The Department of Homeland Security and its Impacts on the United States’ Emergency Preparedness: Success or Failure

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Introduction
Hypothesis
Research Questions
Research Methodology
Literature Review
Emergency and Disaster Management Theory
Effectiveness of Department of Home Land Security
Conclusion
Reference List

Introduction

The September 2001 terrorist attacks in the US made the US’ citizens concerned about the capacity of the government to ensure that they are secure at all times whether while in their country or in foreign nations. The resulting impacts of the terrorism act also had severe ramification on the government’s part. The government was left shocked that its security systems were not able to prevent attacks from occurring.

Due to the homogenous effects of the terrorist attack, it was a matter of common knowledge that restructuring of the internal security surveillance system was necessary through the enactment of an appropriate policy in the effort to ensure that such attacks would not occur in the future. This prompted the creation of the division of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in 2002.

DHS was mandated to shield the US from reacting to terrorists’ attacks coupled with making sure that all Americans were prepared to counter the aftermaths of natural disasters including floods, fires, diseases outbreaks, and earthquakes (Abbott, 2005, p.5). Disaster preparedness is critical in contemporary times.

America depicts well the significance of disaster preparedness owing to the degree in which the US is prone to myriads of terrorists’ attacks and other natural catastrophes. This fact makes it necessary for the US to develop various state apparatus that would enable it to respond towards emergencies that may pose a danger to the American lives (Burmgarner, 2008, p.29).

Implementation of policies that aid in the establishment of apparatus for manning terrorism and natural catastrophes is critical since one of the constitutional rights of the Americans is to have their lives protected by the government. The central apparatus that ensures the fulfillment of this legal right is the department of homeland security.

FEMA is the central agency that lies within DHS. Since the establishment DHS in 2002, the US has escaped incidents of terrorist attacks. However, natural catastrophes have been recorded since then. These catastrophes often lead to economic losses to a nation. For instance, the US was struck by Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Hurricane Katina poked holes in the readiness of the Department of Homeland Security on issues separate from terrorism. Perhaps this claim reveals the resurgence of the debate in the capability of the United States’ policy on emergency management and the ability of the state to deal with complex issues. This paper revolves around this interrogative.

Precisely, the paper attempts to explore the department of homeland security in a bid to determine the impact of the agency on efforts of disaster preparedness in America. The goal is to determine whether the agency has been effective or otherwise in achieving its mandate. The evaluation of the effectiveness of the DHS is based on the theoretical paradigms of disaster management.

Hypothesis

In the effort to explore emergency and disaster management in the US’ context, the paper attempts to determine the accomplishments and letdowns of the Department of Homeland Security. It hypothesizes that, amid being well prepared to handle situations articulated to terrorism activities, the department of homeland security is prone to being caught off guard by catastrophic natural disasters.

Research Questions

In the effort to prove or disapprove the hypothesis in the attempt to determine the effectiveness of the department of homeland security in achieving its mandates, this research paper grapples with three main questions:

Has the disaster management capacity of the United States been overtaken by the fixation on fighting terrorism?
What could explain the government’s failure to respond promptly to save the lives of Americans during Hurricane Katrina?
What is the nature of the threats that the United States envisions due to the conglomeration of the disaster management organs under FEMA?

Research Methodology

The research methodology deployed in this research paper is qualitative research. Assessment of various researches for the establishment of theoretical paradigms that may help to explain the applicability of concepts of disaster management in manning all possible dangers that a nation may be exposed to in an attempt to respond promptly before they occur will be considered.

This approach forms the basis for making comparison of the extent to which the operations of DHS measures up to the developed theoretical paradigms thus implying that the data used in the research is mainly derived from secondary sources. Hence, the methodology used in this research paper introduces a challenge of reliability and validity of the inferences made herein.

