This model paper prepares sample research theses for predictive policy testing in federal disaster-management agencies, focusing particularly on preparation for bioterrorism attacks against U.S. ground and drinking water supplies. The student's prior course work provided background for content selection which this draft hopefully synthesizes, proposing survey research that could result in hypothesis testing using ANOVA or variants of any number of well-known inferential statistical procedures. Although the assignment specified the purpose was not to conduct actual research, but simply to prepare model hypotheses and research questions, that seemed to imply the goal would be standard testing along well-established precedent. The assignment did not require sample hypotheses but a testable, one-sentence sample H-1-a concludes the paper for good measure.
¶ … Justification
"It is only by conducting additional evaluations that not only cover these issues, but also involve all stakeholders and address limitations of existing data sources, that policymakers will have the information they need to identify and quantify needs and develop more effective case management programs for future disasters," pointed out the U.S. Government Accountability Office (USGAO) in its 2009 report to Congress after the federal management of hurricanes Rita and Katrina (2009a, p. 35). Nonetheless while the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) concurred with the USGAO's recommendations, and despite what appears to be some progress at the time of publication (USGAO, 2009a, p. 35), the overall recommendations appear as yet unaddressed, according at least to an undated USGAO Office of Public Affairs Web site describing the findings (USGAO 2009b). The 2009 report lists a variety of areas where performance could be improved, indicating future evaluation may continue to deliver productivity improvements that may save lives and forestall hardship for American citizens until 100% success rates can be achieved. USGAO's second recommendation was to make sure whatever FEMA planning outcomes resulted from analysis, that the result "includes practices to enhance and sustain coordination among federal and nonfederal stakeholders" (USGAO, 2009a, p. 36). This recommendation suggested "such an evaluation would assess whether those most in need received services, client outcomes, factors that contribute to those outcomes, and the role of specific services such as direct assistance," among other components (USGAO, 2009a, p. 36). The report goes on to list examples like inaccurate information, duplication and over-centralization of services while other agencies went underutilized, rules and local resource limitations and other confounds that frustrated program achievement which ended up with consequences in some case still unremedied by 2009 (USGAO, 2009a, "Highlights," n.p.).
At the operational level, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) warns watershed managers that water "security planning is critical because of the increased threat of terrorism and other intentional attacks since 9/11" and "requires careful planning and preparation" (USEPA, 2006, p. 4). My interest and coursework has all been aimed at a goal to contributing toward public safety after graduation, particularly focusing on domestic bioterrorism, and analyzing past failures and successes will further prepare me to contribute to this essential facet of national security to the degree my achievement enables me to serve. As a recently foiled amateurish but potentially menacing attack against a Cleveland bridge suggests, intent to commit domestic terrorism persists (Pelofsky and Palmer, 2012, n.p.), and as we have learned from the Oklahoma City Bombing prior to 9/11 just for example, not all these threats end up detected or incompetent.
Purpose statement for research study
The purpose of this research is to identify criteria federal agencies use to evaluate disaster response, and identify the most and least successful examples from multi-agency collaborations particularly regarding but not limited to ground and drinking water contamination. This will require identifying prior incidents, identifying and reviewing available (public) evaluation reports, ranking results by a unified scale of success based on those evaluation criteria, and then identifying and if possible systematizing those results into a prioritized list with the purpose "to identify and quantify needs and develop more effective case management programs for future disasters" (USGAO, 2009a, p. 35).
Research questions that address those purposes
What are considered the five most successful and five least successful multi-agency (federal, state, local government and civilian) disaster response collaborations where the lead agency was federal, particularly surrounding but not limited to cases of ground or drinking water contamination (including floods; toxic chemical spills; and the like) since 2005? By what criteria were the disaster mitigation responses evaluated and what similarities and differences do these evaluations reflect, that may be combined into a uniform disaster preparedness 'failure prevention' schema? 'Who or what to be studied' includes federal lead agencies in collaborative disaster response. 'Concepts and variables' will be performance evaluation criteria.
Rationale supporting this position
You’re 78% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.