CRJ Module 8 OverviewTerrorism and the Future of Emergency Manag.docx

CRJ Module 8 Overview
Terrorism and the Future of Emergency Management
The September 11th (9/11) and the October 2001 Anthrax
attacks together prompted dramatic changes in U.S. emergency
management and 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. In this module, you will
learn how the government's hazard focus has been affected by
the changing risk of terrorism. The events of September 11,
2001, the consequences of those events, and how the
government responded will be discussed. You will also learn
about the Department of Homeland Security along with its
components and its role in emergency management.
In addition, you will investigate how the U.S. government
communicates terrorist threat information to the public. You
will outline how Hurricane Katrina affected terrorism
preparedness and response. Lastly, the possibilities the future
holds for emergency management and how the profession may
be improved in the near future will be discussed and analyzed.
Learning Objectives
Upon completion of this module, you should be able to:
8I
Explain how the federal government funds first responders.
8J
Understand how the Department of Homeland Security was
formed, its components, its role in the emergency management
and counterterrorism efforts, and its accomplishments.
10C
Explain how the government's hazard focus has been affected by
the changing risk of terrorism.

10D
Discuss the events of September 11, 2001, the consequences of
those events, and how the government responded.
10E
Summarize how the U.S. government communicates terrorist
threat information to the public.
10F
Understand why the 9/11 Commission was formed and what was
found as a result of its investigation.
10G
Explain how state and local governments manage the risk of
terrorism.
10H
Outline how Hurricane Katrina affected terrorism preparedness
and response.
11A
Understand how the past has impacted emergency management
as it exists today.
11B
Discuss the possibilities the future holds for emergency
management, and how the profession may be improved in the
near future.
Module 8 Reading Assignment
Haddow, G., Bullock, J., & Coppola, D. (2011). Introduction to
emergency management. Burlington: Elsevier. Chapters 9 and
10.
Emergency Management and the New Terrorist Threat
The September 11th (9/11) and the October 2001 Anthrax
attacks together prompted dramatic changes in U.S. emergency

management, and 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 9/11, the Nunn-
Lugar legislation provided the primary authority for domestic
Federal preparedness activities for terrorism. FEMA, DOJ,
HHS, DOD, and the National Guard all jockeyed for leadership
on terrorism. Attempts at coordination were minimal, and
inconsistencies in the agencies’ funding were stark, 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.
9/11 validated these concerns and demonstrated the need for
changes in the federal approach to terrorism. The changes fall
into five general categories:First responder practices and
protocols
Terrorism preparedness
Funding the war on terrorism
Creation of DHS
The shift in focus of the nation’s emergency management
system to the war on terrorism
The principal focus of the 9/11 after-action reports is the first
responders’ actions at the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
These reports identify basic changes in the practices and
protocols of first responders to future terrorist incidents
designed to reduce first responder injury and death. Most of
these changes will be implemented at the local level.
Five groups must be fully engaged in the U.S. war on terrorism,
including the following:Diplomats
The intelligence community
The military
Law enforcement
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. Emergency management’s goal is to be prepared
and to reduce the future impacts in terms of loss of life,
injuries, property damage and economic disruption caused by
the next terrorist attack. It is 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 war on terrorism resulted in unprecedented funding for the
emergency management community, providing vast resources
for first responder equipment and training, planning and
exercises and for the development of new technologies.
FEMA’s distribution to its State and local emergency
management partners has risen from an annual average of $175
million to $3.87 billion in FY2010, in addition to the funding
FEMA received in supplemental funding bills passed since
9/11. New Federal funding sources have also opening up for
emergency managers from DOD, the DOJ, and HHS to fund
contingency plans, technology assessment and development, and
bio-terror equipment and training. The creation of DHS
represents a landmark change for the Federal community,
especially for emergency management. The consolidation of
most Federal agencies involved in fighting the war on terrorism
follows the same logic that first established FEMA in 1979.
Federal Government Terrorism Activity
For FEMA and its partner agencies in the NRF, the most
significant Federal government actions to combat terrorism are
the creation of DHS and the Global War on Terrorism. On
November 25, 2002, President Bush signed into law the
Homeland Security Act of 2002, effectively creating the
Department. This act is charged with the three-fold mission of
protecting the U.S. from further attacks, reducing the nation’s
vulnerability to terrorism, and minimizing the damage from
potential terrorist attacks and natural disasters. A total of 22
federal agencies and programs were transferred into DHS, some
intact and some to be consolidated into one of four new

