Emergency Management Research Paper

According to Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), there are many factors that will affect the direction of emergency management in the coming years. These can be classified as global challenges, global opportunities, national challenges, national opportunities, professional challenges, and professional opportunities. Global Challenges include some issues like global climate change, increasing population and population density, increasing resource scarcities, rising income inequality, and increasing risk aversion. Global Opportunities has to do with increased scientific understanding of the hazards and societal responses, as well as revolutionary technologies. National Challenges involves increasing urbanization and hazard exposure, interdependencies in infrastructure, continued emphasis on growth, rising costs of disaster recovery, increasing population diversity, terrorist threats, low priority of emergency management, legal liability, and intergovernmental tensions. Due to these factors that will affect the direction of emergency management in the coming years, there is need for us at emergency management division to adjust operational plans to meet these challenges and especially changes emanating from constant changes expected in technology and other threats we face.

As Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma successively lashed the gulf coast starting in late August 2005, nature’s fury exposed serious weaknesses in the United States’ emergency response capabilities. Not all emergencies pose this magnitude of challenge. In the United States, the initial—and usually major—responsibility for disaster response rests with local authorities. This “bottom-up” system of emergency management has a long history and continues to make sense in most circumstances. Core Challenges for Large-Scale Disaster

The whole world observed as the administration responders appeared incapable to provide essential protection from the effects of nature. The deprived response results from a failure to accomplish a number of risk factors (Moynihan, 2009). The dangers of a major hurricane striking New Orleans had been measured, and there was sufficient warning of the threat of Katrina that announcements of emergency were made days in advance of landfall (Moynihan, 2009). Nonetheless, the responders were unsuccessful to change this information into a level of preparation suitable with the possibility of the approaching disaster. Federal responders failed to recognize the need to more actively engage (Moynihan, 2009). These improvements include improved ability to provide support to states and tribes ahead of a disaster; developed a national disaster recovery strategy to guide recovery efforts after major disasters and emergencies; and the Establishment of Incident Management Assistance Teams in which these full time, rapid response teams are able to deploy within two hours and arrive at an incident within 12 hours to support the local incident commander (FEMA,

The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) would become the central point-of-contact within the national government in responding to incidents. Since formation in 1979, FEMA’s core missions were to enhance the government’s ability to survive a foreign attack, and to assist state and local authorities in disaster response (Carafano, 2005). And while the two core missions seem heterogenous in scope at times from an outside perspective, the biggest difference between the two tasks is duration. A man-made disaster may be over in a matter of minutes as compared to a hurricane lasting several days, but in both instances the road to recovery is long. In order to streamline response and recovery in either scenario, FEMA was reorganized with new directives to support comprehensive emergency management practices (CRS, 2006). Today, FEMA provides the standard approach and guidance that many local communities may not have due to funding, training, and

The events of September 11th, 2001 forever changed the organizational make-up of Emergency Management. Prior to 9/11, FEMA was the premier organization in the United States that dealt with any sort of disaster management. While FEMA was not without its own particular struggles early on, it had grown into an effective program; often emulated by other Governments for its effectiveness. As the primary Emergency Management function for the United States it was afforded a cabinet level position; thus allowing direct access to the President (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011). Functioning as its own entity, FEMA was also able to spend its money as they saw fit, develop its own hierarchy, and most importantly; decide which natural disasters/emergencies to focus a majority of their resources on. Unfortunately for FEMA all of that was lost with the creation of The Department of Homeland Security (DHS). According to (Haddow, Bullock, & Coppola, 2011), “In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, when the Department of Homeland Security was established and FEMA lost its status as an independent agency, emergency management became a minor player” (p. 343). The shift from a focus on natural disasters, to a focus on terrorism has been detrimental for FEMA. First and foremost, FEMA lost its cabinet position and the direct line to the President that it was afforded. While funding was accelerated to DHS in quantities never before seen in emergency management, FEMA, being a subordinate of

