Four Phases of Emergency Management free essay sample

In this section, the four phases of emergency management will be defined: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery. Mitigation Over the last decade the social and economic costs of disasters to the United States, and throughout the World have grown significantly. During the 1990’s, FEMA spent over $25. 4 billion to provide disaster assistance in the United States. During that decade, the economic toll of natural disasters, world wide, topped $608 billion. This amounted to more than the previous four decades combined. The causes of this increase in disaster consequences are myriad. Climatalogical changes such as El Nino, global warming and sea level rise have all been identified as contributors. Add to this the many societal impacts such as increased development in and migration to identified risk zones, deforestation and clear cutting, and filling in of floodplains, among many other factors, and the picture becomes more clear. The discipline of mitigation provides the means for reducing these impacts. We will write a custom essay sample on Four Phases of Emergency Management or any similar topic specifically for you Do Not WasteYour Time HIRE WRITER Only 13.90 / page Mitigation is defined as a sustained action to reduce or eliminate risk to people and property from hazards and their effects. The function of mitigation differs from the other emergency management disciplines in that it looks at long-term solutions to reducing risk as opposed to merely accepting that they will happen and preparing for their consequences, responding to their consequences, or recovering from them. Mitigation is usually not considered part of the emergency phase of a disaster as in response, or as part of emergency planning as in preparedness, or following the disaster as with recovery. Mitigation can be performed during each or all of these phases. Another significant difference sets mitigation apart from the other disciplines of emergency management. Implementing mitigation programs and activities requires the participation and support of a broad spectrum of players outside of the traditional emergency management circle. Mitigation involves, among other public and private sector participants, land use planners, construction and building officials, business owners, insurance companies, community leaders and politicians. The skills and tools for accomplishing mitigation (planning expertise, political acumen, marketing and public relations and consensus building, among others) are different than the operational, first responder skills which more traditionally characterize emergency management professionals. In fact, historically, the emergency management professional has been reluctant in taking a lead role in promoting mitigation because of its appearing to fall outside of this scope of activities. A State Director of emergency management once said words to the effect†¦ ‘I will never lose my job for failing to do mitigation, but I could lose my job if I mess up a response. ’ With the exception of the fire community, who lead early on in the effort to mitigate fire risks through their support for building codes, code enforcement and public education, the emergency management community has remained focused on response and recovery obligations. However, these trends are changing for several key reasons. Leadership at the Federal level, larger disasters, substantial increases in funding, and more value and professionalism in emergency management, have all resulted in greater acknowledgement of the importance of mitigation. Preparedness Preparedness within the field of emergency management can best be defined as a state of readiness to respond to a disaster, crisis or any other type of emergency situation. Preparedness is not, however, only a state of readiness, but also a constant theme throughout most aspects of emergency management. If one looks back into the history of the Nation, they will see the predecessors of today’s emergency managers focusing most heavily upon preparedness activities. For example, the fall-out shelters of the 1950’s and the air raid wardens were promoted as preparedness for a potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Again, in the 1970’s, an acclaimed study prepared by the National Governor’s Association proclaimed emergency preparedness as the first step in emergency management. After the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant incident occurred in 1979, preparedness around commercial nuclear power plants became a major issue for continued licensing of these plants. The increased emphasis on preparing the public for a potential event through planning and education, and preparing local responders through required exercises caused a likewise increased focus on overall preparedness for disasters. Also because of the recognized potential for subsequent nuclear disasters, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission’s licensing requirements required local emergency plans, exercise of those plans and evaluation of the exercises. This process had a profound impact on the discipline of emergency management. The off-site preparedness planning process became the model for future emergency response plans. The required exercises are seen as being the first such activities taken on a widespread scale. They also brought a legitimacy and level of public and political exposure to the emergency management profession. Most people agree that the radiological emergency preparedness program, initiated in the aftermath of Three Mile Island and which became part of the newly created FEMA, was the start of the modern emergency management discipline. Since that era, preparedness has advanced significantly and its role as a building block of emergency management continues. No emergency management organization can function without a strong preparedness capacity. This capability is built through planning, training and exercising, and has led to an increased professionalism within the discipline of emergency management. Throughout the 1990’s FEMA was focused on supporting and enhancing these efforts, not just at the Federal level but throughout government and into the private sector. All organizations in private, public and government sectors are susceptible to the consequences of a disaster and must consider preparedness. Preparedness not only focuses on getting essential government services, such as utilities and emergency services functioning at pre-disaster levels, but assisting businesses in quickly reopening to the