longer-term recovery operations under an SDRC? If so, what is the organizational

structure and staffing supporting an SDRC?

14 Additional discussion and examples of organizational structures are included in the Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, 

and Local Incidents guide available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101940
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 32

Designation Role

COORDINATING AGENCIES

Coordinating agencies lead the RSFs. The agency designated to lead a State-level 

RSF should be responsible for ongoing communication and coordination among 

primary and supporting agencies tied to the RSF, as well as coordination with 

other State or Federal RSFs.

PRIMARY AGENCIES

Primary agencies have specific expertise, authorities, or resources to support 

the RSF. These agencies also work with their Federal counterparts to ensure that 

recovery needs that fall under their scope of expertise are met.

SUPPORTING ORGANIZATIONS

Supporting organizations support the RSF with specific expertise or resources 

that may be targeted to specific recovery needs. Supporting organizations may 

not be involved in recovery as often as coordinating or primary agencies, but are 

included to provide support when needed.

Federal RSF-Aligned Structure

The RSFs compose the Federal government’s coordinating structure for recovery and aggregate key 

functional areas of recovery assistance into six manageable groups. Their purpose is to support States, 

tribes, territories, local governments, and other entities by facilitating problem solving, improving access 

to resources, and fostering coordination among State and Federal agencies, nongovernment partners, and 

stakeholders. The RSFs created within the NDRF bring together the core recovery capabilities of Federal 

departments and agencies and other supporting organizations—including those not traditionally active in 

emergency response or recovery—to focus on recovery needs. Through the RSFs, relevant stakeholders and 

experts are brought together during steady-state planning and, when activated post-disaster, to identify 

and resolve recovery challenges. Together, these RSFs, through the partners’ participation, help facilitate 

stakeholder participation and promote intergovernmental and public-private partnerships. The six RSFs are:

• Community Planning and Capacity Building

• Economic

• Health and Social Services

• Housing

• Infrastructure Systems

• Natural and Cultural Resources

The RSF coordinating structure is scalable and adaptable to meet different levels and types of needs, as well 

as specific recovery requirements of large to catastrophic disasters. Each of the six RSFs has a pre-designated 

coordinating agency that works with the FDRC to promote communication and collaboration among its 

members. Primary agencies and supporting organizations are also identified within the RSF structure, 

as defined in Table 4. This tiered leadership structure helps to accommodate the rapid surge of Federal 

resources that may be needed to assist in large-scale or catastrophic disasters. 

States should develop recovery structures that best suit their needs; they may not necessarily follow the 

Federal RSF structure. In a case where a State models its recovery structure after the Federal RSF structure, 

the engagement between the Federal RSFs and State RSFs requires little adjustment or learning process. The 

Federal RSF structure is designed to be flexible and scalable, so as to provide maximum support to States 

regardless of how they structure their own recovery. Table 4 describes the role of coordinating agencies, 

primary agencies, and supporting organizations. 

Table 4 The Roles of Coordinating and Primary Agencies, and Supporting Organizations 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 33

Table 5 summarizes the missions of each Federal RSF and the State counterparts that the Federal RSFs 

would likely engage in the recovery process.

Federal RSFs Mission Summary Participating Agencies or Equivalents

COMMUNITY 

PLANNING CAPACITY 

BUILDING

Coordinates expertise, capabilities, and 

assistance programs to aid local and 

tribal governments in building their local 

capabilities to effectively plan for and 

manage recovery and engage the whole 

community in the recovery planning 

process. 

• Coordinating Agencies: Department of 

Community Development, State Planning Agency

• Primary Agencies: State Department of 

Community Development, State Emergency 

Management Agency

• Support Agencies: Governor's Office, Regional 

Planning Organizations, State Budget Office

ECONOMIC Coordinates expertise, capabilities, 

and assistance programs to help local, 

regional/metropolitan, State, tribal, 

territorial, and insular area governments 

and the private sector sustain and/or 

rebuild businesses and employment and 

develop economic opportunities that 

result in sustainable and economically 

resilient communities.

• Coordinating Agency: Economic Development 

Agency

• Primary Agencies: Economic Development 

Agency, Department of Tourism, State Agriculture 

Department

• Support Agencies: State Chamber of Commerce, 

State Employment Office, Economic Development 

Districts

HEALTH & SOCIAL 

SERVICES

Coordinates expertise, capabilities, 

and assistance programs to support 

locally led recovery efforts to address 

public health, health care facilities 

and coalitions, and essential social 

services needs, including those needs 

of displaced individuals. 

• Coordinating Agency: State Department of Health

• Primary Agency: State Department of Health

• Support Agencies: State Agency on Aging, 

State Office of Mental Health Services, State 

Department of Behavioral Health, State Board of 

People with Disabilities

HOUSING Coordinates expertise, capabilities, 

and assistance programs to support 

the delivery of resources to implement 

adequate, affordable, and accessible 

housing solutions that effectively 

support the needs of the whole 

community and contribute to its 

sustainability and resilience. 

• Coordinating Agency: State Department of 

Housing

• Primary Agencies: State Department of Housing, 

State Affordable Housing Advisory Board

• Support Agencies: State Housing Financing 

Agency, State Fair Housing Board, State Real 

Estate Board

INFRASTRUCTURE 

SYSTEMS

Coordinates expertise, capabilities, 

and assistance programs to efficiently 

facilitate the restoration of infrastructure 

systems and services to support a 

viable, sustainable community and 

improve resilience to and protection 

from future hazards. 

• Coordinating Agency: Department of Public 

Utilities

• Primary Agencies: State Department of Public 

Utilities, State Department of Transportation

• Support Agencies: State Public Utility 

Commission, State Airport Authority, State 

Emergency Communications Board

NATURAL & 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

Coordinates expertise, capabilities, 

and assistance programs to support 

the protection of natural and cultural 

resources and historic properties 

to preserve, conserve, rehabilitate, 

and restore them consistent with 

post-disaster community priorities 

and in compliance with applicable 

environmental and historical 

preservation laws and Executive orders. 

• Coordinating Agency: State Department of 

Environmental Protection

• Primary Agencies: State Department of 

Environmental Protection, State Historic 

Preservation Office, Tribal Historic Preservation 

Offices, Tribal Natural and Environmental Offices

• Support Agencies: State Department of Fish 

and Wildlife, State Universities, State Cultural 

Agencies

Table 5 Federal Recovery Support Functions, Their Missions, and Suggested Participating Agencies
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 34

Specific names of agencies and departments vary greatly from State to State. The agencies listed in Table 5 are 

intended to provide a general concept of the types of agencies that can be considered for designation as a lead role 

for that particular RSF at the State level. The list of agencies included is not exhaustive.

States can elect to use an RSF structure but could create additional State RSFs, beyond the Federal structure, 

to fulfill their specific mission. Some States may wish to create RSFs that target specific sectors that may be 

impacted by a disaster. In many cases, these additional RSFs will still align, in some way, to the Federal RSFs. 

The Federal RSF structure is designed to accommodate the State, but when States have an organized 

structure for recovery that is documented, Federal RSFs and other support are able to more easily plug in 

and support disaster recovery needs. Table 5 illustrates how the Federal RSFs may align to possible State 

RSFs after a disaster. Keep in mind that regardless of the State’s recovery structure, the Federal RSFs are 

flexible to support any State. The example below depicts a State RSF structure that aligns to the Federal 

structure. Whether the State has a recovery structure in place that mirrors the Federal RSFs or not, the 

Federal RSFs are able to coordinate to support that State.

Case Example: 

Connecticut Recovery Support Structure

The State of Connecticut’s Long-Term Recovery 

Committee has six RSFs, which align to the Federal 

RSF structure. The Committee, which is one of 14 

Emergency Support Functions that comprise the State 

Response Framework, has been building a framework 

for the State to support long-term recovery since 

2012. The Committee is co-chaired by the Connecticut 

Insurance Department and the State Department of 

Economic & Community Development. In addition to 

the six RSFs, other members include the State Hazard 

Mitigation Officer, town and municipality organizations, 

the Office of the Governor, foundations, and Tribal 

representatives.

The Committee has both pre-disaster and post-disaster 

functions. 

Pre-Disaster Functions:

• Develop State Recovery Plan

• Assign responsibilities to recovery partners

• Maintain clear lines of communication with:

 Local/Municipal Partners

 State/Regional Partners

 Federal/National Partners

Post-Disaster Functions:

• Assess recovery needs following a disaster

• Activate RSFs for complex recovery issues

• Develop post-disaster recovery strategies

• Oversee disaster recovery coordination

• Report progress

• Evaluate and update State Recovery Plan
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 35

Task Force Structure

While the RSF model can provide structure for addressing recovery at the State level, there may be instances 

where a task force is created to fit unique or specific disaster needs. States often create task forces to address 

specific concerns after disasters (e.g., State-led housing task force or children’s task force), and there are 

both benefits and challenges to using this method. The structure of a task force may be different from an 

RSF structure, as it includes disaster-specific functions and supporting agencies and organizations from 

multiple levels of government to suit those functions. This is ideal for bringing whole-community partners 

together to take a targeted approach to addressing smaller disasters. The challenge with using a task force 

is their creation can be reactionary, foregoing the possibility of supporting preparedness activities. Also, 

developing task forces in a reactionary manner can take additional time away from addressing recovery 

needs. That is not to say that the use of task forces is discouraged. They offer an option for providing 

targeted support and, because they can always be reactivated to address repeat disasters or components of 

the recovery process, they are good tools for managing the recovery process in certain instances. In the 

case of the California drought (2014), a task force was created that included State, local, tribal, and Federal 

stakeholders, State policy makers, and nongovernment entities in support of functions identified by the 

State as critical to support communities impacted by the drought.

If the State also has an RSF structure in place, the RSFs can play a role in supporting task forces. State RSFs 

may plug into different support areas identified within a task force structure and bring the capabilities and 

capacity of their participating agencies to support the task force.

Committee Structure

A recovery committee can act as a steering committee to bring issues to the table and use their broad range 

of skills and backgrounds to offer solutions. A recovery committee may be established by the Governor’s 

Office. The committee should comprise people that can help identify and address disaster-related issues. 

A recovery committee is most effective if it includes representation from a broad range of sectors of 

government and community. This will also foster a whole-community approach to recovery planning. 

Scalability 

Disaster assistance begins at the local level and may go no further if the impact is small or localized. When 

the local authorities are overwhelmed, as is the case in a disaster with larger or more severe impacts, local 

authorities may declare a state of emergency and ask the State for help. If there is no Federal declaration, the 

Governor may order State assistance to be provided in the form of grants, technical assistance, or staffing. In 

a large scale disaster that exceeds the capabilities of the State, the State will ask the Federal government for 

assistance. In order to address the different levels of impact, there must be organizational flexibility at all 

levels of government. This will ensure that capacity is filled where needed and resources are being put in 

the right place. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 36

It is important that the State recovery plan acknowledge different scales of disasters. Larger disasters, 

whether or not they receive a Presidential declaration, will require support from most or all recovery 

partners to address the wide swath of recovery issues. Smaller disasters may not require the engagement 

of all recovery partners. The pre-disaster recovery plan will be most effective in larger disasters if it is also 

applicable to and implemented for all disasters, regardless of size and scope. This will ensure that the State 

is prepared to support its communities in addressing a host of disaster impacts as well as targeted impacts.

Presidentially Declared Major Disasters and Emergencies

The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act) provides legal authority 

for the Federal government to provide assistance to States during declared major disasters and emergencies.15

During Presidentially declared disasters, natural or man made, Federal resources are released to support 

State response and recovery efforts. An FDRC and all or some of the RSFs may also be deployed to support 

a declared disaster. The Federal Government can make additional Federal resources available through nonStafford related programs, most notably the CDBG-DR program administered by HUD.

Not all disasters are Federally declared. While this does not preclude Federal support, the support provided 

may be limited. This is why it is important to have a recovery plan in place—so the State can support and 

implement recovery immediately after a disaster strikes regardless of the level of Federal support. 

Recovery Roles and Responsibilities 

In addition to having a structure in place to support and manage recovery, the roles and responsibilities 

of participating agencies must be established. Doing this may include the identification of critical tasks 

associated with each RSF’s mission, noting that these tasks may be short-term, intermediate-term, or longterm tasks. The recovery continuum provided in the NDRF describes the nature of short-, intermediate-, 

and long-term recovery timelines and how they overlap. This will also be true at the State level. Not 

only do roles and responsibilities need to be assigned, but an understanding of when those roles and 

responsibilities are applicable needs to be documented in the plan.

Finally, it is important to consider the State’s greatest vulnerabilities, in addition to the organizational 

structure, when assigning roles and responsibilities. For example, infrastructure impacts may be addressed by 

the State department of transportation (or equivalent), the private sector, and/or a number of other agencies 

and organizations that participate in a State-level infrastructure systems RSF. When determining roles and 

responsibilities, it is important to consider that multiple agencies and organizations within a State (both public 

and private) may be equipped to address similar priorities or impacts. 

15 Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act. Visit: http://www.fema.gov/robert-t-stafford-disaster-relief-and-emergency-assistance-actpublic-law-93-288-amended
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 37

Legal Issues, Laws, and Authorities

State RSFs will include a variety of agencies and organizations with various roles and responsibilities. In an 

effort to align the activities of the RSF member agencies, RSF authorities should be evaluated. Questions to 

consider include:

• What are the authorities of coordinating vs. primary vs. supporting agencies?

• Do the different groups of agencies have the authority to tap into one another’s resources? Is there a

system in place for mutual aid agreements?

• What existing authorities must be considered? This includes laws that pertain to people with

disabilities and others with access and functional needs.

• Do any new laws or authorities need to be considered?

• Do they have authority to activate without a Governor's Declaration? Are certain thresholds required

before activation is authorized?

• How do we coordinate with local, private, and private non-profit entities that can help with recovery?

• Will State information-sharing laws accommodate disaster-related coordination needs?

• Has the State pre-identified (and properly competed) contracts that may be used immediately after

a disaster to assist with life saving measures, such as evacuation, emergency medical, sheltering, or

debris removal needs? (Note: after the emergency phase of the disaster has passed, these contracts

will likely need to be re-competed to ensure proper scope and reasonable cost.)

• Are all State-owned resources properly insured?

Refer to the work completed in Step 2“Understanding the Situation” regarding applicable authorities. These 

authorities should be clearly documented in a pre-disaster recovery plan.

Coordination Considerations

The National Preparedness Goal defines operational coordination as a Core Capability that establishes and 

maintains a unified and coordinated operational structure and process that appropriately integrates all 

critical stakeholders and supports the execution of other Core Capabilities. Operational coordination 

is essential for post-disaster recovery because it allows different stakeholders to draw on one another’s 

expertise to facilitate a holistic recovery process that addresses multi-faceted recovery needs. 

As discussed elsewhere, multiple agencies and organizations may be part of the recovery effort and each of 

these agencies and organizations bring different kinds of expertise and skillsets to the table. Coordination 

is therefore essential to facilitate an efficient and inclusive recovery effort where overlapping or competing 

interests can be addressed.

Operational coordination can be thought of as encompassing both “horizontal coordination” and “vertical 

coordination.”15 The plan identifies the need, roles, and process for coordination between State-level 

agencies (horizontal) as well as coordination that will take place among different levels of government and 

other organizations (vertical). Agencies and organizations with expertise in achieving whole community 

inclusion should be embedded throughout the recovery planning process so all segments of the population 

have equal access and equal opportunity for full participation.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 38

Horizontal Coordination

Coordination among State-level stakeholders helps ensure that all agencies involved in the recovery process 

have a system in place for working together to achieve recovery. Horizontal coordination elements the predisaster recovery plan should address include:

• The Transition from Response to Recovery: As the post-disaster environment transitions from

one of response to one of recovery, a mechanism for facilitating the transition should be in place. A

pre-disaster recovery plan should discuss how the State recovery organization and leadership will

be initiated and begin work with emergency response leadership and support functions to ensure

a smooth transition to the recovery process. In the immediate aftermath of a disaster, response and

recovery activities overlap during the transition process. Including and clearly identifying responseoriented organizations and partners in the State’s structure for recovery will facilitate the transition

to recovery. The pre-disaster recovery plan can also discuss how response-oriented facilities such as

emergency operations centers can be dual-purposed so that recovery stakeholders are able to work

hand-in-hand with responders.

• Post-Disaster Recovery Roles: State recovery

support functions and State-level agencies

and organizations involved in recovery will

be required to accommodate additional

recovery-related demands after a disaster

strikes. The post-disaster recovery plan

should make clear what will be expected of

recovery stakeholders to support recovery as

well as methods of ensuring that involved

stakeholders remain coordinated throughout

the recovery process.

Finally, processes for enacting post-disaster

recovery policies should be determined.

