The Florida Catastrophic Planning (FLCP) Initiative was conducted under the auspices of the National Catastrophic Planning Process (CPP), as mandated by the Homeland Security Act of 2002, which was amended by the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007. The Act of 2007 expanded the roles and responsibilities of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in preparing for catastrophes as a result of the dismal response to Hurricane Katrina (Ruback et al., 2010). FEMA was given specific requirements to better prepare for catastrophic disasters and the FLCP planning process embodies one the first major tests of the CCP.
The CPP is inherently different from traditional models developed by federal entities in several ways, the most important being that it is a “bottom-up” planning method as dictated by one of the directives of the Act of 2007. FEMA was asked to partner with State, local and tribal governments, emergency responders, the private sector, and non-governmental organizations (NGOs) in addition to other federal agencies typically involved with disaster preparedness, response and recovery efforts. Most FEMA and Department of Homeland Security (DHS) systems and methods in the past have been driven from the “top down”, such as the Incident Command System (ICS) and the National Incident Management Systems (NIMS) and have focused on the structure of command and control rather than coordinated partnerships (Ruback et al., 2010). Another significant directive of the Act of 2007 is the specific focus on preparedness for catastrophic events rather than disasters, which are more regional in scope.
Catastrophes impact large areas, crossing regional and often, state jurisdictional boundaries, and will require m...
... middle of paper ...
...rs and catastrophes. Other planning processes may address other scenarios or situations in better ways such as the Integrated Planning System approach also described by Ruback et al (2010) in FEMA’s Catastrophic Readiness and Response course, section 12.
The FLCP successfully demonstrated that the CPP can accomplish the outcomes from the mandates of the Department of Homeland Security Appropriations Act of 2007 given to FEMA.
If there can be a good or bright side of the horrific catastrophe known as Hurricane Katrina it must be that the federal, state and local governments are better prepared to response to catastrophes of the future. In order to better respond, those agencies must include all possible stakeholders in the planning process as well as relying on all the resources of the nation. The CPP and FLCP initiatives by FEMA are steps in the right direction.
Royer, Jordan. “Hurricane Sandy and the importance of being FEMA”, Crosscut.com, Crosscut.com, Web. 1 Nov 2012, 3 May 2014.
Hurricane Hugo was a catastrophe that caused widespread residential damage, extensive lifeline destruction, and enormous timber destruction in South Carolina and was one of the most costly disasters ever experienced in the US in terms of damage to homes, infrastructure and local economies. The media reported accounts of incidents that were serious problems in South Carolina’s response and early recovery efforts which further initiated an exploratory research to gather information about recovery experience in four badly impacted counties and about the state response and recovery actions undertaken. Post hurricane response problems were both organizational and functional. The research reveals significant state deficiencies with state and county emergency capabilities and serious problems in two national disaster response organizations, the Red Cross and FEMA. Another concern was that most emergency management knowledge came from direct experience rather than from existing educational and training programs along with serious mitigation planning problems were found with hurricane. Deepen concerns we...
In 2003, Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was rolled into the U.S. Department of Homeland Security. FEMA’s responsibilities are to prepare, protect, respond, and recover from diminish all hazards. There was a mass coverage about the failure for FEMA to act immediately to Katrina, but once they were able to get things organized such as giving food and water, and setting up the tent and shelters communities can be strong and move on.
Bissell, R. (2010). Catastrophic Readiness and Response Course, Session 6 – Social and Economic Issues. Accessed at http://training.fema.gov/EMIWeb/edu/crr.asp
Federal intervention in the aftermath of natural disasters began after the San Francisco earthquake in 1906. This 8.3 magnitude earthquake killed 478, and left over 250,000 homeless. While the disaster itself was obviously unavoidable, the subsequent fires that burned throughout the city were a result of poor planning. (1, 17) In an effort to consolidate existing programs, and to improve the nation’s level of preparedness, President Carter created FEMA in 1979. Initially, FEMA was praised for improving communication between various levels of government, and multiple agencies during a crisis. (1,19)
Having a basic understanding of community or national emergency plans can assist families in disaster. This is especially true during the response phase. The National Response Framework (NRF) is a great example of a national community reference. According to FEMA’s publication, “The National Response Framework,” from 2013, the NRF is a guide which describes the basis of national response to any form of disaster. The NRF was developed from a long line of response guidance plans. The first was the Federal Response plan which was replaced by the National Response Plan. Then in 2008, the NRF was developed to make national response guidance more efficient as well as to include practices created after Hurricane Katrina. The NRF is comprised of 4 sections. These are the foundation document, the Emergency Support Functions (ESF) Annexes, the Support Annexes, and the Incident Annexes. These annexes describe how the NRF can be implemented. It is important to note that the NRF and the National Incident Management System (NIMS) are meant to work in conjunction with each other, while NIMS and its component the Incident Command System (ICS) supply the NRF with an incident management function (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013c, pp. 2-3). The NRF is based on several guiding principles. These are engaged partnership, tiered response, scalable operations, unity of effort/unified command, and readiness to act (Federal Emergency Management Agency, 2013c, pp. 5-6).