public. Both of these key functions of preparedness help to minimize the required time for the effected population to return to pre-disaster life. Business contingency planning, the effort of private businesses to ensure that business activities continue in the aftermath of disaster, has emerged as a profitable off shoot of government preparedness efforts. Response When a disaster event such as a flood, earthquake or hurricane occurs, the first responders to this event are always local police, fire and emergency medical personnel. Their job is to rescue and attend to those injured, suppress fires, secure and police the disaster area and to begin the process of restoring order. They are supported in this effort by local emergency management personnel and community government officials. If the size of the disaster event is so large that the capabilities of local responders are overwhelmed and the costs of the damage inflicted exceeds the capacity of the local government, the Mayor or County Executive will turn to the Governor and State Government for assistance in responding to the event and in helping the community to recover. The Governor will turn to the State’s emergency management agency and possibly the State National Guard and other State resources to provide this assistance to the stricken community. Should the Governor decide, based on information generated by community and State officials, that the size of the disaster event exceeds the State’s capacity to respond , the Governor will make a formal request to the President for a Presidential major disaster declaration. This request is prepared by State officials in cooperation with regional staff from FEMA (with DHS). The Governor’s request is analyzed first by the FEMA Regional Office and then forwarded to FEMA headquarters in Washington, DC. FEMA headquarters staff review and evaluate the Governor’s request and forward their analysis and recommendation to the President. The President considers FEMA’s recommendation and then makes a decision to grant the declaration or to turn it down. If the President grants a major disaster declaration, FEMA activates the National Response Plan (NRP) and proceeds to direct several Federal Departments and Agencies, including the American Red Cross, in support of State and local efforts to respond to and recover from the disaster event. The Presidential declaration also makes available several disaster assistance programs in FEMA and other Federal agencies designed to assist individuals and communities to begin the process of rebuilding their homes, their community infrastructure and their lives. When a major disaster strikes in the Untied States, the above chronology describes how the most sophisticated and advanced emergency management system in the world responds and begins the recovery process. This system is built on coordination and cooperation among a significant number of Federal, State and local government agencies, volunteer organizations and, more recently, the business community. In the 1990’s the emergency management system in the United States was tested repeatedly by major disaster events such as the 1993 Midwest floods, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and a series of devastating hurricanes and tornadoes. In each instance, the system worked to bring the full resources of the Federal, State and local governments to produce the most comprehensive and effective response possible. The system also leveraged the capabilities and resources of our nation’s cadre of volunteer organizations to provide immediate food and shelter. In recent years, government officials and agencies at all levels have begun to reach out to the business community to both leverage their response capabilities and to work closer with them in the recovery effort. The September 11 terrorist attacks have caused all levels of government to reevaluate response procedures and protocols. The unusual loss of so many first responders to this disaster event has resulted in numerous after action evaluations that will likely lead to changes in the procedures and protocols for first responders in the future. Additionally, the possibility of future terrorism attacks has focused attention to how best to protect first responders from harm in future attacks. Recovery There is often a theoretical debate over when the response function ends and the recovery function begins. For our purposes we will classify the response function as the immediate actions to save lives, protect property, and meet basic human needs. The recovery function is not so easily classified. This function often begins in the initial hours and days following a disaster event and can continue for months and in some cases years, depending on the severity of the event. Unlike the response function, where all efforts have a singular focus, the recovery function or process is characterized by a complex set of issues and decisions that must be made by individuals and communities. Recovery involves decisions and actions relative to rebuilding homes, replacing property, resuming employment, restoring businesses, and permanently repairing and rebuilding infrastructure. The recovery process requires balancing the more immediate need to return the community to normalcy with the longer term goal of reducing future vulnerability. The recovery process can provide individuals and communities with opportunities to become more economically secure and improve the overall safety and quality of life. Because the recovery function has such long lasting impacts and (generally) high costs, the participants in the process are numerous. They include all levels of government, the business community, political leadership, community activists, and individuals. Each of these groups plays a role in determining how the recovery will progress. Some of these roles are regulatory, such as application of State or local building ordinances, and some, such as the insurance industry, provide financial support. The goal of an effective recovery is to bring all of the players together to plan, finance and implement a recovery strategy that will rebuild the disaster impacted area safer and more secure as quickly as possible. The precipitating event for an area impacted by a disaster is the Presidential declaration of disaster under the Stafford Act. Recovery activities begin immediately after a Presidential declaration as the agencies of the Federal Government collaborate with the State in the impacted area in coordinating the implementation of recovery programs and the delivery of recovery services.