Departments or agencies responsible for

enacting policies should be identified, and the

planning team should consider when policies

should be enacted, what resources are needed,

and for how long they should be applied, while ensuring whole-community inclusion in determining or

adjusting those policies to suit the particular needs of the disaster.

• Sector-Specific Coordinators: Coordinators from key agencies must be assigned. These coordinators

may be drawn from State government staff or other recovery partners. In addition to the expertise

required as part of their normal duties, they would also be the primary points of contact for their

respective agencies or functions and would provide updates and other situational awareness to

the SDRC.

• Staffing & Operational Guidance: Recovery efforts will require staff from involved agencies and

organizations, so it is important to document staff resources to manage recovery and their roles and

responsibilities in the pre-disaster recovery plan. The pre-disaster recovery plan should also detail

protocols for deployment, including any agreements or procedures that must be in place to facilitate

deployment of staff from stakeholder agencies and organizations.

Emergency Management Assistance 

Compact (EMAC)

An EMAC offers assistance during governordeclared states of emergency through a responsive, 

straightforward system that allows States to send 

personnel, equipment, and commodities to help 

disaster relief efforts to other States.

The strength of an EMAC and the quality that 

distinguishes it from other plans and compacts lies 

in its governances structure; its relationship with 

Federal organizations, States, counties, territories, 

and regions; the willingness of States and response 

and recovery personnel to deploy; and the ability 

to move any resource one State wishes to utilize to 

assist another State.

For more information about EMACs, visit 

www.emacweb.org. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 39

Many State agencies and organizations operate under staffing constraints even during steady-state 

operations. Mutual aid agreements with other States can help address these constraints by providing 

a mechanism for supplemental (or surge) staffing to assist in recovery. The EMAC is a way to request 

support from other States after a disaster. An EMAC has traditionally been used to address response 

activities, but can also be used to address recovery.16 States can also look to the private sector for surge or 

temporary staff. This can include the outsourcing of certain functions (e.g., hiring a project management 

company to handle large, complex projects). 

• Capacity Building: In order to ensure that post-disaster recovery roles can be filled adequately, 

capacity building initiatives are recommended to also be included in the pre-disaster recovery plan. 

What can the State do to build its own capacity to manage recovery and with whom should the State 

partner to build capacity?

Certain State agencies or other organizations may have expertise in activities that are closely linked to 

recovery, such as community development and financial management. These agencies can then be called 

upon to train staff that may support recovery later. Additionally, there are Federal resources available 

to help train staff on recovery issues. In certain instances the administrative portion of Federal funding 

can be used to support staffing as well. The Emergency Management Institute offers a variety of courses, 

many of which can be taken online. The pre-disaster planning process should encourage capacity 

building among State-level stakeholders before a disaster strikes so that they are familiar with recovery 

concepts and processes in the event they are called upon to support recovery. Recovery exercises are 

valuable tools for building capacity among partners not familiar with recovery roles, working with the 

State government, or working with a new recovery plan. Additional discussion of capacity building can 

be found in “Support to Local Governments,” below and in Appendix E.

Vertical Coordination

The State also plays a critical role in connecting disaster-impacted communities to external resources. In order 

to ensure that the State is able to do this effectively, the pre-disaster recovery plan should also discuss how the 

State’s recovery structure will interface with that of the Federal government, other critical resource providers, 

and that of local governments. This helps ensure that other levels of government have a clear understanding of 

how the State will organize itself to support the recovery process. It also provides other recovery stakeholders 

or resource providers an understanding of how they may plug into the recovery process, especially when 

new stakeholders or resource providers avail themselves in the aftermath of a disaster. To understand how 

the State’s recovery structure will interface with that of the Federal government, local governments, and 

other resource providers, it is important to understand how different recovery structures at different levels 

of government can align. If the State has implemented a recovery structure that is similar to the Federal 

recovery structure, the alignment between State recovery leaders and State RSFs to the Federal structure for 

recovery will be obvious. If the State recovery structure differs from the Federal recovery structure, the State 

should determine how the Federal government will best interface with State recovery leadership and RSFs (or 

agencies responsible for recovery planning if no State RSFs exist). This is also true when the State determines 

how it will best interface with local recovery structures. Some localities may have recovery structures that can 

easily be aligned to the State recovery structure, but other localities may have no recovery structure at all. The 

State will need to work with these localities to determine the most efficient and strategic alignments between 

State and local counterparts. The pre-disaster recovery plan should discuss:

16 Gavin Smith and Dylan Sandler. State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide, 2012
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 40

• Working with Local Government: Given the significant role that local governments play in leading

recovery efforts, it is important for the State to promote pre-disaster recovery planning at the local

level so that local governments are prepared to lead and manage recovery efforts. When the State has a

recovery structure in place, it provides an example for locals to follow. While some local governments

may not have the capability or capacity to develop a formal structure for recovery planning, there

should be consideration for how and to what degree the State encourages local governments to

acknowledge and undertake basic planning steps, such as determining recovery leadership at the

local level (e.g., an LDRM, identifying significant recovery partners, and how key plans, such as the

mitigation plan, will shape post-disaster decisions. The LDRM does not have to be an emergency

manager by trade; in fact, the ability to undertake long-term holistic recovery planning is as

important for local recovery leadership as it is for State-level leadership.

Local governments should also be encouraged to determine which local agencies or organizations may

be critical stakeholders in a recovery process. The development of a formal recovery structure at the

local level is ideal, though communities with lower capabilities and capacity may not have agencies or

organizations to assign to every potential recovery need. Partners who represent the whole community,

including people with disabilities and others with access and functional needs, should be included

throughout the planning process.

Promoting planning at the local level helps both communities and the State by providing basic

connection points between the two levels of government. This helps local communities begin to address

recovery immediately after a disaster strikes and helps the States more immediately support those

communities in their recovery efforts. When locals are able to determine their priorities and are aware

of the resources available to them, they become empowered to make better recovery decisions.

As Federal and/or State authorities demobilize

from a disaster site, local authorities should

be connected with State and Federal agencies

and should be in a position where they can

continue the recovery initiatives with improved

awareness of resources and support from

Federal, State, and NGOs. Local application

of an LDRM role can aid with building the

local capability and central point of contact

for longer-term recovery engagement with

Federal, State, and other resources. Small

communities may lack the expertise to address

certain issues and will require support and

expertise from higher levels of government.

• Working with the Federal Government: For

proper coordination and effective recovery to

occur after a disaster strikes, it is critical that

State agencies coordinate and build

relationships with Federal agencies before a

disaster strikes. This coordination is necessary

ahead of both Stafford and non-Stafford

disasters. Even in non-Stafford disasters

Governor Testimonial 

"We found out early on that you’ve got a lot of 

different programs. FEMA has a lot of different 

programs. You don’t necessarily know how 

much is needed here or there. So we created 

a redevelopment center, a North Carolina 

Redevelopment Center. 

"We assessed what the total needs were going 

to be over time. We looked at how much we could 

get done ... under the Federal programs. And we 

realized, even though we were going to Washington 

[to] ... appeal for more help, we realized that we 

were going to have to do a lot more at the State 

level.

"We ought to tell people what the rules are....

It’s our government. It’s our FEMA. Why don’t we 

prepare just as we’ll prepare by putting water and 

food out there and shelters and all that stuff? 

Why don’t we prepare by informing the local 

people about how the FEMA programs work well in 

advance?”

—Jim Hunt, Governor of North Carolina 

For information on FEMA's Public Assistance 

Program see the FEMA PA Program and 

Policy Guide at https://www.fema.gov/medialibrary/assets/documents/111781
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 41

(i.e., disasters with impacts that exceed a community’s ability to address them, but the impacts do 

not exceed the State’s ability to address them), coordination with Federal partners is also necessary. 

Although non-Stafford disasters may make available fewer Federal resources than Stafford disasters, 

some Federal agencies may still provide technical expertise and other resources to support disaster 

impacts.

Coordination with Federal agencies is critical before, during, and after a disaster as Federal support is 

available for a limited time. In identifying Federal agencies to work with in advance of a disaster, States 

should consider which Federal agencies align with their organizational structure (e.g., State RSFs). The six 

Federal RSF coordinating agencies are FEMA, EDA, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, HUD, 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the U.S. Department of the Interior. Other Federal agencies to consider 

are the U.S. Department of Transportation and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 

Working with NGOs and Philanthropy Nongovernmental philanthropy organizations are critical partners 

in recovery. The planning team should include them in developing a recovery plan and partnering in its 

implementation post-disaster. These organizations can also support recovery either in partnership with 

government entities or by filling capability gaps. Establish an understanding of the types of assistance these 

partners can offer, including both technical assistance and funding, and how to obtain this assistance. 

Confirm which organizations can be partners on post-disaster recovery activities. Examples of organizations 

that may have a role in supporting recovery efforts include:

• National, regional, statewide, and community-based foundations

• Educational institutions

• Housing non-profits

• Chambers of commerce

• Faith-based organizations

• Lifeline operators and utility cooperatives

• Professional organizations

• American Red Cross

• Community Emergency Response Teams (CERTs)

• Independent national, regional, and local social services delivery agencies

• Support organizations for children, older adults, and people with disabilities and others with access 

and functional needs

• Fraternal organizations

• Regional planning commissions

• Independent charities

• Volunteer recruitment groups

There is no existing precedent to work with these organizations in the recovery process. While the 

Federal or State government’s general role in recovery may be clear, the role of other organizations (e.g., 

universities, regional authorities) may need further exploration. Involving NGOs also presents opportunities 

to include them in the planning process and to fully engage the whole community post-disaster. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 42

Support to Local Government 

The NDRF emphasizes the importance of leadership 

and local primacy for successful disaster recovery. 

The local government has a primary role in 

leading, planning, and managing nearly all aspects 

of the community’s recovery. Local government 

establishes and implements policies for land use; 

facilities and infrastructure repair, improvement, or 

reconfiguration; economic development; housing 

and community development; zoning; floodplain management; health, social, and educational systems and 

services; engagement of stakeholders in community decisions; and many other complexities that collide in 

a short space and time after a disaster. Local governments are often not resourced nor prepared (even under 

ideal conditions) with the experience to take on this primary local role in policy-setting, decision-making, 

planning, and managing significant recovery funds and activities. Local governments may find that they are 

without some of the resources and personnel they had prior to a disaster. Continuity of operations planning 

should be conducted at the local level to help ensure that certain functions can be maintained. However, even 

large communities with ample resources can find they are overwhelmed and behind in addressing needs after 

a disaster. At a time when additional planning and management staff resources will be needed, tax bases may 

have been significantly reduced, which means reduced funding for local government operations. In situations 

where local governments are overwhelmed, the State will need to provide support. 

The State government, in many areas, is the first line of support to overwhelmed local governments. Systems 

have been established within response Core Capabilities to support local governments when resource needs 

are exceeded, but similar systems have not yet matured for recovery. States should consider how they will be 

prepared to provide the necessary support to local governments for continuation of their operations in the 

recovery period or to provide assistance in increasing capacity for leadership, planning, management, and 

community engagement. FEMA’s community disaster loan program can play a supporting role in Presidentially 

declared disasters; however, this program has a financial limit and does not provide for expansion of 

local operations that will likely be necessary to 

successfully conduct post-disaster planning and 

operations. Many State agencies and entities within 

States, often not related to disaster programs, 

have relationships and programs to support local 

leadership development, technical assistance, 

local planning and policy development, and local 

financial and city management activities. These 

include, but are not limited to, local or community 

affairs departments, financial oversight entities, 

State planning or growth management offices, and 

regional planning or development districts.

During pre-disaster recovery planning efforts, the 

State should consider its approach to identifying 

and supporting recovery planning, coordination 

and management needs at the local level. Often, 

“One of the Governor’s jobs is not just to be on the 

air complaining or just sympathizing ... You have to 

get out there and see it yourself. Then you have to 

ask the searching questions of the Federal officials 

and your own State officials and the locals. How’s it 

going? What more do your people need? What more 

can be done?"

—Former Governor Hunt of North Carolina

Case Example: 

New Orleans City Planning 

Commission Staffing Resources

Prior to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, the New Orleans 

City Planning Commission had 24 staff members. 

After Katrina, as every city department was forced 

to lay off staff due to budget constraints, the 

Planning Commission was reduced to just eight 

positions. 17

17 Washington University School of Law, “Charting the Course for Rebuilding a Great American City: An Assessment of the Planning Function in Post-Katrina New 

Orleans” http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/New_Orleans_Rebuilding.htm
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 43

existing State personnel, programs and resources 

can be coordinated to provide support to local 

governments to address many of these challenges. 

Additional partners developed in other elements of 

the State recovery planning process can also support 

these needs, such as regional, State or community 

foundations, the American Planning Association 

Chapter, or the International City County Management 

State-level affiliate. 

A recovery plan should also consider the State’s 

approach to establishing and implementing a 

local recovery planning or management support 

program for larger disasters. Most significantly, 

large disasters have often resulted in States creating 

ad hoc planning or recovery management support 

programs. This post-disaster, ad hoc approach 

creates a delay in assisting local government in 

addressing key redevelopment issues. By creating an 

approach to support local governments or assigning 

the responsibility to do so through the pre-disaster 

recovery planning process, these delays can be 

minimized. The Federal government, through 

the Community Planning and Capacity Building 

Recovery Support Function (CPCB RSF), is prepared 

to support States, both before and after large or 

unique disasters in developing State programs and 

coordinating resources to support these needed 

capacities.

While many recovery decisions are local, some Statelevel decisions may relate to local planning. Knowing 

which decisions must be made by which level of 

government may depend on a couple of factors:

• The political structure of the State: Local 

governments’ ability to pass laws to govern 

themselves differs by State. This is an 

important consideration to keep in mind as 

pre-disaster recovery planning efforts begin.

• State-level and multi-jurisdictional planning: How do local planning and redevelopment decisions 

intersect with State or regional government decision-making, or with the planning and decisionmaking needed for reconstruction or reconfiguration of complex systems. There should be 

consideration of how much the local government will need to participate in these multi-jurisdictional 

planning issues, and if there is local capacity to do so. In this case, the State may play a larger role in 

supporting the local decision-making process or adapting the State or regional planning process. They 

would need to ensure that communities understand locally driven decisions the State can (or cannot) 

support either from a legislative perspective or a resource perspective.

Case Example: 

Colorado Resiliency and Recovery 

Office

In response to 2013 severe flooding, the State of 

Colorado’s Chief Recovery Officer and the Colorado 

Resiliency and Recovery Office coordinated the 

support of multiple State agencies and partners 

to aid counties and communities with a series of 

planning, management, and community involvement 

efforts. The Resiliency and Recovery Office 

contracted for a public engagement campaign 

is aimed at better understanding community 

perceptions of local risks, vulnerabilities, and 

resiliency priorities as well as to increase 

awareness of how to build resiliency at the local 

level. 

Through its Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the 

State of Colorado used eight Regional Managers 

to support local jurisdictions across the State. 

These regional managers were able to help local 

governments and community agencies define 

issues, evaluate options, identify solutions, and 

achieve results. They also offered management, 

planning, community development, and technical 

assistance. These existing programs were able to 

provide assistance to several communities using 

the CDBG-DR. 

DOLA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board 

also implemented a watershed resiliency pilot 

program in response to the disaster that formed 

11 watershed coalitions, supported funding to 

the coalitions for master planning, and staffed 

18 coordinator positions in the newly formed 

watershed coalitions. DOLA also released a 

Planning for Hazards Guide in 2016. States can 

consider using existing programs and agencies 

to assist local governments after a disaster. This 

relationship and responsibility should be formalized 

through the pre-disaster recovery plan.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 44

Encouraging pre-disaster planning and capacity 

building at the local level is an opportunity for 

States to not only plan how they will support 

recovery after a disaster strikes, but how they can 

build local capacity at the same time. For example, 

providing technical assistance to communities to 

help develop a local pre-disaster recovery plan 

and inclusive partnerships ahead of time will help 

them address certain disaster impacts, or at least 

be prepared to coordinate themselves and their 

partners immediately after a disaster strikes. States 

can also facilitate local leadership development by 

organizing peer-to-peer events where local leaders 

from around the State can share their experiences 

with one another.

Integration of Core Capabilities

The Core Capabilities identified in the National 

Preparedness Goal are a primary conceptual framework 

that should be considered in organizing the focus 

areas and objectives of pre-disaster recovery 

planning, as well as in setting State policies and 

priorities for recovery. On page 45 are questions, 

organized by Recovery Core Capability, for the 

core planning team to consider as it develops 

the recovery plan. For all of the Recovery Core 

Capabilities, the planning team should ask which 

State agency or department is best suited to 

coordinate the attainment of that Core Capability. 

