The Past: Preparedness Prior to September 11, 2001

The history of U.S. Emergency Management provides a chronology of the hazards faced by the United States, the perceived risk and actions taken to increase readiness.  It shows how through the past two centuries, the risk of hazards elevated these issues to levels of national prominence.
It is interesting to note how these hazards and their risk at that given time drove the creation of legislative policy and the establishment of government entities focused on preparing for the top hazard of the day.
In the early 1800’s, wooden construction and crowded urban areas lead to increasing occurrences of significant fires.  At the time, there was little capacity for responding to this hazard.  The result of increasing risks of fire lead to the passage of the Congressional Fire Disaster Relief Legislation in 1803.  This action was the first time federal resources were made available to assist State and local governments in the event of fires (Shiver, 1).

Throughout the 19th century, numerous disasters including earthquakes, fires, floods and hurricanes wrecked havoc throughout the states.  The national response to these hazards was to pass legislation specific to each hazard.  (Shiver, 2).
In August of 1916, Congress established the Council of National Defense.  The goal was to coordinate industries and resources for national security.  Consisting of the Secretaries of War, Navy, Interior, Agriculture, Commerce and Labor, this Council demonstrated a new emphasis on a broad based partnership approach to protecting people and property from the hazard of an attack by an enemy (Shiver, 3).

Prompted by flooding in 1927, the Lower Mississippi River Flood Control Act of 1928 was passed.  It authorized a series of projects aimed at improving readiness for the flood hazard.  These preparations included building dams, flood storage, channel improvements and floodways (Shiver, 3).
In 1933, the Reconstruction Finance Corporation was given authority by President Roosevelt to provide loans for the repair and reconstruction of public facilities damaged by earthquakes (Shiver, 4).
After World War II, America felt an increased risk of atomic war because of developments in Russia and North Korea.  These new hazards brought on the Federal Civil Defense Act of 1950.  This new thrust of State and local preparedness for wartime emergencies including blast shelters, evacuation policies, fallout shelters and stocking programs aimed at storing food, water and medical supplies (Shiver, 5).

In 1972, the Nixon administration reorganized the Office of Civil Defense into the Defense Civil Preparedness Agency within the Department of Defense.  This agency was charged with preparing for civil defense and natural disasters (Shiver, 10).  This is a critical point where we see a single federal agency responsible for preparedness for both national security and natural disaster hazards.
In 1979, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) was created to prepare for hazards of all types including disasters resulting from natural, technological and enemy attack causes.   Again, with this government reorganization, we saw the federal government consolidating numerous functions including civil preparedness, federal insurance, disaster assistance, fire prevention, flood preparedness, earthquake hazard reduction, terrorism management and warning broadcast programs.  FEMA was given responsibility for policy, resources, as well coordination of federal state and local efforts.  In 1981 FEMA began to adopt the All-Hazards emergency management approach where a single, flexible system was capable of adjusting to many different hazards (Shiver, 14)  Throughout the 1980’s responsibility for several additional hazards was added to FEMA including oil spills, hazardous materials spills, radiological release as well as continuity preparedness for the federal government.

The disasters experienced in the early 1990’s became the real testing grounds for FEMA.  It was during these years, advances in technology and communication led the American public into the customer service age.  When individual, local and state resources were overwhelmed, the people demanded a new level of preparedness from the federal government. 

In 1992, FEMA implemented the Federal Response Plan.  This plan reflected a partnership between twenty-six federal agencies as well as the American Red Cross.  This preparedness initiative formalized public and private partnerships, establishing a process for identifying, requesting and resourcing disaster response.
    Under the leadership of Director James Lee Witt, in 1997 FEMA initiated Project Impact in order to focus on the creation of disaster resistant communities. 
    Throughout the history of the United States, various hazards have presented increased risks.  Federal response to these hazards, including legislation and reorganization has brought about increased readiness.

 
The Present: Preparedness Since September 11, 2001
September 11, 2001 has become a pivotal day in Emergency Management Preparedness history.  On that day, four jet airliners were hijacked and flown into the twin towers of the World Trade Center as well as the Pentagon.  As a result of this act of terrorism, over 5,000 people died and nearly every American industry experienced moderate to severe economic impacts.  America responded well, employing every level of individual, local, state and federal networks to respond and recover.

Taking a second look at this event through the lens of this study yields interesting results.  Was the American system prepared?  Let’s look at our three issues: hazards, risk and readiness.
First, was this a new, unidentified hazard?  No, in the broad sense, terrorism was clearly an identified hazard.  Second, was the risk (probability and consequence) of this hazard new?  No, the probability of a terrorist attack had been identified as a possibility and a large magnitude consequence had been predicted.  Third, how ready was the American system?  On the whole, the individual, local, state and federal response handled the disaster. 

Why then would this disaster stand out from every other in American history?  Although this terrorism disaster was not a new hazard, it demonstrated that in this new age, the unthinkable was very possible.  In addition, it raised the consequence level for a single event to unimaginable levels capable of crippling the entire nation for years.

