GOOGLESCHOLAR: Module 8 assignment
whieso
crj_module_8_overview.rtfCRJ Module 8 Overview
Terrorism and the Future of Emergency Management
The September 11th (9/11) and the October 2001 Anthrax attacks together prompted dramatic changes in U.S. emergency management and have been the impetus for a reexamination of the nation’s emergency management system, its priorities, funding and practices. These changes are ongoing and will continue for the foreseeable future. In this module, you will learn how the government's hazard focus has been affected by the changing risk of terrorism. The events of September 11, 2001, the consequences of those events, and how the government responded will be discussed. You will also learn about the Department of Homeland Security along with its components and its role in emergency management.
In addition, you will investigate how the U.S. government communicates terrorist threat information to the public. You will outline how Hurricane Katrina affected terrorism preparedness and response. Lastly, the possibilities the future holds for emergency management and how the profession may be improved in the near future will be discussed and analyzed.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
8I
Explain how the federal government funds first responders.
8J
Understand how the Department of Homeland Security was formed, its components, its role in the emergency management and counterterrorism efforts, and its accomplishments.
10C
Explain how the government's hazard focus has been affected by the changing risk of terrorism.
10D
Discuss the events of September 11, 2001, the consequences of those events, and how the government responded.
10E
Summarize how the U.S. government communicates terrorist threat information to the public.
10F
Understand why the 9/11 Commission was formed and what was found as a result of its investigation.
10G
Explain how state and local governments manage the risk of terrorism.
10H
Outline how Hurricane Katrina affected terrorism preparedness and response.
11A
Understand how the past has impacted emergency management as it exists today.
11B
Discuss the possibilities the future holds for emergency management, and how the profession may be improved in the near future.
Module 8 Reading Assignment
Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. (2011). Introduction to emergency management. Burlington: Elsevier. Chapters 9 and 10.
Emergency Management and the New Terrorist Threat
The September 11th (9/11) and the October 2001 Anthrax attacks together prompted dramatic changes in U.S. emergency management, and have been the impetus for a reexamination of the nation’s emergency management system, its priorities, funding, and practices. These changes are ongoing and will continue for the foreseeable future. Prior to 9/11, the Nunn-Lugar legislation provided the primary authority for domestic Federal preparedness activities for terrorism. FEMA, DOJ, HHS, DOD, and the National Guard all jockeyed for leadership on terrorism. Attempts at coordination were minimal, and inconsistencies in the agencies’ funding were stark, with DOD and DOJ controlling the most funds. State and local governments were confused, felt unprepared, and complained of the need to recognize their vulnerability and needs should an event happen.
9/11 validated these concerns and demonstrated the need for changes in the federal approach to terrorism. The changes fall into five general categories:
- First responder practices and protocols
Terrorism preparedness
Funding the war on terrorism
Creation of DHS
The shift in focus of the nation’s emergency management system to the war on terrorism
The principal focus of the 9/11 after-action reports is the first responders’ actions at the World Trade Center and Pentagon. These reports identify basic changes in the practices and protocols of first responders to future terrorist incidents designed to reduce first responder injury and death. Most of these changes will be implemented at the local level.
Five groups must be fully engaged in the U.S. war on terrorism, including the following:
- Diplomats
The intelligence community
The military
Law enforcement
Emergency management
The principal goal of the diplomats, intelligence, military and law enforcement is to reduce if not eliminate the possibility of future terrorist attacks on American citizens inside our borders and abroad. Emergency management’s goal is to be prepared and to reduce the future impacts in terms of loss of life, injuries, property damage and economic disruption caused by the next terrorist attack. It is incumbent upon emergency managers to apply the same diligence to preparing for the next bombing or bio-chemical event as they do for the next hurricane or flood or tornado.