However, this challenge is countered by the use of a wide range of scholarly research in the discipline of disaster management. On the other hand, the instances in which the DHS has been caught off guard by disasters are based on real examples of natural catastrophes that have occurred in the recent past under the full watch of DHS. These examples are crucial in the effort to evaluate the effectiveness of DHS and in the development of theories that explain the DHS policy.

Literature Review

The uncertainty and unexpectedness of disasters make disaster management technique an incredibly difficult subject because disasters strike mostly when people least expect it (Abbott, 2005, p.3). All countries have probabilities of being exposed to disasters of various types. Bumgarner (2008) defines four types of disasters: natural disasters, environmental emergencies, pandemic emergencies, and complex emergencies (p.25).

Examples of natural disasters include volcano eruptions, floods, hurricanes, and earthquakes amongst others. These disasters expose people to both primary and secondary impacts. With regard to Varghese (2002), natural disasters have “immediate impacts on human health, as well as secondary impacts causing further death and suffering from floods that cause landslides, earthquakes that result in fires, tsunamis that cause widespread flooding, and typhoons that sink ferries” (p.102).

A well-designed disaster management system within a nation needs to be proactively prepared to avoid or reduce these implications before or after the occurrence of the disasters. Environmental disasters encompass industrial and technological accidents. They are usually experienced due to hazardous materials used in production processes. Such disasters take place where the dangerous materials are used and or transported.

Forest infernos are also induced in these types of disasters. On the other hand, pandemic emergencies entail sudden eruption of contagious diseases, which have devastating effects on human health coupled with aftermaths of disruptions of businesses and service delivery mechanism. Consequently, pandemic emergencies truncate into social and economic costs.

Complex emergencies entail power failures, “attacks of certain national strategic installations, and looting” (Lindell, Tierney & Perry, 2001, p.19). The emergencies lead to war and or the emergence of conflicts. The resolution of these conflicts and wars has the implication of consumption of state resources at the expense of other needs of the citizens.

This case perhaps explains why a nation’s arm of internal security needs to prepare and where possible identify any volatile situation that may lead to war and resolve the causes of conflicts before the situation gets out of hand to warrant the deployment of state machinery to quench the disputes.

Now, it sounds plausible to posit the question: how prepared is the DHS to address these types of disasters? The above query introduces several relevant concepts in the theory of disaster management. These concepts include disaster preparedness, disaster recovery, disaster relief, and disaster prevention.

Disaster preparedness entails all the activities that are designed to ensure that damages and losses of life are minimized should a disaster struck (Smith, 2006, p.13). These activities include “removing people and property from a threatened location and or facilitating timely and effective rescue, relief, and rehabilitation” (Hansen & Schramm, 1993, p.56).

Through the deployment of disaster preparedness strategies, nations reduce the effects of disasters. In line with this argument, Hansen and Schramm postulate, “community-based preparedness and management should be a high priority in physical therapy practice management” (1993, p.57). Catastrophe aid refers to the “responses that are multi-agency and coordinated to enhance the mitigation of the effects of disasters coupled with their results in the long-term basis” (Hansen & Schramm, 1993, p.57).

Several relief activities are conducted in the event of a disaster. They include repairing of the vital utility lines that are destroyed by an accident, foods provision to the affected, relocation of people in the effort to escape the ramifications of disasters, provisions of health care, provisions of temporary shelter until the accident has been managed, and rescues of the affected people amongst other activities.

After all the emergency needs are taken care of upon the occurrence of a catastrophe, disaster recovery becomes necessary. Although the initial crisis is brought to a halt, at this stage, the individuals who experience the negative impacts of the disaster are normally prone and susceptible to the implications of the accident.

Adversity recuperation efforts encompass actions such as psychoanalysis and renovation of the shattered road and rail network. These efforts need to be “combined with development activities such as building human resources for health and developing policies and practices to avoid similar situations in the future” (Hansen & Schramm, 1993, p.56).

Lastly, it is crucial to deploy mechanisms to ensure that people affected by a disaster are protected from being exposed to similar tragedies in the future. This strategy calls for the development of strategies for disaster preventions, which include “activities designed to provide permanent protection from disasters” (Nicholson, 2003, p.67). However, it is vital to note that not all disasters can be prevented from occurring in the future.

