scholarly journals Coerced Confusion? Local Emergency Policy Implementation After September 11

2015 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Hildebrand
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Federal Grant ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
State And Local

AbstractThis study examines what motivates local emergency management officials to implement federal emergency management and homeland security policies within their own departments since the September 11 attacks. Pre-existing research claims there is confusion among local governments about potential changes to the role local emergency management services play before, during, and after natural, accidental, or terror related incidents. Meanwhile, additional research claims the federal disaster management policies (The National Response Plan, National Incident Management System, and Incident Command System) lack flexibility in implementation expectations, and there is limited cohesion among the layers of government, actors, and interests involved. This study asserts that something must spur local actors to comply with federal policy demands in their daily operations given how the post-September 11 policies change the field. The study specifically examines the effects of coercion, defined as actions taken by the federal government to force state and local implementers to comply with federal policy demands. Available federal grant dollars for emergency management and homeland security practices could make a dramatic difference to local emergency management operations, forcing these actors to comply with federal policy demands, even if it is in a begrudging fashion that deviates from traditional Comprehensive Emergency Management (CEM) principles.

Controlling disasters: Local emergency management perceptions about Federal Emergency Management and Homeland Security actions after September 11, 2001

2017 ◽  
Vol 15 (5) ◽  
pp. 291 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sean Hildebrand, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Statistical Significance ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Federal Policies ◽  
Local Actors ◽  
September 11 Attacks ◽  
Local Officials ◽  
Federal Control

This article examines local emergency manager's beliefs regarding control over tasks during various stages of the hazard cycle since federal policies went into effect following the September 11 attacks. The study considers whether a disparity exists between the actions of local officials during each phase of the “hazard cycle” and the policy expectations of the federal government, which call for greater federal control over activities in emergency management and homeland security. To do so, hypothesis testing investigates the jurisdiction's use of comprehensive emergency management (CEM) practices, the perceived “clarity” of the federal policy demands, and if the local actors feel coerced to comply with federal policy demands so that grant funding is not compromised. Using a model developed from “third-generation” policy implementation research, the results show that the odds of local officials citing federal control over these actions have very limited statistical significance. This signals that the perceived lack of local input into the development of these federal policies and the policies’ limited use of traditional CEM measures may not be in concert with what local actors perform in the field. Simply put, the respondents claim to understand the federal policy demands, support the concept of federal control as the policies describe, yet follow their own plans or traditional CEM principles, even if such actions do not support the federal policy demands. These results align with pre-existing research in the emergency management field that show issues with efforts to centralize policies under the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Are we better off? Emergency management policy implementation since September 11

2019 ◽  
Vol 17 (6) ◽  
pp. 439-453
Author(s):  
Sean Hildebrand, PhD
Keyword(s):  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Emergency Management ◽  
Federal Government ◽  
Federal Policy ◽  
Local Level ◽  
The United States ◽  
September 11 ◽  
Management Policy ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management

As public policy continues its evolution, so do theories about policy implementation. One policy field that changed during the twenty-first century is emergency management and homeland security in the United States. Since the September 11 attacks, the federal government attempted to centralize the way government agencies at the federal, state, and local level prepare for and respond to natural, accidental, and terror-related disasters. However, research in the field is split about the effectiveness of this effort during the George W. Bush and Barack Obama administrations. While some feel federal actions taken to prepare for and respond to incidents of natural, accidental, or purposeful intent have been fruitful in preparing the nation for catastrophic events, others say it detracts from the core mission of emergency management. This study considers if the policy changes that occurred during those administrations created a disparity between the policy expectations of the federal government and the actions of local officials in emergency management. The findings show that local emergency management professionals generally reported the implementation of federal policy expectations, and that the odds of doing so increase where respondents report greater “clarity” in the federal policy language. However, differences exist in terms of how local managers view the requirements of the National Incident Management System (NIMS) versus other federal policy demands. This signals that experienced actors may nominally comply with federal policy demands by downplaying those requirements seen as useless in favor of functions that meet jurisdictional needs.

scholarly journals (A226) Establishing a Framework for Synchronizing Critical Decision Making with Information Analysis during a Health/Medical Emergency

2011 ◽  
Vol 26 (S1) ◽  
pp. s61-s61 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Paturas ◽  
J. Pelazza ◽  
R. Smith
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Emergency Preparedness ◽  
Disaster Response ◽  
The United States ◽  
Medical Emergency ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Local Health ◽  
Information Analysis ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
State And Local