The war on terrorism resulted in unprecedented funding for the emergency management community, providing vast resources for first responder equipment and training, planning and exercises and for the development of new technologies. FEMA’s distribution to its State and local emergency management partners has risen from an annual average of $175 million to $3.87 billion in FY2010, in addition to the funding FEMA received in supplemental funding bills passed since 9/11. New Federal funding sources have also opening up for emergency managers from DOD, the DOJ, and HHS to fund contingency plans, technology assessment and development, and bio-terror equipment and training. The creation of DHS represents a landmark change for the Federal community, especially for emergency management. The consolidation of most Federal agencies involved in fighting the war on terrorism follows the same logic that first established FEMA in 1979.
Federal Government Terrorism Activity
For FEMA and its partner agencies in the NRF, the most significant Federal government actions to combat terrorism are the creation of DHS and the Global War on Terrorism. On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland Security Act of 2002, effectively creating the Department. This act is charged with the three-fold mission of protecting the U.S. from further attacks, reducing the nation’s vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the damage from potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters. A total of 22 federal agencies and programs were transferred into DHS, some intact and some to be consolidated into one of four new directorates: the National Protection and Programs Directorate (NPPD), the Office of Policy Directorate, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Directorate of Science and Technology (S&T). Since this time, there have been a number of reorganizations that have changed the shape of the Department significantly. Also, DHS budgets have seen significant increases, with the proposed FY2010 Federal budget request includes a total of $55.12 billion.
The Six-Point Agenda and the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act
On July 13th, 2005, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff released a six-point agenda to reorganize DHS that followed an initial review that Chertoff initiated immediately upon assuming his leadership position. The review was designed to closely examine the Department in order to discover ways in which leadership could better manage risk in terms of threat, vulnerability and consequence; prioritize policies and operational missions according to this risk-based approach; and establish a series of preventive and protective steps that would increase security at multiple levels. In order to correct the emergency management shortfalls that were highlighted in the inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (signed into law October 4, 2006), which established new leadership positions within DHS, created additional functions assumed by FEMA, created and reallocated functions to other components within DHS, and amended the Homeland Security Act in ways that directly and indirectly affect the organization and functions of various entities within DHS.
Funding for First Responders and Emergency Management
For State and local government, the 9/11 events resulted in an extraordinary increase in funding for first responders and emergency management activities. Also, the number of Federal agencies and programs providing funds for these activities has greatly increased. Training and equipping of firefighters responding to a bio-chemical terrorist attack has been a fire services and FEMA concern since the early 1990s. In addition to existing fire grants, the bulk of the $3 - $3.5 billion spent annual on first responders has been designated for equipment and training for future terrorist events. FEMA is not the only agency providing funding, however. DOJ is also making funding available for the acquisition of equipment and technology. HHS is making available substantial funding to State and local government to address the threat of bio-chemical terrorist attacks. The CDC provides funding for public health planning and capacity building and bolstering the national pharmaceutical stockpile. DOD provides funding for emergency management training for military personnel and community officials.
Communicating Threat Information to the American People
As required by HSPD-3, DHS is tasked with coordinating the provision of threat information to local law enforcement and setting the ‘national threat level. This is done through three systems. These systems include Homeland Security Threat Advisories, Homeland Security Information Bulletins, and the 5-color coded Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS). The five levels of the HSAS consist of Green (low), Blue (guarded), Yellow (elevated), Orange (high), and Red (severe). DHS also keeps citizens and businesses prepared through the information provided on the Ready.Gov website, which urges citizens to stay informed and tells them how to react to various disaster scenarios in which WMDs are involved.
The 911 Commission
In late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks was formed to investigate the 911 terrorist attacks. This commission set out to determine the shortfalls and the lessons learned from the preparedness for and response to international terrorism within the US, and recommend activities that would help improve these systems. The commission report, released in July 2004, found many opportunities that could have been exploited by the Federal government to stop the terrorists who attacked in 2001. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission released a follow-up report that graded the Bush Administration and Congress’ handling of the Commission’s recommendations. The findings, issued in the form of a ‘report card,’ assigned letter grades to the 41 key recommendations.
State Government Terrorism Activity
Governors are responsible for coordinating state and local resources to effectively address all hazards. As the recipients of a bulk of the homeland security funding that has been distributed by DHS and other Federal Agencies, States have had the ability to administer new statewide programs aimed at bringing preparedness and prevention to each and every community. State Homeland Security entities were created to ensure that the states prepare for terrorism. Governors designated individuals from various backgrounds to serve as their state homeland security directors, with no common model emerging.