Additionally, States should also consult their State Preparedness Report data for existing capability levels, 

resources, and gaps. 

Mitigation Core Capabilities should also be considered for application throughout the recovery plan. The 

recovery plan can help define a State’s mitigation and resilience policies, methods, and mechanisms for 

operationalizing those during the recovery period. The State Multi-Hazard Mitigation Plan should be 

coordinated with the recovery plan to ensure complete capture of the policies and strategic, operational, 

and tactical implementation of mitigation Core Capabilities.

The recovery plan should document processes, roles and responsibilities, and operational steps associated 

with addressing these Core Capabilities. The level of detail to which these items are documented in the plan 

may vary, but should at least acknowledge the basic operational concepts. Table 6 outlines considerations 

for each specific Core Capability. 

Case Example: 

States Supporting Local Post-Disaster 

Planning and Recovery Management

After Superstorm Sandy hit multiple States in 2012, 

impacts included significant shoreline erosion and 

damage to transportation, water/sewer treatment, 

medical facilities, and schools. After working with 

the Federal Community Planning and CPCB RSF 

to evaluate the status of communities, the State 

of New York developed a priority to facilitate local 

recovery thorough technical assistance. The State 

of New York established a program to support the 

development of local recovery strategies called 

New York Rising. The State, in part with CDBGDR funding, used several State-hired contractors 

to support 50 communities, including counties 

impacted by Hurricane Irene in 2011. 

The initial step was to empower local recovery 

committees to establish recovery priorities 

related to each of the six sectors associated 

with the State and Federal RSFs. The New York 

Rising program started with a focus on a holistic 

approach to recovery of the whole community. 

The partnership between the State, CPCB RSF 

Federal and nongovernmental partners, and local 

community leaders enabled the development of 

a significant body of research and data used to 

support the planning process and ultimately define 

State priorities, such as home repair and property 

buy-out.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 45

Table 6 Considerations for Addressing Core Capabilities

Core Capability Considerations

PLANNING

• Do we have a process in place to encourage and support the engagement and inclusion of 

all stakeholders and disaster survivors in post-disaster planning and decision-making? 

• Is the plan strategic and operational in nature (i.e., does it include guidance that facilitates 

plan implementation), covering basic steps the State will take to support the recovery 

process?

• Does the plan address funding and finance considerations?

• Does it integrate other State-level plans, such as the mitigation plan, transportation plan, 

etc.?

• Does the plan reflect procedures that should be followed after a disaster?

PUBLIC 

INFORMATION 

AND WARNING

• Does the State have a system in place to deliver public information to impacted 

communities in coordination with local or regional information providers?

• Is the State prepared to deliver public information in a language other than English and in 

alternative accessible formats to ensure effective accessible communication for people 

with disabilities and others with access and functional needs? 

OPERATIONAL 

COORDINATION

• Does the plan identify appropriate leadership and roles at multiple levels?

• Does the plan discuss how the State will integrate with both local and Federal partners? 

• Does the plan discuss how the State will transition from emergency response to recovery?

• Does the plan address how the State will involve and coordinate with the private, 

nongovernmental, or philanthropic sectors?

• Have we considered the role of regional government in supporting recovery?

ECONOMIC 

RECOVERY

• Does the plan acknowledge the unique economic and workforce characteristics of 

communities within the State? 

• Does the plan discuss job restoration initiatives that may be needed to support the recovery 

of a community’s economy?

• Does the plan cover the key drivers of the State economy (i.e., industries and employers 

that enable the primary economic activities of the State)?

• Does the economic recovery section of the plan address the post-disaster time constraints 

unique to businesses (i.e., a recovery program that takes 6 months to implement may be 

too late for small businesses.)?

• Is the recovery plan aligned with statewide economic and workforce development goals?

• Does the plan encourage and integrate business continuity planning considerations?

HEALTH AND 

SOCIAL 

SERVICES

• Does the plan address the restoration and improvement of health and social services?

• How can the State support communities during periods where the need for such services 

may exceed the capacity of communities to provide them adequately?

• Does the plan address mental health and post-traumatic disorders caused by the disaster 

and the stress of recovery?

• Does the plan include public and private disability support and services agencies and 

organizations?

HOUSING

• Does the plan take into consideration local accessible and affordable housing needs and 

local plans that may influence housing development to suit the needs of the community? 

• How will the State support the redevelopment of housing and affordable housing postdisaster?

• How will the State support the redevelopment of accessible housing?
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 46

Table 6 Considerations for Addressing Core Capabilities (continued)

Core Capability Considerations

INFRASTRUCTURE 

SYSTEMS

• How does the State support the repair or rebuilding of infrastructure?

• Does the State plan address privately held infrastructure systems?

• How does the State integrate existing policy into recovery efforts (i.e., a transportation plan, 

State-level capital improvements plan, etc.)? 

• How does the State integrate accessibility issues into post-disaster infrastructure 

redevelopment?

NATURAL AND 

CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

• How does the State support the rehabilitation of environmentally sensitive areas and 

historic and cultural landmarks?

• Does the plan address the connection between community resiliency and natural 

resources?

• Are considerations given to historic resources and sites with archaeological significance?

Integration of Success Factors

In addition to considering Core Capabilities addressed in the recovery process, the plan should also 

include metrics for success or policies and a system for establishing them based on the particular nature 

of the disaster. The NDRF includes recovery success factors that can be used as a guide to determine the 

success of a recovery effort after a disaster strikes, or after exercising the plan (discussed later in this 

guide). These success factors, which can be used to develop specific metrics, can also inform revisions to 

the plan. (Appendix B includes a discussion of the success factors in the context of recovery at the local 

level.) Table 7 outlines the success factors as presented in the NDRF and includes specific questions for the 

planning team to consider. 

Communication and Engagement

Planning for recovery should also address how State leadership and agencies manage expectations of 

other recovery stakeholders. Local government and disaster survivors expectations are best managed 

through a communications plan that clearly addresses the role of the State, Federal government, and other 

stakeholders. It is also important to be prepared to align State capabilities and political expectations. Again, 

developing a clear and accessible message about what the State does to support recovery and the resources at 

its disposal can help other recovery stakeholders gain an understanding of what the State can do to support 

recovery.

Communication and coordination are inexorably linked. There should be an established protocol for 

how different agencies will communicate with one another throughout the recovery process. This may 

occur by establishing requirements and protocols for meeting and reporting during post-disaster recovery 

operations. This ensures that the recovery process happens strategically and resources are used effectively.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 47

Table 7 Considerations for Addressing Success Factors

Success Factor Considerations

EFFECTIVE DECISION-MAKING 

AND COORDINATION

• Are recovery leadership roles clearly defined?

• Have agencies and organizations serving in a leadership capacity 

established metrics to track progress and accountability?

INTEGRATION OF COMMUNITY 

RECOVERY PLANNING 

PROCESSES

• Does the plan encourage communities to develop their own recovery 

framework or plan that is inclusive of the whole community?

• Does the plan encourage communities to develop processes and criteria for 

developing recovery actions?

WELL-MANAGED RECOVERY

• Have partnerships across all levels of government and NGOs been 

established?

• Is a mechanism in place to address surge staffing and resource needs?

PROACTIVE COMMUNITY 

ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION, AND PUBLIC 

AWARENESS

• Are all perspectives represented in the planning process?

• Is there a plan to ensure transparency and input into decision-making and 

to ensure public information is accessible to all members of the whole 

community throughout the recovery process?

WELL-ADMINISTERED 

FINANCIAL ACQUISITION

• Are funding sources documented and partnerships with resource providers 

established?

• Does the recovery plan cover financial monitoring?

ORGANIZATIONAL FLEXIBILITY

• Is the organizational structure flexible to meet the needs of communities in 

the State?

• Have intergovernmental relationships across local, tribal, and the Federal 

government been built?

RESILIENT REBUILDING • Does the plan encourage a sustainable future?

• Are risk reduction strategies encouraged or discussed?

The plan should address requirements for accessible communications. Throughout the recovery process all 

information, whether delivered in community meetings, printed material, electronic material, or visual 

material, must be provided for distribution in alternative and accessible formats. Community members 

often have working knowledge about effective communications requirements, options, and resources 

available for use in all aspects of recovery to know how and what to do, or to know immediate contacts for 

solutions, to ensure access to recovery information by all members of the whole community.

The pre-disaster recovery plan should also include, in a general sense, what information will be shared 

with the public, how it will be shared, and who will be responsible for sharing that information. Examples 

of information that will need to be shared with the public include:

• Recovery initiatives and resources

• Available assistance

• Opportunities to participate in the recovery process
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 48

The plan should also make clear the methods by which communications will be shared. These methods 

may include both traditional media and non-traditional media (e.g., social networking websites, Statesponsored websites).

A person, such as a public information officer, or agency should be given responsibility for managing and 

coordinating public communications, and for ensuring accessibility of communications. Documenting 

this responsibility in the pre-disaster recovery plan helps all stakeholders understand who is responsible 

for delivering communications and serving as the central point of contact for disseminating accessible 

information about recovery resources or initiatives that may be taking place.

Protocol for coordinating communications should also be established. This will help ensure that 

communications are fluid and do not contain conflicting information. Recovery stakeholders at the State 

level should have a unified process in place for delivering public communications (as opposed to doing this 

individually).

Finally, the plan should address how the State will encourage and support public input during the postdisaster recovery process. Including public input in the post-disaster recovery processes is important in 

ensuring that recovery strategies address local needs and to secure long-term implementation support. The 

plan can include a range of public input strategies that the State could use to support public input during 

the recovery process.

Resource Management 

The identification, acquisition, and coordination 

of resources play a significant role in post-disaster 

recovery. The planning team should consider 

resource coordination during the pre-disaster 

recovery planning process to ensure that these 

activities go smoothly post-disaster. Resources 

employed to facilitate recovery may include shared 

information (such as data, intelligence, and key 

stakeholder contacts), technical assistance, subject 

matter expertise, and funding mechanisms (such 

as existing financial reserves, grants, and loans). 

Planners can also look to the Effective Coordination 

of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local 

Incidents18 guide for more detailed information 

specific to recovery resource identification, 

management, and coordination. 

18 This guide, referenced above, is available at https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101940

Case Example: 

Southwest Arkansas Business and 

Infrastructure Inventory

Recognizing the need for better economic and 

infrastructure data that could be used for future 

disaster recovery efforts, the Southwest Arkansas 

Planning and Development District (SWAPDD) 

worked with the Austin regional office of the EDA to 

develop a proposal to collect that information.

SWAPDD received $150,000 from EDA in 

2009 to develop a comprehensive database of 

information on the employers and infrastructure 

in the region. For businesses, staff collected data 

on location, number of employees, and contact 

information when owners wished to provide it. For 

infrastructure, they gathered information on the 

locations of critical facilities and transportation 

infrastructure, as well as the service areas and 

customer base numbers of all public water and 

wastewater systems. All data was collected in a 

format that could be mapped using ArcGIS.

Source: Southwest Arkansas: Promoting Disaster 

Resilience and Recovery through Better Data. Megan 

McConville, Program Manager, National Association of 

Development Organizations.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 49

Case Example: 

Illinois Tornadoes 2012 and 2013: 

State Coordination to Reallocate 

Funding 

In spring 2012, the State of Illinois experienced 

severe storms and tornadoes and estimated 440 

homes were impacted by the disaster, of which 176 

were destroyed or suffered major damage. Eight 

people in Harrisburg, Illinois, lost their lives as a 

result of the tornado, making this the deadliest 

Illinois disaster in nearly a decade. 

Although the State of Illinois did not receive a 

Presidential Declaration under the Stafford Act, 

FEMA and Federal agencies worked in support of 

State efforts to identify and coordinate recovery 

assistance around the needs and goals of the 

impacted communities. Through coordination of the 

Governor’s Office and State department and agency 

heads, discussion focused on the reprioritization of 

existing State and Federal resources, based on the 

impacted communities’ unmet needs. In addition, 

the U.S. Small Business Administration declared 

a disaster for Saline County and eight contiguous 

counties, making the counties eligible for economic 

injury disaster assistance. 

The process resulted in the reprioritization of $13 

million, including funding from existing State and 

Federal programs. Following the announcement, 

State agency representatives met in the affected 

communities to outline programmatic requirements, 

coordinate assistance, and support the 

development of a unified local recovery plan. 

Severe storms and tornadoes impacted the State 

again in 2013. The impacted community was 

eligible for FEMA’s Individual Assistance program 

through a Presidential Declaration under the 

Stafford Act, but not for FEMA Public Assistance. 

With the coordination mechanisms in place and 

understanding of authorities and resources from 

the 2012 tornadoes, the State understood its 

available resources and how to coordinate and 

convene appropriate stakeholders to reprioritize 

funding in a timely fashion to address the impacted 

community's infrastructure needs.

A lack of resource coordination among recovery 

participants can lead to conflicts (such as agencies 

applying separately for the same grants) and 

inefficiencies (such as duplicative volunteer 

management programs). However, overmanagement can result in management problems, 

such as slow response times and poor knowledge 

of local conditions and needs. These considerations 

must be balanced when determining a resource 

management strategy for a State. 

Using Data to Determine Resource Needs

In order to determine the resources necessary to 

support recovery efforts, States first have to have an 

understanding of how resource availability will be 

impacted by a disaster. This includes understanding 

what assets exist in a community, including 

housing stock, infrastructure, and businesses. 

Having these data before a disaster enables the 

State to understand what issues may arise in certain 

communities after a disaster. States could also use 

these data to model potential disaster impacts as 

part of a scenario (or multiple scenarios) so that 

they can better consider their recovery needs 

overall. 

Some data are easier to acquire than others. For 

example, housing and infrastructure data are 

usually inventoried in public records at the local 

level. Demographic and other population data 

are also available through the U.S. Census. Data 

can sometimes be difficult to acquire, such as 

that related to private businesses. Chambers of 

Commerce and other local economic development 

organizations are a good place to start when 

looking for data to help understand potential 

economic impacts.

Once resource needs have been identified, they 

should be compared to existing resources to 

identify potential gaps. While all resource needs 

cannot be anticipated pre-disaster, many can be. 

Identifying known resource gaps before a disaster 

strikes will save time post-disaster. 
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 50

Understanding State Resources 

Regardless of the level of support offered by the 

Federal government or other resource providers, 

the State must have a clear understanding of its 

own recovery resources. Pre-disaster, States can 

work with local governments to ensure that their 

leaders understand what these resources are, 

how to use them, and whether there are real or 

perceived barriers preventing local governments 

from accessing State resources. 

Existing resources can include those that are 

currently unassigned as well as those that can be 

reallocated. However, resources needed to address 

ongoing, day-to-day operations need to be taken 

into account when determining what resources can 

be reallocated to address recovery. For example, 

the demand for disaster-related building inspections may increase after a flood, but the demand for regular 

inspections may not decrease, and reassigning inspectors will not be sufficient.

Acquiring and Managing Resources 

After resource gaps have been identified, it is necessary to identify ways to fill those resource gaps. 

The government is not the only partner for resources in recovery; planners must consider how wholecommunity partners such as government, voluntary, nonprofit, and private sector organizations and 

agencies will be engaged to provide resources post-disaster.19 While most resource acquisition will need to 

take place post-disaster, certain steps can be taken pre-disaster to ease this process. For example, prior to a 

disaster, States can: 

• Promote the use of tax-exempt nonprofit organizations to administer donations and other financial 

resources; 

• Identify possible funding mechanisms beyond Stafford Act funds;20 and 

• Develop a strong State-level grants management strategy to better handle the grant identification and 

writing process.

Processes and systems must be in place to manage resources for disaster recovery as well. Resource 

management systems help to ensure efficient use of resources, track disbursement, maintain transparency, 

and adhere to reporting requirements. As part of pre-disaster planning, State governments can:

• Develop pre-disaster financial management procedures, including opportunities to blend funding 

sources;

• Develop methods for documenting incoming resources to simplify post-disaster record-keeping; and

• Develop a strong State-level grants management strategy to better handle grant management. 

Case Example: 

Hurricane Floyd Recovery Act of 1999

After Hurricane Floyd caused extensive damage 

in the State of North Carolina in 1999, the State 

legislature passed the Hurricane Floyd Recovery 

Act, which established the Hurricane Floyd Reserve 

Fund. The Fund allocated more than $800 million 

beyond Stafford Act and other Federal assistance. 

These funds came from the State’s “rainy day” 

fund. In total, this program included 22 new 

programs to support statewide recovery efforts. 

Source: State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide. Gavin 

Smith and Dylan Sandler. September 2012. Available 

at http://coastalhazardscenter.org/dev/wp-content/

uploads/2012/05/State-Disaster-Recovery-PlanningGuide_2012.pdf .