BackgroundThe Yale New Haven Center for Emergency Preparedness and Disaster Response (YNH-CEPDR) has worked in the United States with state and local health and medical organizations to evaluate critical decision making activities and to develop decision making tools and protocols to enhance decision making in a time sensitive environment. YNH-CEPDR has also worked with international organizations and US federal agencies to support situational awareness activities in simulated and real world events.ObjectivesDuring this session YNH-CEPDR will share the best practices from recent events such as the H1N1 response and the Haiti Earthquake. Participants will be engaged in discussions regarding overall framework for successful information collection, analysis and dissemination to support decision making based on these experiences. This session will also incorporate concepts provided by the US National Incident Management System (NIMS) and the Incident Command System (ICS), specifically through the development of Situational Reports (SitReps), Incident Action Plans (IAP) and Job Action Sheets as methods to implement the framework and concepts discussed. Participants will be led through a series of scenario-based discussions to allow application of critical decision making factors to their organization. At the conclusion of the session, participants will be able to identify next steps for enhancing the synchronization of critical decision making and information analysis within their organizations.

Local Government Homeland Security Information Systems

2010 ◽  
pp. 136-150
Author(s):  
Christopher G. Reddick
Keyword(s):  
Information Systems ◽  
Information Sharing ◽  
Hurricane Katrina ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Terrorist Attack ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Security Information ◽  
State And Local

This chapter examines homeland security information systems (HSIS) with a focus on local governments. Local governments are typically the first at the scene when responding to an emergency or a terrorist attack. The most notable incidents are Hurricane Katrina and the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001. In both of these incidents the first responders were the local governments, which faced dual issues of communication and information sharing. It is important to understand the current level of preparedness and use of HSIS in local governments. This chapter tries to discern the relative priority of HSIS compared to other priorities of local governments in the realm of homeland security. This chapter first outlines some background information on local governments with respect to their organizational structure and level of homeland security preparedness. The second section outlines the stages of e-government adoption, which is commonly discussed in the local e-government literature. Third, there is a discussion of homeland security information sharing between the federal, state, and local governments. There is some evidence presented from existing surveys of the impact of HSIS on local governments. Finally, there is survey results presented from a study conducted by the International City/ County Management Association (ICMA) on homeland security preparedness. This survey information is used to determine where HSIS fits into local priorities on homeland security.

TO BOLDLY GO WHERE NO STATE HAS GONE BEFORE1

1995 ◽  
Vol 1995 (1) ◽  
pp. 761-765
Author(s):  
William Boland ◽  
Pete Bontadelli
Keyword(s):  
Oil Spill ◽  
Oil Pollution ◽  
Task Force ◽  
Action Plan ◽  
Coast Guard ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Marine Safety

ABSTRACT The Marine Safety Division of the 11th Coast Guard District and the California Office of Oil Spill Prevention and Response are pursuing new avenues to assure that federal, state, and local efforts in California achieve the goals of the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 and the Lempert-Keene-Seastrand Oil Spill Prevention and Response Act of 1990. Coordination of the seven California area committees, publishing detailed area contingency plans, and the implemention of a memorandum of agreement on oil spill prevention and response highlight recent cooperative successes. In 1994 a joint Coast Guard/state/industry incident command system task force drafted an ICS field operations guide and incident action plan forms that meet National Interagency Incident Management System and fire scope ICS requirements.

How the next President of the United States can fix FEMA

2008 ◽  
Vol 6 (5) ◽  
pp. 13 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jane A. Bullock, BA ◽  
George D. Haddow, MURP
Keyword(s):  
Hurricane Katrina ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Current System ◽  
Hazard Mitigation ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Economic Damage ◽  
Department Of Homeland Security ◽  
State And Local

Our nation continues to experience increased frequency and severity of weather disasters. All of these risks demand that we look at the current system and assess if this system, which is predicated on strong Federal leadership in partnership with State and local governments and which failed so visibly in Hurricane Katrina, needs to be rebuilt on a new model. We are suggesting a plan of action that, we believe, is practical, achievable, and will reduce the costs in lives, property, environmental and economic damage from future disasters. The next President is the only person who can make this happen.We suggest that the next President undertake the following steps: (1) move FEMA out of the Department of Homeland Security; (2) appoint a FEMA Director, who is a trusted adviser to the President; (3) include the appointment of the FEMA Director in the first round of Presidential appointees to the Cabinet; (4) rebuild the Federal Response Plan; (5) remove the hazard mitigation and long-term recovery functions from FEMA; (6) invest $2.5 billion annually in hazard mitigation; (7) support community disaster resiliency efforts. The next President will have the opportunity to build the new partnership of Federal, State and local governments, voluntary agencies, nonprofits and the private sector that is needed to make our nation resilient. The question is will the next President take advantage of this opportunity?

