Personal Reflections: “Setting Realistic Expectations”

By Mark Roupas

“I think we promised a lot more than we could deliver. And then I think we delivered a lot less than citizens expected.” John C. Gannon, Vice President for Global Analysis, BAE Systems.[1]

What are the expectations of Americans when it comes to emergency response? We all expect that the fire, police or emergency services will respond quickly when we dial for help on 911, but what about larger disaster responses? Are our expectations for a Federal response now predicated on being on site in minutes instead of hours or days later? In this era of instant gratification, drive through service, and trying to “fix the failure of Katrina”, are we creating a Federal response standard that cannot be met?

One of the adages in emergency management is that “all disasters are local.” The National Response Framework (NRF) continues to convey this theme, “Incidents must be managed at the lowest possible jurisdictional level and supported by additional capabilities when needed.[2]” There is no disagreement that when disaster strikes, local governments will always be the first to respond. But the question remains, how long should communities (and American citizens) be prepared to respond before an organized Federal response is provided?

The NRF is silent on this but historical guidelines suggest communities should plan and prepare to respond to disasters for the initial 72 hours following the incident.[3] When needs are beyond their capabilities, state assistance can be requested and if needed the Governor of the affected state can request Federal assistance under the Stafford Act. In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina however, there has been a major shift towards a more proactive Federal response and disaster assistance into the disaster site much earlier than ever before.

By advancing this push or anticipation of Federal resources and requirements in advance of a major disaster, are we now declaring that “all disaster are now Federal?” And if so, what are the second and third order effects this might have on disaster planning and response? One of the issues now being seen is the virtual elimination of the “cost-share” in disaster response. States no longer expect a 25/75% cost sharing between them and the Federal government but are now asking for 100% Federal funding. Regarding the use of National Guard forces, most States are now expecting their forces to be placed into a Title 32 status versus performing disaster response operations in a State Active Duty role. The issue for States is that instead of waiting for reimbursement from FEMA, State governors now expect the Department of Defense to pay for National Guard disaster employment under Title 32 with immediate reimbursement.

Finally, if we look at disaster planning, how many States are committing their own funds to prepare integrated disaster plans? Most of the money provided to support disaster planning efforts is provided now by FEMA under its State and Local grants missions. If all disasters are local, shouldn’t the States and locals bear the cost of improving their disaster planning to ensure a more coordinated and effective response between all levels of government?

I realize some readers will respond to my questions with answers that State and locals don’t have the money to pay for these positions and the more strident might go so far to imply that my alternative means more Americans will die during the next disaster. My response to these comments is simple, there remains and should be a measure of personal responsibility in preparing for disasters. Individuals and families have a role to play in responding to a disaster. If we could have a general population equipped to sustain themselves for at least 72 hours, it will free first responders and rescuers to focus on those who are truly needy: the sick, the elderly, and others with specials needs.

Second, if the Federal government adopted a disaster readiness campaign that focused attention on the first 72 hours after a disaster, perhaps we could remove the expectation of immediate Federal assistance and place the emphasis back on where it belongs at the State, local and personal level. While we have made improvements to Federal disaster response after Hurricane Katrina, we have not prepared the American public for the aftermath of a no-notice catastrophic event. If the new administration wants to make an immediate impact on disaster response, it should promote such a campaign.

[1] Homeland Defense Journal, “Readiness in America,” by Dan Verton. April 2006.

[2] National Response Framework, January 2008, online at http://www.fema.gov/pdf/emergency/nrf/nrf-core.pdf

[3] FEMA Press Release #R3-07-002b, “Priorities During a Disaster Response,” dated June 6, 2007.