FEMA mains and funds the Nation in a danger ample alternative management system of preparedness that includes prevention, protection, response, recovery, and mitigation (Waugh, 2002). A reestablished FEMA is expected to produce excitement, vitality, direction, and backing for an across the country duty to the assurance of U.S. natives
Both man-made and natural disasters are often devastating, resource draining and disruptive. Having a basic plan ready for these types of disaster events is key to the success of executing and implementing, as well as assessing the aftermath. There are many different ways to create an emergency operations plan (EOP) to encompass a natural and/or man-made disaster, including following the six stage planning process, collection of information, and identification of threats and hazards. The most important aspect of the US emergency management system in preparing for, mitigating, and responding to man-made and natural disasters is the creation, implementation and assessment of a community’s EOP.
At 7:10 EDT on August 29, 2005 Hurricane Katrina made landfall, etching lasting memories of those living in and around the New Orleans, Louisiana. It was this day that Hurricane Katrina came ashore and caused what was to be thought as one of the “most destructive storm in terms of economic losses” ("Hurricane Katrina —," 2007) of all times. Who was to be blamed for the failure in emergence management response and preparation, no one seemed to know or understand. Those left in the wake of this disaster could only stand by and wonder who was at fault, what preparation were to be in place and why wasn’t there a quicker response to help the hundreds of thousands that needed immediate aid and disaster assistance.
Homeland Security. (2008, 12). National Incident Management System. Retrieved 10 22, 2011, from FEMA: http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nims/NIMS_core.pdf
The Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988 amended the Disaster Relief Act of 1974. This new Act created the system in place today by which a presidential disaster declaration of an emergency triggers financial and physical assistance through the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The Act gives FEMA the responsibility for coordinating government-wide relief efforts. It is designed to bring an orderly and systemic means of federal natural disaster assistance for state and local governments in carrying out their responsibilities to aid citizens. Moreover, Congress' intention was to encourage states and localities to develop comprehensive disaster preparedness plans, prepare for better intergovernmental
The leadership during Hurricane Katrina was riddled with inconsistencies, unpreparedness, and lacking in the knowledge to deal with emergency management situations from the White House, Department of Homeland Security (DHS), FEMA, the Governor’s Office in Louisiana and the City of New Orleans. This event emphasizes the importance of preparedness, response, recovery, communications, emergency plans, and political indifferences during pressing times.
After the attack, the United States hastily constructed the Department of Homeland Security and downgraded FEMA, whose main duty was civil protection. This attracted criticism from some public administration experts that the U.S. government concentrated too much on terrorism…[After Hurricane Katrina] Critics… charged that too many government officials were not familiar with the “National Response Plan” which was implemented in December 2004 after 9/11 terrorist attack. Planning and training for large natural disasters were insufficient after the implementation of the plan. In short, too great a focus on counter-terrorism undermined capacities for natural disaster mitigation, response, and recovery in the post-9/11 United States (para. 7,
Nevertheless, over the more recent years our government has evolved when dealing with the response time to aid in such disasters. Consequently, the government has dropped the ball drastically as it relates to being prepared for many of these deadly, and catastrophic hurricanes. In 1965 Hurricane Betsy struck the Gulf Coast, with deadly impacts to Florida, New Orleans, as well as Tennessee , Missouri and more. This hurricane was so massive, and powerful that it caused monetary damages in the range of one billion dollars. Unfortunately, the government had no concrete plan for accommodating those that actually survived the impact of
August 23rd, 2005; Hurricane Katrina, formed over the Bahamas, hitting landfall in Florida. By the 29th, on its third landfall it hit and devastated the city of New Orleans, becoming the deadliest hurricane of the 2005 season and, one of the five worst hurricanes to hit land in the history of the United States. Taking a look at the years leading to Katrina, preventative actions, racial and class inequalities and government, all of this could have been prevented. As presented in the newspaper article, An Autopsy of Katrina: Four Storms, Not Just One , we must ask ourselves, are “natural” disasters really natural or, are they a product of the people, who failed to take the necessary actions that needed to be taken?