Emergency management and homeland security: Exploring the relationship

2016 ◽  
Vol 13 (6) ◽  
pp. 483
Author(s):  
Jerome H. Kahan, BA, BS, MSEE
Keyword(s):  
Emergency Management ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Urban Areas ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Preparedness Planning ◽  
Efficiency And Effectiveness ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Public And Private Stakeholders

In the years after the 9/11 tragedy, the United States continues to face risks from all forms of major disasters, from potentially dangerous terrorist attacks to catastrophic acts of nature. Professionals in the fields of emergency management and homeland security have responsibilities for ensuring that all levels of government, urban areas and communities, nongovernmental organizations, businesses, and individual citizens are prepared to deal with such hazards though actions that reduce risks to lives and property. Regrettably, the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's ability to deal with disasters is unnecessarily challenged by the absence of a common understanding on how these fields are related in the workforce and educational arenas. Complicating matters further is the fact that neither of these fields has developed agreed definitions. In many ways, homeland security and emergency management have come to represent two different worlds and cultures. These conditions can have a deleterious effect on preparedness planning for public and private stakeholders across the nation when coordinated responses among federal, state, and local activities are essential for dealing with consequential hazards. This article demonstrates that the fields of emergency management and homeland security share many responsibilities but are not identical in scope or skills. It argues that emergency management should be considered a critical subset of the far broader and more strategic field of homeland security. From analytically based conclusions, it recommends five steps that be taken to bring these fields closer together to benefit more from their synergist relationship as well as from their individual contributions.

Conclusion

2010 ◽  
pp. 204-211
Author(s):  
Christopher G. Reddick
Keyword(s):  
Homeland Security ◽  
Local Governments ◽  
Background Information ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Management Support ◽  
Use Of Technology ◽  
Emerging Issues ◽  
Security Information ◽  
State And Local

This book examined Homeland Security Information Systems (HSIS) and how this technology has influenced IT at all levels of government. The first part of the book provided background information on homeland security preparedness, e-government, and collaboration. The second part examined the impact of HSIS on federal, state, and local governments in the United States. The final part of this book examined some emerging issues in HSIS of citizens and their interaction with homeland security, information security, and online emergency management information. This chapter summarizes the key findings of the book and provides future research recommendations. The results in this book show that there is a need for homeland security preparedness and planning at all levels of government and HSIS are one critical component of planning efforts. The results demonstrate that top management support is critical for effective planning in order to ensure that these managers are fully on board with HSIS. Scarce resources at all levels of governments means that there is a priority setting process taking place, when choosing which HSIS should be incorporated. Citizen involvement is a key component to HSIS since citizens are normally the first on the disaster scene and their use of technology can help response efforts.

Implementation and effectiveness of the National Incident Management System’s Incident Command System in law enforcement since 2003

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (4) ◽  
pp. 387-417
Author(s):  
John K. Nichols, MS, LCC ◽  
Magdalena Denham, EdD
Keyword(s):  
Law Enforcement ◽  
Homeland Security ◽  
Initial Phase ◽  
The United States ◽  
Incident Management ◽  
Incident Command System ◽  
National Incident Management System ◽  
Incident Command ◽  
Relevant Case ◽  
Open Question

This paper investigates the use of the National Incident Management System (NIMS)’s Incident Command System (ICS) in law enforcement since Homeland Security Presidential Directive 5 was issued in 2003. It attempts to answer the following questions: (a) To what degree has law enforcement adopted the NIMS style ICS?; (b) To what degree has the NIMS/ICS framework been applicable to law enforcement?; and (c) Is the NIMS style ICS effective in the law enforcement response environment? The research includes a review of relevant case studies and literature and also includes the analysis of a survey instrument sent to 1,220 current and former law enforcement practitioners across the United States. The survey includes both open- and closed-ended questions. The data from closed-ended questions were compiled and displayed. Data from open-ended questions were grouped thematically. Responses were then assessed and compared with information gleaned from the literature review. Results indicate the system has been widely adopted by law enforcement, and its use is applicable and effective in some law enforcement responses. Its use in the highly chaotic initial phase of incidents, however, remains an open question.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document