Leadership Plan for Hurricane Andrew - Case Study Example

Leadership Plan for Hurricane Andrew Leadership Plan for Hurricane Andrew Introduction Disasters or catastrophes are a reality to humans. Even though, some are avoidable, others have to be experienced. In the occurrence of a disaster, awareness, response, as well as recovery to the disaster determine the degree of damage (Waugh, 2000). Critics point out that a disaster always forms an unstable work environment for both the casualties and the relief workers. This makes it difficult for emergency attempts to be executed without prearranged plans (Waugh, 2000). Such a case was witnessed in Hurricane Andrew (1992). Hence, disaster management and planning plays a key role in resurgence from a disaster. This paper will come up with a leadership plan for addressing the case study outlying Hurricane Andrew and the challenge it brought to the Florida communities. Overview of Hurricane Andrew Hurricane Andrew was a catastrophic cyclone that was, at that time, the worst hurricane in the history of the United States. The fourth tropical hurricane, initially named the storm, and then the 1992 Atlantic hurricane season, Hurricane Andrew originated from a tropical wave over the Atlantic on August 16, 1992, from West Africa. At first, strong wind shear stopped much escalation (Waugh, 2000). A decline in shear the next day allowed the depression to strengthen turning into Tropical Storm Andrew by 1200 UTC. This was on 17th August (Waugh, 2000). Nevertheless, increased wind shear on 18th August diminished convection linked to the storm. In the next two days, wind gradient drastically reduced, and Andrew became a minimal cyclone on August 22. Thereafter, the hurricane turned westward under the power of a high-pressure system and began quickly to strengthen later that day. Shortly before moving through the Bahamas, Hurricane Andrew strengthened into a Category 5 cyclone on 23rd August. The cyclone weakened vaguely over the Bahamas to a Category 4 cyclone, but shortly re-intensified into a Category 5 cyclone on 24th August before making landfall on Elliott Key, and afterwards in Homestead, Florida. The hurricane’s effects were mostly felt in Florida as it resulted in mass human displacement and property damage. Assessors estimated that the damages from the hurricane resulted in almost $20billion making it the most devastating and expensive cyclone ever to hit the U.S. (Waugh, 2000). Hence, it was vital to make sure that people recovered fully from the hurricane’s effects and were restored to their previous lives. The United States had a Federal Response Plan (FRP) in place. This was their response arm in case of such calamities. However, the level of Federal-State organization and preparation in Florida was still at an infancy stage (Waugh, 2000). This was mainly what limited their response to the hurricane. Most of the principles that were used by the FRP were not comprehended by local government institutions in Florida. The emergency awareness plan of the Dade County made sure that over 84,000 citizens were offered emergency refuge by Red Cross, as well as the numerous public schools, and buildings that were allocated. Nevertheless, this plan proved to be inadequate considering the fact that over 250,000 citizens were in need of food and shelter (Waugh, 2000). There was a vast communication breakdown after the hurricane, which shattered most of the communication infrastructure. Efficient communication had to occur so as to organize the disaster management attempts. Due to the sensitive levels of psychological pressure along with the breakdown of infrastructure such as mobile base stations and telephone lines, the ordinary forms communication proved insufficient in the case of Hurricane Andrew. Critics noted that, in the first few days after Hurricane Andrew, FEMA was incapable of broadcasting the needed information to the public and organization of efforts among volunteer groups was poor. Lessons Learnt From Hurricane Andrew A couple of vital lessons can be learned from the disaster management, as well as the recovery attempts, during Hurricane Andrew (Waugh, 2000). The hurricane brought it to the attention of the U.S. government that enhanced proactive planning is essential for recovery and relief after a disaster. The preparation and planning activities that had been undertaken prior to the disaster were vital since they led to the saving of lives (Waugh, 2000). The significance of accurate damage along with needs assessments was also highlighted by the hurricane since the initial estimations by local officials proved to be grossly inconspicuous. According to FEMA, well trained personnel should carry out damage and needs assessment within a day of the disaster. It is vital to develop a response strategy that identifies the needed resources (Waugh, 2000). The cyclone revealed the need for more practical measures to cope with disasters. Critics argued that there was a lack of firm aid for the disaster casualties with government agencies making pledges of support without providing any significant resources. It took 10 days for sufficient supplies, as well as manpower, to be availed to the disaster casualties (Waugh, 2000). The wait led to more damages of property and pointless suffering by the casualties of the cyclone. The high cost in damages from the disaster could have been avoided if quick action had been taken. Effects of the Hurricane Crime went up sharply in the regions of south Miami immediately after Hurricane Andrew, particularly theft and looting. A lot of reports indicated that goods were stolen at numerous destroyed or damaged shopping centers in southern Miami-Dade region. In addition, looting and theft also occurred in neighborhoods rigorously affected by the hurricane (Waugh, 2000). Looters did not take into consideration the few of the owners’ possessions that had remained after the storm. Insurance companies were also affected by the storm. More than 930,000 policyholders in Florida lost their coverage after 11 insurance firms went bankrupt. This was brought about by more than 600,000 insurance claims being filed at once. Deaths, destructions of homes and devastations were also among the main effects felt by the citizens of Florida State. Leaderships Steps of Overcoming Hurricane Andrew Critics believe that the probability of a significant natural disaster, hurricane, flood, or earthquake, affecting the United States once again is inevitable (Waugh, 2000). However, emergency management systems center their efforts on preparing for and responding to terrorist disasters. These attempts should not reduce their capacity or capabilities for dealing with natural hazards. Below are some of the leadership steps of dealing with natural disasters such as Hurricane Andrew. Step 1 It is vital to uphold an all-hazards