Transformation of the Disaster Management Role

Disaster Management

The Transformation of Disaster Management

The 20th century would see an evolution in nearly every area of federal management in public affairs, with the roles, responsibilities and resources required to do the duty of the people being perpetually clarified and refined. One area in particular which remains even today in a state of constant evolution is that of disaster management. Indeed, this stands among the most unpredictable, challenging and constantly shifting duties of the federal government. And with increasing coordination with agencies also at the state and local levels, disaster management has proven an extremely complex area in which obstacles are constantly showing themselves in the midst of catastrophe. How we prepare for and mitigate these obstacles and the disasters from which they originate is a strategy that is under constant revision.

From the start of the 20th century, there was an interesting in assigning federal management responsibilities to help local areas contend with disasters. However, in its rudimentary stages, the legislation pushing for a heightened federal role did not yet extend to the "boots-on-the-ground" strategy now seen as inherent to the process. As FEMA (2010) reports, in the "1930s, when the federal approach to problems became popular, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was given authority to make disaster loans for repair and reconstruction of certain public facilities following an earthquake, and later, other types of disasters. In 1934, the Bureau of Public Roads was given authority to provide funding for highways and bridges damaged by natural disasters." (FEMA, p. 1)

At this juncture, the strategy for addressing disasters, natural or otherwise, was to move to see that funds were allocated at the federal level to help the local community recuperate from any such disaster. But as FEMA tells, this way of contending with disaster would quickly prove problematic as, over the ensuing decades, such measures appeared not to advance any avenues for preparedness. The absence of efforts aimed at coordinated emergency response and disaster management denoted that few lessons were learned from myriad disasters. Particularly, efforts at responding to disasters were hindered by a lack of central management authority. This would lead to the inception of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the beginning of a strategy aimed at multijurisdictional preparedness. According to FEMA's own report, this agency would bring a host of previously separate government agencies under a single umbrella, creating a centralized management core in the event of a disaster situation. FEMA reports that "President Carter's 1979 executive order merged many of the separate disaster-related responsibilities into the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Among other agencies, FEMA absorbed: the Federal Insurance Administration, the National Fire Prevention and Control Administration, the National Weather Service Community Preparedness Program, the Federal Preparedness Agency of the General Services Administration and the Federal Disaster Assistance Administration activities from HUD." (FEMA, p. 1)

Still, following the September 11th attacks in 2001, considerable evidence emerged that preparedness and mitigation had not yet been achieved in a way that might help local emergency first responders perform in their duties. As NEMA (2007) reports, evidence persisted following the terrorist attacks that "National Preparedness and State and Local Programs and Support have "not historically worked well together.'" (NEMA, p. 1)

This would prompt the major shift in the decision-making chain and in the roles served in by local, state and federal disaster management agencies. With the creation of the enormous agency that was the Department of Homeland Security, FEMA's duties would now fall under yet a broader umbrella. The stated intention of this shuffling of agencies and jurisdictions would be to bring a greater level of coordination to the roles served by first-responders at the local level, officials at the state level and agencies at the federal level. The intention would be to create a multijurisdicaitonal and multiagency approach to coordinating the roles of those first on the ground with the resource capacity of those coming from the federal level to assist. The events connecting the creation of the new Department of Homeland Security to the mismanagement of local response to 9/11 would actually be consistent with an historical pattern.

Disaster Management policy has a long history of responsive transformation. That is, often in the wake of a catastrophic disaster, flaws are revealed in our policy or preparedness that must be remedied through policy refinement. This is a pattern that is evident early in the evolution of the concept of disaster management legislation in the early 19th century. According to ACF (2011), "the Congressional Act of 1803 is considered the first piece of disaster legislation. It provided one New Hampshire town with assistance after an extensive fire. In the century that followed, ad hoc legislation was passed more than 100 times in response to hurricanes, earthquakes, floods and other disaster." (ACF, p. 1)

As the history of disaster management in the U.S., delineated in a section here above, shows, there was a direct connect between the rising occurrence of major natural disasters in human-inhabited regions of the country and the shifting of legislative policy orientation. ACF goes on to indicate that the evolution of disaster management and relief aimed at creating faster-moving and less bureaucratic emergency and disaster service agencies would be in response to a series of particularly severe natural events. According to ACF, the 1969 passage of the Disaster Relief Act would come in the midst of a series of such events, including Hurricane Carla (1962), Hurricane Betsy (1965), Hurricane Camille (1969), Hurricane Agnes (1972), the Alaska Earthquake (1964) and the Southern California Earthquake (1971). (ACF, p. 1) The relationship between the sharpening of responsiveness in the legislation and the occurrence of disaster management breakdowns is still a close one.