This preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.
Unformatted text preview: influenced by capital "P" politics. 3-8 Somewhat Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concur ~ 3-9 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhat Concur ~ 3-10 II This relates directly to the comments preceding this question. The core of Homeland Security, at the federal and state level, is law enforcement. Law enforcement is not by its nature inclusive in its planning or implementation. It responds to issues, and primarily all are trained to act as individuals in the field with great discretion. Anytime a single entity takes charge of a program it will see the world through its own glasses. Emergency managers were redheaded stepchildren from the inception of Homeland Security, including FEMA. This stems back to a core issue that has existed back through the military foundations of this field: people in operations are the most important. Planners, logistics staff, finance and administration, and public affairs staffs are just tools that assist operations. Law enforcement sees themselves as operations in Homeland Security, pure and simple. As an example, that's why the design of the terrorism warning system is such a disaster as far as accomplishing clear communications. No competent emergency manager would have ever sent something like that out. Even the folks at NOAA could have advised that you have to keep warnings bare-bone simple. As law enforcement pushed FEMA and natural hazards planning further and further to the back of the room, it was clear to emergency managers that there would come a day of reckoning...and that was Katrina. Unfortunately, the leadership at Homeland Security has the single tool syndrome: I have a hammer so every problem is a nail. That is not meant to be curt or funny. It is a sad truth. I've worked within the programs of Homeland Security and found them to be ominously bloated and fatally unfriendly to local and state government, especially the grant and assessment programs.
Issues, Principles And Attitudes Oh My! Examining Perceptions from Select Academics, Practitioners And Consultants on the Subject of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University The NIMS and NRP processes are good examples of this problem. The NRP was not a substantial improvement over the FRP, which could have been left in place...with better results than occurred in Katrina. The NIMS is now touted as a "requirement," when in fact it never went through the Federal Register, as is required by law. Many emergency managers see the demise of Homeland Security after the next election. It has budgetary and policy failures that would never be allowed in state and local emergency management programs. Some have compared the struggles of Homeland Security to the struggles of Information Technology after Y2K. IT leaders forgot they were a service organization and began to try to actual run everything. Homeland Security has fallen into the same trap and has stepped on many powerful toes along the way. Emergency managers never forget that their first and core role is service, not control. The core concept of Homeland Security is not in concurrence with this philosophy. 3-9 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Somewhat Concur ~ Do not agree with law enforcement as dominant force. 3-10 II Emphasis on threat of terrorism is disproportionate, hence attention and money spent on this type of threat dwarfs all others. Not risk based. Emphasis is on law enforcement, international threats, systems and procedures to safeguard facilities. (Excessive guns and badges culture.) Lack of emphasis on natural and environmental threats/hazards/disasters. Failure to sustain scientific knowledge, organizational capacity to deal with major natural hazards in the U.S. 3-10 Concur ~ 3-6 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Concur ~ 3-9 II The utilization of law enforcement and military forces is not part of EM but is part of Homeland Security and Defense. There is however a need for mutual understanding of the differences and relationships between the programs, functions and activities of these disciplines. 3-11 Q5B. Please feel free to offer any additional thoughts or comments you may have regarding the material covered in this survey. Resilience approach of UK is more attuned to All Hazards than the current US Homeland Security programme. 3-4 Concur ~ 3-6 II
Issues, Principles And Attitudes Oh My! Examining Perceptions from Select Academics, Practitioners And Consultants on the Subject of Emergency Management Carol L. Cwiak, North Dakota State University ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Do Not Concur ~ 3-9 II ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Don't have knowledge of UK experience. The characteristics survey (Q2A and Q2B) is biased towards individuals that have an emergency management academic background. The questions asked for the "new generation" revolve around skills sets that are more desirable to human resource officials, while the stereotyping of existing emergency managers have negative connotations such as bureaucratic or have not completed tasks according to their position. Furthermore, the language utilized in the development of the survey (i.e., more professional) is only hel...
View Full Document
This note was uploaded on 04/14/2008 for the course EM EM-2212-26 taught by Professor Arlenemacgregor during the Spring '08 term at Mass Maritime.
- Spring '08
- The American, Emergency service