**Chapter 1**

**Introduction to Crisis, Disaster, and Risk**

**Management Concepts**

### Introduction

Emergency management is most simply defined as the discipline dealing
with risk and risk avoidance. Risk represents a broad range of issues
and includes an equally diverse set of players. The range of situations
and events that could potentially involve emergency management or the
emergency management system is extensive. It is undeniable that
emergency management is integral to the security of our daily lives, and
as such it should be integrated into our daily decisions rather than
being called upon only in response to major disasters.

Emergency management is an essential role of government. The
Constitution tasks the States with responsibility for public health and
safety -- hence they are responsible for public risks. The Federal
government assumes a secondary role. The Federal Government's ultimate
obligation is to help when State, local or individual entities are
overwhelmed. Despite significant changes to emergency management that
have occurred in response to the September 11^th^, 2001 terrorist
attacks, this fundamental philosophy continues to guide the government
function of emergency management.

Based on this strong foundation, the validity of emergency management as
a government function has never fallen into question. Entities and
organizations fulfilling emergency management needs have existed at the
State and local level since long before the Federal government became
involved. But through time, as political philosophies changed and as the
Nation developed, the Federal Government role in emergency management
has steadily increased to become the multi-billion dollar program that
exists today.

The purpose of this chapter is to introduce the reader to current and
historical crisis, disaster and risk management concepts, to define the
four phases of emergency management, and to highlight issues concerning
communications, business continuity planning and international disaster
programs. Also included in this chapter is a discussion of the
attributes of a successful emergency management system that will be
illustrated in the case studies presented in this book.

This chapter includes the following sections:

-   Review of Historical Trends in Emergency Management

-   Four Phases of Emergency Management

-   Communications

-   Business Continuity Planning and Emergency Management

-   International Disaster Programs

-   Emergency Management and the New Terrorism Threat

-   Attributes of Successful Emergency Management Programs and Functions

-   Brief Descriptions of Case Studies

**Review of Historical Trends in Emergency Management**

## Early History -- 1800-1950

In 1803, a Congressional Act was passed to provide financial assistance
to a New Hampshire town devastated by fire. This is the first example of
Federal government involvement in a local disaster.

During the 1930's the Reconstruction Finance Corporation and the Bureau
of Public Roads were both given authority to make disaster loans
available for repair and reconstruction of certain public facilities
after disasters. The Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA) was created during
this time to produce hydroelectric power and, as a secondary purpose, to
reduce flooding in the region.

During this period, a significant piece of emergency management
legislation was passed by Congress. The Flood Control Act of 1934 gave
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers increased authority to design and build
flood control projects.

## The Cold War and the Rise of Civil Defense -- 1950s

The next notable era in the evolution of emergency management took place
during the 1950's. The Cold War years presented as the principal
disaster risk the potential for nuclear war and its subsequent
radioactive fallout. Civil Defense programs proliferated across
communities during this time.

Almost every American community maintained a civil defense director, and
most States had an official who represented civil defense in the State
government hierarchy. By profession, these individuals were primarily
retired military personnel, and their operations received little
political or financial support from their State or local governments.

Federal support for these civil defense activities was vested in the
Federal Civil Defense Administration (FCDA), an organization with
minimal staff and financial resources, and whose main role was to
provide technical assistance. However, the State and local civil defense
directors became the first recognized face of emergency management in
the U.S.

A companion office to the FCDA, the Office of Defense Mobilization, was
established under the Department of Defense (DOD). The primary functions
of this Office were to allow for quick mobilization of assets and
materials and the production and stockpiling of critical materials in
the event of a war. FCDA operations included a function called emergency
preparedness. In 1958, these two offices were merged into the Office of
Civil and Defense Mobilization.

The 1950's decade was a quiet period in regards to large-scale natural
disasters, though three major hurricanes did strike with considerable
impact. Hurricane Hazel, a Category 4 hurricane, inflicted significant
damage in Virginia and North Carolina in 1954, Hurricane Diane hit
several Mid-Atlantic and Northeastern states in 1955, and Hurricane
Audrey, the most damaging of the three storms, struck Louisiana and
North Texas in 1957. Congressional response to these disasters followed
a familiar pattern of ad hoc legislation to provide increased disaster
assistance funds to the impacted areas.

As the 1960's began, three major natural disaster events occurred. In
1960 in a sparsely populated area of Montana, the Hebgen Lake Earthquake
(measuring 7.3 on the Richter scale) brought attention to the fact that
the Nation's seismic risk extended far beyond the California borders.
Also in that same year, Hurricane Donna struck the West coast of
Florida, followed by Hurricane Carla which blew into Texas in 1961. The
incoming Kennedy Administration decided to change the Federal approach
to disasters and emergency management. In 1961, President John F.
Kennedy created the Office of Emergency Preparedness inside the White
House to handle the growing risk of natural disasters. Civil Defense
responsibilities, however, remained in the Office of Civil Defense
within DOD.

Changes to Emergency Management -- 1960s

As the 1960's progressed, the United States was affected by a series of
major natural disasters. The Ash Wednesday Storm in 1962 devastated over
620 miles of shoreline on the East Coast, producing over \$300 million
in damages. Then, in 1964, an destructive earthquake in Alaska's Prince
William Sound that measured 9.2 on the Richter scale generated tsunamis
that affected beaches as far down the Pacific Coast as California and
killed 123 people -- the event garnered front-page newspaper headlines
throughout America and the world. Hurricane Betsy (1965) and Hurricane
Camille (1969) were both significant in regards to their force and fury,
killing and injuring hundreds of people and causing hundreds of millions
of dollars in damage along the Gulf Coast.

As with previous disasters, the response to each of these events was the
passage of ad hoc legislation for disaster relief funds. However, the
financial losses resulting from Hurricane Betsy's path across Florida
and Louisiana initiated the discussion of insurance as a protection
against future floods and a potential method to reduce continual
government assistance after disasters. Congressional interest was
prompted by the unavailability of flood protection insurance on the
standard homeowner policy. Such protection was in fact available in some
areas, but it was prohibitively expensive and therefore rarely
purchased. These discussions ultimately led to passage of the National
Flood Insurance Act of 1968 that created the National Flood Insurance
Program (NFIP).

The Call for a National Focus to Emergency Management -- 1970s

In the 1970's, responsibility for various emergency management functions
were evident in more than five Federal Departments and Agencies,
including the Department of Commerce (weather, warning and fire
protection); the General Services Administration (continuity of
government, stockpiling, federal preparedness), the Treasury Department
(import investigation), the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (power plants)
and the Department of Housing and Urban Development (flood insurance and
disaster relief). Within the military, there existed the Defense Civil
Preparedness Agency (nuclear attack) and the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (flood control). Overall, however, when one looked at the
broad range of risks and potential disasters it became apparent that
more than 100 federal agencies were involved in some aspect of risk and
disaster management.

With passage of the Disaster Relief Act of 1974, prompted by the
previously mentioned hurricanes and the San Fernando earthquake of 1971,
the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) possessed the most
significant authority for natural disaster response and recovery. This
existed through the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) under the
Federal Insurance Administration (FIA) and the Federal Disaster
Assistance Administration (disaster response, temporary housing and
assistance).

