Response to DQ

Introduction 

The UNISDR defines the emergency response as the “the provision of emergency services and public assistance during or immediately after a disaster in order to save lives, reduce health impacts, ensure public safety and meet the basic subsistence needs of the people affected” (UNISDR, 2009, p. 25). The primary focus of the disaster response is on immediate and short-term needs. Some response actions may extend well into the recovery stage. Since January 2008, FEMA introduced the National Response Framework (NRF) which intends “to ensure that the government executives, private sector and non-governmental organizations (NGO) leaders, and emergency management practitioners across the nation understand the domestic incident response roles, responsibilities and relationships in order to respond more effectively to any type of incident” (Haddow et al, 2014, p. 176). 

The different definitions highlight the importance of collaborative work in the response while providing the required and coordinated assistance to save lives. In the aftermath of the 9/11 events, the changes made in the emergency management system in the United States has led to the issuances of several Homeland Security Presidential Directives (HSPDs) on matters pertaining to homeland security. One of the directives is the HSPD-5 Management of Domestic Incidents which establishes a single, comprehensive National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the National Response Framework (NRF). 

The next paragraphs will give a short description of the HSPD-5. Then, a position of this presidential directive on its potential impact will complement the discussion. 

Description Homeland Security Presidential Directive – 5

The emergency response responsibilities in the United States first belong to the local entities, being local and tribal communities or the local governments. The request for support is going beyond the local level towards higher levels such as state or federal levels, only if the local capacities to handle the crisis are completely overwhelmed or exceeded. 

Actually, when the President Bush issued the HSPD-5 in 2003, his purpose was to enhance the ability of the United States to manage domestic incidents by establishing a single, comprehensive national incident management system. The management system covered the prevention, preparation, response, and recovery of terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The HSPD-5 was also aiming at allowing all levels of government throughout the nation to work efficiently and effectively together. 

Possible impacts of the HSPD-5

The establishment and the implementation of the HSPD-5 through the NIMS and NRF (previously national response plan) have its pro and cons. 

Positive impacts

Further empowerment of state and local authorities: Despite the perceivable centralization of power Federal level, the directive clearly recognizes the primary roles and responsibilities of State and local authorities for the management of domestic incidents. The directive also acknowledges the support from the federal government when requested and the need to constantly coordinate the efforts between the different levels. State and local authorities have the ability to design their own plans and frameworks as long as they are aligned with the existing federal ones. 

Clarity of roles provided: The HSPD-5 established the emergency planning and response policies and structures that have direct impacts on emergency preparedness and response activities. The directive provides some precision for the roles of played by the Federal government (financial support, capacity building, coordination in planning, equipment, training, and exercise activities) and the State and the local authorities (local planning and management of incident). For instance, the NIMS gives in advance the operating structure to be set in case of a disaster with clear delineation regarding the responsibilities of each entities. Likewise, the NRF 

Promoting a multi-sectoral and multidisciplinary collaborative approach: The Federal Government as well as the State and local authorities recognize the role that the private and nongovernmental sectors, emergency practitioners, emergency managers, academic institutions play in preventing, preparing for, responding to, and recovering from terrorist attacks, major disasters, and other emergencies. The designated responsible have been tasked to coordinate with the different actors to ensure adequate planning, equipment, training, and exercise activities and to promote partnerships to address incident management capabilities. 

Negative impact

Failure by confronting theory to reality: case of Hurricane Katrina: The poor management of the Hurricane Katrina response led to questioning the national emergency management system which implied the frameworks set by the HSPD-5. In fact, as stated into the White House report on the disaster, “the response to Katrina fell far short of the seamless, coordinated effort that has been envisioned by the President Bush when he ordered the creation of the National Response Plan in February 2003” (Haddow, 2014, p. 179). The shortfalls observed during the Katrina’s response showed a clear disconnect between the set structures in the HSPD-5 and their ability to effectively and efficiently function in front a real disaster. 

Limited resources due to lack of investment in other priorities different to terrorism: The rising of the Department of Homeland Security in the aftermath of the 9/11 events has crystalized the attention around the threats of terrorism and bioterrorism. Even though the HSPD-5 appeared at the same time, the resources dedicated to support the preparedness of state and local government who are the first responders were diverted into other national priorities which weakened the functioning of the structures and frameworks set through the HSPD-5. 

Reference

United Nations Office for Disaster Risk Reduction. (2009). UNISDR terminology on disaster risk reduction: Response. Retrieved from http://www.unisdr.org/files/7817_UNISDRTerminologyEnglish.pdf

Haddow, G. D., Bullock, J. A., & Coppola, D. P. (2014). Introduction to emergency management (5th ed.). The Disciplines of Emergency Management: Response (pp. 175-225). Waltham, MA: Butterworth-Heinemann.

Office of the White House Press Secretary. (2003, February). Homeland security presidential directive 5: Directive on management of domestic incidents. Weekly Compilation of Presidential Documents, 39(10), 280–285. Retrieved from https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=439105

FEMA. (n.d.). NIMS resource center. Retrieved from http://www.fema.gov/national-incident-management-system