PrepTest 45, Section 4, Question 6
A number of natural disasters in recent years—such as earthquakes, major storms, and floods—that have affected large populations of people have forced relief agencies, communities, and entire nations to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of such disasters. They believe that traditional ways of dealing with disasters have proved ineffective on several occasions and, in some cases, have been destructive rather than helpful to the communities hit by these sudden and unexpected crises. Traditionally, relief has been based on the premise that aid in postdisaster situations is most effective if given in the immediate aftermath of an event. A high priority also has been placed on the quantity of aid materials, programs, and personnel, in the belief that the negative impact of a disaster can be counteracted by a large and rapid infusion of aid.
Critics claim that such an approach often creates a new set of difficulties for already hard-hit communities. Teams of uninvited experts and personnel—all of whom need food and shelter—as well as uncoordinated shipments of goods and the establishment of programs inappropriate to local needs can quickly lead to a secondary "disaster" as already strained local infrastructures break down under the pressure of this large influx of resources. In some instances, tons of food have disappeared into local markets for resale, and, with inadequate accounting procedures, billions of dollars in aid money have gone unaccounted for.
To develop a more effective approach, experts recommend shifting the focus to the long term. A response that produces lasting benefit, these experts claim, requires that community members define the form and method of aid that are most appropriate to their needs. Grassroots dialogue designed to facilitate preparedness should be encouraged in disaster-prone communities long before the onset of a crisis, so that in a disaster's immediate aftermath, relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead. The practical effect of this approach is that aid takes the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf.
Though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important constituency, namely donors, will respond. Historically, donors—individuals, corporations, foundations, and governmental bodies—have been most likely to respond only in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. However, communities affected by disasters typically have several long-term needs such as the rebuilding of houses and roads, and thus the months and years after a disaster are also crucial. Donors that incorporate dialogue with members of affected communities into their relief plans could foster strategies that more efficiently utilize immediate aid as well as provide for the difficulties facing communities in the years after a disaster.
A number of natural disasters in recent years—such as earthquakes, major storms, and floods—that have affected large populations of people have forced relief agencies, communities, and entire nations to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of such disasters. They believe that traditional ways of dealing with disasters have proved ineffective on several occasions and, in some cases, have been destructive rather than helpful to the communities hit by these sudden and unexpected crises. Traditionally, relief has been based on the premise that aid in postdisaster situations is most effective if given in the immediate aftermath of an event. A high priority also has been placed on the quantity of aid materials, programs, and personnel, in the belief that the negative impact of a disaster can be counteracted by a large and rapid infusion of aid.
Critics claim that such an approach often creates a new set of difficulties for already hard-hit communities. Teams of uninvited experts and personnel—all of whom need food and shelter—as well as uncoordinated shipments of goods and the establishment of programs inappropriate to local needs can quickly lead to a secondary "disaster" as already strained local infrastructures break down under the pressure of this large influx of resources. In some instances, tons of food have disappeared into local markets for resale, and, with inadequate accounting procedures, billions of dollars in aid money have gone unaccounted for.
To develop a more effective approach, experts recommend shifting the focus to the long term. A response that produces lasting benefit, these experts claim, requires that community members define the form and method of aid that are most appropriate to their needs. Grassroots dialogue designed to facilitate preparedness should be encouraged in disaster-prone communities long before the onset of a crisis, so that in a disaster's immediate aftermath, relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead. The practical effect of this approach is that aid takes the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf.
Though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important constituency, namely donors, will respond. Historically, donors—individuals, corporations, foundations, and governmental bodies—have been most likely to respond only in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. However, communities affected by disasters typically have several long-term needs such as the rebuilding of houses and roads, and thus the months and years after a disaster are also crucial. Donors that incorporate dialogue with members of affected communities into their relief plans could foster strategies that more efficiently utilize immediate aid as well as provide for the difficulties facing communities in the years after a disaster.
A number of natural disasters in recent years—such as earthquakes, major storms, and floods—that have affected large populations of people have forced relief agencies, communities, and entire nations to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of such disasters. They believe that traditional ways of dealing with disasters have proved ineffective on several occasions and, in some cases, have been destructive rather than helpful to the communities hit by these sudden and unexpected crises. Traditionally, relief has been based on the premise that aid in postdisaster situations is most effective if given in the immediate aftermath of an event. A high priority also has been placed on the quantity of aid materials, programs, and personnel, in the belief that the negative impact of a disaster can be counteracted by a large and rapid infusion of aid.