directorates: the National Protection and Programs Directorate
(NPPD), the Office of Policy Directorate, the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Directorate
of Science and Technology (S&T). Since this time, there have
been a number of reorganizations that have changed the shape
of the Department significantly. Also, DHS budgets have seen
significant increases, with the proposed FY2010 Federal budget
request includes a total of $55.12 billion.
The Six-Point Agenda and the Post-Katrina Emergency
Management Reform Act
On July 13th, 2005, DHS Secretary Michael Chertoff released a
six-point agenda to reorganize DHS that followed an initial
review that Chertoff initiated immediately upon assuming his
leadership position. The review was designed to closely
examine the Department in order to discover ways in which
leadership could better manage risk in terms of threat,
vulnerability and consequence; prioritize policies and
operational missions according to this risk-based approach; and
establish a series of preventive and protective steps that would
increase security at multiple levels. In order to correct the
emergency management shortfalls that were highlighted in the
inadequate response to Hurricane Katrina, Congress passed the
Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act (signed into
law October 4, 2006), which established new leadership
positions within DHS, created additional functions assumed by
FEMA, created and reallocated functions to other components
within DHS, and amended the Homeland Security Act in ways
that directly and indirectly affect the organization and functions
of various entities within DHS.
Funding for First Responders and Emergency Management
For State and local government, the 9/11 events resulted in an
extraordinary increase in funding for first responders and
emergency management activities. Also, the number of Federal
agencies and programs providing funds for these activities has
greatly increased. Training and equipping of firefighters
responding to a bio-chemical terrorist attack has been a fire

services and FEMA concern since the early 1990s. In addition
to existing fire grants, the bulk of the $3 - $3.5 billion spent
annual on first responders has been designated for equipment
and training for future terrorist events. FEMA is not the only
agency providing funding, however. DOJ is also making funding
available for the acquisition of equipment and technology. HHS
is making available substantial funding to State and local
government to address the threat of bio-chemical terrorist
attacks. The CDC provides funding for public health planning
and capacity building and bolstering the national
pharmaceutical stockpile. DOD provides funding for emergency
management training for military personnel and community
officials.
Communicating Threat Information to the American People
As required by HSPD-3, DHS is tasked with coordinating the
provision of threat information to local law enforcement and
setting the ‘national threat level. This is done through three
systems. These systems include Homeland Security Threat
Advisories, Homeland Security Information Bulletins, and the
5-color coded Homeland Security Advisory System (HSAS).
The five levels of the HSAS consist of Green (low), Blue
(guarded), Yellow (elevated), Orange (high), and Red (severe).
DHS also keeps citizens and businesses prepared through the
information provided on the Ready.Gov website, which urges
citizens to stay informed and tells them how to react to various
disaster scenarios in which WMDs are involved.
The 911 Commission
In late 2002, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks was
formed to investigate the 911 terrorist attacks. This
commission set out to determine the shortfalls and the lessons
learned from the preparedness for and response to international
terrorism within the US, and recommend activities that would
help improve these systems. The commission report, released in
July 2004, found many opportunities that could have been
exploited by the Federal government to stop the terrorists who
attacked in 2001. In December of 2005, the 9/11 Commission

released a follow-up report that graded the Bush Administration
and Congress’ handling of the Commission’s recommendations.
The findings, issued in the form of a ‘report card,’ assigned
letter grades to the 41 key recommendations.
State Government Terrorism Activity
Governors are responsible for coordinating state and local
resources to effectively address all hazards. As the recipients
of a bulk of the homeland security funding that has been
distributed by DHS and other Federal Agencies, States have had
the ability to administer new statewide programs aimed at
bringing preparedness and prevention to each and every
community. State Homeland Security entities were created to
ensure that the states prepare for terrorism. Governors
designated individuals from various backgrounds to serve as
their state homeland security directors, with no common model
emerging.
Local Government Terrorism Activities
Emergency preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery all
occur at the local community level. This is true for terrorism
preparedness, mitigation, response and recovery activities. It is
at the local level that the critical planning, communications,
technology, coordination, command and spending decisions
matter the most. Other than the largest cities, most local
communities do not have specially designated homeland
security offices, or any other terrorism-specific office or
agency. Local communities rely upon the skills and training of
first responders. Communities are instructed that they may
have to manage the aftermath of a terrorist attack for a full 24
to 48 hours on their own before State or Federal backup
arrives. Local response has much catching up to do in order to
be able to fulfill the preparedness and response needs of the
Federal Government. Interoperable communication is still not
possible. Many communities lack the equipment and training
necessary to respond to attacks involving weapons of mass
destruction. Efforts to vaccinate health care workers have
failed, and there are still doubts about whether communities