Indeed, “natural disasters, in particular, can be prevented, but the risk of loss of life and injury can be mitigated with good evacuation plans, environmental planning, and design standards” (Nicholson, 2003, p.67). Upon scrutiny of these four concepts of disaster management, the main interrogative that arises is how the existing theory on disaster management measures up to provide validity of these approaches in the mitigation and management of disasters.

Emergency and Disaster Management Theory

Considering the impacts of the disaster on the image of a government’s capacity to protect the life of its people, many nations have embarked on looking for mechanisms for enhancing emergency and disaster management. To achieve this noble goal, a harmonious definition of emergency and disaster as the subject matter for which an appropriate policy is to be enacted to address is vital.

However, the theory on disaster management lacks a unified definition of what amounts to an emergency or disastrous condition. Donahue and Joyce (2001) define disaster as “calumnious natural or human-caused emergency events that suddenly result in extensive negative economic and social consequences for populations they affect” (p.728).

This definition implies that emergencies and disasters are physical acts or acts of nature, which destroy various socially constructed events. Despite the difficulty encountered in the effort to describe succinctly the complex social and physical aspects that may lead to disasters and hence designing the disaster preparedness apparatus to mitigate such elements, it is crucial to develop a scholarly agreement on what amounts to a disaster.

The claim holds because “unless people clarify and obtain minimum consensus on defining features per se, they will continue to talk past one another on the characteristics, conditions, and consequences of disasters” (Lindell, 2007, p.71).

Despite the existence of the gaps in harmonious definition of disasters, many scholars in the field of disaster management concur that irrespective of the scale or the nature of an emergency, it has the capacity to deter the social and economic wealth fare of citizens. Therefore, governments need to come out eloquently to reduce the impacts of disasters.

The realization of dangers that are posed by disasters calls for effective strategies of emergency management. Unfortunately, much of the literature in the field of emergency and disaster management focuses more on disaster predictions and consequences. It does not dwell on emergencies. This challenge makes “the focus on emergency relative besides limiting the applicability to first responders” (Lindell, 2007, p.71).

The gap may be attributed to the idea that focusing scholarly work more on emergency management may create a notion that people have the ability to deal proactively with all adverse and unprecedented occurrences termed as disasters. For this reason, the study on emergency management is seen as both oxymoron and misnomer (McEntire, 2007, p.19).

Hazards whose emergency management efforts focus on has been changing as the history of experienced disasters changes. In this line of argument, McEntire (2003) posits, “practitioners and academics initially gave priority to the civil hazards of a nuclear exchange between the United States and the USSR during the Cold War” (p.39).

Therefore, all apparatus of emergency disaster management paid much of their attention to emergency and disastrous conditions arising from nuclear missile exchanges. When these challenges ceased to ail different nations on successful resolution of conflicts, other new forms of disasters came up. Hence, the focus of emergency and disaster management also changed to focus on technological hazards.

This approach arose from Chernobyl, three miles island, and Bhopal disaster amongst others. With the experience of natural disasters such as Loma Prieta earthquakes, Northridge earthquake, Hurricane Andrew, and Midwest flooding, the emergency and disaster management apparatus in different nations reoriented themselves to ensure that, in the occurrence of such disasters, their repercussion on human life would be mitigated.

Today, the ranges of emergency and disastrous conditions that are likely to face nations have increased to include civil emergencies attributed to acts of terrorism. Much analogous to the changing of the structures of disaster management to take up measures to deal with recurrence of the already experienced disasters, following the September 2001 terrorists attack, the US created the department of homeland security (DHS) as the central apparatus to ensure that America remains well protected against disasters associated with acts of terrorism.

