This paper examines government disaster planning from the federal to the local level, focusing on risk management frameworks designed to address natural disasters, man-made emergencies, and terrorism. It outlines the six core paradigms of risk management, the roles of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, and the National Incident Management System. Using a hypothetical earthquake in a medium-sized Colorado town as a case study, the paper illustrates how multiple agencies coordinate responses across critical areas such as public safety, utilities, medical care, food and shelter, and vulnerable populations. The discussion highlights the importance of pre-planning, community involvement, and interagency communication.
The paper effectively uses a hypothetical case study to operationalize theoretical concepts. By translating the six risk management paradigms into a fictional but realistic earthquake scenario, the author demonstrates applied analysis — showing how abstract planning standards translate into on-the-ground agency assignments and resource deployment decisions.
The paper opens with a broad definition of risk management and its six organizing paradigms, then narrows to the U.S. federal framework and FEMA's specific mandate. It transitions into a scenario-based illustration — a Colorado earthquake — and concludes with a detailed response table assigning responsibilities across agencies for distinct emergency categories, from vulnerable populations to utilities and medical care.
In the modern era, it is important that government — from the federal to the local level — have risk management plans in place for natural disasters, man-made emergencies, and terrorism. Generally speaking, risk management helps identify, prioritize, and put plans in place regarding areas of risk that can impact a community. The overall purpose of risk management is to enable agencies to be proactive in identifying and implementing plans for disasters and risks, since in the modern world these plans involve numerous agencies and complex coordination.
Thankfully, standards have been developed that organize risk management around six general paradigms: 1) Identifying risks in the context of the area (e.g., flood planning is less critical in Arizona than in Louisiana); 2) Planning a process to mitigate the situation, including who is in charge; 3) Mapping the objectives of stakeholders and who will be involved; 4) Developing a framework for different risk scenarios; 5) Assessing and putting in place analysis tools and communications protocols; and 6) Implementing a plan that uses the tools and personnel identified for specific types of disasters (Wan, 2009; Frenkel, et al., 2005).
In the United States, the two lead agencies for disaster planning and management are the Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Because the United States is divided into regions, it falls to FEMA to help local agencies adequately manage plans and resources under the National Incident Management System. Local and citizen involvement is central to this system, and agencies from the local to the federal level have been tasked with providing training through FEMA-managed Community Response Teams.
As part of its charter, FEMA has provisions to encourage and develop dialogue, coordination, and networking between experts in specific disaster types — including floods, earthquakes, severe weather, and bombings — and the communities they serve. This ensures that sufficient pre-planning occurs to anticipate challenges and prevent wasted time and resources should a disaster strike (Ruben, 2007).
For illustrative purposes, consider a scenario in which an earthquake strikes a medium-sized town at the foothills of the Rocky Mountains in Colorado. Once the earthquake is detected, the Governor of Colorado would contact FEMA and liaise through relevant agencies to secure support from disaster relief and medical personnel. The National Guard for local areas would be called in to provide air rescue, emergency medical care, airlifts to nearby hospitals, and crime control. The Colorado Division of Emergency Management would likely serve as the coordinating agency in charge of managing resources, while FEMA would deploy personnel to help coordinate with citizen groups as necessary (FEMA, 2013; VOAD, 2013; Colorado Division of Emergency Management, 2013).
Effective disaster response depends on pre-established frameworks, clearly defined agency roles, and meaningful community involvement at every level of government. The six paradigms of risk management, combined with coordinated federal and local agency action, provide a structured foundation for anticipating and responding to a wide range of emergencies — from natural disasters like earthquakes to man-made crises.
Colorado Division of Emergency Management. (2013). News, info and preparedness. Retrieved from http://www.coemergency.com/
Drabek, T., et al. (1991). Emergency management: Principles and practices for local government. International City Management Association.
FEMA. (2013). National Earthquake Technical Assistance Program. Retrieved from
Frenkel, M., Hommel, U., & Rudolf, M. (Eds.). (2005). Risk management: Challenge and opportunity. Springer.
Ruben, B. (2007). Disaster preparedness and emergency management.
Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster. (2013). Welcome to Colorado VOAD! Retrieved from
Wan, S. (2009). Service impact analysis using business continuity planning processes. Campus-Wide Information Systems, 26(1), 20–42.
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.