could handle an outbreak even if sufficient vaccines were
available to them. In larger communities, there are other issues
including port security.
The DHS Office of State and Local Coordination (within the
Office of Legislative and Governmental Affairs) was
established to serve as a single point of contact for facilitation
and coordination of Departmental programs that impact state,
local, territorial, and tribal governments. This office facilitates
the coordination of DHS-wide programs; identifies homeland
security-related activities, best practices, and processes that are
most efficiently accomplished at the federal, state, local or
regional levels; and utilizes this information to ensure that
opportunities for improvement are provided.
Katrina’s Effect on Terrorism Preparedness and Response
The unexpectedness of the September 11th events were
interpreted to mean that too little was being done about the
terrorism threat. The result was a fundamental shift in the focus
of emergency management that many considered knee-jerk, and
which included the restructuring of a number of government
agencies and offices and a redrafting of emergency operations
plans at all government levels. Many ‘all-hazards emergency
management’ proponents contended that this shift left the
country more vulnerable to the effects of natural disasters, and
their fears were confirmed when Hurricane Katrina struck in
2005. The disaster’s aftermath was rife blame, but closer
examination indicated FEMA had become too diluted within
DHS as a result of the terror focus. In FY2006 the GAO found
that DHS emergency management funds were still misaligned
with the reality of risk that was much better understood by the
local agency responders to be that of an all-hazards portfolio.
Since then, changes have been made that show promise that
FEMA will focus on all hazards. FEMA has steadily regained
many of its former responsibilities that were lost to other terror-
focused agencies. How far these corrective actions go will
ultimately depend upon whether or not another major terrorist
attack interrupts the steady flow of natural disasters that are

guaranteed to strike in coming years.
Attacks Thwarted: Good Intelligence and Good Luck
Since September of 2001, there have been several attempts at
terrorism, yet all have failed thus far. While a good measure of
this can be credited to the increased level of intelligence and
investigations supported by the changes brought about by the
legislation described in this text (including, for instance, the
PATRIOT Act and the Homeland Security Act of 2002), a
certain amount of credit can also be attributed to the actions of
the public and just plain luck. None of these has required any
of the emergency services to respond given that they were all
prevented or failed to achieve their mission.
The Future of Emergency Management
The year 2009 started full of promise with the swearing in of
Barack Obama, bringing hope for major changes in
Washington. Among the changes President Obama hinted at
while on the campaign trail was the reestablishment of FEMA as
an independent Agency, a cutting of the bureaucratic red tape
faced by communities recovering from disasters, and the
rebuilding the emergency management partnerships with State
and local governments. Major questions remain concerning how
this Administration will impact the discipline of emergency
management. However, some of the recent decisions and
actions provide insight into what can be expected in the near
future. And beyond these political decisions, new trends in
technology, cultural diversity and economics will exert great
influence on the future direction of emergency management.
Emergency management has come full circle, and is again
facing many of the same conditions that existed and the
questions that were posed to emergency management in the
1980s. These conditions become the basis of the new ideas,
promising trends, and innovative models we believe are needed
to preserve the integrity of a strong emergency management
system and each of its associated functions.
Understanding the Past
The National Governor’s Association defined comprehensive

emergency management in the 1960s to be a cycle of
preparedness, response, recovery and mitigation. This cycle
and its functions became what emergency managers were
supposed to accomplish at the local, State and Federal levels.
Two factors were prominent: first, the discipline’s
establishment and concepts were driven by the reaction to a
series of disasters, and the individuals initially staffing state
and local emergency management positions held military or
civil defense backgrounds. As a result, response was the
dominant driving force, and skills such as logistics, command
and control, and search and rescue prevailed. Preparedness was
secondary, reflecting civil defense’s watch and warning,
sheltering and evacuation mentality. Recovery and mitigation
were not well understood nor regarded, and the required skill
set was not possessed by most emergency managers.
Recovery was neither well understood nor supported until the
late 1980s with the passage of the Robert T Stafford Act, which
significantly expanded the Federal role in recovery. It was not
until the 1990s that emergency management took a major role in
a community recovery. Mitigation and recovery involved
complex political processes, problematic issues that needed to
be resolved, and the reaching of a wide consensus among
community leadership - activities that the emergency manager
may not have had the skills or the desire to pursue. It wasn’t
until the Stafford Act that mitigation funding existed.
When DHS was established in 2003, and FEMA lost its status as
an independent Agency, emergency management became a
minor player. In most states, Governors established new
homeland security organizations, and in some cases state
emergency management functions were subsumed into them
(while elsewhere these new organizations became funding
competitors). The homeland security mission is to prevent
future acts of terrorism. This requires the inclusion and
prominence of law enforcement and intelligence functions.
Even in the event of an actualized terrorist act, these two
functions will have primacy in the immediate response. Given

