Disaster Preparedness - Research Paper Example

Disaster preparedness INTRODUCTION Disaster preparedness always becomes a renewed priority for countries every time major disasters occur. The body of literature is, hence, rich on specific periods immediately after critical events such as the major disasters during the 1960s and 1970s and, of course, the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks in New York. The spurt of the academic interest is particularly focused on the theme regarding the concern for adequate programs or the lack of it so that the public is protected from such crises and calamities. Though often confused with mitigation, preparedness, wrote Bullock et al., is all about planning for the best response or to minimize the scope of the needed response. Throughout the years, disaster preparedness in America, as the academic studies demonstrate, show changing priorities in policymaking with regards to what aspect of disaster preparation should receive attention. HISTORICAL DEVELOPMENT Prior to 9/11 terror attacks, disaster preparedness has been focused on natural calamities. In the historical account of Haddow, Bullock and Coppola (2010), for instance, it was explained how the series of disasters that happened starting in the 1960s collectively led to the increase in the governmental interest, and the ensuing flurry of measures and initiatives on disaster management. Some of the most important disasters cited were the Ash Wednesday storm in 1962, which devastated more than 620 miles of shoreline in the east Coast, costing more than $300 million in damages, the hurricanes that ravaged Florida and Louisiana in 1965, 1969 and 1972, and the killer earthquakes that rocked the US in 1964 and 1971. (Haddow, Bullock and Coppola 2010: 5) The authors noted that these calamities led to the heightened focus on the national emergency management, which by the end of the 1970s saw five federal departments and agencies, closely coordinating for more efficient disaster response and recovery initiatives. Within this period, three specific developments in disaster preparedness emerge. The first is the passage of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, which saw the US Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) taking a more authoritative role in disaster management. Then, there was the creation of the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency, tasked with disasters that would result from military and nuclear disasters. All in all, as pointed out by Haddow, Bullock and Coppola, “taking into account the broad range of risks and potential disasters, more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspect of risk and disasters.” (5) According to Bumgarner, the whole federal disaster preparedness and response program remained disjointed for the most part of the 1970s because there was no specific federal agency “on point” when it came to disasters since more than a hundred various federal agencies divide the responsibilities among them. (Bumgarner 2008: 7) This changed when the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was established in 1979. Bumgarner explained that FEMA was a consequence of the growing clamor for sufficient and effective disaster preparedness and was created through a wide ranging reorganization that saw several existing federal agencies becoming part of the organization. (7) FEMA has functioned as an independent agency that is responsible for the management and response in cases of disasters that overwhelms the state governments. An excellent investigation on FEMA’s responsibilities since its inception until about 2003 was provided by Cumming and Sylves (2005), who outlined the agency’s development, which included policy analysis, an outline of its jurisdiction, and management evaluation. Of particular interest is the study’s emphasis on FEMA’s HAZMATS (hazardous materials)  responsibilities. The authors’ claimed that FEMA has acquired more HAZMATS authority after the 1981 Chernobyl catastrophe in the Soviet Union. (Cumming and Sylves 2005: 23) A more detailed discourse on pre-9/11 disaster preparedness in the US has been comprehensively investigated by Nicholson. For instance, the disaster events from the administration of Reagan to the Clinton regime were outlined and analyzed side by side their policy reactions. (Nicholson 2005: 33-54) The outcome of the cases handled by FEMA such as the hazardous materials contamination in the Love Canal and the experiences discussed by academics previously have provided the public and the policy network’s interest on disaster preparedness. An important dimension to this point is that the governmental policy has been largely shaped by the need to respond to specific types of crises. When the series of natural calamities hit the US during the 1960s and 1970s, the disaster preparedness policy adopted afterwards focused on natural calamities. By 1980s, new priorities in disaster response and preparedness models