19 See Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents pages 21-28 for a detailed discussion of whole-community 

partners that can provide resources

20 See Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents pages 19-20 for additional information about Non-Stafford 

Act funding mechanisms
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 51

Case Example: 

New York City Volunteer 

and Donation Coordination

New York City’s recent experience managing 

recovery resources illustrates the scope of 

coordination required after a major disaster. 

In the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy, over 11,000 

volunteers assisted with recovery activities in 

New York City. Coordinating the deployment of 

so many volunteers was a significant logistical 

challenge. The enormous quantity of unsolicited 

donations (particularly clothing) that arrived also 

presented problems related to intake, storage, and 

distribution.

After the disaster, the city identified updates to its 

plan to address these issues, including:

• Pre-identifying partners with the capacity to 

manage volunteers and handle material donations

• Developing protocols for volunteer recruitment

• Improving communications about the city’s 

volunteer screening process

Similar strategies could be coordinated at the 

State level in order to provide consistent statewide 

resource management.

Source: Hurricane Sandy After Action: Report and 

Recommendations to Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, pp. 

29-30.

Sector- or Function-Specific Plan Elements

If the State has established a recovery support 

structure based on its critical functions or sectors, 

the pre-disaster recovery plan discusses how the 

State will address those functions or sectors postdisaster. The pre-disaster plan also addresses the 

recovery priorities, applicable post-disaster policies 

to implement, and potential sector- or functionspecific resources (funding, staffing, etc.).

Economic Recovery

In the event of a disaster, the pre-disaster 

recovery plan may consider aspects of the State’s 

economy that are critical and should therefore 

be given high priority in the recovery process. 

For example, a pre-disaster recovery plan may 

include workforce development for consideration 

of new employer development strategies as a 

high priority. Including this in a pre-disaster 

recovery plan makes it clear to stakeholders that 

job creation should be a priority as it relates 

to economic recovery. The plan may also note 

particular industries and occupations that are 

important to the State. For example, if agriculture 

is critical to the State’s economy, the pre-disaster 

plan should also note this as being another 

priority in economic recovery.

Health and Social Services

The recovery of health and social services is critical 

in the aftermath of a disaster. The pre-disaster 

recovery plan is an opportunity to document 

priorities such as the recovery of hospitals 

and schools. Similar to economic recovery, 

documenting these priorities makes it clear to 

stakeholders where their resources may be needed 

most.

Recovery involves multiple sectors of the community 

and multiple stakeholders, including disaster 

survivors.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 52

Housing

Housing is often the most immediate disaster impact and the restoration of workforce housing, in 

particular, is vital to community recovery. The pre-disaster recovery plan may consider the resources and 

potential gaps in resources for accessible and affordable housing recovery following different disaster types 

that are likely in the State. For example, homeowners in certain vulnerable areas may not have sufficient 

insurance coverage for earthquake, flood, wind, wildfire, or other disaster-specific damages. Understanding 

these potential gaps will be beneficial in helping formulate an inclusive plan or strategy. The pre-disaster 

recovery plan might discuss procedures for developing temporary and permanent housing and how to 

blend funding streams from various resource providers to expedite the housing recovery process.

Infrastructure Systems

The pre-disaster recovery plan should note not only which systems are critical for recovery, but also who 

owns those systems, what segments of the whole community are served by those systems, and what resources 

will likely be available for their recovery. For example, publicly owned infrastructure and private non-profit 

infrastructure organizations are both eligible for FEMA Public Assistance (PA) in a Presidentially declared 

disaster, but privately owned, for-profit infrastructure is not eligible for FEMA PA. Infrastructure systems, 

such as utilities, communications, and transportation corridors, are often owned and managed by the private 

sector. Close coordination between the State and private-sector infrastructure owners will need to take place to 

ensure that infrastructure is replaced or relocated quickly.

Natural and Cultural Resources

Natural and cultural resources are a critical component in the overall recovery of a State and the 

communities within that State. The pre-disaster recovery plan should consider how the State will support 

the rehabilitation of natural and cultural resources, including historic properties while remaining compliant 

with applicable regulations and standards. Additionally, natural resources are a critical consideration when 

addressing overall community resilience in the pre-disaster recovery plan. 

E. STEP 5 – PLAN PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL

In Step 5, information, documentation, and decisions from the preceding steps are consolidated to 

formulate a written pre-disaster recovery plan that is inclusive of the whole community. CPG 101 includes 

general guidelines for writing effective plans. The plan should be concise and clearly communicate the 

decisions made by the pre-disaster recovery planning team to operators, partners, and the public in an 

accessible format. The plan will ultimately provide a framework for action, accounting for known predisaster issues and resource gaps, and will address leadership, partners, priorities, and polices for recovery. 

Certain elements should be included in the State’s pre-disaster recovery plan. For example, leadership, 

stakeholders, structure, and roles and responsibilities should be clearly documented. Additionally, the 

plan should include how the State will coordinate itself and how it will coordinate with other levels of 

government or nongovernment entities. Figure 6 depicts elements the State may wish to include in its 

plan. The sections and subject matter listed is not intended to be prescriptive; rather, it is intended to give a 

general sense of what the pre-disaster plan might address. States may identify additional considerations or 

choose to organize their plans in other ways.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 53

All stakeholders involved in the 

planning process, including the 

planning team, State leadership, 

and agencies and organizations 

referenced in the plan, should 

have the opportunity to review it 

and provide feedback. A draft plan 

should also be distributed to the 

public, especially if required by the 

State. States may have policies and/

or protocol in place for plan reviews. 

Allow enough time for all reviewers 

to provide feedback and additional 

time for the planning team to make 

changes based on that feedback. 

Finally, the plan should be submitted 

to the State’s approving authority 

(e.g., Governor’s Office and/or State 

legislature) to provide any additional 

feedback and ultimately for final 

approval and/or adoption.

F. STEP 6 – PLAN 

IMPLEMENTATION AND 

MAINTENANCE 

Ongoing activities such as training, exercises, and document revisions ensure that State recovery 

stakeholders are able to effectively manage post-disaster recovery activities. While developing the plan, it 

is important to decide who will be responsible for ongoing preparedness activities. In many cases it is best 

to have members of the planning team, and their respective agencies, perform this function. Additionally, 

adopting formal procedures and policies to govern ongoing recovery preparedness activities will provide a 

framework for standardization of and consistency in subsequent recovery actions undertaken.

To maximize understanding and build capacity in the recovery process, State stakeholders should establish 

a regular schedule of inclusive training, exercises, and document review, revision, and update. This will 

enable State recovery leadership to understand outstanding capability or process gaps, mitigation needs, and 

other recovery preparedness needs. These activities will likely go beyond updating the pre-disaster recovery 

plan, to include conferences, workshops, and other events open to both State agency representatives, as well 

as stakeholders from other levels of government, NGOs, and individuals. Some examples of these types of 

activities are found in Appendix C of this document.

Figure 6 Components of a Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 54

Discussion Point: 

Exercising the Plan

Plans can be exercised in a variety of ways. Recovery exercises 

are usually based on a scenario that provides context to 

the exercise that tests the plan, as well as the ability of 

stakeholders to take on the roles and responsibilities assigned 

to them. These exercises often reveal gaps that can be 

addressed through plan revisions and additional training. When 

people with disabilities are involved in all phases of exercise 

development, then during evaluation of the plan, recovery 

leaders will also know whether or not the proposed plan 

adequately includes all people in the whole community.

Approaches to completing plan exercises vary. There are seven 

types of exercises, and the majority of recovery exercises 

are tabletop exercises wherein a discussion is generated in 

an informal setting using a hypothetical scenario. Tabletop 

exercises can be used to enhance general awareness, validate 

plans and procedures, rehearse concepts, and/or assess the 

types of systems needed to guide the recovery from a defined 

disaster. Table-top exercises may last a day or longer depending 

on what is being exercised. Regardless of the duration, they 

usually take place in one defined time period (e.g., a day, a 

week).

Another approach to completing an exercise is conducting 

a series of exercises over a longer period of time. Florida is 

exploring the idea of a year-long recovery exercise, recognizing 

that long-term recovery is an extended process and individuals 

who will be participating may have limited availability. The 

exercise series will be initiated with a workshop that all 

participants will attend. After that, a series of short tabletop 

exercises will allow for both in-person participation and remote 

participation via webinar. The group will have a discussion 

based on the scenario and, prior to adjourning, a new “inject” 

will be issued for the next meeting. The primary advantage of 

this approach is that it keeps stakeholders engaged for a longer 

period of time, which is more similar to the recovery process.

When developing the exercise plan, it is important to consider 

the role of political appointees and the fact that they change 

frequently. One method to overcome this is to hold regularly 

scheduled briefing-style seminars with top level State 

executives. Top executives, including the Governor’s Office, 

need to know that the plan exists and the importance of their 

leadership early on in defining the recovery needs and shaping 

the relationships with Washington, disaster-impacted mayors 

and elected officials, and other key stakeholders in their State.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 55

Exercises

Recovery exercises are conducted to train for, assess, practice, and improve performance in recovery 

capabilities in a risk-free environment. A typical exercise involves developing disaster scenarios and asking 

the recovery organization and other partners to determine whether or not they would have the ability 

to implement the plan and address recovery needs of the whole community under those circumstances. 

Emphasis should be placed on including seniors, individuals with disabilities, and others with access and 

functional needs; those from religious, racial, and ethnically diverse backgrounds; and people with limited 

English proficiency. To ensure full and meaningful participation, there must be physical, programmatic, 

and communication access for all those potentially affected by a disaster. This process enables evaluation of 

the plan, aids the community in understanding its role in recovery preparedness and plan implementation, 

and helps identify gaps in policies, roles, partners, resources, and procedures. 

Scheduled Reviews and Updates

The plan should be reviewed and updated regularly. This will ensure that new vulnerabilities that are 

identified are addressed in the planning process. These vulnerabilities could be physical, environmental, 

cultural, or geographic elements of a community that could be risk prone, or existing State policies that 

could inhibit the ability of a community to recover from a disaster. They could also be the result of a 

new hazard or new information about an existing hazard. Hazard mitigation is an underlying theme 

of preparedness and opportunities to mitigate should be considered whenever a State evaluates its 

vulnerabilities or new risk information is available.

Document Best Practices

Throughout the planning process, the planning team should document actions, including best practices and 

lessons learned during the plan development process. Additionally, improvements can be made to the plan 

during scheduled updates by incorporating lessons learned during plan exercises and from actual postdisaster recovery efforts. Most disasters include a "hotwash" or after-action assessment. The scope of these 

after-action activities should include recovery and the results of the process should inform recovery plan 

updates.
Page 56
Page 57

VII. Conclusion

Pre-disaster planning is a vital component in preparing a community to successfully conduct recovery 

operations inclusive of the whole community. State governments in particular have a critical role in predisaster recovery planning. Through the use of CPG 101, and this guide, States can establish roles and 

responsibilities as well as priorities long before a disaster. While development of an inclusive pre-disaster 

recovery plan may be a complex and lengthy process, the community as a whole will benefit after a disaster 

because recovery efforts will be able to begin more quickly. 
Page 58
Page 59

Appendix A: References

References included in this section are for documents and websites cited throughout this Guide. There 

are many additional resources available to assist planners and stakeholders that are available through the 

Recovery Pre-Disaster Planning Guidance for States (RPPG-S) Resource Library.

American Planning Association, Charting the course for Rebuilding a Great American City: An Assessment of the Planning 

Function in Post-Katrina New Orleans. Available at http://law.wustl.edu/landuselaw/Articles/New_Orleans_

Rebuilding.htm

Daniel J. Weiss and Jackie Weidman, Disastrous Spending: Federal Disaster-Relief Expenditures Rise amid More Extreme 

Weather, (Washington: Center for American Progress, 2013). Available at https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/

green/report/2013/04/29/61633/disastrous-spending-Federal-disaster-relief-expenditures-rise-amid-moreextreme-weather/

FEMA, The National Disaster Recovery Framework. Available at www.fema.gov/pdf/recoveryframework/ndrf.pdf

FEMA, The National Preparedness Goal. Available at https://www.fema.gov/national-preparedness-goal

FEMA, Developing and Maintaining Emergency Operations Plans: Comprehensive Preparedness Guide 101. Available at 

http://www.fema.gov/pdf/about/divisions/npd/CPG_101_V2.pdf

FEMA, Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents guide. Available at 

https://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/101940

Gavin Smith and Dylan Sandler. State Disaster Recovery Planning Guide (U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 

Coastal Hazards Center of Excellence, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 2012). Available at 

http://www.cof.org/sites/default/files/documents/files/State-Disaster-Recovery-Planning-Guide_2012.pdf

Gavin Smith, Lea Sabbag, and Ashley Rohmer. 2016. Disaster Recovery: A Comparative Analysis of Gubernatorial 

Leadership, Collaboration, and Capacity Building. Unpublished

Johnson, Laurie and Robert B. Olshansky, “The Road to Recovery: Governing Post-Disaster Reconstruction,” 

Land Lines, July 2013
Page 60
Page 61

Appendix B: Factors for a 

Successful Recovery

Experience has shown that the presence of certain factors in a State, tribe, or community can help ensure a 

successful recovery. The National Disaster Recovery Framework identifies seven success factors for successful 

disaster recovery. Nearly all of these can be defined in some way pre-disaster, thereby speeding recovery. 

Effective Decision-Making and Coordination 

• Recovery leadership defines roles and responsibilities for all stakeholders and participants.

• Businesses, nonprofits, and local community leadership examine recovery alternatives, address 

conflicts, and make informed and timely decisions that best achieve recovery of the impacted 

community.

• Organizations providing leadership or assistance for recovery establish realistic metrics for tracking 

progress, ensuring accountability, and reinforcing realistic expectations among stakeholders.

• Government, voluntary, faith-based, and community organizations provide assistance to track 

progress, ensure accountability, and make adjustments to ongoing assistance.

Integration of Community Recovery Planning Processes

• Communities engage in pre-disaster recovery planning and other recovery preparedness, mitigation, 

and community resilience-building work.

• Individual, business, and community preparation and resilience-building provide a foundation for 

recovery plans that improve the speed and quality of post-disaster recovery decisions.

• The public-private partnership under the National Infrastructure Protection Plan facilitates broad 

coordination and information sharing among all levels of government and private-sector owners and 

operators of critical infrastructure.

• The community develops processes and criteria for identifying and prioritizing key recovery actions 

and projects.

• The community’s recovery leadership creates an organizational framework involving key sectors and 

stakeholders to manage and expedite recovery planning and coordination.

• Recovery authorities revise existing local- and State-level emergency response contingencies to include 

recovery planning best practices and other preparedness, mitigation, and community resiliencebuilding work.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 62

Well-Managed Recovery 

• Well-established, pre-disaster partnerships at the local, State, tribal, and Federal levels, including those 

with the private sector and NGOs, help to drive a successful recovery.

• Recovery stakeholders leverage and coordinate disaster and traditional public- and NGO-assistance 

programs to accelerate the recovery process and avoid duplication of efforts.

• Communities seek out, interface, and coordinate successfully with outside sources of help, such as 

surrounding governments, foundations, universities, nonprofit organizations, and private-sector 

entities—a key element in rapid recovery.

• Readily available surge staffing and management structures support the increased workload during 

recovery, such as code enforcement, planning, communications, grant-writing, and management. 

• Recovery leadership establishes guidance for the transition, including the shift of roles and 

responsibilities, from response operations to recovery and, finally, a return to a new normal state of 

community functioning.

• Recovery leadership also ensures compliance with architectural standards and programmatic 

accessibility during recovery.

Proactive Community Engagement, Public Participation and Public Awareness

• Stakeholders collaborate to maximize the use of available resources to rebuild housing, infrastructure, 

schools, businesses, and the social-historical-cultural fabric of the impacted community in a resilient 

manner, and to provide health care, access, and functional support services.

• All community perspectives are represented in all phases of disaster and recovery planning; 

transparency and accountability in the process are clearly evident.

• Communities create post-disaster recovery plans that can be implemented quickly. Local opinions are 

incorporated so that community needs are met in a more holistic manner, maximizing the provision 

and utilization of recovery resources and built upon, or incorporated into, the community master 

plan.

• Public information is accessible to keep everyone informed throughout the recovery process. 

This includes providing appropriate aids and services, such as captioning, large print, Braille, 

interpretation, and translated materials to ensure effective communication with individuals with 

disabilities and to facilitate access to information for individuals with limited English proficiency.

• Continuous and accessible public information campaigns to community members on various recovery 

programs and the commitment to short-, intermediate-, and long-term recovery, as well as the overall 

recovery progress, increase public confidence.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 63

Well-Administered Financial Acquisition 

• Community stakeholders need to possess an understanding and have access to broad and diverse 

funding sources in order to finance recovery efforts.

