Suchergebnisse

The Treasury Executive Office for Asset Forfeiture (TEOAF) administers the Treasury Forfeiture Fund (TFF), which is the receipt account for the deposits of nontax forfeitures that result from law-enforcement actions against criminal enterprises, such as drug cartels, terrorist organizations, and individual embezzlers, by agencies that are currently, or were historically, part of the U.S. Treasury -- the Internal Revenue Service Criminal Investigation division, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, U.S. Customs and Border Protection, and the U.S. Secret Service. High levels of forfeiture from the prosecution of these crimes serve to punish the individuals involved, help to dismantle the operations associated with the crime, may deter others from engaging in similar crimes, and provide funds to support future investigations among participating agencies. TEOAF commissioned the RAND Corporation to examine the relationship between targeted funding support of significant financial investigations and the forfeiture outcomes of such investigations. This report presents the findings of that analysis

"The increased frequency and severity of flooding in the United States are likely to increase the number of properties that experience multiple flood losses. However, only limited information is readily available on the characteristics of such properties despite being a significant driver of the claim costs of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)'s National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP). Data are available on the location of properties that have repeatedly flooded, for example, but information is not readily available on the cause of loss (coastal flooding or riverine flooding), structure type, the distribution of losses (multiple small losses or fewer large losses), losses relative to structure and property value, and attractive mitigation strategies for different types of properties. This report examines properties with multiple losses insured by the NFIP and the communities in which they are located to help inform decisions related to floodplain management, flood insurance, and mitigation efforts. This information should help (1) the NFIP better understand the specific challenges faced by these properties and the communities in which they are located, including consideration of equity issues, and (2) develop more-targeted mitigation programs and risk transfer strategies."

Chapter One: Introduction -- Chapter Two: Background -- Chapter Three: Insurance on Public Buildings, Contents, Vehicles, and Equipment -- Chapter Four: Drivers of Insurance Share for Buildings, Contents, Vehicles, and Equipment -- Chapter Five: The Role That FEMA Assistance Programs Play in State and Local Risk- Management Decisions -- Chapter Six: Options for Closing the Insurance Gap -- Chapter Seven: Conclusion -- Appendix A: Glossary -- Appendix B: Statistical Methodology -- Appendix C: Interviews -- Appendix D: Parametric Insurance.

AbstractLarge oil spills are disasters associated with psychological effects for exposed communities. The amount of worry that individuals experience after a disaster may be influenced by many factors, such as the type and extent of exposure to disaster impacts, prior trauma, and sociodemographic characteristics. This study examined the nature and predictors of worry about ongoing impacts of the 2010 Deepwater Horizon (DH) oil spill reported by Gulf of Mexico coastal residents. A random sample of 2,520 adult residents of Gulf of Mexico coastal counties were administered a telephone survey in 2016, including items about persistent worry and exposure to DH impacts, prior trauma, residence at the time of the spill, and sociodemographic characteristics. Respondents varied in the amount of worry they reported about ongoing health, social, and economic impacts. Controlling for sociodemographic characteristics, higher exposure to the DH oil spill was related to higher levels of worry about ongoing impacts, with past traumatic events related specifically to worry about health impacts. Unexpectedly, those who moved into the region after the spill showed similar levels of worry to residents exposed to the spill, and higher levels than residents who did not recall being exposed to the DH oil spill. This study highlights the impact of the DH oil spill on coastal residents many years after the DH disaster. The findings underscore the need to examine multiple pathways by which individuals experience disasters and for risk researchers to close knowledge gaps about long‐term impacts of oil spills within a multi‐dimensional framework.

When Hurricane Sandy struck New York City on October 29, 2012, it caused flooding in all five boroughs. The storm surge reached nearly 88,700 buildings, more than 300,000 housing units, and 23,400 businesses. The federal government offers flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), a program administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) since 1968, a time when affordable private insurance was difficult to find. This insurance is mandated for structures located in high-risk areas (the 100-year floodplain) if there is a federally backed mortgage on the property and is subsidized for structures that predate FEMA⁰́₉s first Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for the area. However, many residential structures in high-risk areas do not carry such policies. Two major changes will affect the cost of NFIP policies for structures in New York City: (1) an update of the maps that define the flood risk areas in New York and (2) legally required reform to the NFIP. Flood insurance plays an important role in addressing and managing flood risk posed. Insurance payments can help households and businesses recover from an event and get the economy moving again. When properly priced, insurance premiums can also provide appropriate incentives to avoid or mitigate risk. This report examines dimensions of the changing flood insurance environment in New York City and explores the consequences for the city's residents and businesses

In October 2012, Hurricane Sandy struck the East Coast of the United States, devastating communities across the region. This disaster motivated the federal government to examine how it might improve community and infrastructure resilience so that communities are better prepared for existing and future threats, including those exacerbated by climate change. To ensure that federal agencies incorporate key principles of resilience into their formulation, evaluation, and prioritization of infrastructure investments related to Sandy rebuilding, the Presidential Hurricane Sandy Rebuilding Task Force developed its Infrastructure Resilience Guidelines in the spring and summer of 2013. On behalf of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Critical Infrastructure Security and Resilience Interagency Policy Committee's Subcommittee on Recovery and Mitigation, the RAND Corporation conducted an initial assessment of federal agencies' implementation of the guidelines. The main goal of this study was to identify the lessons learned from the opportunities and challenges encountered when implementing the guidelines. Researchers conducted semistructured interviews of 67 individuals employed by federal, state, and local government agencies and departments and nongovernmental organizations. An analysis of the interview notes and other documents provided information on different approaches to implementing the guidelines, the opportunities or challenges encountered during implementation, and whether the guidelines would be feasible to implement in nonrecovery environments. Overall, the guidelines were viewed as reflecting worthy resiliency principles that merit broader pursuit--and not just in a disaster recovery context

"The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) operates multiple hazard mitigation assistance (HMA) grant programs as a way to promote a national culture of preparedness and public safety, mitigate the consequences that disasters have for communities and infrastructure, and reduce future draws on the Disaster Relief Fund. The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act requires FEMA to ensure that these mitigation activities are cost-effective. To determine cost-effectiveness, FEMA currently requires any project seeking HMA grants to include a benefit-cost analysis (BCA), implemented in accordance with Office of Management and Budget Circular A-94. Applicants for mitigation grants have provided extensive feedback that the BCA process is cumbersome and that finding the right data to include in the calculations of costs and benefits is difficult. FEMA is concerned that the administrative burdens and the costs of application processes could discourage subapplicants with fewer resources from applying or place them at a disadvantage in developing quality applications. Furthermore, two 2021 executive orders direct federal agencies to achieve greater equity and fairness in allocating federal resources. Two HMA grant programs have been selected as pilot programs for the corresponding federalwide Justice40 Initiative. The authors found that FEMA's dual goals of equity and simplicity occasionally compete, that FEMA has the authority to implement recommended changes, and that FEMA's approach to BCA differs from those of other federal entities. The authors identify nine changes that FEMA could implement to address the inequities introduced by the use of BCA in the HMA grant process."