Lynchburg Security Formulating a disaster and risk management is necessary for this jurisdiction. This is based on the knowledge that risk management is a demanding initiative that requires an appropriate and responsive. Satellite units are professionally trained to meet global demands. The Lynchburg, Virginia security system has met federal requirements of quality, and as a result, the system has proved suitable to respond to various hazards experienced in this jurisdiction. This report will attempt to present the Homeland Security apparatus of this jurisdiction. The report will assess the current situation of possible hazards and actual preparedness whilst presenting the elements of disaster management at Lynchburg. This section is a critical analysis of how disaster is managed within this jurisdiction compared to the critical disaster management measures in the United Kingdom.

Homeland Security stakeholders

The Lynchburg Homeland Security system is comprised of stakeholders like administrators, first responders, and the local law enforcement. The primary role of each stakeholder is the provision of standardized security measures. This report introduces the fourth stakeholder, the protected community also referred as the wider community. The community plays a critical role and responsibility in receiving the security benefits. Determining the role and responsibility of each security segment is important because it subdivides tasks and assigns committee to pursue the identified agendas. This is based on the knowledge that all stakeholders work to implement a security strategy vital for building and strengthening safe networks. Stakeholders are important when responding and planning for the required security obligations (Kraft & Marks, 2012).

Central focus of stakeholders

Security stakeholders deliberate on several issues. Central concern includes implementation of programs to deter terrorist attacks, respond to accidents and fatality issues, and protect infrastructure from destructive incidences (Brownstein, 2007). In order to achieve these goals, the stakeholders are obliged to formulate mechanisms and policies focusing on approaches to mitigate the hazards. They must examine the possible threats to the security measures. This calls for the proper collaboration or personnel, plans, organizations and procedures. Besides, stakeholders provide an oversight to the establishment of collaboration and partnerships. This is emphasized by building education channels and outreach mechanisms. In any case, the four stakeholders act decisively with each to provide information, resources, and play a part in the enactment of the strategy. Thirdly, stakeholders are sanctioned to provide risk response and management strategies. These resources are useful in the identification of potential consequences and vulnerabilities. Besides, the stakeholders are expected to borrow ideas from national government on aspect relating to objectives and goals (Kugler, 2011).

Situation and Risk management

Hazards:

Common catastrophic events realized in Virginia include natural or man-made hazards. Hazards often strike vulnerable areas of Lynchburg. Common examples include fires, challenging climatic conditions also known as hydro, meteorological hazards, road accidents, factory accidents, and toxic waste. Others include stampede and radiations.

Preparedness

Based on stakeholder roles stipulated in the above analysis, it is imperative to note that the preparedness concerns apply both qualitative and quantitative risk management issues. Jenkins, (2013) specifies that NCR jurisdiction has developed ODP assessment. ODP specifies considerate review assessments based on the national guidelines (Kraft & Marks, 2012). In any case, responsive preparedness is mentored to act in line with protection, response, recovery, and prevention. Because of these measures, the following guidelines were adopted. First, stakeholders have adopted the guide for state investment in security with a goal to expand regional preparedness. Secondly, stakeholders have advocated for the incorporation of lessons learnt from previous disasters preparedness and priorities. Thirdly, the guidelines were instrumental in providing readiness metrics, and considerate statistical information with the help of a suitable software.

Elements of disaster

Response

In creating a disaster response plan, it is necessary to ensure that vital considerations are integrated into the overall plan. These are exercises, expectations, tasks, teams and drills. Stakeholders are mandated to formulate a well-written proposal, mission statement, and corporate responsibility mechanism. Secondly, stakeholders are obliged to develop a command office lead by emergency coordinator, with a well-coordinated emergency preparedness planning team, and develop a list of alternatives (Powers & Daily, 2010). Based on this, the task force will be mandated to carry out an auditing mechanism, one that is substantial enough to conduct an asset assessment and evaluation plan. The auditing mechanism will also assess inventory capabilities and resources. In addition, the auditing mechanism will develop a mechanism to manage risk and reduce fatality or corrosiveness (Augostino, 2011).