• The community’s knowledge and professional administration of external programs greatly aid the 

recovery progress.

• Funders and resource providers collaborate to provide program flexibility and implement finance 

planning. Recovery management and program administration collaborate in a post-disaster 

environment.

• Recovery management programs support the development and maintenance of adequate financial 

monitoring and accounting systems for new and large levels of investment. Management programs 

include systems that detect and deter fraud, waste, and abuse.

• Federal recovery expenditures maximize the use of local businesses to promote local economic 

development.

Organizational Flexibility 

• Organizational structures for coordinating recovery assistance are scalable and flexible.

• Recovery structures at all government levels evolve, adapt, and develop new skills and capacities to 

address the changing landscape of post-disaster environments. 

• Functional and effective intergovernmental relations influence the efficiency of the recovery process.

• Organizational flexibility facilitates the application of laws, regulations, and policies in the context of 

a disaster and enhances the government’s adaptability to govern in unforeseen disasters.

• Flexible staffing and management structures enhance the adaptability of the governmental structure.

• Increased pre-disaster partnerships help reduce or avoid the challenges of establishing new 

partnerships in a post-disaster environment.

• Organizational flexibility is compatible with the integrity and accountability of taxpayer-funded 

programs.

Resilient Rebuilding

• The community rebuilds a sustainable future factoring in the ecological, economic, and local capacity 

considerations.

• The recovery is an opportunity for communities to rebuild in a manner that will reduce or eliminate 

risk from future disasters.

• Communities can incorporate stronger building codes and land use ordinances. Vulnerable structures 

can be retrofitted, elevated, or removed from harm.

• Community members, businesses, and local governments can incorporate risk reduction strategies 

into governance and local decision-making.
Page 64
Page 65

Appendix C: Successful 

Recovery Outcomes

Below are examples of what a successful disaster recovery may look like (see Appendix A) at the local level. 

It is a list of key activities, milestones, and conditions that a local community might achieve at certain stages 

post-disaster: within the first days to weeks after a disaster occurs, between the third and sixth month 

afterward, and by the end of the third year. These three time intervals correspond to the National Disaster 

Recovery Framework recovery phases, as depicted in Figure 7. Although recovery timeframes and activities 

vary by a specific community’s needs, these snapshots of activities, milestones, and conditions can serve as 

guideposts for a local community seeking to understand and measure their post-disaster recovery effort’s 

pace, focus, and effectiveness. More information about local recovery planning can be found in the PreDisaster Recovery Planning Guide for Local Governments.

SHORT TERM (DAYS):

• Provide integrated mass care and emergency services

• Establish temporary or interim infrastructure to support business re-openings

• Reestablish cash flow

• Identify adults and children who benefit from counseling or behavioral health services and begin 

treatment

• Provide emergency and temporary medical care and establish appropriate surveillance protocols

• Assess and understand risks and vulnerabilities

INTERMEDIATE TERM (WEEKS-MONTHS):

• Provide accessible interim housing solutions

• Initiate debris removal

• Plan immediate infrastructure repair and restoration

• Support reestablishment of businesses where appropriate

• Engage support networks for ongoing care

• Ensure continuity of care through temporary facilities

• Inform community members of opportunities to build back stronger
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 66

LONG TERM (MONTHS-YEARS):

• Implement mitigation and resilience-building strategies 

• Develop permanent housing solutions

• Adapt to changed conditions

• Rebuild infrastructure to meet future community needs

• Implement economic revitalization strategies

• Facilitate funding to business rebuilding

• Follow-up for ongoing counseling, behavioral health, and case management services

• Reestablishment of disrupted health care facilities
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 67

Figure 7 The Recovery Continuum
Page 68
Page 69

Appendix D: State Recovery 

Coordination and Management 

Case Studies

THE COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA AND DISASTER RECOVERY AND 

PREPAREDNESS 

Since 2007, seven major disasters have been declared in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. These 

disasters include Superstorm Sandy in 2013, incurring a total of $12.8 million in Public Assistance (PA) 

grant funding; Irene in 2011, with $25.8 million in PA grant funding; Tropical Storm Lee in 2011, with 

$145.6 million; and four other severe storm, flooding, and tornado events totaling $76.1 million in PA 

funding.21 The significant damage caused by storms Lee and Irene in particular spurred the Commonwealth 

to think about how to approach disaster recovery and preparedness in a more holistic way. Building on the 

lessons of these disasters, the State took two overall approaches to look forward to recovery from future 

disasters: developing an established coordination structure, and creation of a Disaster Recovery Plan for the 

Commonwealth.

In September of 2012, Pennsylvania was able to institutionalize a process the Commonwealth had been 

using for the ongoing coordination of its recovery efforts from storms Irene and Lee, particularly those 

efforts that focused on encouraging the return of economic and business activities after future disasters. 

This process led to the creation of an economic recovery team. An Economic Development Administration 

(EDA) grant issued to the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic Development (DCED) 

provided the State with the capacity, including the staffing of a full-time disaster recovery coordinator, 

to coordinate Commonwealth efforts in support of disaster-impacted communities’ long-term recovery 

efforts. This coordinated support to communities was the foundation of what would become the State’s 

new coordination structure, The Pennsylvania Recovery Resources Team (RRT), as formalized in a new 

Commonwealth recovery plan.

The RRT is led by Jeff Allen, the Commonwealth Disaster Recovery Coordinator out of DCED, and 

supported by a range of Federal, regional, county, private-sector, and NGO partners. The RRT is composed 

of a Steering Committee, which includes the Lieutenant Governor of Pennsylvania, DCED Secretary, 

Pennsylvania Emergency Management Director, FEMA Region III Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator, 

and a representative from an Economic Development District. There are six working groups that focus 

on Housing Recovery; Economic Recovery; Infrastructure Recovery; Community Planning and Capacity 

Building; Health and Social Services; and Natural and Cultural Resources. The working groups meet on a 

quarterly basis.22

The RRT aims to serve as the central point of contact for community leaders and a facilitator of 

communication between communities in need and resource providers. In addition, the RRT was used 

to foster a number of outreach programs, including those with State-level preparedness partners in 

and outside Pennsylvania, and with local businesses. The RRT also worked to create local partnerships, 

for example with academic intuitions, the County Commissioners’ Association, and the Pennsylvania 

Cultural Resiliency Network. More importantly, the RRT was used to facilitate ongoing projects, such as 

21 FEMA Disaster Declarations for Pennsylvania, https://www.fema.gov/disasters/grid/state-tribal-government/44# 22 Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development, RRT Steering Committee, http://www.newpa.com/local-government/boards-committees/

recovery-resources-team-rrt-steering-committee/
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 70

the Bloomsburg Levee Project,23 the West Pittston Tomorrow Community Mitigation workshop, and flood 

planning and long-term recovery groups. “Maintaining the framework of recovery resource coordination 

for the Commonwealth creates an increased capacity for reduced recovery time in the event of future 

disasters.”24

Led by the Commonwealth Disaster Recovery Coordinator, Jeffrey Allen, the RRT developed the 

Commonwealth Disaster Recovery Plan (CDRP), which incorporates elements of the National Disaster 

Recovery Framework (NDRF). The CDRP, currently in DRAFT form, outlines the plan for how the 

Commonwealth will organize and structure itself for recovery in the event of future disasters; assigns 

duties and responsibilities of key leaders and agencies; and provides for the restoration of critical functions, 

services, vital resources, facilities, homes, businesses, programs, and infrastructure to those areas of the 

Commonwealth impacted by the devastating effects of an all-hazards environment. 

For more information, see http://www.newpa.com/housing-and-development/community-services/

disaster-recovery/#.V1rh7E32aUk.

Summary – Commonwealth used disasters to identify ways to build and institutionalize preparedness 

planning and coordination into their ongoing efforts. These systems create a standing structure that can be 

used to more effectively deliver support to communities post-disaster, as depicted in Figure 8. 

23 https://bloomsburgpa.org/news/bloomsburg-flood-protection-project/ 24 Email conversation on 2/17/16 with Jeffrey Allen, PEMA Disaster Recovery Coordinator

Figure 8 The Pennsylvania Recovery Resources Team Organizational Structure
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 71

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI'S RECOVERY MANAGEMENT FOLLOWING KATRINA

Hurricane Katrina made landfall near Pearlington, MS, on August 29, 2005, directly impacting more than 

a third of Mississippi’s three million residents.25 Across the State, there were more than 230 deaths, over 

60,000 homes were seriously damaged or destroyed, and much of the structures, infrastructure, and 

natural environment were destroyed along the Mississippi Gulf Coast. 

Within weeks of the disaster, then Governor Barbour appointed a Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, 

and Renewal that was a privately funded, nonprofit organization, with over 40 local officials and business 

leaders serving as chairs and committee leaders for the Commission.26 It was supported by a small (about 

10) staff and included over 500 volunteers serving on numerous committees. In Governor Barbour’s words:

“The Commission will lead, but local governments and the private sector will decide. The Coast and South Mississippi will decide their 

own destiny, but with strong support from the Commission, our Congressional delegation, State officials and many others.” In midOctober 2005, the Commission held a 6-day Mississippi Renewal Forum that was termed a “charette” with 

teams of local and out-of-state professionals working alongside community leaders to design and plan for 

the Gulf Coast.27 Following this, the Commission worked to process input from the Forum and developed 

its final report titled After Katrina: Building Back Better Than Ever, on December 31, 2005. The final report 

contained over 230 recommendations in a variety of areas including infrastructure, economic development, 

and human services. The Commission effectively ended at this point but its work and recommendations 

were instrumental in shaping the State’s recovery agenda.

In early 2006, Mississippi’s State legislature and Governor established the Governor’s Office of Recovery 

and Renewal, which served as a policy-oriented body for the State. Its staff had the primary responsibility 

for designing the State’s various recovery programs and shaping the State’s overall approach to rebuilding.28

Among its responsibilities, the Office coordinated relief efforts among Federal and State agencies, namely 

the Mississippi Development Authority (MDA) and the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency, and 

other public and private entities. Its primary objectives included obtaining the maximum amount of 

Federal funds and maximizing the use of credit in lieu of cash, providing policy advice and formulation 

to the Governor and State agencies, providing technical assistance and outreach to local governments, and 

facilitating the implementation of recommendations made by the Governor’s Commission. The Office 

issued annual reports with updates on the State's recovery efforts; the year four report is available at http://

www.msdisasterrecovery.com/documents/28.8.09FourYearsAfterKatrina.pdf.

To hear directly from the Governor and some of Mississippi’s leaders who were instrumental in organizing, 

planning, and managing the recovery efforts following Hurricane Katrina view the video: The Role of States in 

Disaster Recovery. This short video includes State leaders from Mississippi and North Carolina discussing their 

strategies to support recovery and lessons from their experiences. There is also a training guide that can be 

used to help you facilitate conversations with your State leadership to build on these lessons.

Mississippi received approximately $5.5 billion in Community Development Block Grant – Disaster 

Recovery (CDBG-DR) funds following Hurricane Katrina, which was provided through three Congressional 

allocations in 2005, 2006, and 2007. A Disaster Recovery Division was established in the MDA to manage 

25 Mississippi Development Authority, Lesson Learned from Katrina Recovery, Disaster Recovery Division, Mississippi Development Authority, 2014, http://www.

msdisasterrecovery.com/housing/16-uncategorised

26 Governor’s Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal, After Katrina: Building Back Better Than Ever (December 31, 2005), http://mississippirenewal.

com/documents/Governors_Commission_Report.pdf

27 Mississippi Renewal Forum, “Rebuilding the Gulf Coast: Answering the Governor’s Call for Recovery, Rebuilding and Renewal on the Mississippi Gulf Coast”

(The Town Paper, 2005), http://www.tndtownpaper.com/gulf/Gulf_Coast_PreCharrette.pdf

28 U.S. Government Accountability Office GAO, Gulf Coast Disaster Recovery: Community Development Block Grant Program Guidance to States Needs to Be Improved

(Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office, June 2009); Gavin Smith, Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance

Framework (Public Entity Risk Institute, 2011)
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 72

Mississippi’s share of CDBG-DR funds and to implement policies established by the Governor’s Office 

of Recovery and Renewal. The Disaster Recovery Division initially had a staff of about 20 people and 

eventually ramped up to about 50 employees assigned to administer and manage the State’s disaster 

recovery work.29 Contractors were also hired as needed to handle the day-to-day management of key 

recovery programs, such as the State’s housing grant program. Highlights of Mississippi’s CDBG-DR funded 

recovery programs, as of August 2011,30 are as follows:

• Housing. The State directed nearly 70 percent ($3.85 billion) of the CDBG-DR funds toward housing

recovery. A Homeowner’s Assistance Program paid more than $2 billion in individual grants (of

up to $150,000) to over 27,750 homeowners and also provided over 1,100 home elevation grants

totaling $46.5 million. A small rental program ($226.9 million) helped fund repairs to over 4,000

rental housing units, a long-term workforce housing program ($329.5 million) helped fund the

rehabilitation, new construction, and homebuyer assistance to more than 1,700 affordable housing

units, and a tax credit program ($25 million) helped facilitate construction of 700 affordable housing

units. A Ratepayer and Windpool Mitigation program ($440 million) helped to offset increased

residential insurance costs post-Katrina. A series of Water/Wastewater Infrastructure projects were

funded (totaling $631 million), and a building/code inspector grants program ($9.5 million) funded

16 grants.

• Recovery. The State directed $1.47 billion to fund tourism restoration and economic development

grants, loans, and work force training programs ($,346.2 million); community revitalization and

planning grants ($261.6 million) for over 100 projects; and specific development projects, including

40 Gulf Opportunity Zone Revitalization projects ($42.4 million), Port of Gulfport ($621 million),

and Hancock County projects ($197.6 million). A fraud investigation/contractor fraud program ($5

million) was also instituted.

As of June 2016, the MDA’s Disaster Recovery Division continues to administer and provide Federally 

required monitoring of the CDBG-DR funds.31

Sources

GAO, U.S. Government Accountability Office. Gulf Coast Disaster Recovery: Community Development Block Grant Program 

Guidance to States Needs to Be Improved. Washington D.C.: Government Accountability Office, June 2009.

Governor’s Commission on Recovery, Rebuilding, and Renewal. After Katrina: Building Back Better Than Ever, 

December 31, 2005. http://mississippirenewal.com/documents/Governors_Commission_Report.pdf.

Mississippi Development Authority. CDBG Summary Points August 3, 2011, Disaster Recovery Division, August 3, 

2011. http://www.msdisasterrecovery.com/documents/Copy%20of%20MDA_PMO_CDBG_Summary_

Points_final__20110801%20Talking%20Points.pdf.

Mississippi Development Authority. Lesson Learned from Katrina Recovery. Disaster Recovery Division, 2014. 

http://www.msdisasterrecovery.com/housing/16-uncategorised

Mississippi Renewal Forum. Rebuilding the Gulf Coast: Answering the Governor’s Call for Recovery, 

Rebuilding and Renewal on the Mississippi Gulf Coast. The Town Paper, 2005. http://www.tndtownpaper.

com/gulf/Gulf_Coast_PreCharrette.pdf.

29 Mississippi Development Authority, “Lesson Learned from Katrina Recovery”; GAO, Gulf Coast Disaster Recovery: Community Development Block Grant 

Program Guidance to States Needs to Be Improved

30 Mississippi Development Authority, CDBG Summary Points August 3, 2011, Disaster Recovery Division, August 3, 2011), http://www.msdisasterrecovery.com/

documents/Copy%20of%20MDA_PMO_CDBG_Summary_Points_final__20110801%20Talking%20Points.pdf

31 Mississippi Development Authority, Disaster Recovery Division, http://www.msdisasterrecovery.com
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 73

Smith, Gavin. Planning for Post-Disaster Recovery: A Review of the United States Disaster Assistance Framework. Public Entity 

Risk Institute, 2011.

STATE OF NEW YORK'S RECOVERY COORDINATION AND MANAGEMENT 

FOLLOWING HURRICANE SANDY 

The State of New York experienced a series of significant disasters starting with named storms Irene and Lee 

in 2011 and continuing with Hurricane Sandy in 2012. The State, armed with lessons learned on Irene and 

Lee, took a forward-looking and proactive approach in structuring its recovery from Sandy. In the months that 

followed Sandy, Governor Cuomo established three commissions to review various aspects of the impacts, 

and response and recovery activities. These commissions’ reports informed recovery policies and programs 

across the State and led to the creation of the Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery (GOSR). This entity has 

centralized coordination and lent transparency to New York State’s recovery and rebuilding efforts. The 

creation of the GOSR and clear leadership throughout the disaster provided an overarching structure for 

recovery management, which can serve as a model for other States. 

