Emergency Management - Research Paper Example

Emergency Management Paper History of Disaster Relief The history of disaster relief in America s back to the 1800s. Indeed as a core man to the citizenry, the federal and state governments were looked on by citizens of America to provide relief in times of disaster – both natural and artificial. In the years before the 1950s however, the state and local government shared this role of providing disaster relief with other non-governmental agencies; notably the American Red Cross (ARC). One of the virtual moments in the history of American disaster relief history in relation to the role played by the American Red Cross was the Johnstown Flood of 1889. According to the Texas Impact (2008), at the time of the flood, “the ARC set up food and water stations, provided medical care, and established mass shelters to house the disaster victims.” Leading on from the performance of the American Red Cross in this disaster, it organization was granted a federal charter in 1900 by congress to provide support in time of disaster. A lot more non-governmental agencies and charity organizations were given similar recognition in major disasters such as “the Galveston Hurricane and Storm Surge in 1900, San Francisco Earthquake in 1906, the Great Mississippi Flood of 1927, and the droughts of 1930-1931” (Texas Impact). Though the efforts of the non-governmental organizations were commendable, the task seemed just too much to be left to their care alone especially as government least supported them with funds (Sylves, 2008). Concerns were therefore raised in the mid 1900s as the situation was eventually curtailed in 1950 when congress passed what came to be known as the Federal Disaster Relief Program (FDP). The FDP transferred power to the president from congress. With this power, the president was then mandated to be the sole authority that could declare disaster. Details of specific kinds of relief or assistance provided by the SA FEMA (2011) notes that the Stafford Act (1988) “constitutes the statutory authority for most Federal disaster response activities especially as they pertain to FEMA and FEMA programs.” The Stafford Act is quite limited in the kind of relief or support it can give out in time of a major disaster or an emergency (Meola, 2011). The first of these relief assistances is emergency work, which is carried out upon the instruction of the president. The emergency work includes such activities as clearing and removing debris, restoration of public facilities and freeing wreckage. The support also includes the provision of legal services, giving out unemployment assistance, giving out of food coupons for the onward collection of food and offering relocation assistance. The Separate Powers within the Executive Branches of the Federal System The time of disaster displays a great deal of the separation of power system practiced in the United States. Basically, powers that are the prerogative of the state (national) are referred to as reserved power whereas powers that can be exercised by the federal states are known as delegated powers. In the occurrence of disaster, the president has a reserved power to declare disaster. This information is however forwarded to him through the delegated power of the governor of the State who is also responsible for the preparing the procedures for declaring disaster. The Governor is also mandated to execute an emergency plan for the State; especially if the disaster can be handled at a Federal level only (Chertoff, 2008). Again, it is the Governor who explains or budgets to the President the amount of resources the State will need. Approval and allocation of the resources of funds however rests with the President or government. To this effect, the federal system gives federal power that can only be described as prescriptive whereas the executive have an authentication power (Waugh, 2007). The role of FEMA in the Declaration Process It is important to note that the role of the FEMA is part of a bigger process and not an end in its’ self. To this effect, the FEMA plays a partnership role in the support that the president declares for the area of disaster. As a partner, FEMA provides support “such as the protection of lives, property, public health, and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States” (FEMA Blog, 2011). The role of FEMA can however not be overestimated because the central government is not mandated to give out 100% support. The absence of FEMA’s role would therefore mean that support or assistance given out in the time of disaster or an emergency would be woefully inadequate. CITED WORKS Chertoff, M. (2008). National Incident Management System. Washington, District of Columbia: Department of Homeland Security. Meola, O. (2011, May 18). McDonnell to appeal U.S. denial of aid after tornadoes. Richdmond Times-Dispatch . Sylves, R. (2008). Disaster Policy and Management: Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Waugh, K. T. (2007). Emergency Management: Principles and Practice for Local Government (2nd). Washington, District of Columbia: ICMA Press. Paper #2 Review of the DMC phases of Hurricane Katrina There are four known disaster management cycles and these were duly applied in the Hurricane Katrina disaster. It must be emphasized however that the cycles or phases are not wide apart from each other and are not implemented in ‘phases’ as the name appears. The entire processes are interrelated and one is hardly noticed from the other. This not withstanding, the following DMC phases can be said of the Hurricane Katharina disaster: Mitigation Phase: This phase was purposely to reduce the effect or occurrence of the