This paper examines the structure and evolution of emergency management policy in the United States, tracing the roles of federal, state, and local agencies in building readiness systems. It discusses the distinction between emergency management and emergency response, the responsibilities of the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, and the contributions of public and private sector organizations. The paper also addresses social vulnerabilities — including how poverty and cultural factors affect access to emergency services — as well as the legal mandates, presidential policies, and incentive structures that shape preparedness. Drawing on incidents such as the 9/11 attacks and Hurricane Katrina, it highlights how major events continue to refine emergency planning frameworks.
As a representative democracy, the United States tries to include as many people and interests as possible in its decision-making processes. Seldom has this practice been more challenged than since the country's intensive focus on emergency planning and preparedness — a focus brought about by a series of high-profile incidents that have caused death, destruction, fear, and critical assessments of national capabilities, including the 9/11 terror attacks (Perry and Lindell, 2003). For the most part, the main sources of action in this regard have come from the federal government, which has been adopting various mandates and incentives to invite more effective systems of readiness.
State and local agencies, as well as private and public organizations, have also found their places in these steadily improving processes, even though they continue to struggle with the many complexities of being ready for all types of conditions. Large and small institutions of many kinds have likewise begun to see the value in what it takes to "prepare for the expected to be prepared for the unexpected" (ERCMExpress, 2006). Even the most reluctant stakeholders seem to be accepting that when viewed in this way, they are less inclined to pretend that disasters might never actually be upon us (Perry and Lindell, 2003, p. 347).
When it comes to emergency management planning, the federal government has put into place many of the core operational elements under the control of the Department of Homeland Security. Under this structure, policies and legal expectations are usually initiated by legislation that starts either in the House of Representatives or the Senate, where elected representatives hear from experts, receive assessments, and weigh the consequences of taking or not taking action. Based on this input, specific laws are passed, and department heads — working at the direction of the President — seek to implement their requirements.
Local governments and regional or state organizations with a wide variety of expertise then get involved and begin to offer their assistance in ensuring that each community is ready for whatever emergency may occur. FEMA maintains a National Resource Center that helps centralize and clarify what these expectations and requirements are (FEMA, 2012).
One of the most important issues in emergency management centers on understanding the difference between emergency management and emergency response. Waugh and Streib (2006) have helped clarify this distinction by noting that the key elements of emergency management go beyond the kinds of issues that first responders — such as police officers and firefighters — are usually tied to, such as emergency care, medical assistance, temporary shelter, and feeding. While these elements are involved, emergency management also concentrates on hazard mitigation, general community disaster preparedness, specific disaster response activities following an incident, and disaster recovery — that is, knowing how to get the community back on its feet again (Waugh and Streib, 2006, p. 131). How these aspects are operationalized depends on which components have an interest or the capabilities to assist, and on which infrastructure resources — from health care to schools to general community services — have a stake in collaborating for effective readiness (CAN HealthPro, 2007).
Within the United States, the most important roles and responsibilities for significant emergency conditions flow down from the Department of Homeland Security. The department has been provided the legal authority and resource streams necessary to react to or even anticipate such conditions and, when possible, to share its capabilities with local authorities. But the fact is that most of the real work comes from the ground up (Waugh and Streib, 2006, p. 133). Local police and firefighters, as well as most public health entities, now have specific protocols in place that can be activated as needed, often through one or another command and control site (MRSC, 2011).
The National Incident Management System, which is part of FEMA, is primarily responsible for undertaking hands-on coordination tasks. Other departments, such as the U.S. Fire Administration, have developed continuity of government and responder services to help ensure that their resources remain readily available and that command capabilities are not lost. Most local governments maintain their own community and state systems to help ensure that vital records, information about local resources, access to local decision-making, and other capabilities are preserved (MRSC, 2011).
This top-down approach also facilitates communications collaboration, commonly referred to as interoperability. As FEMA (2012) explains, "Communications interoperability allows emergency management/response personnel and their affiliated organizations to communicate within and across agencies and jurisdictions via voice, data, or video in real time, when needed, and when authorized."
"Sector roles and presidential authority in crises"
"Adaptability, Katrina lessons, and equity concerns"
"Legal requirements and financial incentives for preparedness"
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.