emerge since new the catastrophes that have occurred involve hazardous materials and the impact of nuclear accidents. The focus on terrorism, hence, after the 9/11 terrorist attacks in disaster and risk management and mitigation, follows the same paradigm. The sheer destruction wrought by the attacks that claimed numerous lives and damaged property has led to a shift in disaster response policy. It built on the existing preparedness mechanisms but introduced new policies owing to the sheer divergence in the nature of threats and risks. EFFECT OF 9/11 ON PREPAREDNESS When the 9/11 terror attacks occurred, new paradigms in disaster preparedness emerged. The terrorism variable became a very important component in the national policy. It is, hence, not surprising to find the body of literature reflected this shift. Numerous scholarly publications were published that identify, propose and explain ways, models, and tactics to address the terrorist threat. A popular theme among the academic studies was the “lessons learned” from actions or inactions of governmental agencies and other stakeholders. One of the widely cited references in this regard was Tierney’s Recent Developments in U.S. Homeland Security Policies and Their Implications for the Management of Extreme Events (2007). It provided the far-reaching changes in the US policy networks. The book chronicled new laws that are passed, an investigation of the creation of the Department of Homeland Security and how FEMA was integrated within it, a comprehensive research of relevant presidential directives, specific programs, measures and initiatives both on the federal and state level. This book offers deep insights in overall disaster preparedness environment and the renewed capability of the US to address the new factors and players that could dominate the threats that the country faces today. Tierney also published several contents for scholarly publications. For instance, in 2003, she wrote the Disaster Beliefs and Institutional Interests: Recycling Disaster Myths in the Aftermath of 9-11. In this article, she investigated and explained popular misconceptions about disaster behaviors such as the widely accepted notion that people tend to panic during large-scale emergencies or that disasters are best managed through certain hierarchies of management. (Tierney 2003: 33-51) Other resources that offer relevant and far-reaching view of the US disaster preparedness landscape include Anglim’s overview of the American disaster preparedness plan, including a complete discourse and investigations on disaster events such as fire, hazardous materials, technology-related disasters, explosions, natural calamities, construction and building collapse, flooding and so on. There is also DiMattia’s A Gem of a Plan (2007), which investigated fifty different contemporary disasters and emergencies with their corresponding management strategies. A more critical approach to the changes has been put forward by Nicholson who criticized FEMA’s integration into the Department of Homeland Security. In addition, he also focused on his investigations how the Department has not only added terrorism as an element in the approach to emergency management but also, emphasized that it has relegated the all-hazards approach previously adopted by the FEMA in secondary position. (Nicholson: 124) This position is legitimate since certain natural disaster preparedness initiatives suffered budget cuts as shown in Table 1. In determining and evaluating the merits of current government strategy, the FEMA’s website contains numerous information and resources on disaster preparedness especially from the policy perspective. National disaster strategies and plans are made available, including the activities and mandate of the organization as a component of the DHS. It also allows citizens access and information on disaster mitigation especially in their communities. Table 1: FEMA Budget Update, 2007-2009 Source: (Bullock, Haddow, Coppola and Yeletaysi: 321) MODERN PREPAREDNES STRATEGY The post-911 corpus of literature highlights three core elements in the current US disaster preparedness strategy. These are: 1) the emphasis on disaster prevention; 2) the increased integration and coordination of governmental agencies, and, 3) the increased role given to the so-called “first responders” of disasters such as the community, medical personnel, the police and firefighters. Prevention Policy The prevention dimension to disaster preparedness is a clear manifestation of the increased focus of the US policy networks on terrorism. Nicholson’s work discussed this extensively, citing how the Homeland Security Presidential Directives 5 and 8 suggest and outline how prevention should be the focus of the local and national management effort. (p. 124) It supposedly underscores the emphasis on terrorism since natural disasters such as earthquakes cannot be prevented. Several studies have already been undertaken exploring this