The main question that arises here is whether DHS will have to be restructured to ensure enhanced disaster preparedness when another disaster that has not been experienced in the past will strike America. The dilemma posed by this interrogative is that Americans are “confronted with a choice between more common, but less consequential events versus infrequent, but higher impact occurrences” (Bumgarner, 2008, p.83).

Consequently, “it is difficult but also necessary to come up with an appropriate approach between hazard-specific and generic alternatives” (Bumgarner, 2008, p.83). In this endeavor, theoretical paradigms of emergency and disaster management are imperative. Many theories have been put forward to explain disasters and emergencies management concepts.

In the context of emergency and disaster management, such theories are imperative since acts of terrorism, disasters such as Chernobyl, three miles island, and the Bhopal disaster can be attributed to human behavior. Examples of the theories that can be deployed to explain some the catastrophes that are attributed to human actions include Jetkinks social constructionism theory.

The theory explains the “manufacturing of terrorism threat, conservation resources model used by Arata et al. (2000) to predict the psychological implication of the Exon Valdez oil spill disaster, and social vulnerability approach” (Enarson et al. (2003, p.4). These theories provide ample insights to emergency managers on the impacts of human behaviors’ capacity to give rise to disasters in some ways.

In the first place, they indicate the existence of abundant frameworks and broad-based theoretical paradigm that links human behavior to emergencies and disasters. Secondly, they avail the basis from which true theories for disaster and emergency management and response can be rested.

In the framework for analysis emergency, Donahue and Joyce maintain that emergency management is a complex policy subsystem that involves an intergovernmental, multiphase effort to mitigate, prepare for, respond to, and recover from disasters” (2001, p.728). These complexities emanate from the need to determine and allocate behavioral and fiscal incentives that are necessary for the formulation of the disaster and emergency management policy.

Before the occurrence of an emergency and or a disaster, spending in the apparatus of disaster management often attracts the public eye scrutiny. Indeed, Donahue and Joyce argue that, in such situations, a conflict exists between the state and public on the hazards that amount to emergencies and disasters so that public resources can be allocated to develop preparedness, response mechanism, and relief strategies.

When still struggling with this debate, in case natural calamity strikes, many of the critics hardly turn around to pose a question on the necessity of government intervention. Rather, as Donahue and Joyce explain, “citizens tend to automatically view the situation as a serious public problem requiring immediate governmental actions” (2001, p.728).

In the case of the United States, this governmental action is effected through the department of homeland security. The underlying action is driven by the mandate given to the DHS to reduce incidences and magnitudes in a bid to mitigate the threats associated with the occurrence of disasters and emergencies coupled with preparing for, responding to, and recovering from the impacts of emergencies and disasters (McEntire, 2004, p.17).

In this context, emergency and disaster management tools operate as both instruments of emergencies, disaster surveillance, and as apparatus for responding to disasters and emergencies within a nation. Surprisingly, amid the development of a well-organized apparatus for disaster and emergency management, disasters still strike.

Does it, therefore, mean that all apparatus for disaster management, including the department of homeland security are ineffective? Evans and Drabek (2004) offer an answer to this query by positing that managing disasters gives rise to challenges that are formidable to the governments’ emergency and disaster management apparatus since they present a requirement for making difficult decisions on service delivery systems for the affected people (p.45).

In their nature, disasters offset the “capacity of the governments whose jurisdiction they strike” (Donahue & Joyce, 2001, p.728). Therefore, the affected governments have to source aid from other nations. In the absence of a disaster, a government cannot place a diplomatic call for help should an emergency or disaster occur in the future (McEntire, 2003, p.107).

This implies that the internal emergency and disaster management apparatus only have resources adequate for the development of emergency and disaster preparedness strategies but not for relief, rescue, and recovery. The overall objective of emergency and disaster administration is “to moderate in the most pragmatic way the extent to which the conditions of the affected communities are worsened by a disaster” (Donahue & Joyce, 2001, p.730).