The scattered pattern of placement of disaster management functions
extended down to the State and, to a lesser extent, local levels. There
were parallel organizations and programs that added to confusion and
turf wars especially during disaster response efforts. The State
governments and the Governors grew increasingly frustrated over this
fragmentation. In response to the absence of a unified and effective
Federal lead agency in emergency management, a group of State Civil
Defense Directors led by Lacy Suiter of Tennessee and Erie Jones of
Illinois launched an effort through the National Governor's Association
to consolidate Federal emergency management activities into a single
agency.

In the midst of these discussions, the accident at the Three Mile Island
Nuclear Power Plant in Pennsylvania occurred, which added impetus to the
ongoing consolidation effort. This event centered national media
attention on the lack of adequate off-site preparedness around
commercial nuclear power plants, and highlighted the role of the Federal
government in responding to such an event.

On June 19, 1978, President Carter transmitted to the Congress, the
Reorganization Plan Number 3 (3 CFR 1978, 5 U.S. Code 903). The stated
and achieved intent of this plan was to consolidate emergency
preparedness, mitigation, and response activities into one federal
emergency management organization. The President proclaimed that the
plan would provide for the establishment of the Federal Emergency
Management Agency (FEMA) and that the FEMA Director would report
directly to the President.

Reorganization Plan No.3 transferred the following agencies or functions
to FEMA: National Fire Prevention Control Administration (Department of
Commerce); Federal Insurance Administration (HUD); Federal Broadcast
System (Executive Office of the President); Defense Civil Preparedness
Agency (DOD); Federal Disaster Assistance Administration (HUD); and the
Federal Preparedness Agency (GSA).

Additional transfers of emergency preparedness and mitigation functions
to FEMA were: Oversight of the Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program
(Office of Science and Technology Policy); coordination of dam safety
(Office of Science and Technology Policy); assistance to communities in
the development of readiness plans for severe weather related
emergencies; coordination of natural and nuclear disaster warning
systems; and coordination of preparedness and planning to reduce the
consequences of major terrorist incidents.

## Civil Defense Reappears as Nuclear Attack Planning -- 1980s

The early and mid-1980's presented FEMA with many challenges, though no
significant natural disasters occurred. The absence of the need for a
coherent Federal response to disasters, as was called for by Congress
when it approved the establishment of FEMA, allowed FEMA to exist and
operate as an organization composed of many separate parts.

In 1982, President Reagan appointed General Louis O. Guiffrida as
Director of FEMA. Mr. Guiffrida, a Californian and close friend of
Presidential advisor Ed Meese, had a background in terrorism
preparedness and training at the State government level.

General Guiffrida proceeded to reorganize FEMA consistent with
Administration policies and his background; top priority was placed on
government preparedness for a nuclear attack. Resources within the
Agency were realigned and additional budget authority was sought to
enhance and elevate the National Security responsibilities of the
Agency. With no real role for the States in these National Security
activities, the State Directors who had lobbied for the creation of FEMA
saw their authority and Federal funding declining.

During Guiffrida's tenure FEMA faced several unusual challenges that
stretched its authority. This included asserting FEMA into the lead role
for continuity of civilian government in the aftermath of a nuclear
attack, managing the Federal response to the contamination at Love Canal
and Times Beach, Missouri, and the Cuban refugee crisis. Although
Guifridda managed to bring the Agency physically together in a new
Headquarters Building in Southwest Washington, severe morale problems
persisted.

Dislike of Guiffrida's style and questions about the Agency's operations
came to the attention of U.S. Representative Al Gore of Tennessee who
then served on the House Science and Technology Committee. As the
Congressional hearings proceeded, the Department of Justice and a grand
jury began investigations of senior political officials at FEMA. These
inquiries led to the resignation of Guiffrida and top aides in response
to a variety of charges including misuse of government funds.

President Reagan then selected General Julius Becton to be director of
FEMA. General Becton was a retired military General and had been the
Director of the Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance in the State
Department.

General Becton is uniformly credited with restoring integrity to the
operations and appropriations of the Agency. From a policy standpoint,
he continued to emphasize the programs of his predecessor but in a less
visible manner. Becton himself expanded the duties of FEMA when he was
asked by DOD to take over the program dealing with the off-site cleanup
of chemical stockpiles on DOD bases. This program was fraught with
problems and bad feelings existed between the communities and the bases
over the funds available to the communities for the cleanup. FEMA had
minimal technical expertise to administer this program and was dependent
on DOD/Army for the funding. This situation led to political problems
for the Agency and prevented significant advancements in local emergency
management operations (as had been promised by DOD).

During his tenure, General Becton ranked the programs in the FEMA by
level of importance. Of over 20 major programs that were listed, the
earthquake, hurricane and flood programs ranked near the bottom. In
reaction to the absence of any significant natural hazards during the
immediately preceding years, such a ranking did not come as a surprise.
This fact is also noteworthy in the context that it continued the
pattern of isolating resources for National Security priorities without
recognizing the potential for a major natural disaster.

This issue was raised, again by then Senator Al Gore, in hearings on
FEMA's responsibilities as lead Agency for the National Earthquake
Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP). Senator Gore, reacting to a
scientific report that said there could be up to 200,000 casualties from
an earthquake occurring on the New Madrid fault, felt FEMA's priorities
were misplaced. The legislation that created the NEHRP called on FEMA to
develop a plan for how the Federal government would respond to a
catastrophic earthquake. This Federal Response Plan would later become
the operating Bible for all of the Federal agencies response operations.
Senator Gore concluded that FEMA needed to spend more time working with
its Federal, State and local partners on natural hazards planning.

## 

As Congress debated, and finally passed, major reform of federal
disaster policy as part of the Stewart McKinney-Robert Stafford Act, the
promise of FEMA and its ability to support a national emergency
management system remained in doubt.

At the closing of the 1980's, FEMA was an Agency in trouble. It suffered
from severe morale problems, disparate leadership, and conflicts over
Agency spending and priorities with its partners at the State and local
levels. In 1989, the occurrence of two devastating natural disasters
called into question the continued existence of FEMA.

In September of 1989, Hurricane Hugo slammed into North Carolina and
South Carolina, after first inflicting damage in both Puerto Rico and
the Virgin Islands. It was the worst hurricane in a decade with over
\$15 billion in damages and 85 deaths. FEMA was slow to respond, having
waited for the events to occur and for the Governors to decide what to
do. South Carolina Senator Ernest Hollings personally called the FEMA
Director and asked for help, but the Agency did so at a very slow pace.
Hollings responded by appearing on national television to berate FEMA in
a most colorful way, calling the Agency the "sorriest bunch of
bureaucratic jackasses".

Less than a month later, the Bay Area of California was rocked by the
Loma Prieta Earthquake as the 1989 World Series got underway in Oakland
Stadium. The response was equally slow and, likewise, criticized.

