The 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review contains the responsibility the Department of Homeland Security shares with various individuals across federal, local, state and tribal governments, non-governmental organizations and the private sector (Dale, 2014) The real challenge in transforming the QHSR 2014 into a living reality lies in the difficulties in creating a management approach and putting together systems in place to deliver the strategy. However through improved local abilities in times of crisis, a decentralized structure can emphasize on strengthening community resilience or the capability of towns, cities, neighborhoods, and counties to respond to natural disasters, terrorist attacks, and other events. The following essay, therefore, focuses on the process the local communities determine what security threat pose the most significant populations, how the cities prioritize resources in risk mitigation and steps which the local community may take to prepare for threats proactively.
The degree of economic loss and amounts of infrastructure and building destruction are determined by how much vulnerability and exposure of the population of every locality and hence the more local communities are aware of the risks through risk assessments, the more they are likely to determine what threat poses significant dangers to the society (Dale, 2014; Tama, 2015). A city with the help of National disaster management organizations, government institutions or universities can carry out the risk assessment process which constitutes five essential steps. The first step represents hazard identification which comprises of identifying risks from which the community is at risk which could be natural, human-induced or human-made and may have happened in the past (Tama, 2015). The next step involves hazard assessment that comprises an estimation of the likelihood of an event in a community while studying the characteristic, frequency and the severity of the impact. The third step is the vulnerability and capacity assessment which determines what or who is exposed to the risks and the availability of resources, skills, assets, and knowledge that may be used in reducing the impact of the event (White, 2014). Also, the step takes into account the social, economic and geographical factors that might make some infrastructure and individuals susceptible to a specific risk (Tama, 2015). Next is the risk estimation stage that combines the first three steps to analyze the risks identified and the extent of the impact each may have and provide an overall view of risks faced by a community which facilitates risk reduction measures (Dale, 2014). The final step is the risk evaluation which includes assessing how significant the threats are to the community and prioritizing the risks.
The US like any other nation does not have extraordinary resources to protect lives and property all the time, and therefore resources that trickle down to the local communities must be allocated effectively to protect most vital assets whether the citizens or infrastructure. There has to be a risk assessment to assist in the prioritizing resources and then mitigate the risks by utilizing the resources effectively and efficiently (Coaffee, 2016; Birkmann et al., 2013). Risk management process is the process through which local communities systematically analyze the likelihood when a threat occurs it will harm an individual or asset and identify actions through the allocation of resources to mitigate the consequences and the danger altogether. With resources being scarce, tough choices regarding how they are allocated have to be made using objective measures of risk which involve variables such as threat, vulnerability, and impact. As academic as the analysis sounds it has real-world effects like for instance, it leads to the conclusion that the local communities should commit preventive resources on threats such as nuclear, biological and chemical. The assessment of risks questions what likely consequences of an event are and then questions if or not a reasonable expenditure of resource can prevent the outcomes (Tama, 2015). A vulnerability assessment is carried out to determine the probability of success or failure and how the vulnerability can be mitigated through identification of weak structures which include but not limited to physical and cyber structures, systems and processes that are likely to be exploited by threats (White, 2014). The analysis further questions the availability of options to limit the vulnerabilities identified or eliminate them if feasible.
Moreover, a critical assessment is done to evaluate the effects that will be experienced should the threat happen especially in terrorist attacks where the main objectives include killing people, psychological effects as well as social and economic disruptions (Tama, 2015). Therefore, for resource prioritization to take place a process to identify the significance of different assets and distinguishing between thinkable and unthinkable risks is necessary. Thinkable risks have limited secondary effects that are temporally and geographically bound. For instance, an explosion in a subway in a city is confined to a small area, and its consequences complete within hours. Resources in unthinkable risks focus on quick reconstitution and building security awareness like asking citizens to be watchful of unattended luggage. On the contrary, unthinkable risks involve massive loss of lives, and destruction which is spread over larger areas and a more extended period which makes it prevention inevitable. Prioritizing resources in risk mitigation is apportioned between unthinkable and thinkable risks where local authorities make the three assessments (threat, vulnerability and critical evaluation) and use it as a perspective to develop a risk reduction strategy that guides in prioritizing of resources.
Worldwide, disasters strike almost every day as research indicates that in the past two decades millions of lives have been lost while many others have been affected adversely with massive destruction of property. The events are either increasingly intentional from terrorists or naturally occurring catastrophes and at times a result of unintended human-made disasters (Calhoun " Weston, 2016; Birkmann et al., 2013). Experience gained from the recent incidents both domestically and internationally demonstrates that there is a need for every city to take proactive steps and actions to prepare for such events effectively both in prevention and responding to the occurrence of the event. Firstly, local systems must be equipped and prepared for specific potential disaster occurrence through proper training, equipping and emergency planning for local EMS department to help assess the scene of an event or evaluate casualties for various likely injuries (Calhoun " Weston, 2016). Secondly, public education has to be used as a critical tool in risk management to advance a culture where everyone acknowledges the realities of events, reduce the loss of lives, casualties, and damages by preparing them in advance on the preparations to make before and during an event.
Additionally, cities and counties need to cultivate the culture of information sharing as a way to analyze several interdependencies relating to threats they are likely to face since the threats exist in a complex world with different variables (Coaffee, 2016). For the local authorities to understand the variables, there is the need for trust between the information owners and those seeking to evaluate the data to enable information sharing. Effective assessment means that data has to be collected and evaluated to produce a relevant and knowledgeable database by overcoming the substantial hurdles of information sharing that exist as private entities with critical information and infrastructure lack a real incentive to take part in risk assessment structures (Calhoun " Weston, 2016). It is imperative that the private sector information provider is motivated with concrete benefit as they incur most of the costs without getting anticipated benefits. Lastly, it is critical to define the role of the private sector. Precisely, it is not this sector’s job to prevent events, but it is their civic duty to take reasonable precautions as expected by the rest of the community to apply reasonable environmental and safety measures (Coaffee, 2016). The local authority’s role concerning this is defining to what extent ‘reasonable’ is to be applied as a performance-based metric as well as enabling data exchange which enables the private sector to perform due diligence in mitigation, recovery, and prevention.
In conclusion, while the understanding of the six strategic challenges in the 2014 Quadrennial Homeland Security Review has increased steadily, the unique and unpredictable nature of threats as well as limitation of data continues to evolve which attributes to vulnerability and exposure of communities which further magnifies the uncertainty. Therefore, local communities should use risk assessment as a foundation to identify threats, estimate impacts and assist cities in prioritizing resources in mitigating risks.
References
Birkmann, J., Cardona, O. D., Carreño, M. L., Barbat, A. H., Pelling, M., Schneiderbauer, S. " Welle, T. (2013). Framing vulnerability, risk and societal responses: the MOVE framework. Natural hazards, 67(2), 193-211.
Coaffee, J. (2016). Terrorism, risk and the global city: Towards urban resilience. Routledge.
Calhoun, F. S., " Weston, S. W. (2016). Threat assessment and management strategies: Identifying the howlers and hunters. CRC Press.
Tama, J. (2015). Does strategic planning matter? The outcomes of US national security reviews. Political Science Quarterly, 130(4), 735-765.
Dale, C. (2014). The 2014 Quadrennial Defense Review (QDR) and Defense Strategy: Issues for Congress. Congressional Research Service.
White, R. (2014). Towards a unified homeland security strategy: An asset vulnerability model. Homeland Security Affairs, 10, 1-16.