Hurricane Sandy made landfall on October 29, 2012, caused more than 60 deaths and $30 billion in 

statewide damages.32 A Presidential disaster declaration was made almost immediately and the New York 

State Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services has worked since that time with FEMA to 

manage the distribution of FEMA IA, PA, and Hazard Mitigation program funds. This funding is a critical 

part of a larger recovery. 

In the weeks immediately following landfall, Governor Cuomo established three commissions to help 

distill key lessons from the storms: NYS Ready Commission, which focused on preparedness activities; NYS 

Respond, which was tasked with ensuring the ability and capacity to effectively respond to natural disaster; 

and NYS2100, which reviewed the vulnerabilities faced by the State’s infrastructure systems and developed 

specific recommendations to increase New York’s resilience in five main areas: transportation, energy, land 

use, insurance, and infrastructure finance.

The Commissions’ reports issued in early 2013 helped to, in part, shape the State’s recovery policy and 

programs. The reports included recommendations to update the State Building Code to promote smarter, 

resilient building performance, as well as increased survivability; provide financial assistance to property 

owners in vulnerable areas to mitigate their damaged properties for future threats or sell them as part of 

a voluntary buyout and relocation program; ensure that healthcare facilities are resilient; and harden the 

State’s infrastructure to better withstand future major storms. 

After Congress’ approval of the Sandy supplemental aid package in January 2013,33 New York State 

developed a proposed Action Plan for an initial allocation of CDBG-DR funds, which was approved in late 

April 2013. When appropriated by Congress, CDBG-DR funds provide disaster recovery grants that can 

fund a broad range of activities, including large-scale aid for housing, community recovery planning, and 

funding for large infrastructure projects geared towards resilience and climate adaptation. These funds 

are intended to address unmet community development recovery needs or supplement FEMA IA, PA, and 

Hazard Mitigation program funds. 

In June 2013, Governor Cuomo established the GOSR to centralize the State’s recovery and rebuilding 

efforts. As of July 2014, the GOSR managed approximately $4.4 billion in CDBG-DR funds. The funding is 

managed across four main program areas:

32 Governor Andrew Cuomo, 2013 State of the State, January 9, 2013, http://www.governor.ny.gov/NY/2013-State-of-the-State 33 Governor Andrew Cuomo, Governor Cuomo Announces Community Reconstruction Zones Funded by Federal Supplemental Disaster Aid to Guide Local 

Rebuilding Process, April 26, 2013. Available at http://www.governor.ny.gov/press/04262013cuomo-reconstruction-Federal-disaster-aid
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 74

• Housing Recovery – GOSR funds single-family homeowner repairs, rehabilitation, mitigation, and 

elevations ($1.056 billion) and programs for the owners of multi-family rental properties, owners 

of co-ops and condos, and owners’ associations ($232.5 million). It also manages the State’s home 

buyout and acquisition initiative ($621.2 million) and provides supplemental housing assistance 

through an interim mortgage and housing assistance program ($49 million).

• Economic Development – GOSR’s small business component provides grants of $50,000 or more, as 

well as low-interest loans to independently owned and operated small businesses ($183.5 million). 

A business mentoring initiative ($3 million) and tourism promotion marketing ($22.46 million) are 

also funded.

• Infrastructure and Environment – GOSR funds the non-Federal share “match” for the FEMA PA 

program ($552.82 million), a local government public infrastructure and critical infrastructure 

program to stabilize and protect New York from future disasters of extreme weather ($254.6 million) 

and a Resiliency Institute ($2.7 million).

• Community Reconstruction – GOSR funds the community-level recovery and resiliency planning 

efforts under the New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program (NYRCRP), as well as the 

resulting projects to implement local recovery and resiliency efforts ($621.23 million).

Using a portion of the overall allocation of the CDBG-DR funding allowed for local planning and local 

disaster recovery management support; specifically, the State established a local planning support program, 

the NYRCRP. The program was integral to aiding local governments in taking a holistic and organized 

view of rebuilding, especially in many of the smaller or lower capacity municipalities. The program set up 

the requirement that CDBG-DR reconstruction funds for additional rebuilding and revitalization assistance 

could only be used after the localities had developed community-driven recovery plans that considered 

current damage, future threats, and economic opportunities. Communities successfully completing a 

recovery plan were then eligible for State funding to support the implementation of key projects and 

activities identified in the plans.

As a condition of participation in the NYRCRP, each community was required to establish a Planning 

Committee composed of local residents and business leaders, as well as municipal representatives and 

elected officials with non-voting status to lead the plan development. In addition, the State provided each 

community with a contracted planning team to help prepare its plan. Contracted consultants were hired 

through a State process administered by New York State Homes and Community Renewal’s Office of 

Community Renewal and the Housing Trust Fund Corporation and managed by GOSR, using in part CDBGDR funds. Planning experts from the New York Department of State and Department of Transportation 

were also assigned to each community to provide technical assistance and help oversee the planning 

consultants. At the conclusion of the planning phase in March 2014, there were 66 NYRCRP committees 

representing more than 100 communities participating in the program.34 

The NYRCRP plans created for New York Rising communities organized proposed initiatives, projects, and 

activities in alignment with the National Disaster Recovery Framework’s Recovery Support Function (RSF)

structure. This made it easier for the Federal Disaster Recovery Coordinator (FDRC) and Federal agencies 

working with the State Disaster Recovery Coordinator (SDRC) to determine points of intersection, make 

adjustments to programs, and provide possible resources. As the consultants who produced the plans 

received guidance and oversight from a team of New York State planners, the plans were developed in a 

uniform and holistic manner meeting State priorities. 

34 New York Rising, Community Reconstruction Committee Plans, Executive Summaries, http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/sites/default/files/crp/community/documents/

executive_summaries_round_2lores.pdf
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 75

The FEMA-coordinated Community Planning and Capacity Building (CPCB) RSF brought Federal and nonFederal partners, in addition to FEMA community planners to the table to support the State in development 

and implementation of the NYRCRP. Coordinated support for access to data, case studies, and research as 

well as technical expertise and assistance in smart growth, land use, sustainability, recovery management, 

community engagement and urban planning aided the State in implementation of the program. The 

Department of Housing and Urban development, Environmental Protection Agency, and National Oceanic 

and Atmospheric Administration, as well as organizations like the American Planning Association, 

played a key role in coming together through CPCB RSF coordination. The New York Department of 

Environmental Conservation and the New York Office of Smart Growth worked with the CPCB RSF to 

organize the Long Island Smart Growth Resilience Partnership. This partnership worked hand in hand 

with Suffolk and Nassau Counties, the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, and several universities 

and other organizations to integrate economic, environment, and social sustainability into redevelopment 

and encourage building away from flood zones and along transit corridors. Early integration of recovery 

planning expertise coordinated by the CPCB RSF, or an equivalent function at the State, allows a State to 

comprehensively target vulnerabilities and mitigation concerns in recovery plans, address local capacity 

gaps, and better bridge the gap between existing State and local recovery plans and existing plans, such as 

the State Multi-Jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plans and local comprehensive plans. 

Building from the success of the NYRCRP and the Governor’s executive commissions, the State enacted the 

New York State Community Risk and Resiliency Act in 2014.35 The law ensures that certain State monies, 

facility-siting regulations, and permits include consideration of the effects of climate change and extremeweather events. The law requires State agencies to develop sea level rise projections as well as model local 

laws that communities can modify and adopt to combat extreme weather and climate change. FEMA has 

been invited to be part of the model local laws working group and is ensuring that the model laws are 

conversant with FEMA guidance.

Utilizing its history of storms and building on existing internal structures, New York State has established 

a network of tools and approaches that are helping communities become more resilient and that can be 

applied in future disasters. The State has an Office of Climate Change, an Office of Local Government, and 

an Office of Planning and Development. Within the Office of Planning and Development, the State runs 

programs/grants for coastal resilience planning, brownfield redevelopment, local waterfront revitalization 

planning, downtown revitalization, smart growth, and long-term community recovery. In all their 

planning efforts, New York has worked to ensure that resilient communities are not just storm ready, but 

also have considered economic and environmental issues, housing, public health, and transportation—

the full complement of activities that make for livable, sustainable towns and cities. In an effort to 

institutionalize the approach taken after Sandy, the State of New York is in the process of developing a 

strategic approach to recovery that is being incorporated into their the mitigation planning process. 

For more on New York State’s innovative community reconstruction program, visit 

http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/community-reconstruction-program. 

For New York’s Climate Change Adaptation guidance, visit http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/82168.html.

For planning tools, many of which will prove valuable to communities outside of the State, visit 

http://www.dos.ny.gov/opd/publications.html.

35 New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, “Community Risk and Resiliency Act,” http://www.dec.ny.gov/energy/102559.html
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 76

Sources

Cuomo, Governor Andrew. 2013 State of the State, January 9, 2013. http://www.governor.ny.gov/NY/2013-

State-of-the-State.

Cuomo, Governor Andrew. Governor Cuomo Announces Community Reconstruction Zones Funded by Federal Supplemental 

Disaster Aid to Guide Local Rebuilding Process | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo, April 26, 2013. http://www.governor.

ny.gov/press/04262013cuomo-reconstruction-Federal-disaster-aid.

FEMA, Federal Emergency Management Agency. FEMA Awards Public Assistance Grants for Sandy Recovery Projects.

FEMA, March 4, 2014. https://www.fema.gov/news-release/2014/03/04/fema-awards-public-assistancegrants-sandy-recovery-projects.

Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery. Action Plan Amendment 6 to the Action Plan for Community Development Block 

Grant Disaster Recovery. State of New York, May 27, 2014. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/action-plans-andamendments.

Governor’s Office of Storm Recovery. Funding Portal | New York Storm Recovery Resources Center. New York State, 

2014. http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/funding-portal.

New York State. New York Rising Community Reconstruction Program, NY Rising Communities, 2014. 

http://stormrecovery.ny.gov/community-reconstruction-program.

STATE OF LOUISIANA'S RECOVERY MANAGEMENT FOLLOWING HURRICANES 

KATRINA AND RITA

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita made landfall along the U.S. Gulf Coast on August 29 and September 24, 2005, 

with devastating impacts on Louisiana.36 More than 1,100 lives were lost, 785,000 residents displaced, 

215,000 homes and 18,700 businesses destroyed, 220,000 jobs lost, and 100 square miles of wetland 

destroyed by storm surge. The State’s total losses are estimated to exceed $150 billion. Governor Blanco 

created the Louisiana Recovery Authority (LRA) by executive order on October 17, 200537 to help:

• Secure funding and other resources,

• Establish principles and policies for redevelopment,

• Lead long-term community and regional planning efforts,

• Ensure transparency and accountability, and

• Communicate progress, status, and needs of the recovery to officials, community advocates, and the 

public.38

This coordinating and planning body became the central point for hurricane recovery in the State of 

Louisiana following the 2005 hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and later took on responsibility for recovery 

following the 2008 Hurricanes Gustav and Ike as well.

Until it was formalized by the Louisiana legislature on February 23, 2006, the LRA operated out of the 

Governor’s Office. The LRA was led by a 33-member board of directors that were selected to be bipartisan, 

socioeconomically and racially diverse, and civic and national leaders who originated from impacted 

communities. These volunteers met consistently, nearly every month over the LRA 5-year life. In 2006, 

36 Louisiana Recovery Authority LRA, “Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005 - 2010,” June 2010, http://lra.louisiana.gov/assets/docs/searchable/Quarterly%20

Reports/FinalReportJune2010.pdf

37 Governor Kathleen Blanco, Executive Order KBB05-63: Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005

38 LRA, “Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005 - 2010”
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 77

the LRA also formed a series of Task Forces to develop and guide policy for all aspects of recovery from 

infrastructure to housing to human services. Each Task Force was chaired by a member of the LRA board of 

directors and included several legislators and a broad-based group of decision-makers.

The LRA also developed a small staff of about 20 to 30 professionals in administration, communications, 

intergovernmental affairs, policy, and planning, and outsourced work to consultants as needed. It also 

coordinated with key Federal and State agencies to complete work, particularly the Office of Community 

Development which established a Disaster Recovery Unit with lead responsibility for the administration of 

the CDBG-DR funds and the Governor's Office of Homeland Security and Emergency Preparedness (GOHSEP) 

with lead responsibility for the FEMA programs. To supplement staff, contractors were hired as needed, many 

of which handled all the day-to-day management of key recovery programs.

The LRA established spending priorities and plans, subject to approval of the State’s Legislature for $13.4 

billion in CDBG-DR funds following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita and provided—through three Congressional 

allocations in 2005, 2006, and 2007—over $1.15 billion in hazard mitigation grant funding from FEMA 

following the 2005 hurricanes and more than $1 billion in CDBG-DR funds allocated by Congress in 2008 

and 2009 for recovery from Gustav and Ike.39 The LRA also reported quarterly on its work, as required by the 

Louisiana Legislature. The final report on the LRA's programs and contributions and its previous reports can be 

found online here: http://lra.louisiana.gov/quarterlyreports.

Following Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, the LRA allocated CDBG-DR funds to establish State-led recovery 

programs for housing, economic development, and infrastructure rebuilding. It also provided leadership for 

long-term recovery planning across the State. Highlights of each are as follows:

• Housing – Louisiana’s Road Home program paid more than $8.53 billion directly to 127,548 

homeowners for repairs and buyouts, including more than $876 million in elevation funds, which 

also came from the FEMA post-disaster hazard mitigation funds allocated to the State. A $521 million 

rental housing program created 6,237 rental housing units, including 4,226 affordable units. The 

Small Rental program paid $158.4 million directly to landlords for repairs. The Piggyback program 

used $333 million to create 20 new mixed-income rental developments across coastal Louisiana.

• Economic Development – $300 million was used to fund several State-led programs to revitalize 

businesses and the workforce, including grants and loans to 4,000 small businesses, training 

programs for more than 6,000 workers who were directly placed 2,786 in jobs, tourism marketing 

funds to 11 impacted parishes, 380 research projects, and approximately 90 technology transfers, 

patents, and licenses.

• Infrastructure Rebuilding – More than $1.4 billion in CDBG funds was allocated for Katrina and Rita 

infrastructure rebuilding projects, including $700 million in the Long-Term Community Recovery 

program, which was designed to let local leaders make decisions about rebuilding projects that 

were not eligible for rebuilding funds from FEMA. Additional funding went to local government 

infrastructure projects ($112.2 million), local school districts ($247.5 million), and fisheries ($28.5 

million). These funds are in addition to the more than $11.9 billion in FEMA PA funds invested in 

rebuilding public infrastructure damaged by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita as well as to reimburse local 

governments for debris removal and emergency protective measures.40

• Recovery Planning – The LRA established a long-range planning taskforce, which then led a regional 

planning process and established a set of planning principles for all local governments to follow. 

All of the State’s parishes (similar to counties) had to comply with the LRA’s planning guidelines in 

39 LRA, “Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005 - 2010”

40 FEMA, “Louisiana Recovery Office | FEMA.gov,” 2013
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 78

order to be eligible for CDBG funding for public facilities and infrastructure repairs. This parish-level 

recovery planning process was supported in large part by the FEMA Emergency Support Function #14 

– Long-Term Community Recovery Planning technical assistance provided in the State.

The LRA also led the State’s recovery following the 2008 Hurricanes Gustav and Ike, and the LRA board 

approved a plan that pushed most of the State's allocation of $565.5 million in CDBG-DR funds to local 

parish governments and also provided aid directly to the fishing and farming industries.

The LRA closed on June 30, 2010—the sunset date originally prescribed in its establishing legislation. The 

staff of the LRA merged with the State Office of Community Development's Disaster Recovery Unit, which 

continues to administer and provide Federally required monitoring of the CDBG-DR funds and work with 

the GOHSEP on the administration of FEMA funds in the State for the 2005 and 2008 hurricanes. The LRA 

archives can be found at: http://lra.louisiana.gov.

As of the summer of 2016, Governor John Bel Edwards has initiated the process to develop a State recovery 

framework and coordinate recovery activities through an SDRC. Following the flooding and severe 

storms experienced by the State of Louisiana in March 2016, Governor Edwards appointed the Director 

of the GOHSEP, James Waskom, as the SDRC. Director Waskom was tasked with implementing the 

NDRF. Governor Edwards delegated authority to SDRC Director Waskom to coordinate State agencies and 

departments participation in these recovery efforts as appropriate. “Recovery from this flood event will 

be a challenge,” said GOHSEP Director Waskom. “Establishing the NDRF plan will help the State meet the 

challenges and prepare for future events. As we continue to coordinate assistance for flood victims, it is 

important to realize a man-made or weather related emergency can happen at any moment in Louisiana. 

