Evolution of Emergency Management from 1900 to Present Time

Analyzing the evolution of emergency management

Analyse the evolution of emergency management from 1900 to present time.

Describe how Hurricane Katrina swung the pendulum back towards natural disasters from a focus on terrorism following 9/11.

Examine the collaboration between multiple emergency management stakeholders in response to a focusing event.

Describe how FEMA works with local and state emergency management services and community stakeholders.

Investigate major disasters that contributed to changes in federal government policy and procedures for emergency management.

Discuss the intended and unintended outcomes that emerged following FEMA’s incorporation into DHS.

Terrorists attacked the World Trade Center in New York City and the Pentagon in Arlington County, Virginia. These disasters marked the next major focusing events in the United States and tested the capabilities of collaboration between local, state, and federal levels of government to respond under the National Response Plan (NRP). The response to these disasters followed the bottom-up approach, where first response agencies and departments coordinated efforts, using the Incident Command System (ICS) founded on an all-hazards approach. The state and federal levels of government supported local government efforts to ensure that human suffering and economic effects were minimal with maximizing recovery efforts (Harrald, 2012). The ICS and the principles of unified command supported a management style that was flexible and scalable. The response to both disasters resulted in a robust and coordinated effort.

Likewise, these focusing events identified many deficiencies in the national response system that required revision. Between 2002 and 2005, the federal government implemented several new policies that focused on a greater integration between law enforcement and emergency management. The focus of emergency preparedness changed from an all-hazards approach to natural and man-made emergencies and disasters to a focus on terrorism preparedness and prevention. In 2002, the Homeland Security Act of 2002 formed the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that incorporated 22 federal agencies and serves as a cabinet-level agency (Rubin, 2012). The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was also incorporated as an agency under DHS and lost its previously held cabinet position. In 2003, the following further organized and directed the national strategy for emergency preparedness and response:

• The Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 (HSPD-5),
• Management of Domestic Incidents and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 7 (HSPD-7),
• Critical Infrastructure Identification, Prioritization and Protection, and Homeland Security Presidential Directive 8 (HSPD-8), and
• National Preparedness (Rubin, 2012).

Hurricane Katrina was a catastrophe consisting of two disasters. First, there was the naturally caused storm itself. The second could be described as a man-made disaster, and consisted of the failure and breach of levees and the ensuing flood, resulting from years of neglected maintenance and forgone improvements to the levees, pumps, and associated systems. The inadequate state of public education regarding the risk of hurricanes in the region and inadequate planning and preparedness of the region at all levels of government was evident (Harrald, 2006). In other words, the inability of local, state, and federal governments to respond to the devastation of the naturally occurring Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana, caused the next focusing man made event, the flooding of the Parrish wards from Lake Pontchartrain, to occur. The DHS focus of emergency management on terrorism laid bare the lack of preparedness and response to a natural disaster at the local, state, and federal levels of government.

How did the focus of DHS on terrorist preparedness result in the weakness of local, state, and federal levels of government to prepare for a catastrophic natural disaster and lead to the inability of DHS and FEMA to coordinate an effective federal response? Among the many specific indicators such as lack of training and experience, a more fundamental reason has been posited by the emergency management and social science research community: The answer may lie in the tradeoff between discipline and agility (Harrald, 2006).

The newly formed DHS focused on establishing a military-like discipline by defining policy, structure, and procedures into a national system to prepare for, respond to, and recover from major disasters and catastrophes. The adaptation of the ICS process of decision making, and the NIMS system of command and control, installed a discipline essential for a terrorist attack, but neglected the agility needed to be creative, improvise, and adapt to a changing disaster situation such as a major natural or man-made catastrophe, that had historically been the key to success. This led to a ponderous, bureaucratic process of response and recovery following Hurricane Katrina that could not adapt to the unprecedented challenges and was witnessed vividly daily through the media by the entire nation with disgust and consternation (Harrald, 2006).