This paper examines Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM) as a comprehensive framework for responding to catastrophic critical incidents, with particular focus on the role of Family Assistance Centers (FACs) during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. It describes how FACs functioned as centralized hubs for victim identification, DNA collection, and emotional and logistical support for families of victims. The paper then identifies three macro-level lessons derived from the 9/11 disaster: the need for comprehensive continuity recovery planning, effective internal and external communication strategies, and the establishment of overarching command-and-control structures prior to a disaster. Together, these lessons suggest systemic improvements that could reduce chaos and loss during future catastrophic events.
The paper effectively uses a case-study approach to derive generalizable principles. By anchoring each macro-level recommendation in the documented failures or gaps of the 9/11 response, the author demonstrates how a single high-profile event can be used to generate broadly applicable policy guidance. This technique — moving from specific event to general lesson — is characteristic of applied social science and emergency management scholarship.
The paper opens by defining CISM and its service continuum, then introduces FACs as an applied macro-level example. It proceeds to outline three distinct lessons from 9/11 (recovery planning, communication, and command structure), each as its own paragraph unit supported by citations. The paper closes with a brief meta-observation that these three points represent only part of a larger set of macro-level improvements. The structure is tight and methodical, appropriate for a short analytical paper at the undergraduate level.
Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM; Everly & Mitchell, 1999) represents an integrated and comprehensive crisis intervention approach to catastrophic critical events. CISM consists of a continuum of services ranging from pre-crisis preparedness to post-crisis intervention procedures capable of addressing both the physical and psychological consequences of critical incidents. Care services during catastrophic events typically include individual, group, and family interventions.
The traditional model of a Family Assistance Center (FAC) is an example of macro-level CISM service planning and delivery. FACs deployed during the 9/11 catastrophe assisted families during the crisis. A FAC is a secure facility established at a centralized location with the function of supplying information about missing persons who were possible victims of the disaster.
During the 9/11 crisis, FACs functioned as gathering points where information was exchanged to either facilitate the body identification process of deceased victims or to bring together family members and next of kin of a victim or missing person. FACs also served as a central location for the collection of DNA samples to assist with victim identification, as well as a gathering place offering emotional, psychological, and spiritual support for relatives of missing persons awaiting news about their loved ones. Following the disaster, FACs provided additional supportive services including psychological and emotional counseling, housing information and referral, legal assistance, and insurance information to families of victims.
There are many lessons to be learned from the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Donahue & Robert (2006) report that one principle deserving particular emphasis in the future is the creation and practice of more comprehensive continuity recovery planning. The 9/11 disaster demonstrated how disorganized even a large metropolitan area can be when coping with a sudden catastrophe. Much of the chaos and loss of life and property could be averted with better preparedness. Local businesses and community agencies that may suddenly find themselves without buildings and equipment — and may have a number of missing employees as a result of a disaster — need to expand their disaster recovery plans to include the movement of people, a rapid method for acquiring equipment, and a plan for network connectivity between individuals. These organizations should ensure that recovery procedures are well documented, that employees are trained in them, and that the procedures are secured so they can be utilized effectively when necessary.
Another lesson is the need to ensure that people can communicate with both internal and external agencies in the face of a disaster (Donahue & Robert, 2006; Williams, 2008). A communication plan must enable people and organizations to relay information both within their own structures and to the government and general public. When a national or local emergency occurs, demand for information increases dramatically at both the general and individual level. Local governments, businesses, neighborhood communities, and individuals all need a plan of action for communicating with one another — reporting on events and coordinating response procedures (Williams, 2008).
These are not the only lessons to be learned from large-scale disasters, but they represent macro-level changes that could help reduce the inevitable chaos accompanying unforeseen catastrophes.
Donahue, A.K. & Robert, V.T. (2006). Lessons we don't learn: A study of the lessons of disasters, why we repeat them, and how we can learn them. Homeland Security Affairs. Retrieved August 28, 2011, from http://www.hsaj.org.
Everly, G.S., Jr. & Mitchell, J.T. (1999). Critical Incident Stress Management (CISM): A new era and standard of care in crisis intervention (2nd ed.). Ellicott City, MD: Chevron.
Williams, S. (2008). Rethinking the nature of disaster: From failed instruments of learning to a post-social understanding. Social Forces, 87(2), 1115–1138.
You’re 76% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.