disaster. Because the region around which the hurricane Katharina occurred had been diagnosed by the disaster relief management as a disaster prone area, there were regular caution notes released to residence of the need to occur only areas far from the sea. The mitigation phase was boosted by the fact that America as a nation had a development plan for disaster. Preparedness Phase: This phase of the disaster management cycle was dedicated to setting a very high level of readiness for the disaster. As a hurricane prone area, there were constant programs that were directed towards enhancing and strengthening the technical, managerial, administrative and professional competences of government, disaster management agencies, humanitarian organizations and all other stakeholders in charge of disaster management (McCarthy, 2010). Response Phase: The response phase of the disaster management comes after the disaster has occurred. At this time, the disaster management department and all other stakeholders in the relief of disaster play various roles to ensure that there is an immediate provision of assistance in terms of health and boosting the morale of affected people. It must be empathized that the key word here is ‘immediate’. The response phase of the hurricane Katharina catered for the immediate concerns of victims to ensure that their health status and the possibility of surviving the disaster were not hampered (Sylves, 2008). Recovery Phase: The recovery phase is dedicated to the time after the disaster and specifically after when all forms of aid or assistance have gone through. With the hurricane Katharina, there was an effort to ensure that not only did the people affected during the disaster recovered into normal life but then funds and resources were voted to for the recovery of the entire region where the disaster struck. Specific kinds of response recovery efforts conducted under the guidance by federal authorities Disaster recovery response to the Hurricane Katharina came from different agencies and organizations. Common names like the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), charitable organizations, non-governmental organizations, the private folk, federal and National Guard soldiers all had roles to play in the recovery response to the disaster. Similar response has been given out to all other major disasters in the United States (Redmond, 2011). Narrowing the recovery response to the role played by federal authorities, a lot can indeed be said. The first of such response systems was the collaboration between as many as 19 States who all provided shelter as short term recovery program. Indeed, with a disaster like a hurricane, the worse form that citizens become hit is the destruction of their places of abode. The temporary shelter program by federal authorities was therefore a step in the right direction. Again, the federal authorities led by the FEMA deployed none but its entire 28 Urban Search and Rescue Task Forces to various parts of the disaster with a lot more attention paid to Mississippi and Louisiana. Also, 29 Disaster Medical Assistance Teams were dispatched together with 5 Disaster Mortuary Operational Response Teams. Indeed, the federal authority was up and doing in all fields of the disaster as the response included Veterinary Medical Assistance Teams and Mental Health Team – meaning all people: both mentally sound and mentally retarded were catered for. Animals were also catered for. The future of FEMA / Department of Homeland Security in the Practice of Emergency Management The response of the federal authorizes speak a lot for the future of the FEMA and Department of Homeland Security. Firstly, the mitigation stage of the disaster management cycle, if handled in a more integrated way involving stakeholders outside the FEMA would have ensured that the disaster’s effect would have been less than it was experienced (FEMA, 2008). The second point is that there is still a lot of hope for the future of disaster management in the United States. This is seen in the cooperative way in which all States close and near were ready to offer their support in the instance of the disaster. As the years go by, it is important that avenues are created to make disaster management among States and at the federal level more integrated to ensure that the flow of resources and assistance inter-state is not impeded y any course. CITED WORKS FEMA. (2008, August 1). Producing Emergency Plans. Retrieved May 18, 2011, from Comprehensive Planning Guide: www.llis.dhs.gov/​displayContent?contentID=32595 McCarthy, F. X. (2010). FEMAs Disaster Declaration Process: A Primer. Washington, District of Columbia: Congressional Research Service. Redmond, T. (2011, May 20). Virginia VOAD conference call. (D. Denton, Interviewer) Sylves, R. (2008). Disaster Policy and Management: Emergency Management and Homeland Security. Washington, DC: CQ Press. Paper #3 Description of one phase of the issue attention cycle; The issue attention cycle seeks to bring out the inefficiencies of stakeholders in the handling of disaster and emergencies. With the Hurricane Catharina as a focal point, fragmented government responsibility can be pointed out as one of the major handicaps with the response and management of the disaster (Sylves, 2008). It is reported for instance of how Congressional Investigators claim that government was not swift in taking decisive actions to tackle the issue. In their view, the appointment of a federal officer to lead the federal response came rather late and that things would not have deteriorated the amount it did if government was decisive enough. A lot of accusing fingers are also pointed to the government in