Prüfung
Introduction To Emergency Management 6th Edition by George Haddow - Test Bank
- Kurs
- Hochschule
Test Bank For Introduction To Emergency Management 6th Edition by George Haddow Complete Test Bank
[ Mehr anzeigen ]vorschau 4 aus 90 Seiten
Vorschau 4 aus 90 Seiten
In den Einkaufswagen
In den Einkaufswagen
1 bewertung
von: markquintanilla • 9 Monate vor
Verkäufer
Folgen
ExamsExpert
Deine Reviews
Inhaltsvorschau
, Chapter 1The Historical Context of Emergency Management
Emergency management is an ancient discipline that deals with risk and risk avoidance. Risk
represents a broad range of issues and includes an equally diverse set of players. The range of
situations that could possibly involve emergency management or the EM system is extensive.
This supports the premise that emergency management is integral to the security of everyone’s
daily lives and should be integrated into daily decisions and not just called on during times of
disaster.
Understanding the history and evolution of emergency management is important because at
different times, the concepts of emergency management have been applied differently. Unlike
other more structured disciplines, EM has expanded and contracted in response to events,
congressional desires, and leadership styles. The following list details the evolution of
Emergency management to the present day.
Early History: 1800-1950
The first federal involvement in disaster management appears with an 1803 Congressional act to
provide financial assistance to a New Hampshire town. During the 1930s, the Reconstruction
Finance Corporation and the Bureau of Public Roads make disaster loans available for public
facilities, and the Tennessee Valley authority is created to reduce flooding (in addition to
generating electricity). The Flood Control Act of 1934 gave the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
authority to design and build flood control projects.
The Cold War and the Rise of Civil Defense: 1950s
The threat of nuclear war and its consequences spurs the creation of Civil Defense programs
throughout the country. The Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA) is created to support
state and local civil defense directors, bringing the concept of emergency management to every
community. The Office of Defense Mobilization, which eventually merges with the FCDA, is
established to produce, stockpile, and transport emergency supplies and effectively creating
emergency preparedness. Congressional response to disasters during this period continue to be
ad hoc and primarily involves financial assistance to affected areas.
Natural Disasters Bring Changes to Emergency Management: 1960s
Several major disasters result in significant human and financial losses. Hurricane Betsy, in
particular, spurs the passage of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968, effectively creating the
National Flood Insurance Program and introducing the concept of community-based mitigation.
However, the voluntary insurance program was not meeting expectations for the reduction of
federal relief expenditures. In 1972, NFIP participation was linked to homeowner loans, and the
program’s efficacy rises significantly. However, emergency management continues to evolve in
a fragmented manner.
The Call for a National Focus to Emergency Management: 1970s
The disaster relief act of 1974 gives HUD the greatest EM authority, though EM functions exist
concurrently in several other federal agencies. Under President Carter, with strong state support
and following the accident at Three Mile Island, the Federal Emergency Management Agency
,was created in 1978. Under FEMA, the majority of federal EM tasks were consolidated.
However, FEMA’s first years were marked by a resistance to such integration.
Civil Defense Reappears as Nuclear Attack Planning: 1980s
During the Reagan administration, FEMA’s top priority was nuclear attack preparedness.
Statutory authority steadily moved from the state to the federal level, and funding for state and
local programs decreased. The threat of the New Madrid fault leads to the creation of the
Federal Response Plan, which later becomes the operating Bible for all federal agencies’
response operations.
An Agency in Trouble: 1989-1992
FEMA at the end of the 1980s is an agency suffering from morale problems, disparate
leadership, and conflicts with its state and local partners. Inadequate responses to several major
disasters called the Agency’s existence into question, and the GAO demanded reform. President
Clinton, who had response experience during his Arkansas Governorship, recognized FEMA's
value and set out early in his term to reinvigorate the agency.
The Witt Revolution: 1993-2001
James Lee Witt, the first FEMA director with prior EM experience, recognized the value of
cooperation between federal, state, and local agencies. Witt’s sweeping reforms of FEMA
restored American’s trust in the agency, and created a stronger partnership with the state and
local agencies, and with Congress, other federal agencies, and the media. Successful response to
an unprecedented series of disasters proved FEMA’s worth and helped to eliminate ineffective,
antiquated legacy policies. President Clinton affirmed FEMA’s value by elevating the position
of director into the Cabinet. Witt’s term was marked by many important EM initiatives and
legislation, including Project Impact, and FEMA was ultimately recognized as the world leader
in EM (despite what some analysts see as a failure to secure authority for terrorism response
following the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing). EM as a profession was evolving such that it
became a respected, challenging, and sought-after profession.
Terrorism Becomes Major Focus: 2001
James Allbaugh is presented with an early challenge as FEMA director when, immediately after
eliminating funding for the Project Impact program, the Nisqually Earthquake struck and PI is
credited for the very low disaster consequences. Project Impact regained its funding, but
Allbaugh’s next major action was to reinstate the Office of National Preparedness which was
created in the 1980’s to plan for World War III. While the decision raised concerns, the agency
assured that ONP's focus was terrorism response. The need for such a program was validated on
the morning of September 11th, when terrorists struck multiple targets in New York, Washington,
and Pennsylvania. The attacks required full activation of the Federal Response Plan, and the
strength of the system was proven as hundreds of response personnel initiated operations within
minutes of the events.