From a preparedness standpoint, the federal response since 911 has been to move forward with reorganization ideas originated by Congress in the years preceding the disaster.  On November 25, 2002 the National Homeland Security Act was signed into law by President Bush.  This reorganization brings all aspects of National Security, Emergency Preparedness and Response, Chemical Biological Radiological and Nuclear Countermeasures, as well as Information Analysis and Infrastructure Protection under one federal agency.

Analysis of The Past vs. The Present
Comparing the present Department of Homeland Security (DHS) reorganization to similar reorganizations of the past brings up two points of view.
The first point of view is that this current reorganization is simply the evolution of government preparedness.  Just as prior reorganizations brought about a more comprehensive readiness for hazards, so this presidential action is merely the necessary response at this time.

The second point of view is that this reorganization is a duplication of previous actions.  This point of view would state that FEMA already has the necessary responsibility and resources to respond to All-Hazards in the future; that only minor adjustments are needed.  It also points out that the Emergency Management structure responded as designed.  Whereas the major adjustments needed in the intelligence field are left unaddressed by the formation of the DHS.  Additionally, reorganizations of the past have shown that one or more decades were needed to fine-tune the system.  With the current risks that terrorism present, it’s possible that America doesn’t have several decades to prepare.  It’s also possible that the major upheaval caused by this reorganization could leave America unprepared for a terrorist event in the short term. 
Additionally, the second point of view shows that the government could be overly focused on the hazard-of-the-year, terrorism, while forgetting previous advancements in natural disaster preparedness.  It is quite possible that the preparedness and response mechanism for natural hazards could become so buried in the current DHS that it becomes ineffective.

Overall, my analysis concludes that the current administration is taking all the risks posed by the second viewpoint in order to achieve the potential benefits of the reorganization.  My opinion encompasses both stated viewpoints.  I have guarded optimism about the benefits of the ability of the DHS to bring about a more comprehensive All-Hazards preparedness, while recommending that lessons learned through the history of Emergency Management be incorporated.

The Future: Recommendations
My recommendation is to proceed swiftly in implementing the new Department of Homeland Security.  However, there are three issues which are imperative for the government to address in order to properly position the preparedness system of the United States.
First, Secretary Ridge must ensure that the All-Hazards approach to emergency management is strongly emphasized throughout the new department.  The ability to respond to natural hazards must retain the same level of attention as terrorism currently enjoys.  

Second, the Emergency Preparedness and Response branch of the new DHS must retain the same direct access to the President of the United States.  This access is critical to immediate response in Federal Disaster Declarations.

Third, the primary failure of the American system of preparedness during the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks fell within the intelligence community.  Certainly the responsibility of intercepting and interpreting intelligence into information that is available and useful for national preparedness is extremely difficult.

However, this issue of intelligence is not adequately dealt with through this current DHS reorganization.  The intelligence mechanism, comprised primarily by the DoD, FBI and CIA, must be improved to better interpret and disseminate useful information.  Further, the connections between the new DHS and intelligence community must be clearly identified and formalized.

Conclusions
Preparedness involves assessing hazards, risks and implementing readiness measures.  Emergency management in the United States has evolved through the years in order to improve preparedness.  The current reorganization into the new Department of Homeland Security has the potential to provide a more comprehensive preparedness mechanism for the United States.  However, certain issues must be addressed during the reorganization or it will fail to position us for the future.

Acronyms Used

CIA – Central Intelligence Agency

DHS – Department of Homeland Security

DoD – Department of Defense

FBI – Federal Bureau of Intelligence

FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Agency

911 – September 11, 2001


Relevant Websites

http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm#plan

http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/

www.redcross.org

www.disasterrelief.org

www.ama-assn.org

http://216.202.128.19/dr/flash.htm

www.disasters.org

http://dcema.dc.gov

www.emergency-management.net

http://epix.hazard.net






 

Research Bibliography

Auf der Heide, Erik.  Disaster Response: Principles of Preparation and Coordination.  Available Online http://216.202.128.19. 1989.

Batkin, Josh.  Presentation on the History of Preparedness and Analysis of Legislation for Department of Homeland Security. Washington, DC.  2002

Federal Emergency Management Agency. Prevention and Preparedness. Available Online (http://www.fema.gov/library/prepandprev.shtm#plan).  Washington, DC.  2002

Haddow, George. Emergency Management Textbook. Washington, DC.  2002

Schwartz. Arlington Fire Department, Assistant Chief.  Presentation on Incident Command System. Washington, DC.  2002

Shivar, Rick.  Historical Overview of U.S. Emergency Management.  Washington, DC.  1999.

Stafford, Robert T. The Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, U.S.C. 5121. Available Online (http://www.fema.gov/library/stafact.shtm). Washington, DC. 1979.

Upham, Donald M. Los Angeles County Fire Department Battalion Chief (Retired) Interviews on the Past and Present State of Emergency Preparedness. Arcadia, CA. 2002.

Waugh, William L.  Living with Hazards Dealing with Disasters: An Introduction to Emergency Management. M. E. Sharpe, Inc. Armonk, NY. 2000

White House. The Department of Homeland Security. Available Online (http://www.whitehouse.gov/deptofhomeland/). Washington, DC.  2002