Directly congruent with this assertion, Donahue and Joyce, (2001) retaliate, “governments and their disaster managers undertake many actions to support this goal, both pre-disaster (to foretell potential damage) and post-disaster (to correct actual damage)” (p.731). Nevertheless, the traits of disasters hamper these great concerns of disaster and emergency management arm of government.

Disasters destroy an extensive portion of the property of a given jurisdiction of a nation or state besides impairing the health of the population affected in such magnitudes and rates that are beyond the capacity of a government to avoid or avert. The repercussion for this is, “coping with them drains most, if not all, of the jurisdiction’s manpower, equipment, supplies, and money” (Donahue & Joyce, 2001, p.731).

A challenge is amplified by the unpredictability and uncertainty of magnitudes of damages likely to be caused by the anticipated disasters such as earthquakes and hurricanes. Essentially, natural disasters are hard to predict leave alone to prevent. Hence, the only possible intervention is to evacuate people from disaster-prone areas.

Unfortunately, it is impossible to evacuate infrastructures such as houses, health care centers, water supply systems, roads, railway lines, power supply lines, and others. This claim implies that, no matter how a government emergency and disaster management apparatus may be able to predict the occurrence of natural disasters, it is impossible to escape the resulting implications of the disaster.

The implications result in the erosion of public resources beyond the rate at which the government may be able to replenish without resorting to seeking external help. This assertion perhaps explains the slow responses on some disaster management apparatus in some nations in the event of the occurrence of a disaster.

For effective management of any public problem, causative agents of the problems should be possible to identify because, upon identification of causations, their mitigation amounts to success in the management of the actual problem arising from them.

Extending this argument to disaster hazards makes it incredibly challenging to identify the hazards that give rise to disasters since “the causal relationship between hazards and disaster events is poorly understood with risks being hard to measure (Donahue & Joyce, 2001, p.732). Disasters are also infrequent. In some situations, the political tenure of a given government may elapse without disasters being experienced.

According to Donahue and Joyce, this condition “locates governments in a quandary about whether, when, and what action to take to manage them” (2001, p.732). Furthermore, testing of disaster policies does not meet the criteria of Mazmanian and Sabatier’s tests for an implementation process of policy because disasters constitute intractable challenges, which are impossible to address via statutes assigning requisite resources coupled with making a clarification of responsibility lines.

Lindell (2007) amplifies this argument by asserting, “disaster problems are subject to powerful non-statutory variables such as the level of public support, available administrative and leadership skills, and reigning social-economic conditions” (p.92). This argument agrees with the case that lack of a comprehensive and unified definition of the situation that amounts to disasters makes it impossible for derivation of appropriate disasters and emergency response mechanisms.

Management of emergencies entails a policy subsystem, which houses various functions. All these functions “demand certain competencies by presenting specific political opportunities through the choice about the distribution of costs and benefits” (Sylves, 2007, p.25). In this context, emergency and disaster management encompasses the distribution of myriads of roles via political bargaining procedure.

In case of the United States, the roles of emergency and disaster management are allocated to the DHS. However, it is questionable why scholarly criticism of the effectiveness of the DHS to manage emergencies and disasters is appropriate.

Donahue and Joyce respond to this question by informing, “Public officials do not allocate responsibility for design and implementation of public policy based on a comprehensive evaluation of the competency of each level government” (2001, p.735). Nevertheless, this claim does not imply that a public official is merely a self-interested actor who takes the issues of public interest in a manner that is effective and efficient.

Consequently, interactions between behavioral incentives and functional competencies in the determination of the appropriate subsystem of disaster policy are immensely complex (Holdeman, 2012, Para.1). Stemming from the above argument, Donahue and Joyce assert, “Aspects of contemporary emergency management practice are coherent applications of fundamental principles of fiscal federalism and functional theory” (2001, p.733).

However, it is arguable that national governments including the United States through appropriate emergency and disaster management apparatus such as DHS engage in programs for management of emergencies and disasters, precisely recovery and responses that are prescribed by the functional theory. If this is the case, how effective is DHS in the management of disasters and emergencies? The next section discusses this query in the context of the developed theoretical paradigms on disaster management.

