Categoría 3: Lugares y espacios en los que se da el maltrato escolar o Bullying

The central purpose of multi-hazard mitigation planning is to reduce and manage risk and hazards in the long-term. Multi-hazard mitigation plans are required for state and local governments by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 as well as serving as a

condition for receiving federal funding and grants. The Act, which amended the Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, emphasizes that mitigation planning processes need to incorporate identification of hazards, risks, and

vulnerabilities, prioritize mitigation actions, encourage partnership between citizens, local and state governments, and provide technical assistance for these efforts.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has multiple guidelines to aid states and local government in developing mitigation plans (FEMA 2008). Over the years, these guidelines have been thoroughly incorporated into mitigation plans. As a result, mitigation planning at federal, state and local level follows the same set of steps. The first step for local and state governments is to facilitate and conduct meetings with

diverse community groups. Community leaders can provide input on mitigation strategies and help evaluate the community’s capacities and needs. The second step is to complete a risk assessment of the potential impacts of hazards on the people, economy, and built and natural environments of the community. The objective is to identify and prioritize risk reduction strategies (FEMA 2008).

The third step in the process is to build a mitigation strategy, which consists of mitigation goals, objectives and action items that the community will pursue. These are developed in consultation with subject matter experts, stakeholders and public surveys, as well as utilizing existing guides and resources. Collectively stakeholders identify eligible activities and projects that qualify for funding under the FEMA Hazard Mitigation Assistance (HMA). The final step is to commit to plan maintenance procedures, which are monitoring, evaluating and updating. Since mitigation plans are considered “living documents,” mitigation plans need to be evaluate and modify over time. According to the old guidelines, states were required to update their plans every three years and local governments every three years. As of 2015, current FEMA guidelines require both states and local governments to update their plans every five years (FEMA 2015b).

5.2Methodology

Q2: Do state and local mitigation plans explain or indicate changes in institutional resilience for the Mississippi Gulf Coast in the setting of pre- and post-Katrina?

Content analysis of state and local hazard mitigation plans was used to answer research question #2. The selected spatial unit of analysis is state and county-based hazard mitigation documents between the years of 2000 and 2010 to maintain the spatial

and temporal consistency with the BRIC analysis. The pre-Katrina hazard mitigation plans (HMPs) for Hancock, Harrison, Jackson and the state of Mississippi were acquired from the Mississippi Emergency Management Agency via public information request. These HMPs were the first official mitigation plans, as mandated by the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000, for Mississippi and the tri-coastal county study area. The post- Katrina HMPs were the most current mitigation plans, which were found online on county and state websites or from directly contacting the local hazard mitigation offices.

There were several updates between the first and most currents state and county HMPs (Table 5.1). The 2004 State HMP had been updated in 2007, 2010 and 2013. Hancock County updated its 2001 County HMP in 2006 and 2013. Harrison County updated its 2001 County HMP in 2005, 2008 and 2014. Lastly, Jackson County updated its 2005 County HMP in 2012. The most updated State and County HMPs were selected to represent post-Katrina HMPs because they can provide useful insights regarding the current mitigation practices and how these practices had evolved over time. In addition, these HMPs contained examples of lessons learned from Hurricane Katrina and how they had been incorporated into current planning goals and strategies.

Table 5.1: State and local mitigation plans included in this study.

Year Plan Title

State of Mississippi

2004 State of Mississippi Standard Mitigation Plan

2013 Mississippi State Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Hancock County 2001 Hancock County Hazard Mitigation Plan

2013 Hancock County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan Update

Harrison County 2001 Harrison County Mitigation Plan

2014 Harrison County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

Jackson County 2005 Jackson County Multi-jurisdictional Hazard Mitigation Plan

The qualitative data acquired from the content analysis process was explored in different ways. First, the indicators in the BRIC institutional sub-index were utilized as variables to construct a checklist, using the methodology in Frazier et al. (2013). The authors utilize the BRIC framework developed by Cutter et al. (2010) as a reference to review different disaster mitigation plans including post-disaster development plan, comprehensive emergency management plan, comprehensive plan, and local mitigation strategy plan. The BRIC resilience indicators were used to determine whether certain factors were referenced or highlighted in reviewed plans.

Unlike Frazier et al. (2013), this checklist is a longitudinal assessment of hazard mitigation practices. It only included hazard mitigation plans and not emergency

management plans, comprehensive plans, and post-disaster plans. The checklist was used to assess discussions in pre- and post-Katrina state and local hazard mitigation documents relating to the ten IR indicators. It recorded whether the IR indicators were present or absent in the pre- and post-Katrina HMPs. Second, an in-depth assessment of IR indicators was conducted to describe how they changed in the context of pre- and post- Katrina.

This section contains a comprehensive assessment of the institutional indicators that are found in either or both of the pre- and post-Katrina state and local HMPs. It documents the way these indicators are represented in the HMPs as well as the way their representations have changed over time. As such, documentation of any changes that were made afterward, taking the impacts of Katrina into account, provides clarifications and contextualization for the output metrics of BRIC IR indicators.

5.3Checklist Construction and In-depth Analysis of State and Local Hazard