Recovery

Lynchburg recognizes a comprehensive disaster recovery...

Questions developed must examine the investigative mechanisms and identify the cost the firm and factors informing its strategy development process. In recovery, it is important to identify areas where technology can be useful (Davis, 2011). This requires a proper location analysis with updated auditing mechanisms. Firstly, it is necessary to have cold site where the infrastructure is set during the time of recovery. Secondly, an equally important warm site ensures that some of the infrastructures, although not necessarily being used is readily available. Thirdly, it is substantial to have a hot site. This is where the infrastructure used to facilitate the recovery process (Kugler, 2011).
Incident Command

It is necessary to develop authoritative structures, which are meant to enroll a coordinated response mechanism. This can be achieved by the development of communication mechanisms, maintaining control of all levels of channeling safety support. For incident command, a responsive unit should act decisively to reduce on the total response time. Lynchburg stakeholders ideologies are supported by Daily's and Robert's (2010, p. 141) views that response unity should incorporate the necessity of integrating all safety departments. That is, the appliance of hospital command, emergency medical service command, and fire command. Lynchburg has also empowered local authorities to act decisively with stipulation required in the overall incident command unit. As a result, the commanders of different departments are expected to join the various sections of response unity. These departments include emergency and medical ambulance service, disaster management agency, emergency and ambulance service, public health agency, and safety engineers (Kraft & Marks, 2012).

Accountability

Expansive mechanism requires the proper stipulation and development of readiness and an accountability plan. Firstly, it is necessary to design a command center that can handle alarming situations. Secondly, standard accountability can be achieved if the command center communicates properly. This is facilitated by a media response plan. Thirdly, the auditing mechanism will need to converge with the planning department to formulate life safety mechanism. This calls for the development of evacuation plans and proper routes. In addition, it is appropriate that the responsive teams are shielded from further fatality and destructions during evacuation. This extends to confidential information, which is considered fragile (Davis, 2011).

Evaluation and Comparison to other systems

An equivalent program is currently being implemented in the UK. The system, dubbed Disaster Aid International has its own Disaster Aid Response Team. The team is comprised of highly trained and experienced professionals capable to handle any crises. The team must respond to actual disasters by applying the selection criteria and determining the quality of each team to be deployed. As a result, the team undertakes an extra mile to determine the safe and survive systems. When formulating policy goals, the team considered the appropriate auditing on logistics, social, economic, political, and technological. Other considerations that the U.S. system analyzes are the proper evaluation of the nature of sanitation, health conditions and water surrounding a given area (Great Britain: Parliament: House of Commons: Home Affairs Committee, 2013).

In addition, the United Kingdom benefits from the Red Cross. The Red Cross is mandated to save lives and optimal protection of property. The Red Cross program is themed for one pound invested in security; four pounds are saved (Edkins, 2011). This policy is instrumental since it seeks the collective support of all members of a given society. As a result, the local community feels obliged to respond to equal security measures considered protective as a community-based initiative. The local people are skilled to respond to emergencies by ensuring that relief items like blankets, food and hygiene sets are well processed to meet standardized requirements (Brownstein, 2007).

Based on this, the Lynchburg policy initiative is feasible because of the response kits applied. Primarily, the policy advocates the high usage of technology to respond to various demanding situations. This is based on the knowledge that technology is a substantial appliance to respond to determining safety conditions. However, Lynchburg policy has considerate shortcomings. For instance, there is no proper documentation justifying the level of social commitment that the Virginia community accrues to the program. In any case, considerable measures should be enhanced to devolve safety measures from Lynchburg command center to the grounds. Local communities should be mentored to develop responsive measures, with power to provide disaster and safety measures independently from the Lynchburg provisions. As a result, minor disasters will be dealt with (Kugler, 2011).

Conclusion

This report has ascertained the validity of Lynchburg security mechanism. The report has confirmed that security system implemented by this jurisdiction meets the appropriate requirements and standards. In particular, the report has assessed protocol enactment and accountability as appropriate security measure…