Introduction
Emergency management has a place in the history of not only the US but its environs as well. The period between 1900 and 2010 has seen disasters that have ranged from earthquakes, drought, and hurricanes just to mention a few of the natural disasters that have marred the country. There are those disasters that have faced the country only that this time, they were deemed to be artificial in the sense that human factors had a hand in them. These include oil spills, terrorism, and human arsonists. It is critical to note that in the earlier times when disasters were deemed to be of natural occurrences, the role of the federal government was well limited in that the government was immune because the disasters were assumed to be beyond the scope of the federal government. With the development of artificial disasters, there was a shift in the responsibility of the various state levels concerning the disasters. In such events, the government was well blamed for some factors including the response levels of the governmental levels.
The US presidents, as literature would show have had a place in the fight against the disasters by taking authority of the response systems facets. This has been so from past presidents including Clinton and Bush to the current Obama administration. Reviews of policies and Acts incepted by the US authorities have seen to it the modifications that have been set in place to address the response mechanisms and preparedness as a whole. Similarly, the Presidential Policy Directive/ PPD-8 incepted in 2011 are just but an example of the federal government’s commitment to emergency management. This paper will seek to address the elements that were noted in the policy directive and at the same time, conclude by assessing whether the country or rather the federal government is well prepared to deal with future disasters.
Before delving into what the components of the PPD-8 directive stand for, it is critical to note the surrounding events that may have prompted the inception of the directive by Obama back in March 2011. Looking a few years earlier, the Hurricanes Katrina, Wilma, and Andrew were events that tested the responsiveness of the different levels of the government in their management. The media did not, in fact, make the situation funny or any better by engaging in coverage that would show the incompetency of the persons involved with the disaster management. The disaster management personnel made modifications and improvements to cater for future disasters. The most recent disaster well tested the response mechanisms that were set in place after the reaction to the hurricanes and the earthquake in Haiti. The Deep Water Horizon oil spill was the latest event whose management outcome was seen as being fruitful but with many hitches and loopholes therein. The government’s involvement was well clear with Obama seen to be in control of the spill by reinforcing the onsite operations to a magnitude of three times than normal (Rubin, 2012). The media coverage, as usual, was out to seek weak points of the operations by the government. The efforts noted from the Obama administration as well as looking at the responsible culprits plus the unfolding of events in the Mexican Gulf region were matters of journalistic interest. The outcome of the coverage also increased public attention which prompted the action by Obama to triple the reinforcement at the Gulf as mentioned earlier.
Such like events prompted policy revisions where the roles of the various governments would be understood. It is in the wake of the policy revisions after the Deep Water saga that saw to it the Obama’s directive on the national preparedness topic. On the date, as mentioned above, Obama, from the White House released a directive that touched on six important elements. As referred to in the directive dubbed National Preparedness, the role of the directive was to promote national preparedness by encouraging the heightened security operations as well as resilience in the US amid the security threats that risked the nationwide security operations. The following are the elements that were noted in the directive; the National Preparedness Goal, the National Preparedness System, the National Preparedness Report, the National Preparedness Frameworks, the Federal Interagency Operational Plans and the element of Building and Sustaining Preparedness (Homeland Security, 2011). The components of the elements are as mentioned below.
National Preparedness Goal
This item tackled the effort and consultations drawn from the territorial, tribal, local and state government as well as the inputs from the private sectors and other public sectors under the approach dubbed as being “all of the nations” (The University of Maryland, 2011). The goal aimed at being aware of any threats that were posed to the US together with the vulnerabilities therein. Core capabilities were to be mentioned in the preparedness goal. The capabilities were meant to address the incidents that were of a given specific nature and which a national threat to the U.S. The goal was to take note of the policy direction that was mentioned in the national strategy that combatted security issues. Other directives were to be addressed in the goal with reviews being done with the goal to determine its consistencies with other policies and conditions that could be manifested (Homeland Security, 2011).