In August 1992, within months of each other, Hurricane Andrew struck
Florida and Louisiana and Hurricane Iniki struck Hawaii . FEMA was
clearly unprepared, as were FEMA's partners at the State level. The
Agency's failure to respond was witnessed by Americans across the entire
country as major news organizations documented the crisis. The efficacy
of FEMA as the national emergency response agency was clearly in doubt.
President Bush dispatched then Secretary of Transportation, Andrew Card
to take over the response operation, which was tasked to the military.

## All-Hazards Approach - 1990s

When President Clinton nominated James Lee Witt as the Director of FEMA,
he breathed life back into FEMA and brought a much-needed new leadership
style to the troubled Agency. Witt was the first Director of FEMA with
actual emergency management experience. He had come from the
constituency who had played a major role in creating FEMA but had been
forgotten; the State Directors. With Witt, President Clinton had given
FEMA increased credibility and more importantly, a skilled politician
who knew the importance of building partnerships and serving one's
customers.

Witt's leadership and the changes he made were quickly tested, as the
Nation experienced an unprecedented series of natural disasters during
his years at the Agency. The Midwest Floods in 1993 resulted in major
disaster declarations in nine States. These floods, and their expansive
and devastating consequences, called into question the value of some of
the flood control measures initiated long ago as part of the 1930's
Corps of Engineers' legislation. FEMA's successful response to the
event, however, brought about the opportunity to change the focus of
emergency management from post disaster recovery to pre-disaster
mitigation. Such a shift was initiated through the creation of the
largest voluntary buy out and relocation program to date, which sought
simply to move people out of the floodplain and thus, out of harm's way.

The Northridge (CA) Earthquake of 1994 quickly followed the Midwest
Floods. This event tested all of FEMA's newly streamlined approaches and
their advancements in service delivery technology (and even led to the
creation of new policies and technologies). The Federal response to this
event was hailed as an overall success.

When President Clinton elevated Witt as Director of FEMA to be a member
of his Cabinet, the value and importance of emergency management was
recognized. Witt used this as an opportunity to lobby the Nation's
Governors to include their state emergency management directors in their
Cabinets.

The Oklahoma City Bombing in April 1995 represented a new phase in the
evolution of emergency management in the United States. This event,
which followed the less destructive first bombing of the World Trade
Center in New York City in 1992, elevated the issue of the nation's
preparedness for terrorism events. As emergency management
responsibilities were (and still are) defined by recognized risks and
the consequences of those risks, responding to terrorist threats were
included in FEMA's domain. The Oklahoma City bombing tested this thesis
and set the stage for inter-agency disagreements over which Agency would
be in charge of terrorism.

The Nunn-Lugar legislation of 1995 opened the question of who would be
the lead agency in terrorism. Many fault FEMA executives for not quickly
claiming that leadership role. As such, the late 1990's were marked by
several different agencies and departments asserting their individual
roles in terrorism planning. The question of who would be the first
responder to a terrorism incident - fire, police, emergency management
or emergency medical services -- was closely examined without any clear
answers resulting. The State Directors were looking for FEMA to claim
this leadership role, but the leadership of FEMA vacillated on this
issue in an uncharacteristic way. Terrorism was certainly part of the
all-hazards approach to emergency management championed by FEMA, but the
resources and technologies needed to address specific issues such as a
chemical, biological, and other weapons of mass destruction events
seemed well beyond the reach of the current emergency management
structure.

While this debate continued, FEMA took an important step in its
commitment to disaster mitigation by launching a national initiative to
promote a new community-based approach called Project Impact. Project
Impact: Building Disaster Resistant Communities was designed to
mainstream emergency management and mitigation practices into every
American community. The project sought to reach back to the roots of
emergency management, asking communities to identify their risks and
establish plans to reduce those risks. It tasked communities with
establishing partnerships that would include all the communities'
stakeholders including, for the first time, the business sector.

The ultimate goal of the Project Impact concept was to incorporate
decisions about risk and risk avoidance into the community's everyday
decision-making processes. By building a disaster resistant community,
the community would promote sustainable economic development, protect
and enhance its natural resources, and ensure a better quality of life
for its citizens. Project Impact had ambitious goals and was well
received by the communities and by Congress. It was designed to create a
broader constituency - a grass roots campaign - for emergency management
issues.

As the decade ended, absent of any of the predicted major technological
glitches expected from the well-publicized 'Y2K bug', FEMA was
recognized as the preeminent emergency management system in the world.
It was emulated in several countries throughout the world, and Witt
became America's Ambassador for emergency management overseas.

Hurricane Mitch, which devastated many areas in Central America and the
Caribbean, brought about a change in American foreign policy towards
promoting and supporting community-based mitigation projects. State and
local emergency management programs had grown and their value was
recognized and supported by society. Private sector and business
continuity programs were flourishing.

The role and responsibility and the partnerships supporting emergency
management had significantly increased, and its budget and stature had
grown significantly. Sound emergency management practice became integral
to both economic and environmental issues; it became a staple of
discussion relative to a community's quality of life.

The profession of emergency management was attracting a different type
of individual. Political and management skills were recognized as
critical to the position, and candidates for State, local and private
emergency management positions were now being judged on their training
and experience rather than their relationship to the community's
political leadership.

Undergraduate and advance degree programs in emergency management were
flourishing at over 65 national colleges and universities. The
profession had become well-respected and challenging, and was quickly
becoming competitive for prospective employees.

## Terrorism Becomes Major Focus - 2001

With the election of George W. Bush, a new FEMA Director was named to
head the Agency; Joe Allbaugh. As a former the Chief of Staff to
Governor Bush in Texas and President Bush's Campaign Manager in the 2000
Presidential race, Allbaugh had a close personal relationship with the
President. As demonstrated by Director Witt under President Clinton,
this relationship was recognized as positive for the Agency. His lack of
emergency management background, however, was not an issue that was
raised during his confirmation hearings.

As part of a major reorganization of the Agency, Allbaugh recreated the
Office of National Preparedness (ONP), which was first established in
the 1980s during the Guiffrida reign to plan for World War III (but had
been eliminated by Witt in 1992.) The office was recreated with a new
mission, to focus on terrorism. Allbaugh's action raised some concerns
among FEMA's constituents and FEMA staff.

In a September 10, 2001 speech, Director Allbaugh talked about his
priorities as being firefighters, disaster mitigation and catastrophic
preparedness. Today, this speech seems prophetic in light of the events
of September 11^th^. As the events of that terrible day unfolded, FEMA
activated the Federal Response Plan, setting forth response operations
as they were designed in both New York and in Virginia. Most of the
Agency's senior leaders, including the Director, had been in Montana at
the time, attending the Annual Meeting of the National Emergency
Management Association (NEMA -- an organization that represents State
Emergency Management Directors.) The strength of the American emergency
response system was proven effective by the rapid and effective
activation of hundreds of Federal response personnel.