loom to emergency management (Waugh, 2000). Utilizing this method makes use of the common capabilities needed to treat any emergency or disaster. It also allows the incorporation of special needs for terrorism. To desert the all-hazards approach would be replicating the error the emergency management society made in the 1980s (Waugh, 2000). In the time of the cold war, FEMA used more than 75% of its human resources and finances on preparing for the projected nuclear war. It was agreed that localities and states receiving FEMA support follow suit. State, federal along with local authority ability to respond to natural disasters was rigorously diminished. Hurricane Andrew vividly demonstrated that local and state capabilities were rapidly surmounted (Waugh, 2000). The national response under FEMA was late and disorganized. In the case of Hurricane Andrew, the manager of FEMA was replaced as the liable officer and the military offered most of the initial aid. This real instance of the ignorance of focusing on any one danger, at the cost of more widespread and frequent dangers, offers strong proof of the wisdom of the all-hazards advancement to emergency management. Step 2 The federal response infrastructure is derived from the Federal Response Plan works (Waugh, 2000). Ever since, Hurricane Andrew hit the United States several political leaders have advocated for building a disaster response structure, not recalling that an efficient federal organization already exists. There is no need to set up a new infrastructure (Waugh, 2000). This method was tested in hundreds of natural disasters, for instance the Oklahoma City bombing and Hurricane Katrina, and it worked as projected. This established structure is flexible. However, it needs revision and the addition of new allies to accommodate the exceptional aspects of natural disasters (Waugh, 2000). The emergency management society should fight any efforts to set up a separate structure. At the local and state levels, the emergency management compacts that exist among states should support this operational approach. Lessons learned from disasters such as Hurricane Andrew, particularly in joint operations and communications, can be readily included into these existing structures. Step 3 It is also vital to continue to practice the concepts that helped the U.S. emergency management system to become the best system in the world (Waugh, 2000). These ideas are focusing on the customers, both external and internal and building partnerships among, including the media and the private sector. It is vital to support the development and usage of new technologies that give emergency directors the tools they need to be efficient. Emergency management systems should emphasize on communication of stakeholders such as the community and the media in order to lessen the cornerstone of the emergency organization. These basic concepts are the key to the achievements and respect FEMA under President Clinton and Director James Lee Witt. This is a proper framework for emergency management to continue to develop and expand its authority and significance to the institutions and the citizens it serves. Emergency management can guarantee its place, in the future, if it focuses on programs, policies, as well as the activities, which improve the social and financial security of citizens, institutions and communities. To execute this emergency management, agencies need to focus more effort in implementing and promoting mitigation than in the past (Waugh, 2000). Step 4 Mitigation should be made the center of emergency management in the U.S (Waugh, 2000). Mitigation is the positive function that emergency directors can practice every day, in each community, and not be reliant on an event to demonstrate their significance. Mitigation is pursued by all sectors of a society. To be efficient, mitigation needs to develop partnerships within a society. It often brings together unlike parties to solve common issues. Mitigation conveys the private sector together into the emergency management system since economic suitability of their businesses relies on risk reduction. Hence, mitigation upholds their leadership and support (Waugh, 2000). Mitigation offers the entry point to incorporate the private sector in other phases of emergency management and to appreciate their exceptional needs in response and resurgence. In the late 90s, mitigation planning and business continuity was the largest growth area for emergency management. This was after Hurricane Andrew stroke. Economic interest or considerations frequently drive public decisions. Mitigation permits emergency administrators to have access and power to the decision-making (Waugh, 2000). Mitigation functions best at the local level. It exerts political pressure to emergency agencies to ensure a continued emergency management aid. The Project Impact scheme articulates this idea. It has made it a reality in over 200 communities, in Florida. At the Federal level, the trend is the decrease and loss of all natural risk programs. This withdraws investments in awareness and elimination of hazard mitigation. Hence, what will remain is the response along with the recovery programs that were deeply examined in Florida during the previous hurricanes such as Andrew (Waugh, 2000). If emergency management has any hope at all, critics believe that it needs to concentrate and reconstruct its constituency at the community level (Waugh, 2000). Conclusion In conclusion, the period has come for the public to incorporate disaster management, as well as hazard mitigation, into its everyday planning, operations along with decision-making. It is also time for the public to set up a local funding foundation for emergency management. A fresh breed of government officials should be employed to manage this fresh aspect of community government. These new administrators should be trained in public procedure, public administration as well as hazard management. These new administrators should be responsible for incorporating hazard mitigation and disaster management policies along with practices in all phases of local government and community life. The officials should be able to report directly to the County or City Manager and work directly and on the same level with other key department heads in the local government. The officials should also be in charge for creating a community partnership for disaster management that incorporates the business community and all other society stakeholders. This will ensure that the effects that were brought about by events such as Hurricane Andrew could be tackled more efficiently and provide rapid recovery to those affected by the disaster. Reference Waugh. L. W. (2000). Living with hazards, dealing with disasters: An introduction to emergency management. New York: M. E. Sharpe. Read More