Planning for a National Emergency - Research Paper Example

Planning for a National Emergency Logistical planning is one of the critical aspects in response to emergencies. It becomes a greater significance if the disaster is of an immense magnitude. The United States has suffered several disasters that required immediate response in a bid to save lives. The September 2001 terrorist attack was one of the disasters that prompted the federal government to institute the Department of Homeland Security. Under this new department, the then President also placed the federal agency that would have the mandate of ensuring that the federal government adopted a proactive view of preparedness, and had the capacity to respond promptly in cases of a national emergency. Prior to the new arrangement, FEMA had assumed the role of orchestration in national disasters, ensuring that all the state providers worked in harmony. How FEMA Operates Evidently, national emergencies call for the prompt response in a bid to save lives. Logistical planning needs critical consideration of the people in need, the resources required, when the people need help, and potential providers of the rescue services required. These aspects are of critical consideration of any emergency agency is to respond adequately to national emergencies. The determination of answers to these questions serves as an invaluable guideline of the response planning. In cases where any of these aspects do not receive the required attention, then the response is delayed, a factor that leads to loss of life (Etats-Unis, 2006). This explains why logistical planning is a critical aspect of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). As highlighted above, the federal government assumed the mandate of response to emergencies with the institution of the federal agency. Evidently, most of the States lack the resources and trained staffs that have the capacity to offer prompt response. The idea of instituting FEMA sought to ensure that the government had an agency that could exhibit a high level of vigilance, recruit, and train rescue teams, solicit the required resources and respond promptly when an emergency occurred. FEMA’s mission highlights its mandate to increase the capability of the American society to prepare, prevent, and respond to any disaster effectively. Evidently, the mandate of the agency is a critical responsibility. The agency has adopted a structure that can increase its efficiency (Etats-Unis, 2006). FEMA has different sections, located at different places, but that seek to exhibit concerted efforts towards the national of goal of effective disaster preparedness and response. Moreover, the agency has to ensure a high level of coordination exists between the different sections, and with the department of Homeland security. Most importantly, FEMA must ensure that it has the necessary resources such as transportation means, food supplies, and rescue staff. Proper coordination down the hierarchy of leadership of the agency is critical in determining its efficiency in response. Notably, FEMA is accountable to the department of Homeland Security. In addition, states must notify FEMA on the assistance they require in case of an emergency. Highlighting these factors is critical, as they are of significant contribution to the logistical planning. FEMA also collaborates with different organizations such as the International Red Cross, American Red Cross, the military forces, and other private contractors that have the capacity to offer response (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2010). Evidently, the agency shoulders the responsibility of coordinating the collaboration process, ensuring prompt rescue, and delivery of supplies. With such a weighty responsibility, logistical planning is of critical significance. Failure to plan effectively translates to loss of life, property, increased anxiety, and desperation (Smith, 2012). In an overview, effective logistical planning for FEMA would translate to definition of realistic plans, ensuring the presence of adequate resources, trained staff, effective communication, and the ability of leaders to make critical decisions (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Hurricane Katrina and its Challenges to FEMA On 29 August 2005, a rigorous storm struck the American gulf coast. Experts have defined that storm as ranking third among the strongest storms on record. This stork was denoted as ‘hurricane Katrina’. This name serves to resound the grief of many Americans as approximately 2000 people lost their lives. Hurricane Katrina was the worst natural disaster, whose onset registered low pressure, but surged to cause a severe disaster. Evidently, this disaster served to challenge the efficiency of FEMA’s logistical planning. The hurricane caused a landfall on Monday, August 29, 2005. Its severity surpassed all the levees constructed to protect the destroyed city causing immense flooding. Moreover, pollution resulted, with energy and communication lines collapsing. Evidently, under such circumstances the people in the destroyed city needed supplies and prompt rescue (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2010). During the critical time, Americans expected the agency to exhibit competence in response, and save lives. Many analysts have opined that FEMA failed in its response to hurricane Katrina. Evidently, there is substantial evidence that FEMA did a couple of things wrong, explaining the criticism it received. Despite such failure, hurricane Katrina presented FEMA with invaluable lessons. In a bid to understand these lessons, it is critical to highlight the mistakes that FEMA made during hurricane Katrina. FEMA had identified New Orleans as one of the areas prone to hurricane disasters. Moreover, the week beginning on 22 August of 2005 saw many predictions of a potential disaster. By Thursday of that week, it was evident that New Orleans would be affected by the hurricane. During that week, the local Mayor and the president had declared an obvious state of emergency. Evidently, the government had formulated a national response plan the previous year, and this disaster served to challenge the efficiency of its implementation. Reports from FEMA indicate that the predictions from FEMA on 27 and 28th indicated that a disaster was at hand. Until the landfall occurred on Monday, FEMA had not initiated any response action (Smith, 2012). The initial efforts of FEMA became evident on Monday afternoon, when the evacuation process commenced. This was despite the reports that over 100, 000 people were facing the surging danger of losing their life presented to FEMA before Monday. Instead of FEMA exhibiting an exemplary action of rescue, the agency did nothing, waiting for the State and Local government to initiate response. During a time when FEMA was expected to play its orchestration role, taking charge of coordinating all the collaborators, the agency sat back, and expected the State to assume the leading role. Evidently, the severity of the hurricane had proved overwhelming to the State government. After a delay of response, the defense assumed the