## The Future - 2002 and Beyond

On November 25^th^ of 2002, President Bush signed into law the Homeland
Security Act of 2002, and announced that former Pennsylvania Governor
Tom Ridge would be Secretary of a new Department of Homeland Security
(DHS). This act, which authorized the greatest federal government
reorganization since President Harry Truman joined the various branches
of the armed forces under the Department of Defense, is charged with a
three-fold mission of protecting the United States from further
terrorist attacks, reducing the nation's vulnerability to terrorism, and
minimizing the damage from potential terrorist attacks and natural
disasters.

A sweeping reorganization into the new Department, which officially
opened its doors on January 24^th^ of 2003, joined together over 179,000
federal employees from twenty-two existing federal agencies under the
umbrella of a single, Cabinet-level organization.

The creation of DHS was the culmination of an evolutionary legislative
process that began largely in response to criticism that increased
federal intelligence inter-agency cooperation could have prevented the
September 11^th^ terrorist attacks. Just nine days following those
attacks, President Bush created the Office of Homeland Security (by
Executive Order), with Tom Ridge as Director, but the small office
became widely viewed as ineffective.

The White House and Congress recognized that a Homeland Security czar
would require both a staff and a large budget in order to succeed, and
thus began deliberations to create a new Cabinet-level Department that
would fuse many of the security-related agencies dispersed throughout
the federal government. For several months during the second-half of
2002, Congress jockeyed between different versions of the Homeland
Security bill in an effort to establish legislation that was passable
yet effective.

Lawmakers were particularly mired on the issue of the rights of
employees. Furthermore, the White House ultimately failed in their
attempt to incorporate many of the intelligence-gathering and
investigative law enforcement agencies, namely the National Security
Agency (NSA), the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI), and the Central
Intelligence Agency (CIA). Despite these delays and setbacks, the
Republican seats gained in both the House and Senate gave the President
the leverage he needed to pass the bill without further deliberation.

Beginning March 1^st^ or 2003, almost all of the federal agencies (and
their respective employees) named in the act began their move, whether
literally or symbolically, into the new Department. Those remaining
followed later that year, with all incidental transfers completed by
September 1^st^. While a handful of these agencies remained intact after
the move, most were incorporated into one of four new directorates;
Border and Transportation Security (BTS), Information Analysis and
Infrastructure Protection (IAIP), Emergency Preparedness and Response
(EP&R), and Science and Technology (S&T). A fifth directorate,
Management, did not incorporate any existing federal agencies. FEMA was
moved into, and essentially composed, the Emergency Preparedness and
Response Directorate. Assistant Director of FEMA Michael Brown became
the DHS Assistant Secretary for Emergency Preparedness and Response.

On January 24^th^ of 2003, Tom Ridge and a small initial staff commenced
work at the Nebraska Avenue Center (NAC) headquarters, a facility shared
with the US Navy in Northwest Washington, DC (that had previously been
used by the Office of Homeland Security.) Eight days later, when the
Space Shuttle Challenger tragically exploded over Texas, the Department
was tasked with its first disaster response. One week later, in reaction
to information gathered by intelligence agencies, President Bush raised
the color-coded Homeland Security Advisory System index from yellow
(elevated) to orange (high). However, it was not until a series of
hurricanes struck in late 2004 that the true effectiveness of DHS, in
its emergency management role, was tested. While the response mechanism
surely worked as it had been designed to do, the recovery operations
will likely extend for years owing to the massive damage that was
incurred.

**Four Phases of Emergency Management**

In this section, the four phases of emergency management will be
defined: mitigation, preparedness, response and recovery.

**Mitigation**

Over the last decade the social and economic costs of disasters to the
United States, and throughout the World have grown significantly. During
the 1990's, FEMA spent over \$25.4 billion to provide disaster
assistance in the United States. During that decade, the economic toll
of natural disasters, world wide, topped \$608 billion. This amounted to
more than the previous four decades combined. The causes of this
increase in disaster consequences are myriad. Climatalogical changes
such as El Nino, global warming and sea level rise have all been
identified as contributors. Add to this the many societal impacts such
as increased development in and migration to identified risk zones,
deforestation and clear cutting, and filling in of floodplains, among
many other factors, and the picture becomes more clear.

The discipline of mitigation provides the means for reducing these
impacts. Mitigation is defined as a sustained action to reduce or
eliminate risk to people and property from hazards and their effects.

The function of mitigation differs from the other emergency management
disciplines in that it looks at long-term solutions to reducing risk as
opposed to merely accepting that they will happen and preparing for
their consequences, responding to their consequences, or recovering from
them. Mitigation is usually not considered part of the emergency phase
of a disaster as in response, or as part of emergency planning as in
preparedness, or following the disaster as with recovery. Mitigation can
be performed during each or all of these phases.

Another significant difference sets mitigation apart from the other
disciplines of emergency management. Implementing mitigation programs
and activities requires the participation and support of a broad
spectrum of players outside of the traditional emergency management
circle. Mitigation involves, among other public and private sector
participants, land use planners, construction and building officials,
business owners, insurance companies, community leaders and politicians.

The skills and tools for accomplishing mitigation (planning expertise,
political acumen, marketing and public relations and consensus building,
among others) are different than the operational, first responder skills
which more traditionally characterize emergency management
professionals. In fact, historically, the emergency management
professional has been reluctant in taking a lead role in promoting
mitigation because of its appearing to fall outside of this scope of
activities. A State Director of emergency management once said words to
the effect... 'I will never lose my job for failing to do mitigation,
but I could lose my job if I mess up a response.'

With the exception of the fire community, who lead early on in the
effort to mitigate fire risks through their support for building codes,
code enforcement and public education, the emergency management
community has remained focused on response and recovery obligations.

However, these trends are changing for several key reasons. Leadership
at the Federal level, larger disasters, substantial increases in
funding, and more value and professionalism in emergency management,
have all resulted in greater acknowledgement of the importance of
mitigation.

**Preparedness**

Preparedness within the field of emergency management can best be
defined as a state of readiness to respond to a disaster, crisis or any
other type of emergency situation.

Preparedness is not, however, only a state of readiness, but also a
constant theme throughout most aspects of emergency management. If one
looks back into the history of the Nation, they will see the
predecessors of today's emergency managers focusing most heavily upon
preparedness activities. For example, the fall-out shelters of the
1950's and the air raid wardens were promoted as preparedness for a
potential nuclear attack from the Soviet Union. Again, in the 1970's, an
acclaimed study prepared by the National Governor's Association
proclaimed emergency preparedness as the first step in emergency
management.

After the Three Mile Island Nuclear Power Plant incident occurred in
1979, preparedness around commercial nuclear power plants became a major
issue for continued licensing of these plants. The increased emphasis on
preparing the public for a potential event through planning and
education, and preparing local responders through required exercises
caused a likewise increased focus on overall preparedness for disasters.
Also because of the recognized potential for subsequent nuclear
disasters, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing requirements
required local emergency plans, exercise of those plans and evaluation
of the exercises.

This process had a profound impact on the discipline of emergency
management. The off-site preparedness planning process became the model
for future emergency response plans. The required exercises are seen as
being the first such activities taken on a widespread scale. They also
brought a legitimacy and level of public and political exposure to the
emergency management profession. Most people agree that the radiological
emergency preparedness program, initiated in the aftermath of Three Mile
Island and which became part of the newly created FEMA, was the start of
the modern emergency management discipline.