theme. Boscarino, Figley and Adams (2003), for example, found in a survey that this policy shift is supported by many Americans who are increasingly concerned with the terrorism-related disasters. A historiographical approach to the shift in disaster preparedness policy into one that emphasizes prevention has been undertaken by Belke and Dietrich (2005). The study is a comprehensive investigation on two important events that contributed to the policy transformation, the Bhopal incident and the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Significant laws and governmental directives to support the new policy agenda were cited, making this research an invaluable resource on contemporary policy and in predicting the future direction of the American disaster response and management strategy. The paradigm shift in disaster management into a prevention-based strategy can be illustrated in the initiatives and programs being taken by governmental agencies. For example, the New York Police Department commissioned McKinsey & Company to do a review and evaluations within the organization and come up with a strategy that runs parallel to the prevention policy. Basing on the lessons learned from the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the national policy reform on disaster management, McKinsey identified several key organizational changes. The most important of which was the need to redesign emergency preparedness and response. To this end, six reform areas were listed as priorities: A clearer delineation of roles and responsibilities of NYPD leaders; Better clarity in the chain of command; Radio communications protocols and procedures that optimize information flow; More effective mobilization of members of the service; More efficient provisioning and distribution of emergency and donated equipment; and, A comprehensive disaster response plan, with a significant counter-terrorism component. (McKinsey 2011: 4) These areas in their description and analysis demonstrate how terrorism dominates contemporary disaster management strategies and points to the importance of prevention simply because there is a chance and opportunity by which the terrorist threats could be prevented. McEntire contributed to this area by citing that prevention is a vital element of disaster management because stakeholders frequently lack complete knowledge about and control over hazards and disaster prevention. (McEntire: 34) Integration Wittkopf, Jones and Kegley’s work on the American policy in general devoted a significant portion of their research on managing homeland security. It particularly described the organizational structure and how the agency functions in response to an emergency. For instance, there is the description how the interagency process works as led by eleven Homeland Security policy coordination committees, wherein each committee, which is tasked to focus on a functional policy area to homeland security (i.e. medical preparedness) brings together officials from different other departments and agencies. (Wittkopf, Jones and Kegley 2008: 361) The dynamics of this interagency relationship and hierarchical approach to disaster management is supposed to enhance the capacity of the government to respond to contemporary threats. Perry is also helpful in this area with his discourse on the role of the jurisdictional Emergency Operations Center (EOC), which emerged as the center of coordination, resource assembly and deployment, and management strategy in large-scale disasters. Perry’s work explored how the technical emergency management directly interfaces with elected political authorities to achieve forceful, legitimate and authoritative expertise and response measures. (Perry 2003: 151) The EOC, with its mandate, represents a deeper kind of coordination and cooperation because it addresses several problems entailed in interagency relationships. It is, in fact, a major achievement especially when studies such as those undertaken by McConell and Brennan (2006) cite numerous challenges to implementing a strategic policy on disaster preparedness that is anchored on interagency cooperative efforts. The most important of these was how the requirement for cooperation and synergy becomes problematic across institutional networks because the US policymaking is characterized by highly fragmented and politicized sectors. Following the same line of investigation, May, Sapotichne and Workman (2009), underscored how the multiple subsystems present in the American bureaucracy results in critical policy disruptions, making it hard to motivate heightened levels of policymaking. Agencies and mechanism like the EOC ensures that disaster preparedness strategy can be buffered from policymaking volatility, politics, among other variables. First Responders A good percentage of the academic investigations and research on disaster preparedness has been devoted to the crucial role of the so-called “first responders” in the event of disasters. This is primarily because government policies and directives are replete with emphasis on this sector as crucial in disaster management. These are the individuals and agencies that are first called on to address a disaster. Essentially, they constitute the community or the location of such disaster and, hence, could include local police force, firefighters and EMS providers. This is in consonance with the emergency responder guidelines published by the Office of Justice Programs Office of Domestic Preparedness, which defined five main groups that constitute the first responders: law enforcement, fire services, emergency medical services, emergency management and public works. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina back in 2005, the government finally recognized the role of non-governmental organizations and private citizens in disaster preparedness and response. This was contained in the National Response Framework, which was the focus of Toner, Mierswa and Howe’s research. The authors identified several training programs designed to enhance the local first responders’ capability to prevent, protect, respond to, and recover from manmade and natural catastrophic events. This includes FEMA’s training programs on domestic preparedness, which include courses and programs for the private sector and US citizens. (FEMA 2011) The flagship programs for the private sector are: the Citizen Corps under the Department of Homeland Security and the Community Emergency Response Teams. In Toner, Mierswa and Howe’s analysis, these two programs were revealed to focus on local capacity to provide coordination and training on emergency preparedness through the train-the-trainer model. (Toner, Mierswa and Howe’s 2010: 121-122) Boyd and Sullivan forced researchers to think back and learn how in the past the strategy has worked. They provided a comprehensive list of cases of communities or “first responders” effectively playing their roles in disaster response and preparedness. For instance, there was an in-depth analysis on the Oklahoma City bombing experience in 1995, wherein the community and the police, played a crucial role in effectively responding to a terrorist incident. Boyd and Sullivan explained: When a terrorist or disaster occurs, a large number of people and agencies will be called on to address the many individual actions required to resolve the incident. This process will be initiated by the first responders from a number of disciplines. Dispatch or control center personnel receiving the initial notification are also key to initiating an appropriate response and should closely coordinate their activities with first responders. (Boyd and Sullivan 1997: 29) The role played by medical personnel also receives a high level of academic interest. Numerous studies such as those conducted by Higgins et al. (2004), have investigated capabilities and performances of medical facilities and professionals in terms of disaster preparedness. For this purpose, they surveyed over a hundred hospitals and found that advanced planning and preparation for disaster incidents such as weapons of mass destruction events were less common, highlighting how disaster preparedness in hospitals are still in its early stage of development. But the trend of development is positive as the government has increased its efforts and budgetary spending for improved training, education and preparedness across all sectors among the first responders group. Kapur and Smith (2011) outlined these in detail, explaining that the governmental objective is to cover much stakeholders as possible at all levels, from the citizens up to those who make policy decisions. (337) The overall US policy attitude towards first responders is contained in the presidential initiative called National Strategy for Homeland Security, released the day the DHS was created. In the National Strategy, the individual Americans were called on to play their part in the state’s efforts to improve tactical capabilities especially in the area of terrorism. (Jenkins 2005: 8) CONCLUSION The development of the overall policy and public attitude towards disaster preparedness in America has been largely driven by reactionary behavior to major disasters that occurred. This explains the varying priorities of the governments when it comes to which hazard or threat receives emphasis. Back in the 1960s and the 1970s, the focus was on natural and accidental disasters. In the 1980s, disaster preparedness designed in anticipation of chemical and hazardous materials accidents. By 2001, the terrorist attacks in New York finally led to a new paradigm shift in strategy. The new terrorism variable has led to a major reorganization of the American disaster management strategy. As reflected in the body of disaster literature and the policy behavior, the threat of terrorist attacks has elevated the kind and amount of disasters that America faces. It significantly disrupted the fiscal, economic and social environment in the