The natural environment is, of course, not “getting its revenge”. Geophysical, meteorological, and hydrologic processes are unfolding as they have for millennia, beginning long before humans occupied the earth and continuing to the present. Given the eons-long perspective of the natural environment, it would be very difficult to identify meaningful changes in event frequency for the short time period in which scientific records are available on geological, meteorological, and hydrological phenomena. Event frequency, from an emergency management perspective, is not really the issue. It is certainly true that, over the years, more people have been affected by natural disasters and losses are becoming progressively greater. The significant feature driving these observations, however, is the extent of human encroachment into hazard prone areas. With increasing population density and changing land use patterns, more people are exposed to natural hazards and consequently our accumulated human and economic losses are increasing. Much of this exposure is a matter of choice. Sometimes people choose hazardous places, building houses on picturesque cliffs, on mountain slopes, in floodplains, near beautiful volcanoes, or along seismic faults. Sometimes people choose hazardous building materials that fail under extreme environmental stresses—for example, unreinforced masonry construction in seismically active areas. Some exposure results from constrained choices; the cheap land or

This is a review of Emergency Management: The American Experience 1900-2010 by Claire B. Rubin and Butler (2012), chapters 1 and 2. Emergency management at the federal level was nonexistent before 1950 when the Federal Disaster relief Act was passed. Disaster relief was the responsibility of state and volunteer agencies like the Red Cross. Several disasters paved the way for emergency management. The Galveston Hurricane of 1900, the San Frisco Earthquake of 1906, and the Great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 were the disasters that laid the foundation for the 1950 Federal Disaster relief Act (Butler, 2012, pg. 17).

compared the ready availability of funds for disaster recovery to the paucity of funds for mitigating the effects of disasters before they strike (Roberts, p. 133). The review asserts, “mitigation has been called the most neglected aspects of emergency management” (Roberts, p. 133). The criticisms resulted in a professional consensus of reforming the emergency management goals—part of the consensus resulted in the creation of a mitigation directorate, and one year after the 1993 reorganization of FEMA caused by the ineffective response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 (Roberts, p. 133). A directorate that defined mitigation as reducing the impact of natural hazards, is one of the key elements for FEMA’s reinvented organizational structure.

In attempt to provide background on the impacts of past natural disasters, condensed case studies of two major natural disasters are summarized, outlining the damage – both financial and physical. The aftermath of any natural disaster highlights the weaker areas of emergency management and as a result, the federal government has made significant efforts to strengthen those areas through preparedness and mitigation measures. Additionally, emphasis on mitigation and preparedness has increased following the vast number of natural disasters that the United States has endured, not only in the federal sector but also in the education and research sector. Today,

With the current changes in weather patterns, strange climatic conditions and other uncontrollable natural disasters, there has been a lot of attention directed towards the mitigation of the negative effects such natural disasters can have on man and the society at large.

In “Wither the Emergency Manager,” Niel R. Britton comments on Drabek's “Human Responses to disaster: An Inventory of Sociological Findings.” Britton describes six positive and negative issues in emergency management as it is today. In this paper, we will discuss the implications on emergency management as a field and on the individual manager.

The burden of emergency management has grown great deal in the last few decades. We have seen an increase in natural disasters, a new threat of terrorism on our front door and an increase in manmade disasters. All of these have tested emergency management in a number of cities and towns across the nation. It is not always disasters that present problems for emergency managers. We have to look beyond our traditional view of emergency management of helping us during times of disasters and view what issues they consider may affect their emergency response. Issues that emergency management see that are moving into the critical area are issues of urbanization and hazard exposure, the rising costs of disaster recovery, and low priority of emergency management.

Every emergency or disaster, from a small house fire to a hurricane that devastates entire communities, have a distinct cycle. This is

Risk for disasters is a part of life; emergency situations occur more frequently than many people believe. A wise person plans for the worse, and hopes for the best. After a disaster, how well a community can recover will depend largely on how well they prepared in advance. Risk management includes identifying any potential risks to a community and proactively planning to minimize the threat. Proactive organization of resources and people to respond to emergencies can mean the difference between a community’s ability to regroup and recover, and the loss of life. To better

A tornado is a naturally occurring phenomenon. The capability a tornado has for destruction can create a major disaster event requiring a response from local, state and federal agencies. This paper will examine the May 22, 2011 tornado that struck Joplin, Missouri. It will identify and compare the response from local, state and federal perspective. This paper will also identify specific emergency management functions that appear executed well and those that may not have been.