National Preparedness System
Under the preparedness system, system integration was to facilitate the realization of the national preparedness goals. The system’s preparedness was designed to assist the internal functions of the various government levels together with the private and nongovernmental institutions. The system also included the operations of the interagency plan meant to offer the support to the national planning framework. The interagency plans were to be arrived at by looking at the various executive departmental functions. The system was to address the resource guidance that would promote realizing the core capabilities that were noted in the national preparedness goal. The system was also meant to incorporate the guidance and recommendations that would provide preparedness support for the community, families, businesses, and individuals (Homeland Security, 2011).
National Preparedness Report
The report on the subject preparedness was to be arrived at after consultations from the various departments under the various levels of the government, the private as well as the nonprofit sectors. The information noted in the report was aimed at facilitating the administration budgeting endeavors (Homeland Security, 2011).
National Preparedness Frameworks
The preparedness framework aimed at making note of many factors. They were meant to cover information related to protection, response, planning together with mitigation and recovery procedures. The frameworks were to offer coordination procedures that centered on the plans and support for the approach on preparedness (Homeland Security, 2011). The frameworks noted were to provide a description of the various requirements that were to address the security threats. A detailed action relevant to the preparedness function noted in other frameworks was to be noted. Department level operations plan was to be noted as well in the planning frameworks for preparedness activities.
Federal Interagency Operational Plans
The interagency plans contain a detailed operations concept that puts into consideration the tasks, roles, responsibilities, resources and the sourcing capabilities as well as the relevant personnel that would be involved in the preparedness function. Department level plans should be consistent with the planning of the interagency operations (Homeland Security, 2011). The established preparedness frameworks would support the interagency plan would that would be set in place. In summary, the interagency plans would include the development of a plan for implementation that would address the national preparedness objectives in line with the goals of the national preparedness structure. Apart from the preparedness goal and system, another information noted in the plan was the preparedness report and the element of building and sustaining the preparedness that would be noted.
Build and Sustain Preparedness
The other element that was touched on and is of importance is the element of building and sustaining the preparedness program. The strategy contained the modes of campaigns that aimed at creating and maintaining readiness. The Secretary of Homeland Security was responsible for coordinating the various activities. In the sustenance of preparedness, the approaches that targeted the community and the private sector in promoting resilience in the community were to be addressed. Financial assistance by the federal government, efforts of the government, as well as the efforts have drawn from research and developmental sectors, are to be addressed under this facet.
Conclusion
With the look at the federal government’s response on the topic of emergency and disaster management, there is hope that a brighter future in this field rests in place. The Deep Water Horizon oil spill back in 2010 revealed a lot of information concerning the state of disaster management in the US. The Obama’s administration took center stage of the event by maintaining control and authority. The response at the time yielded mixed feelings given the results where some people viewed the federal response as being successful while other felt like more could be done. The role of the media was not to be assumed at the time and is not to be disregarded in the future given the potential of attracting public attention that rests in the press and its coverage. It does not make sense to dilly dally about the issue of disaster management rather; it is important to hit the nail on the head and call a spade when talking about whether the federal government is ready to handle future disasters. In my opinion, given the reviews that have prevailed on the policies that cater for the management of the disaster, the US is getting there. The government is almost ready and with many adjustments on the topic together with the address of the issues of community awareness and learning, various approaches can be incorporated to facilitate the war on disaster management. The PPD-8 and its review is just a step in the right direction towards response management and overall national preparedness.
References
Homeland Security (2011). Presidential Policy Directive. Retrieved 03/08/2016 from https://www.dhs.gov/presidential-policy-directive-8-national-preparedness
Rubin, C. B. (Ed.). (2012). Emergency Management: The American experience 1900-2010. (2nd ed.). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
The University of Maryland. (2011). Newly Released Presidential Policy Directive 8 Indicates a Refocused Approach to National Preparedness. Retrieved 04/08/2016 from http://www.mdchhs.com/newly-released-presidential-policy-directive-8-indicates-a-refocused-approach-to-national-preparedness/