Local Government Terrorism Activities
Emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery all occur at the local community level. This is true for terrorism preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery activities. It is at the local level that the critical planning, communications, technology, coordination, command and spending decisions matter the most. Other than the largest cities, most local communities do not have specially designated homeland security offices, or any other terrorism-specific office or agency. Local communities rely upon the skills and training of first responders. Communities are instructed that they may have to manage the aftermath of a terrorist attack for a full 24 to 48 hours on their own before State or Federal backup arrives. Local response has much catching up to do in order to be able to fulfill the preparedness and response needs of the Federal Government. Interoperable communication is still not possible. Many communities lack the equipment and training necessary to respond to attacks involving weapons of mass destruction. Efforts to vaccinate health care workers have failed, and there are still doubts about whether communities could handle an outbreak even if sufficient vaccines were available to them. In larger communities, there are other issues including port security.
The DHS Office of State and Local Coordination (within the Office of Legislative and Governmental Affairs) was established to serve as a single point of contact for facilitation and coordination of Departmental programs that impact state, local, territorial, and tribal governments. This office facilitates the coordination of DHS-wide programs; identifies homeland security-related activities, best practices, and processes that are most efficiently accomplished at the federal, state, local or regional levels; and utilizes this information to ensure that opportunities for improvement are provided.
Katrina’s Effect on Terrorism Preparedness and Response
The unexpectedness of the September 11th events were interpreted to mean that too little was being done about the terrorism threat. The result was a fundamental shift in the focus of emergency management that many considered knee-jerk, and which included the restructuring of a number of government agencies and offices and a redrafting of emergency operations plans at all government levels. Many ‘all-hazards emergency management’ proponents contended that this shift left the country more vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters, and their fears were confirmed when Hurricane Katrina struck in 2005. The disaster’s aftermath was rife blame, but closer examination indicated FEMA had become too diluted within DHS as a result of the terror focus. In FY2006 the GAO found that DHS emergency management funds were still misaligned with the reality of risk that was much better understood by the local agency responders to be that of an all-hazards portfolio. Since then, changes have been made that show promise that FEMA will focus on all hazards. FEMA has steadily regained many of its former responsibilities that were lost to other terror-focused agencies. How far these corrective actions go will ultimately depend upon whether or not another major terrorist attack interrupts the steady flow of natural disasters that are guaranteed to strike in coming years.
Attacks Thwarted: Good Intelligence and Good Luck
Since September of 2001, there have been several attempts at terrorism, yet all have failed thus far. While a good measure of this can be credited to the increased level of intelligence and investigations supported by the changes brought about by the legislation described in this text (including, for instance, the PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002), a certain amount of credit can also be attributed to the actions of the public and just plain luck. None of these has required any of the emergency services to respond given that they were all prevented or failed to achieve their mission.
The Future of Emergency Management
The year 2009 started full of promise with the swearing in of Barack Obama, bringing hope for major changes in Washington. Among the changes President Obama hinted at while on the campaign trail was the reestablishment of FEMA as an independent Agency, a cutting of the bureaucratic red tape faced by communities recovering from disasters, and the rebuilding the emergency management partnerships with State and local governments. Major questions remain concerning how this Administration will impact the discipline of emergency management. However, some of the recent decisions and actions provide insight into what can be expected in the near future. And beyond these political decisions, new trends in technology, cultural diversity and economics will exert great influence on the future direction of emergency management. Emergency management has come full circle, and is again facing many of the same conditions that existed and the questions that were posed to emergency management in the 1980s. These conditions become the basis of the new ideas, promising trends, and innovative models we believe are needed to preserve the integrity of a strong emergency management system and each of its associated functions.
