Assignment Objectives
Develop negotiative and leadership skills and understand the significance of power and influence in inter-agency relationships.
use this response to answer the below questions:
The U.S. Constitution clearly limits the authority of the federal government. The Stafford Act assigns primacy for disaster management to state and local governments, providing the federal government a supportive role. Is this appropriate for 21st-century risks? Does a terrorist attack require a different relationship and assignment of responsibility?
After reviewing the Robert, T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, referred to as simply the Stafford Act, I believe that this act is slightly outdated in its definition and purpose, specifically in regards to acts of terrorism. Under Section 102 Definitions (42 U.S.C. 5122) paragraph 2, a "major disaster" is defined only as a natural disaster such as a hurricane, storm, tornado, flooding, etc. (The Stafford Act, 2013). The Stafford Act does not clearly specify that it is to include assistance to man-made disasters; more specifically terrorist related disasters. The Stafford Act only mentions terrorism four times throughout the entire document and all four of these references to terrorism are contained in one section under Emergency Preparedness Compacts (The Stafford Act, 2013).
Although the Stafford Act does not make any direct references to man-made disasters or terrorism in the Act's purpose, the act in itself is generic enough that it may be utilized in the aftermath of a man-made disaster or terrorist attack. Under Section 102 Definitions (42 U.S.C. 5122) paragraph 1, an "emergency" is defined as follows: ".any occasion or instance for which, in the determination of the President, Federal assistance is needed to supplement State and local efforts and capabilities to save lives and to protect property and public health and safety, or to lessen or avert the threat of a catastrophe in any part of the United States." This definition is generic enough that the President can declare that any terrorist attack or man-made disaster may be subject to Federal assistance.
Even though the Stafford Act can be utilized for acts of terrorism or man-made disasters, it would be more beneficial to revise the act to specifically call out terrorism in the act's definitions and overall purpose. It would also be crucial to establish a slightly different chain of command in the event of a terrorist attack. In the event of a man-made disaster, specifically a terrorist related attack, the overall responsibility for the disaster should be taken on by the federal government, through the FBI or CIA to ensure that the area is safe before proceeding with other emergency operations.
The incident command system (ICS) was born from the needs of the wild-land firefighting community. Do you think that it is applicable and useable as it exists for terrorist attacks and hurricanes as well?
The incident command system was first implemented in the 1970's after a major fire destroyed numerous homes and properties and claimed several lives in California. During the response to the fires, there were a number of issues including poor communications between the multiple agencies involved, lack of a chain of command, no accountability, and each department had their own response plan (ICS, n.d.). As a result, there was confusion between the different groups of firefighters; some tasks were being duplicated and some tasks were never completed. In order to resolve these issues, the ICS was created.
The purpose of the ICS is to create a unified response plan that is identical anywhere in the United States. Having a unified, or standard response plan ensures that multiple agencies can work together seamlessly; everyone involved, no matter the location or type of disaster, knows exactly what to do, how to do it, and what their department is responsible for. Additionally, the ICS establishes a chain of command during a disaster to avoid confusion in determining which group is or should be in-charge overall.
The ICS should be the corner stone of every disaster response plan, whether the disaster is caused by nature or terrorist attacks. The reasoning is simple; in the event of a large scale disaster it is beneficial to have one standard unified plan that way no matter who responds or how many different groups respond to the disaster, each group knows how to respond, what they need to accomplish, and who they should report to. Leaving out standardized plans for hurricanes or terrorist attacks could result in reliving the same mistakes that happened during the fires in the 1970's.
The National Incident Management System (NIMS) established ICS as the incident management model that all jurisdictions in the United States should use. Though the federal government lacks the authority to mandate its use, Congress has repeatedly required that the adoption of NIMS and the use of ICS is a prerequisite for eligibility for all federal homeland security monies. Is this a fair practice?
Requiring states to use NIMS and ICS in order to receive federal funding is a fair practice. The goal is to ensure that everyone is on the same plan, that way everyone can respond accordingly no matter where they are responding from. Making the use of NIMS and ICS required in order to receive federal aid is an incentive to encourage its use; the more states using the NIMS and ICS systems the better. NIMS and ICS becomes even more important, especially at the federal level, during multiple terrorist attacks or multiple natural disasters spread out across the nation. If each state had their own unique ICS or management system, it could become confusing for the federal government to cooperate with each state utilizing their own systems.
The city of New York is the sole jurisdiction in the United States to design its own incident management system (city incident management system or CIMS). The federal government recognizes CIMS as an allowable incident management system under NIMS. Should other jurisdictions be allowed to create their own system or modify ICS to meet their needs as well? What are the benefits, and what might be the negative aspects of a patchwork of various versions of ICS being used across the nation?
New York City, does have their own ICS or CIMS, tailored specifically for their city, however their overall management plan doesn't differ that much from the ICS plan created by NIMS. The biggest difference between NYC's CIMS and ICS is that the NYPD is more often than not, the primary agency in charge of the disaster (CIMS, 2014). In any accident or potential terrorist attack, NYC officials believe that the NYPD should be in charge of the scene until they can prove that the disaster/accident was not the result of terrorism. Once this is determined, the NYPD will relinquish command to a different agency, like the FDNY, OEM, or DOT.
Small changes like this should be allowed by any other major jurisdiction across the United States, as long as the changes are minor and only affect the city's response. Small changes tailored to specific cities can help immensely, as a one size fits all approach is not always best. However, it is important that the core structure of ICM and NIMS remain unchanged. Making too many unique changes from city to city defeats the purpose of having a standardized response as outside agencies might not know how to properly respond in accordance with the city's plan creating confusion and an inadequate response.
What have you learned from others'' responses?
What were the most compelling points from the interaction with your fellow students?
How did participating in this discussion help in your understanding of the Discussion Board task?
What approaches could have yielded additional valuable information in the students'' networking?
What is still unclear after the discussion with your classmates that needs to be clarified?