Responding to disasters and emergencies often requires the concerted efforts of more than one agency. Coordination between these agencies is a critical factor in the success of the rescue efforts. Managing response and preserving the safety of responders and the public requires good standard operating procedures (SOPs). SOPs are step-by-step instructions outlined by an agency to guide responders through routine operations with the goal of enhancing efficiency and uniformity of performance. SOPs vary from agency to agency and as such, in the event that two or more agencies are involved in a single operation, then, a mutual aid agreement(s) (MAA) is needed. MAAs codifies an understanding between the agencies to provide support in emergency and disaster response. The case of Deanna C. Buttram v. United States of America highlights the challenges of coordinating two agencies in the absence of well outlined SOPs and a MAA. Additionally, the creation of Homeland Security changed the course for disaster managers in terms of both public policy and decision-making. This paper is a case study of Deanna C. Buttram v. United States of America while evaluating legal and policy changes brought about by the creation of the Department for Homeland Security.
In the response to the Point Fire incident, one thing stands out: the lack of well laid out SOPs. While BLM had an informal MAA with Kuna RFD, their response to the Point Fire was uncoordinated. This compromised the safety of the responders Buttram and Oliver. It is critical that fire, emergency medical services, and emergency medical management communities enter into formal MAAS as encouraged by law 43. This because they are often combining forces to overcome common enemy, preserve resources, and enhance efficiency through seamless cooperation. While a MAA may be verbal as was the case between BLM and Kuna RFD, it is advisable that MAAs be written down agreements to limit the potential for liability. In the absence of concise SOPs in the response to Point Fire there was a clear breakdown in communication that led to Buttram and Oliver being within the northern perimeter despite a red flag warning.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The joint response by BLM and Kuna RFD was characterized by lack of initial safety briefing, lack of clear communication regarding the red flag warning, lack of clear directives on refilling, lack of necessary equipment, and lack of an incident management system (IMS) which ultimately left Buttram and Oliver exposed to unreasonable risk. These elements are all pointers to varied degrees negligence by both BLM and Kuna RFD. The purpose of the IMS is to reinforce the outlined SOPs and the MAAs in place as a way of enhancing on-scene organization. Lack of communication, poor command system, ineffective allocation of resources, lack of clarity of functions, and misunderstandings among others are all common challenges faced during emergency responses. SOPs, MAAs, and IMS are all required to ensure symbiotic functioning among coordinating agencies. When employed effectively, they provide checks and balances for one another to prevent unsafe conditions in the event that one tool is not properly utilized.
Even in the absence of a documented MAA, the challenges experienced in the Fire Point incident would have been overcome by adhering to the Lightning Operations Plan, having a single communication channel, having a clear command structure, and having better preparedness in terms of equipment and personnel. A communications plan is an integral part of disaster preparedness and response. An organization must be in a position to respond promptly, accurately and confidently during an emergency and in the days after. Organizations have a duty to protect their employees from hazards to the employment and to provide him with safe tools, appliances, machinery, and working places, although the employer has no duty to warn of a danger that was not reasonably foreseeable ( Nicholson, 2002).
The creation of the Department for Homeland Security brought together 22 different agencies to form a single organization. Extending the mandate of the DHS beyond terrorism to include emergency preparedness and response meant working together with both state and local governments. These raised concerns regarding the nature of cooperation and incident management between the States and the Federal agency given the different environments. Regardless of the government level, the primary function of emergency responders is incident management. Incident management is the collection of command-and-control activities exercised to prepare and execute plans and orders for the purpose of responding to and recovering from the effects of an emergency event. Achieving this requires an incident command system (ICS) that is functionally oriented to meet the needs of an emergency incident.
Collaborating local authorities and the DHS has been a major challenge for disaster managers at State and local government level given the broad mandate of the DHS. The DHS was meant to combine the efforts of the federal government with those the state and local governments into one national system. The integration has been hampered by bureaucracy, overlap in mandates, budget inequalities, and the absence of MAAs between the state and local governments and the DHS. Simply reporting on their plans and activities to the DHS is not enough for the DHS to translate the carious coordinating responsibilities into practice. The lack of clear communication means a difference in SOPs between the state agencies and the DHS within a commonly conceived set of incident objectives and strategies . The challenge is greater for state level disaster manages to make plans for preparedness and decision making without sufficient information from the DHS counterparts. Integrating domestic and national policies has been consistently problematic.
The DHS still operates as collection of components rather than a single entity thus limiting its effectiveness. In the event of a disaster such as was Hurricane Katrina, clarity on who is in charge has always been missing. Regrettably, the overall efficiency and effectiveness of the nation's ability to deal with disasters is unnecessarily challenged by the absence of a common understanding on how these fields are related in the workforce and educational arenas. The Homeland Security and the State agencies are representative of two different but which neither has failed to develop agreed definitions. Homeland Security and emergency management share a number of common responsibilities except the scope and skills needed for each are different.
Conclusion
The traditional policy making landscape underwent transformation under since the creation of the DHS where policy decisions are now fueled by data and analytics. The increased use of data and analytics has been critical in building public trust and acceptance on what would have otherwise been contentious policy in the absence of supporting evidence. Disaster managers are able to gather data and make better informed decisions that they did before. The information and shared insights from the DHS have far-reaching consequences in terms of lives and operations. Whatever the disaster, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, or FEMA, leads the federal government’s response as part of a team of responders. State, local and territorial governments now receive grants from FEMA aimed at improving the nation’s readiness in preventing, protecting, protecting against, responding to, recovering from, and mitigating major disasters and other emergencies (Kahan, 2015) . State, local and territorial governments are now better placed to deal with emergencies than they were before the Homeland Security Act. However, enhancing efficiency in emergency response will require increased cooperation, collaboration, and a function oriented incident command system.
References
Kahan, J. H. (2015). Emergency management and homeland security: Exploring the relationship. Journal of emergency management (Weston, Mass.) , 13 (6), 483-498.
Nicholson, W. C. (2002). Legal Issues in Emergency Response to Terrorism Incidents Involving Hazardous Materials: The Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response (Hazwoper) Standard, Standard Operating Procedures, Mutual Aid and the Incident Management System. In Widener L. Symp. J. (Vol. 9, p. 295).