Understanding the Past
The National Governor’s Association defined comprehensive emergency management in the 1960s to be a cycle of preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. This cycle and its functions became what emergency managers were supposed to accomplish at the local, State and Federal levels. Two factors were prominent: first, the discipline’s establishment and concepts were driven by the reaction to a series of disasters, and the individuals initially staffing state and local emergency management positions held military or civil defense backgrounds. As a result, response was the dominant driving force, and skills such as logistics, command and control, and search and rescue prevailed. Preparedness was secondary, reflecting civil defense’s watch and warning, sheltering and evacuation mentality. Recovery and mitigation were not well understood nor regarded, and the required skill set was not possessed by most emergency managers.
Recovery was neither well understood nor supported until the late 1980s with the passage of the Robert T Stafford Act, which significantly expanded the Federal role in recovery. It was not until the 1990s that emergency management took a major role in a community recovery. Mitigation and recovery involved complex political processes, problematic issues that needed to be resolved, and the reaching of a wide consensus among community leadership - activities that the emergency manager may not have had the skills or the desire to pursue. It wasn’t until the Stafford Act that mitigation funding existed.
When DHS was established in 2003, and FEMA lost its status as an independent Agency, emergency management became a minor player. In most states, Governors established new homeland security organizations, and in some cases state emergency management functions were subsumed into them (while elsewhere these new organizations became funding competitors). The homeland security mission is to prevent future acts of terrorism. This requires the inclusion and prominence of law enforcement and intelligence functions. Even in the event of an actualized terrorist act, these two functions will have primacy in the immediate response. Given the national preoccupation with terrorism, states and localities were forced to give highest priority to that hazard. As the recovery from Katrina continued to languish, FEMA concentrated its efforts on planning for the next catastrophic disaster. Top-down Federal preparedness planning requirements and compliance with Federal procedures were imposed on State and local governments as requirements for continued receipt of Federal funding.
The New Obama Administration
With the election of Barack Obama, the emergency management community became more optimistic. Unfortunately new Administration faced much more critical economic and international problems and chose to keep FEMA as part of DHS with Craig Fugate - the former State Director of Florida – as FEMA Administrator. Administrator Fugate has made personal preparedness and operational readiness to respond representing his priorities – an indication that risk reduction will not likely be a priority of his tenure. The Obama Administration did, however, build on an initiative started under the previous Bush Administration, to make the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) a bigger player in the recovery phase of disasters.
“Those Who Forget the Past are Doomed to Repeat It”
Before FEMA was established, HUD was responsible for many disaster assistance programs. HUD’s failure to effectively execute recovery in multiple disasters led in part to the transfer of recovery programs to the newly created FEMA. Hurricane Ike demonstrated that there is no indication HUD has any more capacity today, but the Administration seems intent on HUD becoming a major player once again. One indication is that the National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) included HUD as a co chair. It is no secret that DHS has questioned the prominent role of FEMA in recovery, and as the most recent reorganization of FEMA indicates, disaster recovery is no longer an equal partner of disaster response having been subsumed into the agency’s Disaster Operations Directorate.
There are, of course, several other less obvious examples of how the current emergency management system has reverted earlier model. For instance, the 1980s CARL Codes, which dictated State and local compliance with the Federal response operations were discontinued in the 1990s but soon after replaced during the 2001-2009 period with requirements for State and local NIMS compliance. Furthermore, the Integrated Planning System (IPS) implemented by FEMA in 2006 dictates to State and local governments how they should plan for disasters, irrespective of the Regional differences in risk and disaster type. Clearly, the top down approach of the 1980s, when nuclear attack planning became the norm, was adopted in the post September 11, 2001 when skewed perceptions influenced policies such that terrorism became the leading hazard risk. The all-hazards approach, in which State and locals determined their priorities, was given lip service but not supported by policies or funding. Even the personal preparedness efforts announced in 2009 are a throwback to the 1980s when FEMA supported the construction of personal bomb shelters. The 1990s demonstrated that investing resource instead into promoting mitigation by individuals and communities is highly effective in reducing the impacts of disasters. It is too early to know whether this Administration will repeat the mistakes of the 1980s or adopt the much more successful and progressive emergency management model built in the 1990s. All indications are that the Obama Administration recognizes the need to rebuild the partnership with State and local governments. However, there lacks any substantial strategy from the Administration on what the future of emergency management holds in store.