Critics claim that such an approach often creates a new set of difficulties for already hard-hit communities. Teams of uninvited experts and personnel—all of whom need food and shelter—as well as uncoordinated shipments of goods and the establishment of programs inappropriate to local needs can quickly lead to a secondary "disaster" as already strained local infrastructures break down under the pressure of this large influx of resources. In some instances, tons of food have disappeared into local markets for resale, and, with inadequate accounting procedures, billions of dollars in aid money have gone unaccounted for.
To develop a more effective approach, experts recommend shifting the focus to the long term. A response that produces lasting benefit, these experts claim, requires that community members define the form and method of aid that are most appropriate to their needs. Grassroots dialogue designed to facilitate preparedness should be encouraged in disaster-prone communities long before the onset of a crisis, so that in a disaster's immediate aftermath, relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead. The practical effect of this approach is that aid takes the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf.
Though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important constituency, namely donors, will respond. Historically, donors—individuals, corporations, foundations, and governmental bodies—have been most likely to respond only in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. However, communities affected by disasters typically have several long-term needs such as the rebuilding of houses and roads, and thus the months and years after a disaster are also crucial. Donors that incorporate dialogue with members of affected communities into their relief plans could foster strategies that more efficiently utilize immediate aid as well as provide for the difficulties facing communities in the years after a disaster.
A number of natural disasters in recent years—such as earthquakes, major storms, and floods—that have affected large populations of people have forced relief agencies, communities, and entire nations to reevaluate the ways in which they respond in the aftermaths of such disasters. They believe that traditional ways of dealing with disasters have proved ineffective on several occasions and, in some cases, have been destructive rather than helpful to the communities hit by these sudden and unexpected crises. Traditionally, relief has been based on the premise that aid in postdisaster situations is most effective if given in the immediate aftermath of an event. A high priority also has been placed on the quantity of aid materials, programs, and personnel, in the belief that the negative impact of a disaster can be counteracted by a large and rapid infusion of aid.
Critics claim that such an approach often creates a new set of difficulties for already hard-hit communities. Teams of uninvited experts and personnel—all of whom need food and shelter—as well as uncoordinated shipments of goods and the establishment of programs inappropriate to local needs can quickly lead to a secondary "disaster" as already strained local infrastructures break down under the pressure of this large influx of resources. In some instances, tons of food have disappeared into local markets for resale, and, with inadequate accounting procedures, billions of dollars in aid money have gone unaccounted for.
To develop a more effective approach, experts recommend shifting the focus to the long term. A response that produces lasting benefit, these experts claim, requires that community members define the form and method of aid that are most appropriate to their needs. Grassroots dialogue designed to facilitate preparedness should be encouraged in disaster-prone communities long before the onset of a crisis, so that in a disaster's immediate aftermath, relief agencies can rely on members of affected communities to take the lead. The practical effect of this approach is that aid takes the form of a response to the stated desires of those affected rather than an immediate, though less informed, action on their behalf.
Though this proposal appears sound, its success depends on how an important constituency, namely donors, will respond. Historically, donors—individuals, corporations, foundations, and governmental bodies—have been most likely to respond only in the immediate aftermath of a crisis. However, communities affected by disasters typically have several long-term needs such as the rebuilding of houses and roads, and thus the months and years after a disaster are also crucial. Donors that incorporate dialogue with members of affected communities into their relief plans could foster strategies that more efficiently utilize immediate aid as well as provide for the difficulties facing communities in the years after a disaster.
Which one of the following inferences about natural disasters and relief efforts is most strongly supported by the passage?
Although inefficiencies have long been present in international disaster relief programs, they have been aggravated in recent years by increased demands on relief agencies' limited resources.
Local communities had expressed little interest in taking responsibility for their own preparedness prior to the most recent years, thus leaving donors and relief agencies unaware of potential problems.
Numerous relief efforts in the years prior to the most recent provided such vast quantities of aid that most needs were met despite evidence of inefficiency and mismanagement, and few recipient communities questioned traditional disaster response methods.
Members of communities affected by disasters have long argued that they should set the agenda for relief efforts, but relief agencies have only recently come to recognize the validity of their arguments.
A number of wasteful relief efforts in the most recent years provided dramatic illustrations of aid programs that were implemented by donors and agencies with little accountability to populations affected by disasters.
Explanations
0 Comments