Crisis Management: Hurricane Katrina and SARS in Toronto
This paper examines the crisis management failures underlying two major disasters: Hurricane Katrina's devastating impact on New Orleans and the SARS outbreak in Toronto. Drawing on case studies from the Kennedy School of Government and communication research, the paper analyzes how breakdowns in information sharing, inadequate preparation, and poor coordination between agencies magnified both crises. It argues that despite differing natures — one meteorological, one epidemiological — both disasters shared common systemic failures: overoptimistic assumptions, interagency mistrust, and delayed containment responses. The paper also considers the social dimensions of Katrina, including the disproportionate impact on low-income and minority residents.
- Introduction: Two Disasters, Common Failures: Framing of Katrina and SARS as parallel failures
- Hurricane Katrina: Preparation and Its Limits: New Orleans' disaster planning and its shortcomings
- Communication Breakdown in the Katrina Response: Interagency mistrust and failed information sharing
- Toronto's SARS Outbreak: A Failure of Containment: Hospital response failures and early missed signals
- Interagency Communication and the SARS Response: Public health coordination gaps during SARS
- Social Dimensions and Broader Lessons: Race, class, equity, and systemic takeaways
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- The comparative structure is well-chosen: placing a natural disaster alongside an epidemiological crisis reveals that systemic communication and coordination failures — not the nature of the hazard — are the primary driver of poor outcomes.
- The paper uses specific, cited evidence from Kennedy School case studies to ground its arguments, lending academic credibility to each analytical claim.
- The conclusion draws a meaningful social justice dimension into the Katrina analysis, elevating the paper beyond pure logistics into a discussion of equity and accountability.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs comparative case analysis, systematically holding two distinct disasters against the same analytical framework — anticipation, communication, and containment — to identify generalizable lessons about institutional failure. This technique is effective because differences between cases (predictable vs. unpredictable, natural vs. biological) become control variables that highlight the universality of the identified failures.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a framing introduction that establishes the two cases and their significance. It then treats each disaster sequentially, first analyzing Katrina's preparation and communication failures, then SARS containment and interagency breakdown. A final section synthesizes both cases by comparing their social dimensions and drawing broader policy conclusions. The structure is logical, parallel, and easy to follow.
Introduction: Two Disasters, Common Failures
Crisis management and the Incident Command System (ICS) were put to severe tests by two very different disasters: Hurricane Katrina's devastation of New Orleans and the SARS (Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome) outbreak in Toronto. Hurricane Katrina was a natural, weather-related disaster; SARS was an unexpected disease outbreak. Both presented logistical and biological challenges that strained the existing disaster mitigation policies of their respective cities. While hindsight is always 20/20, as the cliché goes, both cities could arguably have been far better prepared for the disasters they suffered. New Orleans was notoriously flood-prone and had endured poorly coordinated disaster responses in the past; Toronto's public health system failed to engage in effective disease mitigation when confronted with a novel pathogen.
Hurricane Katrina: Preparation and Its Limits
Arguably, the extent to which Hurricane Katrina damaged New Orleans was somewhat predictable, given the nature of the city's location. Although the city did have a disaster mitigation plan, it was not fully prepared for the scale of damage that included three significant breaches of the levees. The city filled with water, leaving residents scrambling to reach their rooftops (Scott 2006: 27). Despite long-standing predictions that a catastrophic hurricane would one day strike the city, some residents dismissed warnings as mere "Chicken Little" worrying and refused to evacuate. Many others, however, simply did not have cars or adequate transportation to leave, and temporary outside shelters were either full or inadequate (Scott 2006: 1).
Prior to landfall, the city had felt prepared, given its activation of emergency escape plans, the readiness of shelters, and the preparation of equipment (Scott 2006: 2). The city had also gained experience through Hurricane Ivan, which had posed many similar challenges (Scott 2006: 6). However, certain aspects of the crisis remained unanticipated: that many residents would be unable to evacuate in personal vehicles, as had originally been assumed, and that shelters would need to support residents for a far longer period than planned.
Communication Breakdown in the Katrina Response
The Katrina response has been called a failure in part due to a total breakdown of information sharing and communication between local, state, and federal authorities. Information sharing is critical during a natural disaster when time is of the essence. The most effective means of communication during the crisis proved to be cellphones and the Internet (Garnett & Kouzmin 2007: 179). Between more formal channels of communication among responders, there was a great deal of mistrust and contempt, including toward state agencies that picked up much of the slack left by an underfunded FEMA (Garnett & Kouzmin 2007: 181).
Although storms can be difficult to predict precisely, the severity of a storm like Katrina should arguably have been better anticipated. Given the logistical vulnerabilities of New Orleans as a city, the question was not if a hurricane would strike with such devastating impact, but when.
Toronto's SARS Outbreak: A Failure of Containment
In contrast, biological events such as SARS, which had a devastating impact on Toronto as well as on Asia, can be far more difficult to anticipate in terms of their severity and method of transmission. Indeed, SARS had only been identified by the World Health Organization as a threat three weeks before the Toronto outbreak began (Varley 2005: 2).
Despite the much shorter notice, Toronto hospitals could have been far better prepared. Once the outbreak was identified in Asia, Toronto should have been particularly alert given its large Asian community and the volume of international traffic between the city and affected nations. When the first patient reporting symptoms was hospitalized, she was not properly isolated, nor did hospital staff engage in effective disease containment efforts — the assumption was that the patient's condition was a standard case of pneumonia (Varley 2005: 3–4). The best-case scenario was anticipated rather than the worst. In retrospect, even if the case had been merely pneumonia, no appropriate measures were taken to contain the spread of infection.
References
Garnett, J., & Kouzmin, A. (2007). Communicating through Katrina: Competing and complementary conceptual lenses on crisis communication. Public Administration Review, 171–188.
Scott, E. (2006). Hurricane Katrina: Preparing for the 'Big One' in New Orleans. Kennedy School of Government.
Varley, P. (2005). Emergency response system under duress: The public health fight to contain SARS in Toronto. Kennedy School of Government.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.