Change in Public Safety within Massachusetts - Case Study Example

Introduction The 9/11 attacks on the U.S. prompted a reexamination on the manner in which states secure the nation and its people, which similarly led to a change in public safety within Massachusetts. There are numerous manifestations of the changes within the manner in which the state undertake public safety today. Massachusetts has instituted a statewide Law Enforcement Mobilization Plan that directly derives from the establishment of multi-discipline, multi-jurisdictional forums (Office of the Homeland Security 2). Massachusetts has also witnessed the evolution towards enhanced coordination across public safety as evidenced by the institutionalization of the National Incident Management System (NIMS), as well as federally backed training in ICS. In 2004, the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS) outlined five Homeland Security Planning Regions and instituted a multidisciplinary and multijurisdictional Advisory Council for every region. The Council members draws from all relevant public safety disciplines such as law enforcement, emergency management, fire service, emergency medical services (EMS), public works, public health, transportation, local government administration, and corrections (Nemeth 8). The Advisory Council’s role centers on policy making and administration as outlined by the Massachusetts State Homeland Security Strategy formulated by EOPSS. Massachusetts homeland security strategy Since the 9/11, the urge to improve counterterrorism and homeland security efforts at state, federal, and local levels has gained prominence in public safety concerns. The continued threat has elevated domestic preparedness obligations to the top of the law enforcement agenda. In the aftermath of the 9/11, numerous law enforcement agencies who perceived terrorism to be a significant threat within their jurisdictions internally shifted resources or enhanced department spending in pursuit of enhanced security for their department, establish counterterrorism capabilities, and enhance the overall level of preparedness for cases involving nuclear, chemical, biological, radiological, and explosive incidents. The federal, state, and local governments have instituted new demands on law enforcement agencies to engage in statewide or regional threat assessments, enhance coordination on intelligence-sharing as well as other counterterrorism activities, and engage in initiatives such as the establishment of fusion centers and the institution of National Incident Management System (U.S. Commission on National Security 69). The state of Massachusetts also enjoys an emergency preparedness campaign aimed at increasing understanding and the level of preparedness. The campaigns seek to create emergency plans such as Mass READY. The campaigns creates a shared operating picture, strengthening and broadening partnerships across assets and capabilities, and integrating the private sector and fostering public participation in prevention and preparedness. The state and local collaboration and coordination have derived from the working partnerships of the regions, where all regions have dedicated homeland security assets and capabilities, including equipment, training, planning, and evaluation (Bowen, 93). For instance, the Northeast region has utilized its homeland funding to source diverse emergency supplies, organize first responder activities, and institute school safety mechanisms. The Southeast Region, on the other hand, has made considerable steps in enhancing interoperability and incident command training. Other regions have broadened the capability of communities to recover from large scale incidents via the procurement and deployment of emergency equipment, as well as interoperability of information sharing projects. The strategy outlines goals and objectives, which form part of prevention efforts across the commonwealth, inclusive of an enhanced focus on port security and transit. The Commonwealth Fusion Center plays a critical part in the prevention of terrorism by informing law enforcement and public safety officials on vulnerabilities and capabilities within the state. EOPSS represents a state Administrative Agency charged with coordinating statewide efforts to safeguard against, protect, respond to, and recover from the outcome of a critical incident in harmonization with local, state, and federal government, as well as private entities (Alperen 6). The Commonwealth of Massachusetts Homeland Security Strategy can be criticized for being outdated give that it has not been updated since 2007. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts’ state strategies do not feature objectives with measurable target levels of performance, and fails to feature evaluation plans that monitor progress toward attaining objectives (Forest 12). The 2007 State strategy that the state employed to guide its program encompassed three broad-based goals and 18 objectives, but did not feature target completion dates; hence, the targets were not time-limited, were no-specific, and not measurable. Local authorities encounter many decisions when it comes to emergency management activities. The emergency management law within the U.S. derives from three levels of the government, namely: federal, state, and local level. The three forms of legal responsibility may yield to liability, primarily state law. The NFPA and post-9/11 federal law have generated new standards that apply to all emergency managers. The accessibility of federal funds for emergency management yields to setting criteria for state and local managers. NFPA presents a shared set of norms to be applied in disaster management, business continuity programs, and emergency management. NFPA also highlights ways to exercise plans and avails a listing of resource organizations within the realm of disaster recovery, business continuity planning, and emergency management (Bullock, George, and Damon 160). Public laws 110-53 demands that the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General to audit individual States' management of State Homeland Security Program, as well as Urban Areas Security Initiative grants. The Commonwealth of Massachusetts spend the awards in line with applicable laws and regulations; however, the Commonwealth needs to update and enhance its Homeland Security Strategies, institute performance measurement system to appraise preparedness, and reinforce its on-site monitoring to guarantee their compliance with Federal procurement and property management initiatives. These deficiencies derived from the fact that FEMA and EOPSS availed inadequate guidance and oversight for grant management. As a result, Massachusetts manifested weaknesses in measuring and appraising its capabilities and emergency preparedness. Conclusion The Commonwealth State Homeland Security Strategy (2007) was developed nearly six years after the tragic 9/11 events. The strategy draws the Massachusetts Emergency Management Agency, the Department of Fire Services, The National Guard, and the Massachusetts State Police to make a collective effort in protecting the state. The core aim of the strategy rests on treating terrorism as a grave threat while building a state-guided all-hazards approach to homeland security that responds to local emergency preparedness. An all-hazards approach aids in empowering multi-jurisdictional and cross-discipline coordination in responding to catastrophes such as terrorism attack. Federal homeland security funding elevates focus on sustainability and appraisal of priorities so as to adapt to the changing security climate within the state. This reinforces the principle that the state bears ultimate responsibility for guaranteeing effective prevention and effective response and recovery. Local and regional actions constitute critical components of the Commonwealth’s overall homeland security strategy out of the recognition that any crisis impacts on the state as a whole. Works Cited Alperen, Martin J. Foundations of Homeland Security: Law and Policy. Hoboken, N.J: Wiley, 2011. Print. Bowen, Nicholas. Terrorism and Homeland Security: Thinking Strategically about Policy. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2009. Print. Bullock, Jane A, George D. Haddow, and Damon P. Coppola. Introduction to Homeland Security: Principles of All-Hazards Risk Management. Oxford: Butterworth-Heinemann, 2012. Print. Forest, James J. F. Critical Infrastructure. Westport, Conn: Praeger Security, 2006. Print. Nemeth, Charles. Homeland Security: An Introduction to Principles and Practice, 2nd ed. Boca Raton: CRC Press, 2013. Print. Office of the Homeland Security. National Strategy for Homeland Security. Washington: Office of the Homeland Security, 2002. Print. U.s. Commission on National Security. Road Map for National Security: Imperative for Change : the Phase Iii Report of the U.s. Commission on National Security/21st Century. Washington, D.C.: The Commission, 2001. Print. Read More