country. In the past, especially according to the historical analyses of many academics, the country has struggled with major manmade and natural crises – storms, hurricanes, fire, earthquakes, oil spills, chemical contamination, radiation, pandemics and disruptions to energy and technological infrastructure. With all these catastrophes, the US disaster management agencies led by FEMA have acquired sufficient expertise to effectively address their occurrence today. But with terrorism, new hazards emerged – chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attacks. It required the massive reorganization and realignment of strategy and objectives. It has also driven the government to increasingly engage and involve the so-called first-responders in its planning and preparations for large-scale disasters. There are still gaps in disaster preparedness as has been pointed out by several researchers. But the most important fact remains: both the public and private sectors in America has learned their lessons from the past and is currently doing their best to mitigate risks and prevent mistakes from being committed today and in the future. REFERENCES Anglim, C 1996, "The Worst Thing That Could Happen: Law Library Disasters and Preparing for the Unimaginable." AALL Spectrum, vol. 1, no. 4, p. 8-19. Belke, J and Deitrich, D 2005, "The post-Bhopal and post-9/11 transformations in chemical emergency prevention and response policy in the United States," Journal of Loss Prevention in the Process Industries, vol. 18, no. 4-6, pp. 375-379. Boscarino, J, Figley, C and Adams, R 2003, "Fear of Terrorism in New York After the September 11 Terrorist Attacks: Implications for Emergency Mental Health and Preparedness," International Journal for Emergency Mental Health. vol. 5, no. 4, pp. 199-209. Boyd, A and Sullivan, J 1997, Emergency preparedness for transit terrorism. National Research Council, Washington, D.C.. Bullock, J, Haddow, G, Coppola, D and Yeletaysi, S 2008, Introduction to homeland security: principles of all-hazards response. Butterworth-Heinemann, Oxford. Bumgarner, J 2008, Emergency management: a reference handbook. ABC-CLIO, Santa Barbara, CA. Cumming, W and Sylves, R 2005, “FEMA's Place in Policy, Law, and Management: A Hazardous Materials Perspective 1979-2003.” Homeland Security Law and Policy. pp. 23-55. DiMattia, S 2007, "A Gem of a Plan." Information Outlook, vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 26-32. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2011, Available from [12 November 2011]. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) 2011, Training and Exercise Integration (TEI) Course Catalog. Available from [12 November 2011]. Haddow, G, Bullock, J and Coppola, D 2010, Introduction to Emergency Management. Butterworth-Heinemann, Burlington, MA. Higgins, W, Wainright, C, Lu, N and Carrico, R 2004, "Assessing hospital preparedness using an instrument based on the Mass Casualty Disaster Plan Checklist," American Journal of Infection Control, vol. 32, no. 6, pp. 327-332. Jenkins, W 2005, Homeland Security: DHS' Efforts to Enhance First Responders' All-Hazards Capabilities Continue to Evolve. DIANE Publishing, Washington, D.C. Kapur, G B and Smith, J 2011, Emergency public health: preparedness and response. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA. May, P, Sapotichne, J and Workman, S 2009, "Widespread Policy Disruption: Terrorism, Public Risks, and Homeland Security," Policy Studies Journal, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 171-194. McConell, Aand Drennan, L 2006, "Mission Impossible? Planning and Preparing for Crisis," Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 14, no. 2, pp. 59-70. McEntire, D (not dated), Available from [13 Novemeber 2011]. McKinsey & Company 2002, "Improving NYPD Emergency Preparedness and Response," McKinsey & Company. Available from [13 November 2011]. Nicholson, W 2005, Homeland security law and policy. Charles C Thomas Publisher, Springfield. Perry, R 2003, "Emergency Operations Centres in an Era of Terrorism: Policy and Management Functions." Journal of Contingencies and Crisis Management, vol. 11, no. 4, pp. 151-159. Tierney, K 2007, “Recent Developments in U.S. Homeland Security Policies and Their Implications for the Management of Extreme Events.” In Havidian Rodriguez' Handbook of disaster research. Springer, New York. Tierney, K 2003, "Disaster Beliefs and Institutional Interests: Recycling Disaster Myths in the Aftermath of 9-11". in Lee Clarke (ed.) Terrorism and Disaster: New Threats, New Ideas (Research in Social Problems and Public Policy, Volume 11), Emerald Group Publishing Limited, pp.33-51. Toner, J, Mierswa, T and Howe, J 2010, Geriatric Mental Health Disaster and Emergency Preparedness. Springer Publishing Company, New York. Wittkopf, E, Jones, C and Kegley, C 2008, American foreign policy: pattern and process. Cengage Learning, New York. BIBLIOGRAPHY "9/11 Commission Report 2004, Available from Read More