Effectiveness of Department of Home Land Security

Drawing from the literature review, the characteristics of disasters do not give the government an opportunity to prepare for responding to disasters and emergencies only when they are anticipated to occur. Since a disaster can strike any time, the most proactive way of responding to disasters is to have an all-time disaster preparedness national apparatus.

Therefore, the occurrence of disasters has led to the creation of agencies and other apparatus to facilitate emergency preparedness in the US. These agencies are the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Following the September 2001 attacks, the US found it imperative to implement policies, which will facilitate disaster preparedness and management. The need is essential upon the consideration of the mandates of both the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

DHS is equipped with numerous resources in order to gather information on the factors, which might have an influence on the safety of the US. This case enables the relevant stakeholders to be aware of the potential disasters, which might compromise the country’s security prior to their occurrence. The claim further allows the authority to implement measures to counter the disasters’ effects hence protecting the inhabitants.

FEMA is a section in DHS, which is mandated to coordinate disaster management that is beyond the capabilities of local and state apparatus. This case ensures that there is a plan to counter the effects of devastating disasters. Theoretically, the development of policy leading to the creation of FEMA and DHS creates the perception that the two organs can respond to all forms of emergencies and disasters.

Indeed, this is an anticipation of the public. From the dimension of the criticism of scholars, the question of whether DHS is prepared to handle emergencies and disasters in case another catastrophe strikes America (Wormuth, 2009, p.95) remains crucial. McEntire (2004) is also inclined to the perception that DHS may not be may well prepared to handle all forms of disasters that may strike America after the September 2002 attacks (p.12).

The author proposes that, from the DHS perspective point of view, “vulnerability to disasters is due to cultural misunderstandings, permeable borders, fragile infrastructure, and weak disaster management institutions” (p. 12). What this means is that DHS is ineffective in managing disasters and emergencies. Therefore, it is crucial to make an effort to “correct domestic and foreign policy mistakes” (Lindell, Tierney, & Perry, 2001, p.36).

However, determining the effectiveness of the DHS from this perspective is inadequate because, as established in the literature review section, disasters are unpredictable. Some natural disasters, such as hurricanes and earthquakes, cannot be avoided. Consequently, one of the adequate ways of determining how effective DHS is in terms of responding to disasters is through the introspection of the manner in which it conducts the rescue and relief missions.

Another, approach for evaluation of the effectiveness of DHS is through the examination of how DHS is capable of precisely predicting areas that would be impacted by disasters. From this basis, DHS can be argued as being highly effective (Wormuth, 2009, p.103). However, Abc NEWS does not agree with the above argument since it maintains that the US remains vulnerable to both fabricated and natural disasters.

For instance, Abc NEWS claims that, following the outbreak of smallpox, the government maintained that it acquired adequate vaccines to cater for all people in the US. However, New York academy of medicine “finds the government’s actual preparedness plans to be deeply flawed” (Abc NEWS, 2005, Para.6).

This assertion raises the question of whether the US is capable of doing that given that its mandates extend beyond mitigation of emergencies attributed to terrorism: this being the main occurrence that led to its establishment to include management of disasters associated to natural catastrophes such as diseases outbreaks.

This claim does not regard the massive awareness of the capability of the DHS to manage disastrous incidences in the US. After the September 2011 incident, the federal government of the United States spent billions of dollars to develop means and mechanisms of preventing future occurrence of a similar disaster in the future. Unfortunately, Hurricane Katrina struck, leaving massive destructions to property.

Indeed, “president Bush agreed to take full responsibility for the slow and flawed response to Hurricane Katrina” (Abc NEWS, 2005, Para.1). Upon acceptance of these responsibilities, some people are inclined to the argument that assuming responsibility exemplified recognition of the ineffectiveness of the US’ disaster management apparatus in achieving its mandates.