[sic] Having these standards in place will make ongoing recovery efforts more efficient and make the State 

more resilient.”41

In order to codify the State’s approach to recovery, a planner has been hired to focus solely on the 

development of the State of Louisiana Disaster Recovery Framework. An executive order put in place by 

Former Governor Jindal (EO BJ 14-9 Emergency Operations Plan)42 was aimed at establishing effective 

coordination of State, Federal, and private resources to support response and recovery and required 

GOHSEP to update the emergency operations plan to address the RSFs of the NDRF. This prior work is 

being reviewed and the most effective way to move recovery planning and coordination forward will be 

determined in the coming months. 

Sources

Blanco, Governor Kathleen. Executive Order KBB05-63: Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005. FEMA, Federal 

Emergency Management Agency. “Louisiana Recovery Office | FEMA.gov,” 2013. http://

www.doa.la.gov/osr/other/kbb05-63.htm.

LRA, Louisiana Recovery Authority. Louisiana Recovery Authority, 2005 - 2010, June 2010. http://lra.louisiana.

gov/assets/docs/searchable/Quarterly%20Reports/FinalReportJune2010.pdf.

41 April 22, 2016. State of Louisiana Press Release. http://gohsep.la.gov/portals/0/News/04222016_GOHSEP_Release_Waskom.pdf
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 79

STATE OF COLORADO'S RECOVERY MANAGEMENT FOLLOWING FLOODING AND 

LANDSLIDES IN 2013

Over the past decade, the State of Colorado has experienced, among other disasters, nearly $4 billion in 

flooding in 2013, and wildfires in 2010, 2012, and 2013 that destroyed nearly 1,250 homes, as well as 

a tornado that tore through multiple communities in 2008. As a result of these disasters, Colorado has 

developed its own pre-disaster recovery plan to meet future disasters and weather events head on. With an 

eye toward the past, Colorado is planning for the future and preparing for the next disaster. To quote the 

Governor of Colorado, John Hickenlooper, during the flooding and mudslides: “Resiliency is not simply 

something that Colorado wants to do. It is something that we must do - to ensure our safety, vitality and 

unique way of life into the future.”

On June 1, 2015, the State of Colorado adopted and implemented the Colorado Resiliency Framework, a 

first-of-its-kind comprehensive document, which serves as Colorado’s blueprint for long-term investment 

and commitment to meet the challenges brought about by recent and future disasters. The Framework was 

created, in part, because of major impacts from hazards in recent years and the possibly of greater hazards 

in the future. The Framework addresses all hazards, whether natural or man made.

After the extensive flooding in 2013, the State of Colorado created the position of Chief Recovery Officer 

and the Colorado Recovery Office. The office was created to represent the Governor’s Office and to 

coordinate with multiple State agencies and partners to support and assist counties and communities with a 

series of planning, management, and community involvement efforts. 

The Recovery Office implemented a public engagement campaign aimed at better understanding 

community perceptions of local risks, vulnerabilities, and resiliency priorities as well as to increase 

awareness of how to build resiliency at the local level. 

Through its Department of Local Affairs (DOLA), the State of Colorado used eight Regional Managers, in 

place prior to the disasters, to support local jurisdictions across the State. These regional managers were 

able to help local governments and community agencies define issues, evaluate options, identify solutions, 

and achieve results. They also offered management, planning, community development, and technical 

assistance. Their experience, knowledge of local communities, and existing relationships with community 

leaders allowed them to be effective in coordinating post-disaster recovery activities. These existing 

programs were able to provide assistance to several communities using the CDBG-DR program.

DOLA and the Colorado Water Conservation Board also implemented a watershed resiliency pilot program, 

in response to a disaster, that formed 11 watershed coalitions, supported funding to the coalitions for 

master planning, and staffed 18 coordinator positions in the newly formed watershed coalitions. 

Many communities affected by the 2013 floods needed assistance organizing recovery management and 

planning, leveraging multiple funding resources, planning for watershed restoration, and understanding 

how to find and apply for a variety of resources. To meet these needs, five symposia, trainings, or 

workshops, supported by the CPCB field coordinator and CPCB partners, occurred from late November 

2013 to August of 2014. The American Red Cross partnered with the CPCB RSF and the State of Colorado to 

expedite training workshops for communities on resource leveraging and development of grant proposals. 

42 Executive Order BJ-14-9, http://www.doa.la.gov/osr/other/bj14-9.htm
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 80

To understand the scope of these disasters and who attended, see a summary table of these workshops on 

page 26 of FEMA’s report Community Planning & Capacity Building RSF 2014 Year in Review. Also, information on the 

workshops and other community recovery resources is available at www.coloradounited.com.

Under the 2015 Framework, the Colorado Recovery Office that was established after the 2013 floods was 

renamed to the Colorado Resiliency and Recovery Office (CRRO). The name change bolsters the fact that 

this office, located in the State of Colorado’s Governor’s Office, has the dual responsibility of continuing 

its recovery mission and coordinating the long-term implementation of the State’s resiliency efforts, in 

partnership with State, Federal, and local agencies, non-profits, and the private sector. The Framework and 

the accompanying Resiliency Roadmap, which lays out the initial actions the State is taking to enhance 

Colorado’s resiliency, may be viewed at www.coloradounited.com.

The framework establishes a Colorado Resilience Working Group (CRWG) that is chaired by the CRRO 

and functions as the leadership team. The CRWG is organized around six sectors: Community; Economic; 

Health and Social; Housing; Infrastructure; and Watersheds and Natural Resources. Each sector has its own 

set of resiliency goals; however, they are interdependent and complementary to support overall Colorado 

resilience.43 Collectively the CRWG works to coordinate resiliency activities across the State to: 

• Enhance cross-agency collaboration and communication

• Integrate resiliency into agency polices and plans

• Develop sector-specific action plans

• Monitor progress

• Identify resources

• Educate partners and constituents 44

Communities are invited to play a role in the Framework’s implementation by informing the CRWG and 

CRRO of local perspectives as the CRRO coordinates the State’s resiliency efforts and building partnerships 

across the public and private sector. Communities provide lessons learned and best practice examples, 

utilize the Framework in the development of their own resiliency strategies, and serve as ambassadors to 

expand resiliency knowledge.

The State of Colorado initiated the following actions to implement the Framework: educate and engage the 

public and stakeholders on the Framework structure and goals; develop risk and vulnerability assessment 

tools; support local resiliency strategies; establish the Colorado Community Resiliency Partnership Fund; 

create mapping and land use tools; develop statewide resiliency indicators and metrics; and prepare an 

annual operating plan and resiliency report, as well as a plan for Framework updates. 

Communities can take action to expand the impact of the Framework through the following means: plan 

and coordinate regionally; dedicate staff to resiliency; engage leadership; develop local resiliency strategies; 

prioritize and implement projects; invest in resiliency; evaluate and update local land use practices and 

codes; educate and engage community organizations and members; establish new or support existing 

networks; and establish peer to peer relationships.

43 2016 Annual Plan; Colorado Resiliency Framework; pg.5. https://sites.google.com/a/state.co.us/coloradounited/resiliency 44 Companion to Framework; http://www.planningforhazards.com/home
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 81

In October 2015, the CRRO issued a Two-Year Report, regarding the progress made through the 

collaborative efforts of local governments, community groups, and countless volunteers, and acknowledged 

that more is needed to build a stronger and more resilient Colorado. Several State agencies have provided 

full service support to municipalities by offering not only grants, but also project development consultation, 

demographic data and analyses, advice on fiscal sustainability, and subject matter expertise. An example of 

a State agency providing support in helping Colorado communities become more resilient is the work done 

by the Division of Local Government (DLG) out of the Department of Local Affairs (DOLA). Early in 2016, 

DLG released the Planning for Hazards Guide and website.45 According to DLG’s website:

“The guide and website provide a unique compilation of comprehensive materials, disaster recovery strategies, and 

lessons learned assembled over the years since the State’s devastating fires and floods in 2012/13. The guide includes 

information about creating a planning framework, hazard identification, and risk assessments to help communities 

implement resiliency strategies. The website provides users a variety of options to obtain specific information on 

targeted topics that will be supplemented over time with additional videos and links to new resources. The University 

of Colorado Denver, who participated in development, will manage and maintain the website.”

State agencies have also facilitated assistance to disaster survivors through various funding sources and 

programs, including the creation of a Colorado disaster emergency fund that was used to pay the local 

match for FEMA program funds, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment’s natural 

disaster grant program, energy mineral impact emergency funds, and natural hazard mapping funds 

provided by the State Legislature’s adoption of Senate Bill 245 in 2015, just to name a few. For a better 

understanding of the roles of local agencies see “Table 2 — Colorado Flood Recovery Resources (effective 

October 1, 2015)” on pages 8–9 of the Two-Year Report Appendices.46

Colorado’s experience demonstrates a valuable lesson that States can consider using existing programs and 

agencies to assist local governments after a disaster and organize to provide a more coordinated structure 

for recovery and resilience. This relationship and each stakeholder’s responsibility can be formalized 

through a pre-disaster recovery plan.

45 Planning for Hazards Guide, https://planningforhazards.com/home 46 Two-Year Report Appendices, https://www.colorado.gov/pacific/sites/default/files/CRRO%20Two-Year%20Report%2010-23-15.pdf
Page 82
Page 83

Appendix E: Planning Checklist

STEP I – FORM A COLLABORATIVE PLANNING TEAM 

A. Getting Support to Develop a Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan

F Is the Governor's Office on board? 

F Are other, diverse recovery stakeholders involved? Remember: include the whole community 

from the beginning of the recovery planning process for a seamless recovery during the actual 

disaster.

B. Forming a Collaborative Recovery Planning Team

F Who will be at the core of the planning process? Often the Governor’s Office will designate 

representatives with expertise in fields such as community planning, economic development, 

infrastructure, housing, and emergency management.

F Emergency management agencies can be the initial conveners and facilitators in the recovery 

process. Define how emergency management may transition to another lead for recovery—

Governor’s Office, State disaster recovery coordinator, another lead agency for long-term 

recovery, etc. Those entities should be integral to the planning process.

C. Involving and Engaging Other Stakeholders and Partners

F Does the planning team include subject matter experts in all the fields of concern presented in 

the Core Capabilities list or other areas of potential recovery challenges?

F In addition to State, county, and municipal government representatives, have external partners 

been invited (such as those who serve the needs of children, seniors, those with disabilities and 

others with access and functional needs, those with limited English proficiency, and those from 

historically underserved and culturally sensitive populations)?

D. Role of Emergency Management in the Recovery Planning Process

F Emergency management agencies facilitate the transition from Emergency Support Functions to 

Recovery Support Functions (or their analogous State groups). 

F Emergency management agencies often direct public assistance and individual assistance 

programs with which recovery efforts should be coordinated. 

F Emergency management agencies gain on-the-ground knowledge of recovery issues while they 

are deployed and can communicate those issues to other recovery stakeholders.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 84

STEP II – UNDERSTAND THE SITUATION 

A. Existing Plans, Laws, Rules, and Regulations

F Have existing plans, such as emergency operations, land use, hazard mitigation, affordable 

housing, economic development, continuity of operations, social services, historic preservation, 

and environmental restoration, been assembled? 

F Of these plans, which will likely be impacted by a disaster and how will recovery efforts be 

integrated into those plans and initiatives, and vice versa? Will these plans be potentially useful 

to guide and define recovery goals, objectives, and priorities? Look for existing plans that may 

affect all of the recovery Core Capabilities.

F Which laws and authorities are in place to govern the recovery process and recovery programs?

B. Scope of the Pre-Disaster Recovery Plan

F How will the planning process produce a document that is both a flexible framework describing 

operational procedures as well as a plan with more specific details about existing State goals, 

priorities, and initiatives?

C. Impacts and Community Consequences

F Have all of the State's hazards and vulnerabilities been inventoried and studied? Have systematic 

consequences been identified that may affect all the Core Capability areas?

F Likewise, have any deficits in resources that might be needed after a disaster been identified? 

Understanding these vulnerabilities and their consequences will help the recovery planning 

team refine existing and identify new recovery priorities, and also determine whether or not the 

State has the capacity to address those consequences. 

F Have you used this analysis of major direct and indirect impacts to help engage additional 

stakeholders in the planning process? You may need to revisit Step 1.

F A focused analysis of a State's Core Capabilities will reveal whether that State has the capacity to 

lead a post-disaster planning and implementation processes.

STEP III – DETERMINE GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 

F Evaluate the State’s recovery priorities and develop goals based on those priorities. Those 

priorities may be identified in existing planning and policy documents or they may have been 

identified based on vulnerabilities identified in the “Understand the Situation” step. Each Core 

Capability owner should contribute priorities.

F State priorities may be broad and will likely take into consideration how the State will assist all 

communities in building back safer and stronger.

F What will be the State’s goal and objectives for assisting local government in planning and 

managing recovery?
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 85

F How will resilience and mitigation goals and objectives be integrated into recovery goals and 

objectives?

F It is also important to take into account identified vulnerabilities and which vulnerabilities the 

State might have the most difficult time addressing (capability gaps) as these will likely become 

focus areas after a disaster.

STEP IV – PLAN DEVELOPMENT 

A. Recovery Leadership

i. Governor’s Office

F Leadership and support from the Governor’s Office is critical to pre-disaster recovery planning. 

F A governor may declare a State of emergency and implement the State’s emergency management 

plan when a disaster strikes. How will the process relate to recovery plans or roles?

F The governor may issue executive orders to facilitate the recovery process, such as easing State 

laws that could interfere with recovery. 

F Will the State need to develop new executive orders or use other authorities to create a special 

office or commission dedicated to supporting the recovery process, or does statutory authority 

need to be granted to an agency to oversee recovery.

F Will the Governor’s Office appoint a State Disaster Recovery Coordinator (SDRC)? 

ii. State Disaster Recovery Coordinator

F The SDRC leads the disaster recovery coordination activities for the State.

F What role will the SDRC play in pre-disaster and preparedness activities.

F What background is expected for the SDRC and how will they be trained before a disaster 

impacts the State. 

F Because of the broad skill sets required of an SDRC, it is important to consider candidates from 

a variety of backgrounds to fill this role, not just Emergency Management.

B. Decision-Making

F A tension between acting quickly and taking time to deliberate inevitably occurs in disaster. 

Include mechanisms to ensure that both occur during recovery and that important policy 

choices are not overlooked.

F The planning team will need to determine a process for post-disaster decision-making that 

allows for accelerated information flow and maximum stakeholder engagement.

F As local recovery needs are identified, there must be a process for the State to make decisions, 

set policy, allocate resources, and take other actions to address those needs.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 86

F When possible, a decision-making flow chart should include these steps: 

 Evaluate the conditions and needs and determine a set of scenarios and decision options

 Consider how the decision options match recovery goals and objectives

 Consider implementation, funding, and other constraints on various options

 Ensure that there is sufficient transparency and input on decisions from key stakeholders 

and that stakeholder communication is linked to the post-disaster decision-making

 Measure progress against recovery goals and objectives and reconsider and adjust decisions 

as needed throughout the process 

 Establish a process for applying the policies in the State mitigation plan, a process for 

adapting those policies, and a process for integrating new risk information into post-disaster 

rebuilding

C. Organizational Structure for Recovery

The State should define an organizational structure that helps to establish clear roles and responsibilities, 

reporting relationships, and other operational details. There are three general models that States can follow:

i. Federal RSF-Aligned Structure 

States may choose to create a parallel structure to the Federal organization wherein Federal Departments 

and Partners are organized based on six subject areas, including Community Planning and Capacity 

Building, Economic, Health and Social Services, Housing, Infrastructure Systems, Natural and Cultural 

Resources.

ii. Task Force Structure

A Task Force Structure involves multiple levels of government as well as other recovery partners (such 

as the business community, non-profits, faith-based organizations, and higher education institutions) to 

focus on a specific issue.

iii. Committee Structure

A recovery committee can act as a steering committee to bring issues to the table and use its broad range 

of skills and backgrounds to offer solutions. A recovery committee may be established by the Governor’s 

Office. The committee should comprise a broad range of government and community sectors that can 

help identify and address disaster-related issues.

D. Scalability

F It is important that the State recovery plan acknowledge different scales of disasters. 

F Disaster assistance begins at the local level and may go no further. However, local authorities 

may declare a state of emergency and ask the State for help.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 87

F If there is no Federal declaration, the Governor may order State assistance to be provided in the 

form of grants, technical assistance, or staffing.

F In a large-scale disaster that exceeds the capabilities of the States, the State will ask the Federal 

government for assistance.

F In order to address the different levels of impact, there must be organizational flexibility at all 

levels of government.

F The pre-disaster recovery plan should be applicable to all 641 disasters, major and minor. 

 Presidentially Declared Disasters – During Presidentially declared disasters, Federal 

resources are released to support State response and recovery efforts.

