The government of the United States of America (US) gives paramount treatment to the safety of Americans. A noteworthy area in which that importance thrives in is the realm of disaster evacuation. Federal policies on evacuation aim to streamline evacuation processes in the federal, state and local levels. On the other end of the spectrum, inefficiency ultimately affecting the safety of disaster-afflicted Americans has characterized those policies. Nevertheless, federal-level policies on disaster evacuation provide substantial guidance to state and local governments.
Policies on evacuation are important to the duty of the US government on keeping the safety of Americans intact. It is due to that in which such policies have undergone several changes throughout the years. The 2005 onslaught of Hurricane Katrina in New Orleans, Louisiana and other surrounding areas triggered evacuation policy changes (Lindsay, 2011, p. 1). A year after the catastrophe, Congress approved the Robert T. Stafford Disaster and Relief Emergency Assistance Act (Stafford Act), allowing the President to provide the Secretary of Defense with instructions on undertaking emergency efforts to preserve life and properties from further damage, even before a particular disaster happens (precautionary evacuations) or in the absence of an official declaration of emergency. Under said act, the President may order instructions to offer transportation services to all residents within the affected area, both in terms of removal and returning them to their site – subject to the conditions brought about by the disaster (Lindsay, 2011, pp. 1-2). Aside from the Stafford Act, the federal government provides evacuation frameworks for federal, state and local agencies through the National Response Framework (NRF) – administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). NRF provides responsibilities of all federal, state and local agencies in times of disasters, so that the responsible parties can deliver evacuation efforts thoroughly (Lindsay, 2011, p. 2). FEMA also administers the National Hurricane Program (NHP), which assists state and local governments to create safety preparations for hurricanes and provides activities to communities for dangers from hurricanes.
US evacuation policies exhibit a strong interaction between the federal government and state/local governments. With federalism being eminent in those examples, issues on service efficiency are inevitable in the assessment of synergetic relations between governmental levels’ synergy. Significant controversies have marred the reputation of US evacuation policies, most of which point to Hurricane Katrina as the prime emancipating point.
FEMA faced strong criticisms against its response to Hurricane Katrina. Timely evacuation of residents were not undertaken and bureaucratic processes led to confusion and delay in service delivery, all to the peril of victims (Lindsay, 2011, p. 4). Critics alleged several lapses on FEMA’s end, shedding light on the apparent incompetence of FEMA officers (USA Today, 2005). Efforts to protect people against the Katrina catastrophe turned out to be a major failure. Lacking firm criteria for budget allocation and proper documentation procedures, FEMA misallocated its budget to the point of imbalance, most notably when it paid for funerals that were not related to the hurricane (Burstein, Kestin & O’Matz, 2005) and electric generators of wealthier households rather than to those who are in greater need of such (Sun Sentinel, n.d.). Those instances are in breach of the government’s duty to provide balanced protection to all affected Americans – all of which led to the enactment of the Stafford Act.
The Stafford Act and FEMA-administered NRF and NHP are all essential federal evacuation policies being enforced by the US government. Whereas those federal policies provide substantial frameworks to state and local governments, it cannot be denied that enforcement of those policies is still undergoing a constant state of development (Lindsay, 2011, p. 10). From the Katrina vantage point, those policies caused inefficient governmental action resulting to dismal outcomes which, as said earlier, redounded to the peril of disaster victims. The assertion that the federal-level policies in question should ultimately streamline governmental action in all levels can only work if state and local bodies straighten their priorities in relation to all possible disasters. On the part of the federal government, further engagement in evacuation activities will provide better experiences that can shape all responsibilities of the actors involved in undertaking evacuation processes. A notable example is the congressional amendment of the Stafford Act, which gave power to state and local governments to fast-track the transportation of people to safe areas and back to their places of residence once rehabilitation of the area has taken place (Lindsay, 2011, p. 10).
The aforesaid federal evacuation policies are consistent with the constitutional framework of American federalism. Evacuation efforts, in general, do not pose any potential clashes with Article 1, Section 10 of the US Constitution. The greater federal power inherent in evacuation policies seek to provide guidance to state and local governments on undertaking evacuation policies, in effect producing a streamlined approach. The main caveat in this issue is the consistency of actions to the policies being implemented. As shown earlier, all governmental levels have exhibited a significant degree of confusion over priorities, given that “Prior to Hurricane Katrina, evacuations were primarily a state and local responsibility” (Lindsay, 2011, p. 10). In due time, governmental levels are bound to improve their actions on disaster evacuation the more those bodies move away from the old notion prior to Hurricane Katrina and Stafford Law.
In sum, federal-level policies on evacuation are essential for guiding state and local governments in their efforts to deliver evacuation efforts efficiently. Birth pains brought about by Hurricane Katrina may have exposed policy inefficiencies, yet those are not entirely inherent to the policy per se, but more on the delivery of evacuation efforts which are marred by confusion and unforeseen outcomes in resource distribution. The more federal government gets involved in evacuation efforts, the more it can provide state and local governments with better policy frameworks, hence resulting to more streamlined ways of public service delivery in the given context (Lindsay, 2011, p. 10).
References
Burstein, J., Kestin, S., & O’Matz, S. (2005, August 10). FEMA paid for at least 203 funerals not related to 2004 hurricanes. Sun Sentinel. Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/sfl-fema10aug10,0,2326863.story
Lindsay, B. (2011, January 18). Federal Evacuation Policy: Issues for Congress (Congressional Report No. RL34745). Washington DC: Library of Congress Congressional Research Service. Retrieved from Open CRS website: http://assets.opencrs.com/rpts/RL34745_20110118.pdf
Sun Sentinel. (n.d.). Sun-Sentinel Investigation: FEMA. Retrieved from http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-femacoverage,0,3866065.storygallery
USA Today. (2005, September 7). Exposed by Katrina, FEMA's flaws were years in making. Retrieved from http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-09-07-our-view_x.htm
Woolley, L. (2005, September 15). FEMA – Disaster of an Agency. Retrieved from http://archive.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2005/9/12/102827.shtml