The criticism by Abc NEWS is consistent with the discussion of the nature of natural disasters. It was impossible for the DHS to avoid its occurrence. However, upon its appearance, DHS should have responded speedily to reduce the impacts of the disasters as part of its mandate. Unfortunately, it failed.

Since 1990, FEMA was charged with pursuing all-hazard-disasters and emergency management approach in matters of development of mechanisms of disaster preparedness and response. Therefore, the role of FEMA has been ensuring the US is prepared for various disasters coupled with mitigating them no matter their causes. The inclusion of the FEMA in the department of homeland security created a conflict of mandates between the two organs, which were then required to work together.

Before the merging of the two, FEMA emerged as incredibly useful in responding to natural disasters. While in the merged state, arguably, FEMA became “highly indebted in preparing for mechanism of responding to terrorism though less effective in performing its traditional mission of responding to natural disasters as time, effort, and attention were inevitably diverted to other tasks within the larger organization” (Wormuth, 2009, p.105: Jenkins, 2003, p. 21).

Should this exposition then serve to explain the reluctance in responding to the 2005 Hurricane Katrina disaster? The above question can perhaps be well answered upon consideration of the roles that were played by FEMA in responding to Hurricane Andrew in 1992. FEMA was able to react speedily to offer support, rescue, and relief to all people who were affected by Hurricane Andrew.

Why did this not happen in 2005 during the disaster of Hurricane Katrina? Arguably, the merging of DHS with FEMA influenced the capacity of FEMA to work as an independent body. In this light, Nicholson (2005) argues, “FEMA will likely perform its homeland security mission at least as (if not more) effectively as an independent agency than as part of a department of homeland security” (p.11).

Independency is crucial since the nature of disaster makes it imperative for a quick action to be taken without deep consultations. The occurrence of the terrorist attack of 2001 may also have eroded the effectiveness of DHS and FEMA to respond to natural disasters. Arguably, from the public concern point of view, incidences in which the safety of the American is interfered with by forces outside their territorial boundaries attract more public interest and fear compared with internal forces such as natural disasters.

Consequently, the effectiveness of both FEMA and DHS in responding to Hurricane Katrina may be attributed to the conglomeration of the disaster management organs under FEMA and over-concentration on putting in place mechanisms of developing preparedness to disasters associated with terrorist attacks. Therefore, the emergence of new forms of accidents truncates into the erosion of effectiveness in responding to other kinds of disasters.

This argument gains weight by considering, “the United States has been well behind most industrialized countries in obtaining supplies of the one medicine that works against the bird flu” (Abc NEWS, 2005, Para. 17). Nevertheless, given that some disasters are inevitable and that their probabilities of occurrence are hard to determine, the degree of responding immediately when they occur needs not to be an indicator of the capacity of the degree of effectiveness of a disaster management apparatus, mainly if the disasters were not predicted in good time.

The claim holds because, upon the occurrence of a disaster or an emergency within nations, making of a responsible logistical arrangement is necessary at least over a short period following the occurrence of a disaster or an emergency. However, the speed at which DHS and FEMA responded to hurricane Katrina questions the effectiveness of these organs in responding to disasters that are different from terrorism attacks.

Conclusion

Many nations across the globe encounter emergencies and disasters. In the paper, disasters were defined as calamitous emergency events that are caused by human beings or by nature and which have social and economic negative implications. It was argued that, although disasters are of different magnitudes, a common characteristic is that they damage the general welfare of the populations they affect.

Due to the magnitude of the damages that are caused by disasters, the government is the chief instrument that takes the responsibility of providing aid to the people affected within its jurisdiction through emergency and disaster management apparatus created by the government. The device develops a means and or a mechanism of the emergency and disaster preparedness, response, relief, and rescue.

As evidenced by the paper, the concern of each of these elements depends on the period of progression of the disaster from before it has occurred to after it has happened. In the US, the roles and the responsibility of emergency and disaster preparedness, relief, rescue, and response fall on the department of homeland security and FEMA.