terms of the militating phase of the disaster. It is reported that government had all indications from the Hurricane Andrew that occurred ten years before the Hurricane Katharina to put in concrete actions to militate the effects of the disaster. These arguments point to the fact that there are a lot of responsibilities that government must be careful not to overlook in future occurrences (Moteff, 2003). As a government, the concept of building long term disaster management programs must ever be underestimated – especially with natural disasters. The plans and programs that are drawn must also be back with authoritative implementation plans to ensure that in the event of a disaster, government approach will not be seen as fragmented but consolidated. Detail examples from the HKNSU that illustrate the phase described Giving detailed examples of the Hurricane Katharina to back the argument that government’s responsibility or response was fragmented, three major scenarios can be pointed to. In the first place, government was not proactive in the appointment of a federal representation Matthews, 2007). Contrary to the 1993 recommendations given by Controller General David Walker that in the case of a major disaster like Hurricane Katharina there should be a single federal official put in charge of offers, government was rather sluggish in the implementation of this recommendation. Government’s lack of consolidation and firmness in taking a decision to this effect was pointed out as the major cause of chaos in the Gulf Coast – a situation that could have been prevented. Secondly, government has greatly been criticized for not showing any sign of preparedness at the time of the event. This lack of preparedness led to break of protocol at governmental level and defeated the systematic flow of information and authority. It is against this background that “Rep. Tom Davis (R-VA), who heads the House investigation, said its clear no one was adequately prepared” (Fessler, 2006). Finally, the Government Accountability Report captured by Fessler (2006) paints a picture that because of the general occurrence of governmental fragmentation in the delivery of responsibilities, the evacuation process its’ self was haphazard and uncoordinated. The according to the Government Accountability Report, evacuation capabilities should have included “evacuating special needs populations such as those in hospitals and nursing homes, coordinating transportation assets, and ensuring that receiving shelters are not overwhelmed” (Fessler, 2006). What remains to be done to improve the national preparedness and response system The discussion above does not paint a very good picture of disaster management in the United States; especially with the management of Hurricane Katharina. It is not surprising that the phrase “Hurricane Katrina: A Nation Still Unprepared (HKNSU)” is widespread. There is however some hope for improving national preparedness and response system for disaster management for America. First, public debate, scrutiny and assessment of past disaster relief programs should be encouraged and taken seriously by government. This is because out of such reviews and public discussions, there is sure to come out a number of suggestions that can serve as yardsticks for future occurrences. Secondly, government machinery for disaster control and management must be clearly defined and strictly implemented. Most often than not, we all know who is supposed to do what at what time but as soon as duty calls, everyone seem to forget who should be doing what and chaos become the order of the day (Institute for Sustainable Communities, 2010). Government’s institutions must be strengthened so that there will be minimal room for anyone flouting the rules. Finally, preparation should never be taken for granted. Widespread of accusations point to the fact that America was taken by surprise and that it seemed not prepared (National Response Plan, 2006). This should not happen again. It must be noted that most disasters; especially natural disasters do not come announced. All relief agencies must therefore be prepared at all times to cater for unexpected disasters. CITED WORKS Institute for Sustainable Communities. (2010). Sustainable development and long-term disaster recovery: A convening of experts to inform and support the deliberations of the Long-Term Disaster Recovery Working Group. Washington, District of Columbia: Housing and Urban Development. John Moteff, C. C. (2003). Critical Infrastructures: What Makes an Infrastructure Critical? Washington, District of Columbia: Congressional Research Service. Matthews, K. (2007, June 14). Funeral Planned for Last WTC Firefighter. Retrieved May 29, 2011, from Firehouse.com: www.firehouse.com/news/lodd/funeral-planned-last-wtc-firefighter   National Response Plan. (2006). Long-Term Recovery and Mitigation Annex - . Washington, District of Columbia: FEMA. REFERENCE LIST Texas Impact, ‘History of Disaster Relief’ http://texasimpact.org/Disaster_Relief_History. 2008. Web. August 12, 2011. FEMA, ‘Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act (Public Law 93-288) as amended’, http://www.fema.gov/about/stafact.shtm. 2011. Web. August 11, 2011. FEMA Blog, The Disaster Declaration Process, Spring Flood Edition. http://blog.fema.gov/2011/03/disaster-declaration-process-spring.html. 2011. Web. August 12, 2011 Sylves R. 2008. ‘Disaster Policy and Politics: Emergency Management and Homeland Security’. CQ Press: United States Fessler P, 2006, ‘Fragmented Government Slowed Katrina Response’. NPR: Government Accountability Office. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5183478. 2006. Web. August 12, 2011. Read More