The Creation of the Department of Homeland Security: 2001–2005
Immediately after the 9/11 attacks, the President created by executive order the Office of
Homeland Security. The office had only 120 employees, and a prohibitively small budget.
Homeland Security Presidential Directive-3 (HSPD-3) was signed in March of 2002, which
, stated that the Nation required a Homeland Security Advisory System to disseminate information
regarding terrorism risk. On November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and named former PA Governor Tom Ridge as secretary of the new
Department of Homeland Security (DHS) that was created as result. The new department joined
together over 179,000 federal employees from 22 existing federal agencies under a single,
cabinet-level organization. On February 16, 2005, Michael Chertoff was unanimously confirmed
by the Senate to succeed Ridge in leading DHS. Soon after, Chertoff announced he would be
reorganizing DHS to better manage the organization. As part of the proposed reorganization,
virtually all of the remaining preparedness capabilities in FEMA were moved to a new Office of
Preparedness, leaving FEMA to focus exclusively on response and recovery, leaving a situation
similar to what existed before FEMA’s 1979 creation when Federal emergency management and
disaster assistance capabilities were scattered across the Federal government and in the White
House.
The Hurricane Katrina Debacle 2005
A disaster exercise termed “Hurricane Pam” was convened and completed in July 2004, with
appropriate follow up requirements to correct the problems and deficiencies discovered during
the exercise recorded (though funding to support these actions was reallocated to support other
DHS priorities). The specific danger from Katrina became clear on August 26, when National
Hurricane Center and National Weather Service forecasters saw the storm turn west. Warnings to
emergency management officials began immediately, and President Bush declared a disaster in
advance of the event in the projected impact zone. But however vigorous the preparations,
ineffective leadership, poor advance planning, and an unwillingness to devote sufficient
resources to emergency management over the long term doomed them to fail when Katrina
struck. While Katrina’s destructive force could not be denied, state and local officials did not
marshal enough of the resources at their disposal. Adding to these shortfalls, years of inadequate
funding of federal, state and local emergency functions left them incapable of fully carrying out
their missions to protect the public and care for victims. More than 1,800 people died, and tens
of thousands were displaced. Failure can be assessed at all levels, but when President Bush
signed the Federal declaration of disaster and announced it in the Rose Garden, before Katrina
actually made land fall, the Federal government through DHS/FEMA took the primary
responsibility for the stewardship of the response to this storm’s aftermath. And by any
objective evaluation of the response, it was a colossal failure.
The Lead up to the Katrina Debacle
FEMA’s Katrina failures were predictable for a number of reasons. First, following September
11, FEMA lost its status as an independent agency and its direct access to the president. Second,
FEMA personnel and funds, including money for preparedness and mitigation intended for state
and local agencies, were redistributed to support other higher priorities within DHS. Third, the
federal response plan was restructured into the National Response Plan to accommodate the new
DHS arrangements and the operational oversight role of the department’s secretary. A fourth
factor was the dramatic post–September 11 change from a focus on “all-hazards” management—
in which responders prepare for calamities according to plans that apply regardless of their
precise nature—to a focus on terrorism that led to significantly weakened national capabilities. A
final factor is the political philosophy of the Administration that emergency management was a
State and local issue.
Alle Vorteile der Zusammenfassungen von Stuvia auf einen Blick:
Garantiert gute Qualität durch Reviews
Stuvia Verkäufer haben mehr als 700.000 Zusammenfassungen beurteilt. Deshalb weißt du dass du das beste Dokument kaufst.
Schnell und einfach kaufen
Man bezahlt schnell und einfach mit iDeal, Kreditkarte oder Stuvia-Kredit für die Zusammenfassungen. Man braucht keine Mitgliedschaft.
Konzentration auf den Kern der Sache
Deine Mitstudenten schreiben die Zusammenfassungen. Deshalb enthalten die Zusammenfassungen immer aktuelle, zuverlässige und up-to-date Informationen. Damit kommst du schnell zum Kern der Sache.
Häufig gestellte Fragen
Was bekomme ich, wenn ich dieses Dokument kaufe?
Du erhältst eine PDF-Datei, die sofort nach dem Kauf verfügbar ist. Das gekaufte Dokument ist jederzeit, überall und unbegrenzt über dein Profil zugänglich.
Zufriedenheitsgarantie: Wie funktioniert das?
Unsere Zufriedenheitsgarantie sorgt dafür, dass du immer eine Lernunterlage findest, die zu dir passt. Du füllst ein Formular aus und unser Kundendienstteam kümmert sich um den Rest.
Wem kaufe ich diese Zusammenfassung ab?
Stuvia ist ein Marktplatz, du kaufst dieses Dokument also nicht von uns, sondern vom Verkäufer ExamsExpert. Stuvia erleichtert die Zahlung an den Verkäufer.
Werde ich an ein Abonnement gebunden sein?
Nein, du kaufst diese Zusammenfassung nur für 28,34 €. Du bist nach deinem Kauf an nichts gebunden.
Kann man Stuvia trauen?
4.6 Sterne auf Google & Trustpilot (+1000 reviews)
45.681 Zusammenfassungen wurden in den letzten 30 Tagen verkauft
Gegründet 2010, seit 14 Jahren die erste Adresse für Zusammenfassungen