Emergency Management Ideas for the Future
The authors offer the following ideas, trends and structures to consider as the evolution of emergency management moves forward.
Idea One: Adopt Risk Management as an Operating Philosophy Instead of Emergency Management
This concept requires rigorous analysis and includes acceptance of a level of failure, but is proactive instead of reactive (as is the case with emergency management). The common strategies for managing risk include transferring the risk to another party (insurance), avoiding the risks (land use planning), reducing the negative impacts (buyouts) and/or accepting some or all of the consequences of a particular risk (levees). It would be valuable for FEMA to adopt a risk management approach as new threats continue to emerge and resources remain constant for addressing these threats. It would be important for FEMA to promote and support communities to engage in the risk management process to make them more resilient from future disasters.
Idea Two: Embrace New and Emerging Technologies
Emergency managers and emergency management systems have failed to take full advantage of new and emerging technologies to improve operations and enhance capabilities. GIS and GPS technologies have been staples of the emergency management toolkit, and as of late there has been an upsurge in the use of various social networking technologies. Social networking websites enable the real time transfer of information to and from impacted people, and are already in common use among the general public. Emergency management can also leverage these tools. Emergency managers should be partnering with technology developers to design solutions for problems such as better analysis of risk, better rapid damage assessments, economic loss estimations, logistics and transportation capacities, public warnings and communications and mitigation measures.
Idea Three: Adapt to Shifts in Sociological and Demographic Structure
Society is changing in ways that will impact emergency management operations including such things as the aging of the population, higher concentration of people with mental and functional disabilities, and larger concentrations of non- English speaking populations. These changes placed increased demands on warnings, evacuations, sheltering and communications that will impact emergency managers and their operations and strategies. There exists significant knowledge about different social and economic vulnerability factors, but until the emergency management profession embraces such study in their planning efforts, and advocates for further research into areas of deficient understanding, social and demographic factors will continue to confound operations.
Idea Four: Recreate Emergency Management with a New Entity
In light of the expanding threat environment and the impacts of global climate change, it may be time to take a fresh look at emergency management to better understand the limitations of the current cycle. To be effective, mitigation must be part of the everyday planning and decisions that individuals and communities participate in. After a disaster, the long term recovery process offers the most accessible and accommodating political environment for implementing mitigation. We propose new organizational structures to address the functions of preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Mitigation and long term recovery would be supported by a different quasi-governmental structure. One of the strongest arguments for this approach is that the private sector is a more significant player in these functions than that of either preparedness or response. In the event of a Presidential declared disaster, recovery may be supported through the Federally-administered Disaster Relief Fund as a part of the response - such as with public transportation systems. This would require DHS/FEMA to relinquish a level of authority, and for DHS/FEMA and State and local emergency management organizations to give up resources. It will also require a new partnership pattern at all government levels. The primary positive aspect is twofold: 1) mitigation and the benefits of long term recovery would be given attention equivalent to preparedness and response, and; 2) one of those entities most important to the implementation of mitigation (i.e., the private sector) would have a significant role in the process.
Conclusion
The future of emergency management remains full of uncertainty. Will the Obama Administration continue to decentralize and diffuse disaster responsibilities across the Federal government, will it embrace a larger role for the military in disaster response, and will it value mitigation and make it a priority? With all the other pressing priorities of the economic recession and two international wars, it is understandable that emergency management has not been a top priority. Now is the time for real leadership and an opportunity to make a radical departure from the policies of the previous eight years and to reinvent emergency management. The opportunity is now to establish a proactive system that includes the following: implementation of risk management principles; a strong, coordinated partnership of Federal, State, local private and nonprofit sectors; and the application of new and emerging technologies for more effective operations, focused on risk reduction through mitigation. Or we can adopt the philosophy of, perhaps, the most brilliant and innovative American scientist, Albert Einstein who said, “I never think of the future – it comes soon enough.”
Required Web Resources:
The Changing Face of Terror in the U.S.
Required Presentations:
Chapter 10