Since that era, preparedness has advanced significantly and its role as
a building block of emergency management continues. No emergency
management organization can function without a strong preparedness
capacity. This capability is built through planning, training and
exercising, and has led to an increased professionalism within the
discipline of emergency management. Throughout the 1990's FEMA was
focused on supporting and enhancing these efforts, not just at the
Federal level but throughout government and into the private sector.

All organizations in private, public and government sectors are
susceptible to the consequences of a disaster and must consider
preparedness. Preparedness not only focuses on getting essential
government services, such as utilities and emergency services
functioning at pre-disaster levels, but assisting businesses in quickly
reopening to the public. Both of these key functions of preparedness
help to minimize the required time for the effected population to return
to pre-disaster life.

Business contingency planning, the effort of private businesses to
ensure that business activities continue in the aftermath of disaster,
has emerged as a profitable off shoot of government preparedness
efforts.

**Response**

When a disaster event such as a flood, earthquake or hurricane occurs,
the first responders to this event are always local police, fire and
emergency medical personnel. Their job is to rescue and attend to those
injured, suppress fires, secure and police the disaster area and to
begin the process of restoring order. They are supported in this effort
by local emergency management personnel and community government
officials.

If the size of the disaster event is so large that the capabilities of
local responders are overwhelmed and the costs of the damage inflicted
exceeds the capacity of the local government, the Mayor or County
Executive will turn to the Governor and State Government for assistance
in responding to the event and in helping the community to recover. The
Governor will turn to the State's emergency management agency and
possibly the State National Guard and other State resources to provide
this assistance to the stricken community.

Should the Governor decide, based on information generated by community
and State officials, that the size of the disaster event exceeds the
State's capacity to respond , the Governor will make a formal request to
the President for a Presidential major disaster declaration. This
request is prepared by State officials in cooperation with regional
staff from FEMA (with DHS). The Governor's request is analyzed first by
the FEMA Regional Office and then forwarded to FEMA headquarters in
Washington, DC. FEMA headquarters staff review and evaluate the
Governor's request and forward their analysis and recommendation to the
President. The President considers FEMA's recommendation and then makes
a decision to grant the declaration or to turn it down.

If the President grants a major disaster declaration, FEMA activates the
National Response Plan (NRP) and proceeds to direct several Federal
Departments and Agencies, including the American Red Cross, in support
of State and local efforts to respond to and recover from the disaster
event. The Presidential declaration also makes available several
disaster assistance programs in FEMA and other Federal agencies designed
to assist individuals and communities to begin the process of rebuilding
their homes, their community infrastructure and their lives.

When a major disaster strikes in the Untied States, the above chronology
describes how the most sophisticated and advanced emergency management
system in the world responds and begins the recovery process. This
system is built on coordination and cooperation among a significant
number of Federal, State and local government agencies, volunteer
organizations and, more recently, the business community.

In the 1990's the emergency management system in the United States was
tested repeatedly by major disaster events such as the 1993 Midwest
floods, the 1994 Northridge earthquake and a series of devastating
hurricanes and tornadoes. In each instance, the system worked to bring
the full resources of the Federal, State and local governments to
produce the most comprehensive and effective response possible. The
system also leveraged the capabilities and resources of our nation's
cadre of volunteer organizations to provide immediate food and shelter.
In recent years, government officials and agencies at all levels have
begun to reach out to the business community to both leverage their
response capabilities and to work closer with them in the recovery
effort.

The September 11 terrorist attacks have caused all levels of government
to reevaluate response procedures and protocols. The unusual loss of so
many first responders to this disaster event has resulted in numerous
after action evaluations that will likely lead to changes in the
procedures and protocols for first responders in the future.
Additionally, the possibility of future terrorism attacks has focused
attention to how best to protect first responders from harm in future
attacks.

**Recovery**

There is often a theoretical debate over when the response function ends
and the recovery function begins. For our purposes we will classify the
response function as the immediate actions to save lives, protect
property, and meet basic human needs. The recovery function is not so
easily classified. This function often begins in the initial hours and
days following a disaster event and can continue for months and in some
cases years, depending on the severity of the event.

Unlike the response function, where all efforts have a singular focus,
the recovery function or process is characterized by a complex set of
issues and decisions that must be made by individuals and communities.
Recovery involves decisions and actions relative to rebuilding homes,
replacing property, resuming employment, restoring businesses, and
permanently repairing and rebuilding infrastructure. The recovery
process requires balancing the more immediate need to return the
community to normalcy with the longer term goal of reducing future
vulnerability. The recovery process can provide individuals and
communities with opportunities to become more economically secure and
improve the overall safety and quality of life.

Because the recovery function has such long lasting impacts and
(generally) high costs, the participants in the process are numerous.
They include all levels of government, the business community, political
leadership, community activists, and individuals. Each of these groups
plays a role in determining how the recovery will progress. Some of
these roles are regulatory, such as application of State or local
building ordinances, and some, such as the insurance industry, provide
financial support. The goal of an effective recovery is to bring all of
the players together to plan, finance and implement a recovery strategy
that will rebuild the disaster impacted area safer and more secure as
quickly as possible.

The precipitating event for an area impacted by a disaster is the
Presidential declaration of disaster under the Stafford Act. Recovery
activities begin immediately after a Presidential declaration as the
agencies of the Federal Government collaborate with the State in the
impacted area in coordinating the implementation of recovery programs
and the delivery of recovery services.

### Communications

Communications has become an increasingly critical function in emergency
management. The dissemination of timely and accurate information to the
general public, elected and community officials, and the media plays a
major role in the effective management of disaster response and recovery
activities. Communicating preparedness, prevention and mitigation
information promotes actions that reduce the risk of future disasters.
Communicating policies, goals and priorities to staff, partners and
participants enhances support and promotes a more efficient disaster
management operation. In communicating with the public, establishing a
partnership with the media is key to implementing a successful strategy.

The mission of an effective disaster communications strategy is to
provide timely and accurate information to the public in all four phases
of emergency management: mitigation, preparedness, response and
recovery. The goals of communications in each phase is as follows:

-   Mitigation -- to promote implementation of strategies, technologies
    and actions that will reduce the loss of lives and property in
    future disasters.

-   Preparedness -- to communicate preparedness messages that encourages
    and educates the public in anticipation of disaster events.

-   Response -- to provide to the pubic notification, warning,
    evacuation and situation reports on an ongoing disaster.

-   Recovery -- to provide individuals and communities impacted by a
    disaster with information on how to register for and receive
    disaster relief.

The foundation of an effective disaster communications strategy is built
on the four critical assumptions:

-   Customer Focus

-   Leadership Commitment

-   Inclusion of Communications in Planning and Operations

-   Media Partnership

**Customer Focus**

An essential element of any effective emergency management system is a
focus on customers and customer service. This philosophy should guide
our communications with the public and with all partners in emergency
management. A customer service approach includes placing the needs and
interests of individuals and communities first, being responsive and
informative, and managing expectations.

