CRJ 145 Module 1 NotesModule 1 Reading AssignmentHaddow, G., .docx

CRJ 145: Module 1 Notes
Module 1 Reading Assignment
Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. (2011). Introduction to
emergency management. Burlington: Elsevier. Chapter 1.
The 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 1980s
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, President George W. Bush
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.
Post Katrina Changes
In the rush to examine and investigate what went wrong, and
take corrective actions, the US Congress engaged in extensive
hearings and investigations. The Administration’s Report, “The
Federal Response to Hurricane Katrina: Lessons Learned,” was
released in February 2006. It was a weighty document, and
included 125 recommendations and 11 critical actions that
needed to be completed by June 1, the start of the 2006
hurricane season. However, the report, just like the Hurricane
Katrina event, reflected the Administration’s lack of
understanding and lack of accountability for disaster response
and recovery. Supported by this and other reports and a public
demanding action, the 109th Congress passed revised federal
emergency management policies that vested more power in the
President; reorganized FEMA; and enhanced and clarified the
mission, functions, and authorities of DHS.
The Future Environment of Emergency Management
Barack Obama’s election represented a change from the past,
including a change for emergency management. While there
had been discussion among staff of the new President about
taking FEMA out of DHS, the confirmation of Janet Napolitano
who strongly believes FEMA to be an essential part of DHS has
delayed any such action. Craig Fugate, a former State Director
of Emergency Management from Florida, was confirmed as
FEMA Administrator, bringing excellent credentials and
extensive operational experience to the position. Administrator
Fugate has stated a desire to create a culture of preparedness as
a hallmark of his FEMA tenure, and has surrounded himself
with a political team that includes several veterans of the 1990s
Witt years. Moreover, Administrator Fugate is expected to be a
strong supporter of rebuilding the partnership with State and
local emergency management organizations given his

background. But questions remain about his strategic vision.
Issues of contention include the future of Mitigation, the
direction of the National Flood Insurance Program, the future
role of FEMA in disaster housing and other recovery functions,
and the increasing role of the military, particularly the Northern
Command (NORTHCOM), in future disasters.
Required Web Resources:
Introduction: A Short History of Homeland Security and
Emergency Management Law
Required Presentations:
Chapter 1
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 2
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]
[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University

Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
PART I
Directions: Find an example of a disaster that changed the
emergency management profession in some way, either in the
United States or elsewhere in the world. Then, answer the
following questions. Be sure to cite any sources you use.
Please visit the Academic Resource Center for concise
guidelines on APA format.
What is the name, date, and location of the disaster?What are
the changes or developments that occurred in the field of
emergency management as a result of this event?Explain how
this disaster and the events that surrounded it led to the
emergency management change described in question 2.Do you
believe that policy making that is driven by disaster events is an
effective way to shape the practice of emergency management?
Why or why not?
PART II
Directions: Based on your review of the presentation “A Short
History of Homeland Security and Emergency Management
Law,” (see link at the end of the Lecture Notes) write a
summary report. Please ensure that your report is at least 1.5
pages in length, using 12-point font and double spacing. Be
sure to cite any sources you use. Please visit the Academic
Resource Center for concise guidelines on APA format.

CRJ 145 Module 1 NotesModule 1 Reading AssignmentHaddow, G., .docx

CRJ 145 Module 1 NotesModule 1 Reading AssignmentHaddow, G., .docx

More Related Content

Similar to CRJ 145 Module 1 NotesModule 1 Reading AssignmentHaddow, G., .docx (14)

More from faithxdunce63732 (20)

Recently uploaded (20)

CRJ 145 Module 1 NotesModule 1 Reading AssignmentHaddow, G., .docx