the national preoccupation with terrorism, states and localities
were forced to give highest priority to that hazard. As the
recovery from Katrina continued to languish, FEMA
concentrated its efforts on planning for the next catastrophic
disaster. Top-down Federal preparedness planning requirements
and compliance with Federal procedures were imposed on State
and local governments as requirements for continued receipt of
Federal funding.
The New Obama Administration
With the election of Barack Obama, the emergency management
community became more optimistic. Unfortunately new
Administration faced much more critical economic and
international problems and chose to keep FEMA as part of DHS
with Craig Fugate - the former State Director of Florida – as
FEMA Administrator. Administrator Fugate has made personal
preparedness and operational readiness to respond representing
his priorities – an indication that risk reduction will not likely
be a priority of his tenure. The Obama Administration did,
however, build on an initiative started under the previous Bush
Administration, to make the Department of Housing and Urban
Development (HUD) a bigger player in the recovery phase of
disasters.
“Those Who Forget the Past are Doomed to Repeat It”
Before FEMA was established, HUD was responsible for many
disaster assistance programs. HUD’s failure to effectively
execute recovery in multiple disasters led in part to the transfer
of recovery programs to the newly created FEMA. Hurricane
Ike demonstrated that there is no indication HUD has any more
capacity today, but the Administration seems intent on HUD
becoming a major player once again. One indication is that the
National Disaster Recovery Framework (NDRF) included HUD
as a co chair. It is no secret that DHS has questioned the
prominent role of FEMA in recovery, and as the most recent
reorganization of FEMA indicates, disaster recovery is no
longer an equal partner of disaster response having been
subsumed into the agency’s Disaster Operations Directorate.

There are, of course, several other less obvious examples of
how the current emergency management system has reverted
earlier model. For instance, the 1980s CARL Codes, which
dictated State and local compliance with the Federal response
operations were discontinued in the 1990s but soon after
replaced during the 2001-2009 period with requirements for
State and local NIMS compliance. Furthermore, the Integrated
Planning System (IPS) implemented by FEMA in 2006 dictates
to State and local governments how they should plan for
disasters, irrespective of the Regional differences in risk and
disaster type. Clearly, the top down approach of the 1980s,
when nuclear attack planning became the norm, was adopted in
the post September 11, 2001 when skewed perceptions
influenced policies such that terrorism became the leading
hazard risk. The all-hazards approach, in which State and
locals determined their priorities, was given lip service but not
supported by policies or funding. Even the personal
preparedness efforts announced in 2009 are a throwback to the
1980s when FEMA supported the construction of personal bomb
shelters. The 1990s demonstrated that investing resource
instead into promoting mitigation by individuals and
communities is highly effective in reducing the impacts of
disasters. It is too early to know whether this Administration
will repeat the mistakes of the 1980s or adopt the much more
successful and progressive emergency management model built
in the 1990s. All indications are that the Obama Administration
recognizes the need to rebuild the partnership with State and
local governments. However, there lacks any substantial
strategy from the Administration on what the future of
emergency management holds in store.
Emergency Management Ideas for the Future
The authors offer the following ideas, trends and structures to
consider as the evolution of emergency management moves
forward.
Idea One: Adopt Risk Management as an Operating Philosophy
Instead of Emergency Management

This concept requires rigorous analysis and includes acceptance
of a level of failure, but is proactive instead of reactive (as is
the case with emergency management). The common strategies
for managing risk include transferring the risk to another party
(insurance), avoiding the risks (land use planning), reducing the
negative impacts (buyouts) and/or accepting some or all of the
consequences of a particular risk (levees). It would be valuable
for FEMA to adopt a risk management approach as new threats
continue to emerge and resources remain constant for
addressing these threats. It would be important for FEMA to
promote and support communities to engage in the risk
management process to make them more resilient from future
disasters.
Idea Two: Embrace New and Emerging Technologies
Emergency managers and emergency management systems have
failed to take full advantage of new and emerging technologies
to improve operations and enhance capabilities. GIS and GPS
technologies have been staples of the emergency management
toolkit, and as of late there has been an upsurge in the use of
various social networking technologies. Social networking
websites enable the real time transfer of information to and
from impacted people, and are already in common use among
the general public. Emergency management can also leverage
these tools. Emergency managers should be partnering with
technology developers to design solutions for problems such as
better analysis of risk, better rapid damage assessments,
economic loss estimations, logistics and transportation
capacities, public warnings and communications and mitigation
measures.
Idea Three: Adapt to Shifts in Sociological and Demographic
Structure
Society is changing in ways that will impact emergency
management operations including such things as the aging of
the population, higher concentration of people with mental and
functional disabilities, and larger concentrations of non-
English speaking populations. These changes placed increased