The customers for emergency management are diverse. They include
internal customers, such as staff, other Federal agencies, States, and
other disasters partners. External customers include the general public,
elected officials at all levels of government, community and business
leaders and the media. Each of these customers has special needs and a
good communications strategy considers and reflects their requirements.

**Leadership Commitment**

Good communications starts with a commitment by the leadership of the
emergency management organization to sharing and disseminating
information both internally and externally. The director of any
emergency management organization must openly endorse and promote open
lines of communications among the organization's staff, partners and
publics in order to effectively communicate. This leader must model this
behavior in order to clearly illustrate that communications is valued
function of the organization.

**Inclusion of Communications in Planning and Operations**

The most important part of leadership's commitment to communications is
inclusion of communications in all planning and operations. This means
that a communications specialist is included in the senior management
team of the emergency management organization. It means that
communications issues are considered in the decision-making processes
and that a communications element is included in all organizational
activities, plans and operations.

In the past, communicating with external audiences, or customers, and in
many cases internal customers, was not valued nor considered critical to
a successful emergency management operation. Technology has changed the
equation. In today's world of 24-hour television and radio news and the
Internet, the demand for information is never-ending; most notably in an
emergency response situation. Emergency managers must be able to
communicate critical information in a timely manner to their staff,
partners, the public and the media.

To do so, the information needs of the various customers and how best to
communicate with these customers must be considered at the same time
that planning and operational decisions are being made. For example, a
decision process on how to remove debris from a disaster area must
include discussion of how to communicate information on the debris
removal operation to community officials, the public and the media.

**Media Partnership**

The media plays a primary role in communicating with the public. No
government emergency management organization could ever hope to develop
a communications network comparable to those networks already
established and maintained by television, radio, and newspaper outlets
across the country. To effectively provide timely disaster information
to the public, emergency managers must establish a partnership with
their local media outlets.

The goal of a media partnership is to provide accurate and timely
information to the public in both disaster and non-disaster situations.
The partnership requires a commitment by both the emergency manager and
the media to work together and it requires a level of trust between both
parties.

Traditionally, the relationship between emergency managers and the media
has been tenuous. There has often been a conflict between the need of
the emergency manager to respond quickly and the need of the media to
obtain information on the response so it can report it just as quickly.
This conflict sometimes resulted in inaccurate reporting and tension
between the emergency manager and the media. The loser in this conflict
is always the public, which relies on the media for information.

It is important for emergency managers to understand the needs of the
media and the value they bring to facilitating response operations. An
effective media partnership provides the emergency manager with a
communications network to reach the public with vital information. Such
a partnership provides the media with access to the disaster site,
access to emergency managers and their staff and access to critical
information for the public that informs and ensures the accuracy of
their reporting.

An effective media partnership helps to define the roles of the
emergency management organizations, to manage public expectations and to
boost the morale of the relief workers and the disaster victims. All of
these factors can speed the recovery of a community from a disaster
event and promote preparedness and mitigation efforts designed to reduce
the loss of life and property from the next disaster event.

# Business Continuity Planning and Emergency Management

Business continuity planning provides focus driven preparedness for
businesses. At its simplest, business continuity planning (BCP) is the
act of setting up a plan to ensure the very survival of an organization.
Since the early concern with the restoration of computer data, the
concept of continuity has evolved in response to a changing environment.
Major events have demanded that BCP encompass a growing number of
concerns. The severe consequences of September 11^th^ have raised many
implications as to how BCP will evolve in response to the disaster. How
BCP evolves will directly influence business as a whole.

A major implication is that terrorism must be considered as a real
threat to the survival of business. Second, BCP will expand to include a
concern for the physical safety of employees. The third implication may
involve the decentralization of business operations as central to BCP.
Fourth, it may have to expand its sphere of concern to include the
regional impacts of a disaster (including economic) to the area where a
business is located. Fifth is a new concern for the human relationships
that a business depends on for its survival. The sixth implication for
BCP is a recovery time of zero. The seventh implication is the renewed
importance of critical data back-up systems. The eighth is the inclusion
of physical security concerns. The expansion of BCP to encompass more
concerns leads to the ninth implication, which is the increased
importance of and pressure on business continuity planners.

September 11^th^ raised awareness of the fact that the survival of
business depends on many external factors. External factors such as
infrastructure and public safety authorities play a key role in whether
or not BCP is ultimately successful. After September 11^th^,
infrastructure vital to business has even come under the control of
public safety authorities. In this case BCP is doubly dependent on
public safety authorities. This awareness has lead to attempts at
greater communication between business and government since the attacks.
Business is demanding interaction with government so that it can
anticipate how to react in the event of not only terrorist attacks, but
also any catastrophe that threaten its very survival. The attempt at
greater communication and interaction by business is a proactive effort
to turn its reliance on public safety authorities into an opportunity to
ensure the success of BCP.

This suggests that business will demand a more extensive role for
emergency management in BCP. The connection between emergency management
and BCP is natural as it is authority that has the responsibility of
public safety planning. By demanding that emergency management play an
extensive role in BCP, business can interact with government to ensure
its survival. Emergency management should meet this demand with an
outstretched arm because it represents a great opportunity for the
field. If emergency management sincerely cooperates, then business may
demand that government at all levels allocate more resources to
emergency management in order to ensure that it can provide effective
assistance. Ultimately, with business as its advocate, emergency
management may gain the influence it needs to assume a greater role in
leading the local and national public safety agenda.

### International Disaster Management

People of all nations face risks associated with the natural and
technological hazards described throughout this book, and almost all
eventually become victim to disaster. Throughout history, civilizations
have adapted to their surroundings in the hopes of increasing the
likelihood of survival. As societies became more organized, complex
systems of response to these hazards were developed on local, national,
and regional levels.

The capacity to respond achieved by individual nations can been linked
to several factors, including propensity for disaster, local and
regional economic resources, organization of government, and
availability of technological, academic and human resources. However, it
is becoming increasingly common that the response ability of individual
nations is insufficient in the face of large-scale disaster, and outside
assistance must be called upon. Disasters that affect whole regions are
not uncommon, and require these same international response mechanisms.

### Emergency Management and the New Terrorism Threat

The focus of emergency management in the United States has evolved over
time as new risks were identified and methods for dealing with these
risks were developed. In the early part of the 20^th^ century, ad hoc
responses to catastrophic disasters and the implementation of large
scale public works projects designed to reduce risks, such as the levee
building projects of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, were the norm.

The advent of the Cold War in the 1950s resulted in the establishment
Civil Defense programs around the country with their focus on preparing
for nuclear war. A series of large scale disasters in the 1960s and
1970s focused the nation's Governors to prompt the Federal government to
consolidate its emergency management functions into one agency and so
FEMA was formed in 1979 with the mission of providing a single Federal
entity to work with State and local governments to respond to disasters.

FEMA's mission changed almost instantly in the 1980s with its singular
focus on nuclear attack planning. As a result, FEMA and the Federal
government was not prepared nor equipped to respond to another series of
large scale disaster in the late 1980s and early 1990s. FEMA's failures
in Hurricane Hugo, Hurricane Iniki, the Loma Prieta earthquake and
finally in Hurricane Andrew led to calls in Congress for its
elimination.

