For a nation or country to recoup from a catastrophic event
Whether it was brought on by a natural disaster or a terrorist attack, the level of preparedness of the government is essential. Consequently, the US government felt it necessary to create bodies and organizations to aid in the management of such catastrophes after a number of catastrophic events occurred in the United States of America (USA), including Hurricane Andrew and the 9/11 attack. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security was subsequently established as a result of a significant restructuring of the federal government that was sparked by the 9/11 attacks. The sole objective of this organization was to ensure quick and productive response to these disasters and more so access the damage beforehand and make precautionary efforts prior to the occurrence of the disasters especially the natural disasters (Wise, 2006).
Performance of the Department of Homeland Security
Soon after its implementation, DHS faced its first real test with the occurrence of the Hurricane Katrina which magnified the existence of major loopholes in the manner of relation and communication between the DHS, federal government and the state government. Regardless of a stellar performance from individuals involved in the rescue and response of the Katrina, it was however noted that there were inadequate preparedness and incoordination in the various organizations both private and state organizations involved (Wise, 2006). Moreover, it was also realized that these organizations were not aware of their roles and responsibilities in the said calamity which was also attributed to the late implementation of the National Response plan (Redick, 2010).
The occurrence of the Hurricane Katrina put the entire multi-state disaster management model under scrutiny (Wise, 2006). The model gives state and local governments the lead position in disaster response with Federal government being called in for assistance. There was hence need for the establishment of a more effective model which incorporates all governments to work harmoniously.
Organizational Changes
The need for a more harmonious model led to the creation of ideas to create positive change not only in the management of Homelands incidents but also in the management of intergovernmental relations. One of the ways proposed was creating awareness on the roles and responsibilities of each level of government and also the private sector (Redick, 2010). Other than that there was the development of an integrated system accessible by all stakeholders in disaster management meant to improve the performance of Homeland Security. DHS was also tasked with the responsibility of issuing a National Preparedness Goal that defines the status of the nation in disaster preparedness (Wise, 2006).
Incorporation of the above methods gradually led to the proposal of two models which will define the role of the DHS and how it relates to other intergovernmental and private organizations. The two models proposed are the hierarchical method and network model (Redick, 2010). Network model aims at bringing all organizations together to unanimously create a level playing ground for all organizations. Hierarchical on the other hand gives DHS supreme authority and minimize access of other organizations to access information. The choice of which model is most preferable needs to take into account the roles of the DHS as well as the contribution of other organizations in disaster management. My opinion is that the model of choice should be a model that will ensure fast response and action in times of calamities to ensure the maximum numbers of casualties are rescued (Redick, 2010). Moreover, it should ensure that precautionary measures and taken at hand to avoid such occurrences.
References
Reddick, C. G. (2010). Homeland security preparedness and information systems: Strategies for managing public policy. Hershey, PA: Information Science Reference.
Wise, C. R. (2006). Organizing for Homeland Security after Katrina: Is Adaptive Management What's Missing? Public Administration Review, 66(3), 302-318. doi:10.1111/j.1540- 6210.2006.00587.x