demands on warnings, evacuations, sheltering and
communications that will impact emergency managers and their
operations and strategies. There exists significant knowledge
about different social and economic vulnerability factors, but
until the emergency management profession embraces such
study in their planning efforts, and advocates for further
research into areas of deficient understanding, social and
demographic factors will continue to confound operations.
Idea Four: Recreate Emergency Management with a New Entity
In light of the expanding threat environment and the impacts of
global climate change, it may be time to take a fresh look at
emergency management to better understand the limitations of
the current cycle. To be effective, mitigation must be part of
the everyday planning and decisions that individuals and
communities participate in. After a disaster, the long term
recovery process offers the most accessible and accommodating
political environment for implementing mitigation. We propose
new organizational structures to address the functions of
preparedness, response, recovery, and mitigation. Mitigation
and long term recovery would be supported by a different quasi-
governmental structure. One of the strongest arguments for this
approach is that the private sector is a more significant player
in these functions than that of either preparedness or response.
In the event of a Presidential declared disaster, recovery may be
supported through the Federally-administered Disaster Relief
Fund as a part of the response - such as with public
transportation systems. This would require DHS/FEMA to
relinquish a level of authority, and for DHS/FEMA and State
and local emergency management organizations to give up
resources. It will also require a new partnership pattern at all
government levels. The primary positive aspect is twofold: 1)
mitigation and the benefits of long term recovery would be
given attention equivalent to preparedness and response, and; 2)
one of those entities most important to the implementation of
mitigation (i.e., the private sector) would have a significant role
in the process.

Conclusion
The future of emergency management remains full of
uncertainty. Will the Obama Administration continue to
decentralize and diffuse disaster responsibilities across the
Federal government, will it embrace a larger role for the
military in disaster response, and will it value mitigation and
make it a priority? With all the other pressing priorities of the
economic recession and two international wars, it is
understandable that emergency management has not been a top
priority. Now is the time for real leadership and an opportunity
to make a radical departure from the policies of the previous
eight years and to reinvent emergency management. The
opportunity is now to establish a proactive system that includes
the following: implementation of risk management principles; a
strong, coordinated partnership of Federal, State, local private
and nonprofit sectors; and the application of new and emerging
technologies for more effective operations, focused on risk
reduction through mitigation. Or we can adopt the philosophy
of, perhaps, the most brilliant and innovative American
scientist, Albert Einstein who said, “I never think of the future
– it comes soon enough.”
Required Web Resources:
The Changing Face of Terror in the U.S.
Required Presentations:
Chapter 9
Chapter 10
[INSERT TITLE HERE] 2
Running head: [INSERT TITLE HERE]

[INSERT TITLE HERE]
Student Name
Allied American University
Author Note
This paper was prepared for [INSERT COURSE NAME],
[INSERT COURSE ASSIGNMENT] taught by [INSERT
INSTRUCTOR’S NAME].
PART I
Directions: Answer the following questions. Be sure to cite any
sources you use. Please visit the Academic Resource Center for
concise guidelines on APA format.
What is the 9/11 Commission and what is its role?
What weaknesses within the U.S. government system did the
9/11 Commission determine were directly responsible for
allowing an attack such as the one that occurred on September
11th, 2001, to take place?
What types of actions did the commission recommend to
prevent similar events in the future?
In 2005, how did the 9/11 Commission rate the efforts of the
Federal Government to address the shortfalls in terrorism
preparedness outlined in their original report?
In your opinion, were the changes that occurred in the

emergency management community following 9/11 warranted?
PART II
Directions: Based on your review of the article “The Changing
Face of Terror in the U.S.” (see link at the end of the Lecture
Notes) write a summary report. Please ensure that your report
is at least 1.5 pages in length, using 12-point font and double
spacing. Be sure to cite any sources you use. Please visit the
Academic Resource Center for concise guidelines on APA
format.
Extra Credit
Please discuss the impact of Hurricane Katrina on not only
legislation on the books, but also common practices for disaster
response.
Your answer needs to be a minimum of 100 words.

CRJ Module 8 OverviewTerrorism and the Future of Emergency Manag.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to CRJ Module 8 OverviewTerrorism and the Future of Emergency Manag.docx

Similar to CRJ Module 8 OverviewTerrorism and the Future of Emergency Manag.docx (16)

More from faithxdunce63732

More from faithxdunce63732 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CRJ Module 8 OverviewTerrorism and the Future of Emergency Manag.docx