The Clinton Administration responded by reorganizing the Agency and
refocusing its efforts on an all-hazards approach. The new FEMA
strengthened its partnerships with State and local emergency management
officials and created new partnerships with the private sector. The
response capabilities of the Federal government and FEMA's role as
coordinating agency was enhanced and embodied in the Federal Response
Plan. For the first time ever, FEMA established a Mitigation Directorate
and further promoted hazard mitigation efforts at the community level
through its nationwide initiative, Project Impact.

The terrorist attacks of September 11 prompted dramatic changes in
emergency management in the Untied States. These attacks and the
subsequent Anthrax scare in Washington, DC in October 2001 have been the
impetus for a reexamination of the nation's emergency management system,
its priorities, funding and practices. These changes are ongoing and
will continue for the foreseeable future.

Prior to September 11, the Nunn-Lugar legislation provided the primary
authority and focus for domestic Federal preparedness activities for
terrorism. Several agencies - FEMA, Department of Justice (DOJ),
Department of Health and Human Resources (HHS), DOD, and the National
Guard - were all involved, and jockeying for leadership of the terrorism
issue. There were some attempts at coordination but, in general,
agencies pursued their own agendas. The biggest difference among the
Agencies was the level of funding available, with DOD and DOJ
controlling the most funds. State and local governments were confused,
felt unprepared and complained of the need to recognize their
vulnerability and needs should an event happen. The TOPOFF exercise held
in 1999, reinforced these concerns and vividly demonstrated the problems
that could arise in a real event.

The events of September 11, unfortunately, validated their concerns and
visibly demonstrated the need for changes in the Federal approach to
terrorism. The changes fall into five general categories including:
first responder practices and protocols, preparing for terrorist acts,
funding the war on terrorism, creation of the Department of Homeland
Security, and the shift in focus of the nation's emergency management
system to the war on terrorism.

In Fall 2002, the first wave of after action reports on the response to
the events of September 11, 2001 at the World Trade Center in New York
City, at the Pentagon in Virginia, and in Washington, D.C. were
completed and made available to the emergency management community and
the public. The principal focus of these after action reports is on the
actions taken by first responders -- fire, police and emergency medical
technicians -- at the scene of the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
Not surprisingly, these reports identify some basic changes in the
practices and protocols of first responders to future terrorist
incidents designed to reduce the terrible toll taken on first responders
at the World Trade Center. Most of these changes will be implemented at
the local level.

There are five groups that must be fully engaged in the nation's war on
terrorism: the diplomats, the intelligence community, the military, law
enforcement and emergency management. The principal goal of the
diplomats, intelligence, military and law enforcement is to reduce if
not eliminate the possibility of future terrorist attacks on American
citizens inside our borders and abroad.

The goal of emergency management should be to reduce the future impacts
in terms of loss of life, injuries, property damage and economic
disruption caused by the next terrorist attack; to be prepared for the
next attack; and, to respond quickly and effectively when the next
attack occurs. As President Bush and many of his advisors have
repeatedly informed the nation, it is not a question of if but rather
when the next terrorist attack occurs.

Therefore, it will be incumbent upon emergency managers to apply the
same diligence to preparing for the next bombing or bio-chemical event
as they do for the next hurricane or flood or tornado. The focus of
emergency management in the war on terrorism must be on reducing the
danger to first responders, to the public, the business community, the
economy and our way of life from future terrorist attacks. This change
must occur at all levels of the emergency management system: Federal,
State and local.

The war on terrorism has resulted in unprecedented funding resources
being made available to the emergency management community. For the
first time, vast sums of money from the Federal government are available
for first responder equipment and training, for planning and exercises
and for the development of new technologies. Funding for FEMA has
increased as has the amount of funds FEMA delivers to State and local
emergency management organizations.

Historically, FEMA has distributed about \$175 million annually to its
State and local emergency management partners. The Federal FY2003 budget
contained \$3.5 billion for FEMA to distribute to States and local
emergency management organizations. This is in addition to funding FEMA
received in a supplemental funding bill passed by Congress after the
September 11 attacks. New Federal funding sources are also opening up
for emergency managers from the Department of Defense, the Department of
Justice and the Department of Health and Human Services to fund
contingency plans, technology assessment and development and bio-terror
equipment and training. This change in funding for emergency management
will be felt most significantly at the State and local levels.

The creation of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) represents a
landmark change for the Federal community, especially for emergency
management. The consolidation of all Federal agencies involved in
fighting the war on terrorism follows the same logic that first
established FEMA in 1979. At that time, then President Carter at the
request and suggestion of the nation's Governors consolidated all the
Federal agencies and programs involved in federal disaster relief,
preparedness and mitigation into one single Federal agency, FEMA.

The Director of FEMA reported directly to the President as will the DHS
Secretary. However, with FEMA absorbed into DHS, the FEMA director no
longer reports directly to the President but rather to the DHS
Secretary. This change could have had a significant impact on FEMA and
its State and local partners in managing natural and other technological
disasters in the future, but appears to have been managed by the
importance placed upon the position of the Secretary of Homeland
Security.

At the request of President George W. Bush, FEMA established the Office
of National Preparedness in 2001 to focus attention on the then
undeclared terrorist threat and other national security issues. This was
the first step in the refocusing of FEMA's mission and attention from an
all-hazards approach to emergency management embraced by the Clinton
administration. The shift in focus was accelerated by the events of
September 11 and has been embraced by State and local emergency
management operations across the country.

A similar shift of focus in FEMA occurred in 1981 at the beginning of
the Reagan Administration. Then the shift of focus was from disaster
management to planning for a nuclear war. For the remaining years of the
Reagan Administration and the four years of President George H. W.
Bush's administration, FEMA resources and personnel focused their
attention of ensuring continuity of government operations in the event
of a nuclear attack. Little attention was paid to natural hazard
management and FEMA was left unprepared to deal with a series of
catastrophic natural disasters starting with Hurricane Hugo in 1989 and
culminating with Hurricane Andrew in 1992.

If history repeats itself, the current change in focus away from the
all-hazard approach of the 1990s could result in a weakening of FEMA's
natural disaster management capabilities in the future.

**Attributes of Successful Emergency Management Programs and Functions**

The purpose of this book is to provide a series of case studies that
illustrate how the various aspects of emergency management function in
the Untied States and abroad. Our hope that these case studies will be
used to highlighted those actions and activities that support a
successful emergency management program or function.

Our focus is primarily on emergency management programs and activities
in the United States. The U.S. has the most sophisticated and
experienced emergency management system in the world and many of the
case studies presented in this book are of programs and activities in
this system. While other countries do not have the resources available
in the United States to sustain such an emergency management system, the
underlying factors that have made the U.S. system successful can serve
as the basis for the establishment or enhancement of emergency
management systems in other countries, particularly developing nations,
despite limited resources.