 Non-Stafford Disasters – Not all disasters are Federally declared. Although this does not 

preclude Federal support, that support may be limited. 

E. Recovery Roles and Responsibilities

F The roles and responsibilities of participating agencies and partners must be established.

F Acknowledge that these roles and responsibilities may be short-term, intermediate-term, or 

long-term tasks.

F An understanding of when those roles and responsibilities are applicable needs to be 

documented in the plan.

F It is important to consider the State’s greatest vulnerabilities, in addition to the organizational 

structure, when assigning roles and responsibilities.

F. Legal Issues, Laws, and Authorities

In an effort to align the activities of the RSF member agencies, RSF authorities should be established. 

Questions to consider include: 

F What are the authorities of coordinating vs. primary vs. supporting agencies?

F Do the different groups of agencies have the authority to tap into one another’s resources? Is 

there a system in place for mutual aid agreements?

F What existing authorities must be considered? 

F Do any new laws or authorities need to be considered? 

F Do they have authority to activate without a Governor's Declaration? Are certain thresholds 

required before activation is authorized?

The core planning team should also refer to the work completed in Step 2. These authorities should be 

clearly documented in a pre-disaster recovery plan.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 88

G. Coordination Considerations 

i. Horizontal Coordination

F The Transition from Response to Recovery

 How will the State recovery organization and leadership work with the emergency response 

leadership and support functions to ensure a smooth transition to the recovery process? 

Include and clearly identify the response-oriented organizations and partners in the State’s 

structure for recovery that will facilitate the transition to recovery.

F Post-Disaster Recovery Roles

 The post-disaster recovery plan should make clear what will be expected of recovery 

stakeholders to support recovery as well as methods that will be employed to ensure 

involved stakeholders remain coordinated throughout the recovery process.

 Processes for enacting post-disaster recovery policies should also be specified.

F Sector-Specific Coordinators 

 How will coordinators from key agencies be assigned? They will be depended on for 

their expertise, as the primary points of contact for their respective agencies, and provide 

updates to the SDRC. If there is a mitigation coordination organization identified in the State 

mitigation plan, how will it interface with the recovery structure?

F Staffing and Operational Guidance 

 It is important to document staff resources to manage recovery and their roles and 

responsibilities in the pre-disaster recovery plan. Protocols for deployment should also be 

specified.

F State Capacity Building 

 What can the State do to build its own capacity to manage recovery and with whom should 

the State partner to build capacity?

ii. Vertical Coordination

F Working with Local Government 

 How will the State encourage locals to acknowledge and undertake basic pre- and postdisaster planning steps, such as determining recovery leadership, identifying significant 

recovery partners, and determining how key plans, such as the mitigation plan, will shape 

post-disaster decisions. After Federal and/or State authorities have demobilized, how will 

local authorities continue the recovery initiatives that they helped shape.

F Working with the Federal Government 

 It is critical that State agencies coordinate and build relationships with Federal agencies 

before a disaster strikes. In identifying Federal agencies to work with in advance of a 

disaster, States should consider which Federal agencies align with their organizational 

structure (e.g., State RSFs).
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 89

 Coordination with Federal agencies is also critical during and after a disaster as Federal 

support is available for a limited time. 

F Working with Nongovernmental Organizations (NGOs) 

 NGOs should be included in developing a recovery plan and partnering in its 

implementation. NGOs can support recovery either in partnership with government entities 

or by filling capability gaps. Establish an understanding of the types of assistance these 

partners can offer, including both technical assistance and funding, and how to obtain this 

assistance. Confirm which organizations can be partners on post-disaster recovery activities.

H. Support to Local Government

F Local governments are often not resourced nor experienced to act as the lead recovery manager.

F During pre-disaster recovery planning efforts, the State should consider supporting operational 

and strategic recovery needs at the local level, and establish a process for identifying those needs 

in communities across a disaster area. 

F States should consider funding recovery managers or recovery management functions for local 

governments or assigning the responsibility to do so through the pre-disaster recovery planning 

process.

F While many recovery decisions are local, some decisions may be made at the State level that 

relate to local planning depending on A) the degree to which local governments have the ability 

to pass laws to govern themselves and B) how active the local government will be in postdisaster recovery planning and whether there is the local capacity to do so. 

F The State should also encourage pre-disaster planning, resilience, and capacity building at the 

local level. 

I. Integration of Core Capabilities

F For all of the recovery Core Capabilities, the planning team should ask which State agency or 

department is best suited to coordinate the attainment of that Core Capability. 

F The pre-disaster recovery plan should document processes, roles and responsibilities, and 

operational steps associated with addressing these Core Capabilities. 

F Mitigation Core Capabilities should be addressed as applied to the post-disaster process and 

rebuilding. Mitigation considerations should be looked at as a cross-cutting issue that is 

integrated into each of the recovery Core Capabilities.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 90

Core Capability Considerations

PLANNING

State Operational Planning:

• Is our plan strategic and operational in nature (i.e., does it include guidance 

that facilitates plan implementation), covering basic steps the State will take 

to support the recovery process? Has it followed this guide and CPG 101 and 

other planning principles for its development?

• Does the plan address policy, funding, and finance considerations? 

• Does it integrate other State-level plans such as the mitigation plan, 

transportation plan, etc.?

• Does the plan reflect procedures and roles that should be followed after a 

disaster?

Support to Community-Based Planning:

• Does the plan identify a policy, process, and/or resources defined for local 

expectations for pre- and post-disaster recovery planning?

• Does the plan consider the role of regional government in supporting 

recovery? 

• Does the plan have any mechanisms for coordinating local planning actives 

across jurisdictions?

PUBLIC INFORMATION AND 

WARNING

• Does the State have a system in place to deliver public information to 

impacted communities in coordination with local or regional information 

providers?

• Does the State have a process in place to encourage and support the 

engagement and inclusion of all people impacted by a disaster? 

• Is the State prepared to deliver public information in a language other than 

English and in alternative accessible formats to ensure effective accessible 

communication for people with disabilities and others with access and 

functional needs? 

OPERATIONAL 

COORDINATION

• Does the plan discuss how the State will integrate with both local and Federal 

partners? 

• Does the plan discuss how the State will transition from emergency response 

to recovery?

• Does the plan address how the State will involve and coordinate with the 

private sector?

ECONOMIC RECOVERY

• Does the plan acknowledge the unique economic and workforce 

characteristics of communities within the State? 

• Does the plan discuss job restoration initiatives that may be needed to 

support the recovery of a community’s economy?

• Does the plan cover the key drivers of the State economy (i.e., industries and 

employers that enable the primary economic activities of the State)?

• Does the economic recovery section of the plan address the post-disaster 

time constraints unique to businesses (e.g., a recovery program that takes 6 

months to implement may be too late for small businesses.)?

• Is the recovery plan aligned with statewide economic and workforce 

development goals?

• Does the plan encourage and integrate business continuity planning 

considerations?
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 91

Core Capability Considerations

HEALTH AND SOCIAL 

SERVICES

• Does the plan address the restoration and improvement of health and social 

services?

• How can the State support communities during periods where the need for 

such services may exceed the capacity of communities to provide them 

adequately?

• Does the plan address mental health and post-traumatic disorders caused by 

the disaster and the stress of recovery?

• Does the plan include public and private disability support and services 

agencies and organizations?

HOUSING

• Does the plan take into consideration local accessible and affordable housing 

needs and local plans that may influence housing development to suit the 

needs of the community? 

• How will the State support the redevelopment of housing and affordable 

housing post-disaster?

• How will the State support the redevelopment of accessible housing?

INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS

• How does the State support the repair or rebuilding of infrastructure?

• Does the State plan address privately held infrastructure systems?

• How does the State integrate existing policy into recovery efforts (e.g., a 

transportation plan, State-level capital improvements plan)? 

• How does the State integrate accessibility issues into post-disaster 

infrastructure redevelopment?

NATURAL AND CULTURAL 

RESOURCES

• How does the State support the rehabilitation of environmentally sensitive 

areas and historic and cultural resources?

• Does the plan address the connection between community resiliency and 

natural resources?

• Are considerations given to historic resources, including archeological sites?

J. Integration of Success Factors

A pre-disaster recovery plan should also include metrics for success.

K. Communication and Engagement

F Develop a clear message about what the State does to support recovery and the resources at its 

disposal.

F There should be an established protocol for how different agencies will communicate with one 

another throughout the recovery process.

F The plan should include, in a general sense, what information will be shared with the public, 

how it will be shared, and who will be responsible for sharing that information.

F A person, such as a public information officer or agency should be given responsibility for 

managing and coordinating public communications.

F The plan should address how the State will encourage and support public input during the postdisaster recovery process.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 92

Success Factor Considerations

EFFECTIVE DECISIONMAKING AND 

COORDINATION

• Are recovery leadership roles clearly defined?

• Have agencies and organizations serving in a leadership capacity established 

metrics to track progress and accountability?

INTEGRATION OF 

COMMUNITY RECOVERY 

PLANNING PROCESSES

• Does the plan encourage communities to develop their own recovery 

framework or plan that is inclusive of the whole community?

• Does the plan encourage communities to develop processes and criteria for 

developing recovery actions?

WELL-MANAGED RECOVERY

• Have partnerships across all levels of government and nongovernment 

organizations been established?

• Is there a mechanism in place to address surge staffing and resource needs?

PROACTIVE COMMUNITY 

ENGAGEMENT, PUBLIC 

PARTICIPATION, AND 

PUBLIC AWARENESS

• Are all perspectives represented in the planning process?

• Is there a plan to ensure transparency and input into decision-making and 

to ensure public information is accessible to all members of the whole 

community throughout the recovery process?

WELL-ADMINISTERED 

FINANCIAL ACQUISITION

• Are funding sources documented and partnerships with resource providers 

established?

• Does the recovery plan cover financial monitoring?

ORGANIZATIONAL 

FLEXIBILITY

• Is the organizational structure flexible to meet the needs of communities in 

the State?

• Have intergovernmental relationships across local, tribal, and Federal 

governments been built?

RESILIENT REBUILDING

• Does the plan encourage a sustainable future?

• Are risk reduction strategies encouraged or discussed?

• Are State policies for mitigation during the recovery phase clearly articulated?

• Are roles and responsibilities for ensuring integration of resiliency clear?

• Is the State mitigation plan integrated with the recovery plan?
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 93

L. Resource Management

Planners can look to the Effective Coordination of Recovery Resources for State, Tribal, Territorial, and Local Incidents guide for 

more information on recovery resource identification, management, and coordination.

i. Using Data to Determine Resource Needs

F Once resource needs have been identified, document existing resources to identify potential 

gaps.

ii. Understanding State Resources

F After resource gaps have been identified, identify ways to fill those resource gaps.

iii. Acquiring and Managing Resources

F Develop pre-disaster financial management procedures.

F Develop methods for documenting incoming resources to simplify post-disaster record-keeping. 

F Develop a strong State-level grants management strategy to better handle grant management. 

M. Sector- or Function-Specific Plan Elements

F If the State has established a recovery support structure based on its critical functions or sectors, 

the pre-disaster recovery plan should discuss how the State will address those functions or 

sectors post-disaster. 

F The pre-disaster recovery plan should discuss the recovery priorities, applicable postdisaster policies to implement, and potential sector- or function-specific resources (funding, 

staffing, etc.).

F Economic Recovery – The pre-disaster recovery plan may consider aspects of the State’s 

economy that are critical and should therefore be given high priority in the recovery process.

F Health and Social Services – The pre-disaster recovery plan is an opportunity to document 

priorities, such as the recovery of hospitals and schools, and where resources may be needed 

most.

F Housing – The pre-disaster recovery plan may consider the resources and potential gaps in 

resources for housing recovery following different disaster types that are likely in the State.

F Infrastructure Systems – The pre-disaster recovery plan should note which systems are critical 

for recovery, who owns those systems, and what resources will likely be available for their 

recovery.

F Hazard Mitigation – Identify how the State mitigation plan relates and is applied during the 

operational process defined in the recovery plan. Identify how coordination entities or elements 

in the mitigation plan are utilized during recovery.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 94

STEP V – PLAN PREPARATION, REVIEW, AND APPROVAL 

F Information, documentation, and decisions from the preceding steps should be consolidated to 

formulate a written pre-disaster recovery plan. CPG 101 includes general guidelines for writing 

effective plans.

F Leadership, stakeholders, structure, and roles and responsibilities should be clearly documented. 

F The plan should include how the State will coordinate itself and how it will coordinate with 

other levels of government or nongovernment entities.

F All stakeholders involved in the planning process should have the opportunity to review it and 

provide feedback. 

F A draft plan should be distributed to the public, especially if required by the State. States may 

have policies and/or protocol in place for plan reviews.

F The plan should be submitted to the State’s approving authority (e.g., Governor’s Office and/

or State legislature) to provide any additional feedback, and ultimately for final approval and/or 

adoption.

STEP VI – PLAN IMPLEMENTATION AND MAINTENANCE 

State stakeholders should establish a regular schedule of training, exercises, and document review, revision, 

and update.

F Exercises – Include scheduled exercises, which involve developing disaster scenarios and 

practicing plan implementation. 

F Scheduled Reviews and Updates – The State pre-disaster recovery plan should be reviewed 

and updated regularly to expose new vulnerabilities and address them through the established 

planning protocol.

F Document Best Practices – The planning team should document best practices from other 

States and lessons learned during the plan development process. Additionally, improvements can 

be made to the plan during scheduled updates by incorporating lessons learned during plan 

exercises and from actual post-disaster recovery efforts.
Page 95

Appendix F: Terms and 

Definitions

Accessibility: The suitability or adaptability of programs, services, activities, goods, facilities, privileges, 

advantages, or accommodations for all members of the population, including individuals with disabilities.

Capability: The sum of capacity, ability, and knowledge that provides the means to accomplish a mission, 

function, objective, or end state.

Capacity: A combination of all the strengths and resources available within a community, society, or 

organization that can reduce the level of risk, or the effects of a disaster.

Community: A network of individuals and families, businesses, governmental and nongovernmental 

organizations, and other civic organizations that reside or operate within a shared geographical 

boundary and may be represented by a common political leadership at a regional, county, municipal, or 

neighborhood level.

Core Capabilities: Distinct critical elements necessary to achieve the National Preparedness Goal.

Collaborative Planning Team: A group of individuals representing organizations responsible for plan 

execution that develop and write the actual plan, contribute to planning efforts, and help to facilitate, 

organize, and carry out planning events.

Limited English Proficiency: Persons who do not speak English as their primary language and who have a 

limited ability to read, speak, write, or understand English.

Mitigation: Capabilities necessary to reduce loss of life and property by lessening the impact of disasters. 

Mitigation capabilities include, but are not limited to, community-wide risk reduction projects; efforts 

to improve the resilience of critical infrastructure and key resource lifelines; risk reduction for specific 

vulnerabilities from natural hazards or acts of terrorism; and initiatives to reduce future risks after a 

disaster has occurred.

Nongovernmental Organization (NGO): A nongovernmental entity that serves the interests of its 

members, individuals, or institutions and is not for private benefit.

Planning: The process of developing, maintaining, exercising, executing, and updating a plan.

Recovery: Those capabilities necessary to assist communities affected by a disaster to recover effectively, 

including, but not limited to, rebuilding infrastructure systems; providing adequate interim and long-term 

housing for survivors; restoring health, social, and community services; promoting economic development; 

and restoring natural and cultural resources.

Resilience: The ability to adapt to changing conditions and withstand and rapidly recover from disruption 

due to emergencies.

Response: The capabilities necessary to save lives, protect property and the environment, and meet basic 

human needs after a disaster has occurred.
Pre-Disaster Recovery Planning Guide for State Governments

Page 96

Risk: The potential for an unwanted outcome as determined by its likelihood and the consequences.

Risk Assessment: A product and process evaluating information based on a set of criteria specifying 

risks for the purpose of informing priorities, developing or comparing courses of action, and informing 

decision-making.

Stakeholder: People or organizations that may be impacted by a policy or action.

Strategic Planning: A planning process establishing organizational goals and identifying, scoping, and 

establishing requirements for the provision of capabilities and resources to achieve them. 

Success Factors: Factors, that if realized, are indicative of a successful recovery process.

Sustainability: Meeting the needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to 

meet their own needs.

Vulnerability: A physical feature or operational attribute of a jurisdiction or area that renders it susceptible 

to a given hazard.

Whole Community: A focus on enabling the participation of a wider range of players from the private and 

nonprofit sectors, including NGOs and the general public, in conjunction with the participation of Federal, 

State, and local governmental partners in order to foster better coordination and working relationships. 

This term also highlights the inclusion of people with disabilities and others with access and functional 

needs, older adults, families, youth/children, and people with limited English proficiency.