leading role in the discovery of the bodies (Coomb& Holladay, 2012). The confusion that occurred during the Katrina has been the focus of many theorists, who have opined that the magnitude of the disaster required a higher number of responders. With the increasing number of responders, varying principles of operation become evident. These varying principles and perspectives only serve to compromise the level of coordination and cooperation of the responders. However, this places no justification for the Federal agency to assume the leading role and exhibit effective logistical planning (Smith, 2012). As a federal agency, FEMA had the mandate of coordinating all the voluntary responders. In any case, FEMA had several days of warning that sufficed as a critical time for strategic planning of the response process. Although the scope of the hurricane was unimaginable considering previous hurricanes, the predictions had made it evident that Katrina would be devastating (Chamlee-Wright & Storr, 2010). The failure to respond after elaborate warnings exhibited an immense failure of FEMA. Evidently, the leaders lacked the capacity to make critical decisions at a time of surging disaster. The Director of FEMA had a level of blame, because he exhibited little competence in ensuring that a timely response measures were taken (Coomb& Holladay, 2012). For FEMA to exhibit effective logistical planning, it is critical for the agency to have experts who can predict the scope and magnitude of a disaster. With the Katrina, experts had made predictions concerning the breaching of the levees. Such predictions of the scope, FEMA should have realized that it needed a massive response plan (Etats-Unis, 2006). On the contrary, FEMA exhibited a skeptical response, assuming that the hurricane would not surpass previous ones. The agency only convened to design the response plan after that landfall. It is worth mentioning that the severity of Katrina necessitated a higher level of unprecedented response than that exhibited in hurricanes that occurred in 2004. Although FEMA exhibited a logistical plan of providing trucks ferrying supplies to the victims of the disaster, the speed at which it reacted did not exhibit competence (Smith, 2012). Evidently, FEMA failed in providing transport buses for evacuees, despite the request from the State. Although the evacuation process commenced on Monday, FEMA buses arrived at New Orleans on Thursday. Such delay serves as evidence of the failure to have a strategic logistical plan that can deliver supplies to the victims promptly. Some evacuees survived without food and water for the three days before the delivery of the required supplies. Other reports indicate that FEMA delayed the offloading process of supply trucks, exposing the victims to a longer period of desperation. As highlighted above, the magnitude of the hurricane Katrina led to the destruction of communication lines. This was a disadvantage for FEMA because effective logistics planning is an impossibility without communication. It proved difficult for the agency to orchestrate the rescue process effectively. The breakdown of communication also served to delay the delivery of supplies to the victims. Situational analysis proved difficult and the communication regarding plans of the operations was limited. Moreover, the scope of Katrina caused flooding to the central operation center in New Orleans, a factor that led to further delays (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Other challenges that FEMA faced during Katrina was the presence of dispersed authority as defined in the national response plan. The Federal Coordinating Officer, the Principal Federal Officer, and the Joint task Force Officer Katrina failed to assume the designated responsibilities, contravening the laid out hierarchy of command. Evidently, there was a lack of a centralized office that could offer guidelines in response. The placement of FEMA under the Department of Homeland Security had served to introduce these complexities of power. Many of the responders acted out of their own command because of the dispersed authority, making it difficult for FEMA to coordinate the operation. The case of FEMA working with the Red Cross is a classic example. When Red Cross place orders for supplies, FEMA either cancelled the orders or delayed in delivery. Moreover, FEMA failed to notify the Red Cross on the selected locations for hosting evacuees, making it difficult for Red Cross to provide housing (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Other analysts have highlighted that FEMA had suffered under the Department of Homeland Security. This new arrangement had served to limit the funding allocated to FEMA. Consequently, lack of funding only meant that the agency lacked the capacity to hire sufficient procurement staff (Etats-Unis, 2006). Evidently, the procurement department is of critical significance for logistical planning. This explains why FEMA was unable to register the expected response. Reports from FEMA highlighted that the agency only had half the capacity required to respond fully to the Katrina hurricane. Moreover, under the Homeland Security department that focused on terrorist attacks, FEMA was unable to remain prepared for any upcoming disaster. It lacked any direct contact with the White House, and suffered weakening. Hurricane Katrina found FEMA in such a disillusioned state, explaining why it failed (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). Evidently, FEMA registered certain failures during hurricane Katrina. Notably, FEMA also exhibited a measure of success because the rescue process saw its completion after one week. The mistakes FEMA made formed headlines in many news media, highlighting the inefficiency of logistical planning (Coombs & Holladay, 2012). The agency had failed to prepare for a disaster whose predictions had offered a warning. FEMA officials had underestimated the scope of the natural disaster. Moreover, the agency failed to exhibit initial efforts of intervention as expected, because it opined that the State government was to shoulder the leading responsibility. The agency was understaffed, and lacked the capacity to deliver all the required supplies. All these mistakes place emphasis on the need for effective logistic planning that takes into account the scope of the disaster, the type of resources required, the potential responders, and the timing of the rescue. If FEM A had taken these aspects critically, then the rescue process would have been easier. These mistakes are invaluable lessons for the future. References Chamlee-Wright, E., & Storr, V. H. (2010). The Political Economy of Hurricane Katrina and Community Rebound. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Pub. Coombs, W. T., & Holladay, S. J. (2012). The handbook of crisis communication. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell. Etats-Unis. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: A nation still unprepared. Washington (D.C.: Government Printing Office. Smith, J. P. (2012). Hurricane Katrina: The Mississippi story. Jackson, Miss: University Press of Mississippi. Read More