There are seven attributes found in a successful emergency management
system or function:

-   Customer Focus

-   Statutory and Budget Authority

-   Leadership

-   Partnerships

-   Communications

-   Training, Tools and Technologies

-   Focus on Mitigation and Reducing Future Impacts

**Customer Focus**

The first and foremost attribute of a successful emergency management
system or function is its focus on the needs of the customer. The most
obvious customer of emergency management is the disaster victim. The
disaster victim can be an individual, a business, a community or a
nation.

Other customers include elected officials, community leaders, volunteer
and non-governmental groups and the media. These groups are also
considered stakeholders and partners. There are internal customers
within every emergency management organization including fellow
employees and staff in other offices in the organization.

Understanding the customer's needs in a time of crisis is critical to
developing effective disaster programs and activities. FEMA surveys
disaster victims and meets regularly with State and local emergency
management officials in order to understand their customer's needs. This
information is used to refine existing programs and develop new programs
to meet the expressed needs of the customers. The timing and delivery of
financial and technical assistance is driven by the customer's needs and
schedule. Work functions are designed with the customer's needs in mind.

**Statutory and Budget Authority**

Statutory authority is critical to any emergency management system. The
Stafford Act in the United States clearly establishes the authority for
FEMA operations. It establishes the agency's principal mitigation,
preparedness, response and recovery programs and their eligibility
requirements. It provides FEMA will the legal authority to function
inside the Federal government and in partnership with State and local
emergency management agencies.

The authority would be meaningless without the budget appropriation
provided to FEMA annually by the U.S. Congress. The regular
appropriation of funds ensures that FEMA can fund its programs and
activities as well as reimburse its Federal, State and local partners
for actions taken as part of the Federal Response Plan. Regular and
consistent budget appropriations have ensured that FEMA programs and
activities are conducted efficiently and effectively.

No emergency management system anywhere in the world can properly
function without statutory authority and consistent budget
appropriations. Both must be in place for the system to function
properly. In many countries throughout the world, statutory authority
for an emergency management system is in place but regular and
consistent budget appropriations are not. A successful emergency
management system cannot have one or the other; it must have both
statutory authority and regular budget appropriations to sustain
operational consistency.

**Leadership**

Leadership is key to any successful government function and especially
in emergency management. A strong leader clearly articulates the vision
and mission of the organization, manages and trains the staff, provides
the staff with the tools needed to be successful and represents the
organization and its programs and activities to the public, the
political leadership and the media. FEMA's success in the 1990s can be
attributed to the leadership of its Director, James Lee Witt.

FEMA's success must also be attributed to the support and leadership
provided by President Bill Clinton. President Clinton valued the role of
emergency management in government and in helping citizens deal with
disasters. Support and leadership from the highest level of government
at every level, Federal, State or local, is critical to the success of
an emergency management organization. President Bush has continued to
support emergency operations through his ongoing and outspoken support
of the activities of DHS, which today houses FEMA.

Outside of government, the leadership of members of the business
community and the community at large both play a critical role in making
communities safer and better equipped to respond to major disaster
events. This type of leadership has become even more important as we
move forward with the new terrorist threat.

**Partnerships**

An emergency management system is by definition a partnership.
Traditionally the partners have included first responders, Federal,
State and local government emergency management organizations and the
voluntary non-governmental organizations such as the Red Cross,
Salvation Army and others. Together these groups promoted preparedness
and mitigation actions and conducted response and recovery operations.

In recent years, a new set of partners have become involved in emergency
management including the business sector and the media. The new threat
of biological and chemical weapons has resulted in a greater role for
the public health system in emergency management.

Increasingly, the general public has become more involved in emergency
management through Community Emergency Response Teams (CERT) and
involvement in planning and implementing community preparedness and
mitigation programs and actions.

How well these partners work together defines how well the emergency
management system functions. Agreements such as the Federal Response
Plan and Mutual Aid Compacts define the roles and responsibilities of
each partner. Community agreements and partnerships define risks and
what to do to protect families, homes and businesses from harm. Training
and exercises allow partners to work together and to refine and enhance
their roles.

In every facet of a successful emergency management system or function,
partnerships leverage resources and technical skills, promote the
exchange of accurate and timely information and ensure that all the
resources of the government, the community and private sector are
brought to bear on disaster issues.

**Communications**

Communicating timely and accurate information to partners, to the public
and to decision makers is a critical element in any emergency management
function. This is especially true in response and recovery operations.

Key to good communications in emergency management is a leadership
commitment to communicate with all stakeholders. This commitment is
marked by including public affairs staff in all planning and operational
activities, establishing clear lines of communications with all
partners, making leaders available to the media to communicate messages
to the public and ensuring that your public affairs staff has the
training and the tools to be successful.

Good communications relies on the collection, analysis and dissemination
of accurate and timely information. Good communications accurately
defines the task, identifies how it will be accomplished and in what
time frame. Good communications keeps all partners and customers
informed and helps to set realistic expectations among all parties.

**Training, Tools and Technologies**

Those staff and volunteers involved in emergency management cannot
successfully do their jobs without the proper training, the tools and
technologies. Ensuring that all personnel receive appropriate and
current training is central to their ability to fulfill the mission of
their organization. With the new terrorist risks, proper training for
first responders is critical to first protecting their lives and safety
and the lives and safety of the public at large.

Well trained personnel must also have the tools they need to do their
job effectively and efficiently. For example, FEMA provided its home
inspectors with Palm Pad computers for entering data concerning a home
inspection that standardized the cost estimating process and was linked
to a computer based registration system for providing assistance to
disaster victims. These tools allowed FEMA to reduce the time it took to
get assistance checks to disaster victims from 30 days to 7-10 days.

New advances in technology occur daily and emergency management must
embrace new technologies that enhance the ability to serve the public.
Recent technological advances in tracking hurricanes have improved
evacuation and warning protocols, new building design technology created
the Safe Room to protect families and individuals from tornadoes and the
increased use of GIS has improved land use and hazard mitigation
planning.

**Focus on Mitigation and Reducing Future Impacts**

Interest in hazard mitigation has grown in the past decade in response
to the significant increase in the frequency and severity of natural and
manmade disasters and the resulting loss of life and property and
economic losses. Reducing the future impacts of disasters must be the
foundation of any effective emergency management system or function.

Hazard mitigation efforts are most critical at the community level where
land use and development decisions are made and construction codes and
standards adopted and enforced. It is time that community leaders
incorporated hazard mitigation into their decision making process not
just for disaster issues but for everyday decisions on where and how a
community grows and develops.

Business leaders and home owners must also incorporate hazard mitigation
information and techniques into their decisions on where to locate their
business or home or how to retrofit their business or home to protect
their lives and livelihoods from disasters.

Promoting and investing in hazard mitigation efforts is the most direct
way that families, businesses and communities can reduce the human and
economic losses from future disasters.

**Summary**

This book is comprised of emergency management case studies. The case
studies have been grouped by the major topic areas in emergency
management. In each case, we hope to illustrate what worked and what did
not work and to highlight the factors discussed in this chapter that we
believe are found in any successful emergency management system or
function.