While FEMA is a central agency within DHS, the DHS was constituted following the September 2001 terrorists attack as one of the mechanism of restructuring the disaster managing system of the US to enhance better disasters preparedness, response, and relief in the future not only from natural disasters and calamities such as diseases outbreaks but also from terrorist attacks.

From the basis of the mandates of DHS, the focus of this paper was to scrutinize the effectiveness of DHS through the articulation of theoretical paradigms on emergency and disaster management. In this extent, it had been argued that, even though the literature on emergency and disaster management provides strong evidence that some disasters are unpredictable, infrequent, and enormous to the extent that they constrain resources available to the government, DHS has suffered inefficiencies in the management of disasters and emergencies.

A strong case for holding this position is the sluggish response by DHS to the 2005 hurricane Katrina disaster compared to the rapid response to Hurricane Andrew in 1992 by FEMA.

Reference List

Abbott, B. (2005). A legal guide to Homeland Security and Emergency Management for State and Local Governments. Chicago, IL: American Bar Association.

Abc NEWS. (2005). Unprepared for disaster: experts say United States may not be prepared for natural or man-made calamities. Web.

Arata, C., et al. (2000). Coping with Technological Disaster: An Application of the Conservation of Resources Model to the Exxon Valdez Oil Spill. Journal of Traumatic Stress, 13(3), 23-39.

Bumgarner, J. (2008). Emergency Management: a Reference Handbook. Santa Barbra, CA: ABC-CLIO, Inc.

Donahue, K., & Joyce, G. (2001). A Framework for Analyzing Emergency Management with an Application to Federal Budgeting. Public Administration Review, 61(6), 728-740.

Enarson, E., et al (2003). A Social Vulnerability Approach to Disasters. Emmitsburg, Maryland: Emergency Management Institute, Federal Emergency Management Agency.

Evans, J., & Drabek, E. (2004). Theories Relevant To Emergency Management versus A Theory of Emergency Management (Monograph No. 80208-2948). Denver, Colorado: University of Denver.

Hansen, R., & Schramm, D. (1993). Aim & Scope of Disaster Management. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Holdeman, E. (2012). Emergency Management Is a Complicated Profession [(Opinion)]. Web.

Jenkins, P. (2003). Image of Terror: What We Can and Cannot Know about Terrorism. New York, NY: Aldine de Gruyter.

Lindell, M. (2007). Emergency Management. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons.

Lindell, M., Tierney, K., & Perry, R. (2001). Facing the Unexpected: Disaster Preparedness and Response in the United States. Washington, DC: Joseph Henry Press.

McEntire, D. (2003). Epistemological Problems in Emergency Management: Theoretical Dilemmas and Implications Epistemological Problems in Emergency Management: Theoretical Dilemmas and Implications (Monograph No. 76203-0617). Denton, Texas: University of North Texas.

McEntire, D. (2004). The Status of Emergency Management Theory: Issues, Barriers, and Recommendations for Improved Scholarship. Paper Presented at the FEMA Higher Education Conference. FEMA: Higher Education Conference.

McEntire, D. (2007). Disciplines, Disasters, and Emergency Management. Springfield, Illinois: Charles C. Thomas, LTD.

Nicholson, W. (2003). Emergency Response and Emergency Management Law: Cases and Materials. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas, LTD.

Nicholson, W. (2005). Homeland Security Law and Policy. Springfield, IL: Charles C Thomas, Publisher LTD.

Smith, F. (2006). Budgeting for disasters—part I. Overview of the problem. The Public Manager, 35(1), 11-19.

Sylves, R. (2007). A Précis’ on Political Theory and Emergency Management (Monograph). Newark, DE 19716: University of Delaware.

Varghese, M. (2002). Disaster Recovery. Boston: Course Technology.

Wormuth, C. (2009). The Next Catastrophe: Ready or Not? Washington Quarterly, 32(1), 93-106.

Click Here To Order Now!