{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01950354609929078, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.012422360248447, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 2, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Developing Metrics and Scoring Procedures to Support Mitigation Grant Program Decisionmaking

KEY FINDINGS The indirect benefits line found that input-output (I-O) and computable general equilibrium (CGE) are the two most widely accepted modeling strategies for estimating the economic benefits of hazard mitigation • Although each type of model contains certain advantages and disadvantages, I-O models are the most practical near-term option for estimating the economic benefits of hazard mitigation. • The indirect benefits line provides detailed instructions for how to model economic benefits using an I-O approach. The Federal Emergency Management Agency commissioned development of metrics that can inform decisionmaking for awarding predisaster mitigation grants. The authors established three lines of effort (LoEs) for analysis: indirect benefits, applicant institutional capability, and community resilience. Each LoE produced a metric or framework that could support grant decisionmaking and program performance evaluation. Developing Metrics and Scoring Procedures to Support Mitigation Grant Program Decisionmaking