NCJ Number
212320
Date Published
2005
Length
26 pages
Annotation
This examination of a funding strategy for homeland security favors priority support for procedures and equipment that can be used across various types of disasters regardless of their causes.
Abstract
Emergency management has been traditionally defined as having four phases: mitigation, preparedness, response, and recovery. The current challenge for local emergency managers is to balance preparedness for preventing and responding to terrorism while maintaining the capability for mitigating the impact of natural disasters, which are more likely to impact various localities than a terrorist attack. An all-hazards emergency management strategy holds that efficient preparation for any disaster that impacts a community can be used in the construction of a model for responding to any other major disaster, regardless of its cause; for example, in California, most communities prepare for earthquakes; whereas, in Florida, communities prepare for hurricanes; however, in both geographic areas, an explosion can be managed under the same emergency operations plan and the same emergency operations center. This perspective suggests that funding for emergency preparedness at all governmental levels should focus less on specific threats or disaster causes and more on training, procedures, and equipment that can be used in responding to any incident that threatens the lives and security of masses of people, regardless of its cause. This chapter discusses how the Federal Government's focus on terrorism after the September 11th attacks has failed to follow such an all-hazards model of emergency preparedness and how this has impacted local governments' homeland security systems. In its conclusion, this chapter advises that "securing the homeland means providing every resident with a sense of security against the hazards most likely to occur in their hometowns within their lifetimes." 13 recommended readings, 66 notes, and discussion questions