Help with Assignments

HM501

Unit 1 DQ

Part 1:

Topic 1: Discussion topics support this unit’s objective and should be completed after reading all materials. Your responses ought to include original evaluation, synthesis, or analysis of the topic, and contribute to the weekly discussion in a meaningful way. You must complete all discussion topics and reply to your peers' posts. Refer to the Discussion Board Rubric under Course Resources for additional requirements.

All-Hazards versus Single-Hazards

Do you think "all-hazards" emergency management is better than "single-hazard" emergency management?

Part 2:

Topic 1: Student Response #1 (Respond to Matthew below)

Matthew Burdette

An “all-hazards” approach to emergency management is much better than a “single-hazard” approach. Haddow et al., (2021) stated that this was evidenced not only by the terrible response to Hurricane Katrina in 2005, but also by the drastically diminished focus on nuclear attack planning in 1979, the reduced responses to Hurricane Hugo and San Francisco’s Lom Prieta earthquake in 1989, and the devastating response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

According to McGuire and Silvia (2010), the National Response Framework required all government agencies to adopt the “all-hazards” approach. The approach is not without its flaws, and managers must be aware of both the pros and the cons. However, as Gregory (2015) stated, the benefits of allowing organizations to combine resources, split costs, and avoid leadership concerns through the use of the Incident Command System, just to name a few, outweigh many of the cons of attempting to simultaneously mitigate too many circumstances, failing to recognize that disasters have similar components that are never the same, and possibly relying too heavily on Incident Command (Gregory, 2015).   

 

References

Gregory, P. A. (2015). Reassessing the effectiveness of all-hazards planning in emergency management. Inquiries Journal, 7(6), 1 -2. http://www.inquiriesjournal.com/articles/1050/reassessing-the-effectiveness-of-all-hazards-planning-in-emergency-management

Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2021). Introduction to emergency management, 7th ed., Elsevier.

McGuire, M. & Silvia, C. (2010). The effect of problem severity, managerial and organizational capacity, and agency structure on intergovernmental collaboration: Evidence from local emergency management. Public Administration Review, 70, 279-88.   DOI:10.1111/J.1540-6210.2010.02134.X

Part 3:

Topic 1: Professor Response #2 (Respond to my Professor Dr. Kapperman below)

Robyn Kapperman

As we saw from FEMA's poor response to Hurricane Katrina, single hazard focus can leave an agency unprepared when they need to switch gears. Researchers state all-hazards approach is cost-effective and provides the basic framework for disaster response (Waugh, 2013). Responding to terrorist incidents was new to FEMA, and due to the knee-jerk reaction from 9-11, it was the focus DHS guided them towards. After the inadequate response to Katrina, new regulations being passed, the all-hazard approach as dictated by the National Response Framework became the norm. Communities should have robust all-hazard plans and exercise these plans.

Regards

Dr. Kapperman

Source:

Waugh, W. L. (2013). Terrorism and the All Hazards Model. Retrieved from  http://ems-solutionsinc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/All_Hazards_vs_Homeland_Security_Planning.pdf