Reformulating the Hazards Mitigation Paradigm Essay

Three criticisms of FEMA is that first of all they are more focused on terrorism rather than responses to natural disasters, the second is that that FEMA has a shortage of manpower to act rapidly and effectively is disaster situations and third, the planning within FEMA for responses to natural disasters is poor.(Ahlers,2006,p.1)

The Department of Homeland Security is responsible for “consolidating existing federal government response plans into a single, coordinated national response plan.” (GAO Reports. 2007.) The Homeland Security Act of 2002 allows them to handle all sorts of disasters from natural disasters to terrorist attacks. DHS also “Operates the Federal

Since its inception, FEMA has dealt with quite many disasters. In all these disasters, at least, people’s lives and property have been saved. Public opinion on the performance of FEMA is quite divergent. However, there is a feeling that FEMA has several weaknesses that if corrected will help the agency achieve its objectives and even exceed public expectations about its performance. In particular, FEMA’s responses to 9/11 attacks and

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

Tragic events that cause damage to property and life may destroy the social, cultural and economic life of a community. Communities must be engaged in the various phases from prevention to recovery to build disaster resilient communities. In order to do this, there must be a disaster preparedness plan in place that involves multiple people in various roles.

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,

This chapter provides an overview that describes the basic types of hazards threatening the United States and provides definitions for some basic terms such as hazards, emergencies, and disasters. The chapter also provides a brief history of emergency management in the federal government and a general description of the current emergency management system—including the basic functions performed by local emergency managers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the all-hazards approach and its implications for local emergency management.

Editor’s Note: This Chapter is the continuation of an adaptation of a state plan for disaster preparation and response. In total, the original chapter comprises Chapters 1, 14, 16-18.

When people think of Homeland Security most people think of Border Protection, Immigration agents, TSA, and maybe FEMA but there are many more aspects of Homeland Security which often get overlooked. When the Department of Homeland Security was established in 2002, there were 22 different Federal agencies which were combined and absorbed into this one department. This consolidation was intended to streamline the exchange of information and cooperative efforts towards the mission of securing this nation. This vision of cooperation has helped create a safer environment in the United States, and helped prepare emergency personnel in the detection, prevention, and response to both natural and man made disasters.

Even though it is the responsibility of the federal and state governments to aid citizens during times of disaster, the people devastated by Hurricane Katrina were not effectively facilitated as according to their rights as citizens of the United States. The government’s failures to deliver assistance to citizens stem from inadequate protection systems in place before the storm even struck. The Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Department of Homeland Security were the two largest incumbents in the wake of the storm. The failure of these agencies rests on the shoulders of those chosen to head the agency. These directors, appointed by then president George W. Bush, were not capable of leading large government agencies through a

In the integration of FEMA into the DHS, FEMA had to contribute to the start-up costs of the new department, but unfortunately evidence suggests that the agency may have been made to pay a disproportionately higher amount than larger agencies. FEMA officials say this directly affected their levels of service in 2004 and 2005 (14). In the integration, FEMA lost some programs, but lost major ones as well (14). In 2005, plans continued to reduce FEMA. Director at the time, Michael Brown, wrote a memo in June expressing his concern about the agency’s future if the cuts continued (13). Perhaps the most ironic cut was the disaster planning exercise “Hurricane Pam.” This exercise, in which outlines a scenario where a disastrous hurricane hits New Orleans, leaving more than 100,000 people in the city, began a year before Katrina. The exercise was never finished because the Bush Administration cut funding (13).

The Hurricane Katrina disaster highly challenged the operations of FEMA thereby leading to great changes in the agency. The Storm that is ranked as the third most intense U.S. landfalling intense caught the FEMA and at large the Department of Homeland Security unprepared thereby leading to severe losses. The hurricane claimed more than 1200 individuals and a total property of around $108 billion, of which could have minimized if FEMA could have carried out its operations effectively (Bea, 2006).

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.

Data obtained by assessing social vulnerability must be implemented within each phase of the emergency management process; mitigation, response, and recovery. First, to effectively respond and recover from incidents emergency management agencies must concentrate on the mitigation phase to prevent incidents from happening in the first place. This is achieved through a thorough hazard/vulnerability analysis (HVA). This type of analysis assesses the risk of physical, economic, and social vulnerability within all communities of a given jurisdiction (Lindell et al., 2006, p. 165). Additionally, the basis of the HVA allows emergency managers to effectively plan for disaster by creating pre-planned responses to disasters (rather than improvised response) and staging resources to locations with the highest probability of risk; ultimately contributing to the mitigation and response phases.

The Topsham community in Portland, Maine pertinent risks and hazards will be discussed. It 's current state of readiness is exceptional. The purpose of the Topsham community Hazard Mitigation Plan is to provide a comprehensive set of guidelines for hazard response and mitigation in the community. The plan identifies potential risks with appropriate mitigation responses to significantly reduce loss of life, injuries, economic costs, and destruction of natural and cultural resources. As the occurrences of the hazards identified in this plan are unpredictable, the plan itself will continue to evolve and be evaluated. With this, the mitigation strategies and maintenance process will be labeled as ongoing. The mitigation strategies and maintenance of the plan provide direction for the future of mitigation activities within the state and the process will continue until changed for any valid reason. The community has made progress on